Evangelical Leaders Overlook Minorities

by Chuck Warnock 06-05-2009

In a National Association of Evangelicals survey from May, NAE board members polled were pessimistic about the growth of churches in the U.S. However, according to the NAE Web site, there was overall optimism that Christianity would grow worldwide, but that growth would primarily occur Africa, South America, Asia, and even China. The NAE site stated:

“Evangelical leaders are very bullish on the future growth of Christianity, except in America,” according to Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The group surveyed, all NAE board members, is made up of CEOs of 60 denominations, plus other evangelical organizations from publishing to education.

But are these NAE leaders overlooking minority ethnic groups and churches in their pessimism? According to Soong-Chan Rah’s new book, The Next Evangelicalism, they might be. The book is subtitled, Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity, and Rah pulls back the curtain to reveal a burgeoning ethnic church that is alive, well, and growing in the United States. These ethnic minorities, many of them immigrants from majority world countries, are often overlooked in the count of congregations and in leadership conferences.

Rah, a Korean-American who teaches church growth and evangelism at North Park Seminary, contends that these ethnic churches and their leaders are often invisible to the white evangelical community.

Contrary to popular opinion, the church is not dying in America; it is alive and well, but it is alive and well among the immigrant and ethnic minority communities and not among the majority white churches in the United States. (p. 14)

Rah cites three areas that he contends form the “western, white cultural captivity of the church” in the U.S.: individualism, consumerism, and materialism, and racism. These he calls the heartbeat (individualism); soul (consumerism); and residue (racism) of the white church culture.

My online friend Shaun King, a young African-America pastor in Atlanta, recently decried in no uncertain terms the closed circle of white church experts who are featured in conference after conference. Rah echoes King’s frustration:

While the demographics of Christianity are changing both globally and locally, the leadership of American evangelicalism continues to be dominated by white Americans.

The message a sea of white faces sends, according to Rah, is that “the real experts in ministry are whites. Nonwhites may offer some expertise in specialized areas of ministry (such as urban ministry or racial reconciliation), but the theologians, the general experts, the real shapers and movers of ministry, are whites.”

When you couple Rah’s book with Mark Noll’s new book, The New Shape of World Christianity, you begin to sense that the ground has shifted under an aging, and perhaps ethnically insensitive evangelical church.

Noll recognizes the growing church in the majority world with these words:

But today — when active Christian adherence has become stronger in Africa than in Europe, when the number of practicing Christians in China may be approaching the number in the United States, when live bodies in church are far more numerous in Kenya than in Canada, when more believers worship together in church Sunday by Sunday in Nagaland than in Norway, when India is now home to the world’s largest chapter of the Roman Catholic Jesuit order, and when Catholic mass is being said in more languages each Sunday in the United States than ever before in church history — with such realities defining the present situation, there is a pressing need for new historical perspectives that explore the new world situation.” (p. 10)

The question I have about the NAE board is how many are white? If the answer is what I think it is — probably 95% — then no wonder they are pessimistic about the future of Christianity in the U.S. The next question is this — when will we open our eyes to see the diversity of the followers of Christ who may not look like the old face of evangelicalism, but are certainly its new face.

Frankly, I am encouraged by both books by Rah and Noll, which are different perspectives on the same subject — the rise of multiethnic Christians around the world. Maybe if the current crop of evangelical leadership looked up from their reams of reports indicating the decline of their churches, they might see the next wave of new believers ready and eager to step on the stage of Christian history worldwide.

Chuck Warnock pastors Chatham Baptist Church in Chatham, Virginia. A graduate of Mercer University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and completing a D.Min. at Fuller Seminary, Chuck blogs at AmicusDei.com and Confessions of a Small-Church Pastor, and writes for other publications. To read an excerpt from Soong-Chan Rah’s book, published in the April issue of Sojourners, click here. To hear an audio interview with Rah, click here.

Categories: Diversity, Ministry

BlueDeacon

Last year or so I heard Charles Stanley say that he didn't see spiritual revival on the horizon. (I understood what he meant by "revival" -- that people would turn to the ideological and cultural agenda he subscribes to.) Just after the election he unleashed a veiled attack on Barack Obama, specifically his warning about "socialism," in his "10 Things to Pray For."

What I believe is happening is that the days of "media empire Christianity," in my view a boomer phenomenon, are coming to an end. I don't necessarily mean just the demise of the TV hucksters; I see an underground movement of younger Jesus-followers who have no access to Christian media (and would be too busy serving the LORD to get involved anyway). This will be the movement that breaks down the racial, class and cultural barriers and ignores the deep resentment toward the "other" that are prevalent in institutional evangelicalism. Of course their elders will lament (and in fact some have already begun to do so) that they have abandoned spiritual warfare while in fact they are actually in the real battle.

JamesM

"What I believe is happening is that the days of "media empire Christianity," in my view a boomer phenomenon, are coming to an end. I don't necessarily mean just the demise of the TV hucksters" Blue Deacon

The demise of the two forms of Christianity that you describe could not come soon enough.

I think that it is too bad that some here attribute the decline of the anglo Church to post-modernism and a falling away as if the Church were totally innocent in that falling away. Such an attitude is all too frequently encountered in the religious setting. Not only is it judgmental of others but it betrays a lack of willingness for self-introspection and analysis. It makes one kind of want to be part of that falling away trend- at least from the segment of the church that is so self-righteous and judgmental.

WaveTossed

"I think that it is too bad that some here attribute the decline of the anglo Church to post-modernism and a falling away as if the Church were totally innocent in that falling away. "

I don't know about other "anglo" churches. But the "liberal" Episcopal church that I attend is growing, not declining. This is because we reach out to all, without regard to race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We have special outreaches to all oppressed minorities (not just the "evangelically correct" ones). What we do not do is play the role of "Lord Bountiful" to the oppressed. People of all different sorts of oppressed minorities are integral in the leadership and functions in our church.

JamesM

Wave,

Please distinguish the term "anglo" from "Anglican."

My post had nothing to do with the Anglican Church. In fact, in my opinion, the Episcopal Church is one of the few bright spots on the horizon for the very reasons that you mention.

WaveTossed

As for the term "anglo," are you speaking of English-speaking churches? Just want to clarify.

As for the state of the Anglican church: as you probably know, there have been some recent conflicts. The Episcopal Church of the USA has a female Presiding Bishop. Not only is she female, but she supports inclusiveness of ALL minorities, not just the "correct" minorities but also Gay people. Not only does she support including all minorities, all of the African-American bishops in the Episcopal Church of the USA support the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson (the first Gay bishop in an Anglican church) and they support the inclusion of Gays as well as other minorities.

Around the world, there are other Anglicans who support the Episcopal Church and support including Gays. Such as Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa who wrote the introduction to Gene Robinson's fine book IN THE EYE OF THE STORM.

However, there are others, mostly in Africa, who want the Episcopal Church of the USA to be ousted from the Anglican Communion because of the Episcopal Church's support of Gays. And also (though they tend to say this under their breath), they don't believe in female priests or bishops, especially a female Presiding Bishop. This is because in some parts of Africa, the genders are societally divided and males are considered superior to females. So they don't believe that women should be priests or have leadership positions; instead, they believe that women are supposed to completely obey men.

We still have some bishops and other officials within the Episcopal Church of the USA that still won't recognize women priests and are opposed to accepting Gays. First they tried to ally themselves with the African-American bishops within the Episcopal church, but were rebuffed because the Episcopalian African-American bishops support full inclusion. My own bishop here in the Diocese of Maryland has stated firmly that oppressed people -- such as himself and other African-Americans -- shouldn't turn against other oppressed people -- women and Gays. So the (mostly White) bishops and other officials decided to ally themselves with bishops from Africa. Bascially we see these mostly White people try to ally themselves with those Africans who would turn some oppressed people (Black Africans) against others (women and Gays and those who would support them, including African-Americans). This is a travesty.

When oppressed communities turn upon other oppressed communities, all it does is help the dominant comminities maintain their dominance. This doesn't happen only when Africans and African-Americans turn against women and Gays. It happens when Gay White people turn out to be racist and turn against African-Americans. I just read a biography of a White Gay man (Kevin Jennings, who started GLSEN (Gay/Lesbian/Straight Education Network), who was raised to be racist against African-Americans. When his (heterosexual) brother married an African-American woman, he was disowned by the family. However, as various events took place, Kevin learned to cast out his racism. Eventually the family accepted their African-American sister-in-law. Kevin's mother, Alice Jennings, also learned to cast out her own racism and homophobia and became an AIDS activist during her senior years.

When members of oppressed minorities unite together -- such as the people in the Jennings family; they included a poor White woman from the Appalachian region, a Gay White man, a Straight White man who had married an African-American woman -- all sorts of great things can happen to fight against oppression. I hope and pray that the Anglicans within the Anglican Communion will stop persecuting the Episcopal Church and come to an understanding about liberation of ALL oppressed people.

JamesM

"As for the term "anglo," are you speaking of English-speaking churches? Just want to clarify." Wavetossed

Yes, Wavetossed, that is what I meant-- basically the English-speaking white evangelical church.

Amen to all that you have said. I really value your comments and presence on this blog.

Peace.

ando

My wife is happily part of an Anglican church plant in our city, which is growing rapidly and beginning to have an outreach to the area. I am deeply blessed the Anglicans are seeking the Truth and not acquiesing to modern culture.

WaveTossed

Many Anglicans, including my own church, are seeking the Truth and not acquiesing to modern bigotry.

1Grace

Glad you have a good church home Ando . I have a 1929 Bible and Common Prayer my father received when he was confirmed in the Episcopal Church . I attended one also till i was about 15 or so . It taught me the respect for the holiness of God . Appears from what i have read and friends that the Episcopal church has had more then just a problem with falling attendance . . I just read this from their own web page , I can see having a Bishop who is into Zen Budism as causing a rift . Wow I though the traditional riffs over music was bad enough .

http://ecusa.anglican.org/79901_109244_ENG_HTM.htm

The Diocese of Washington's standing committee, which gave its consent, said in a statement emailed to ENS June 3 that "it is our belief that Bishop-elect Forrester’s practice of Zen Buddhism, his creation of innovative liturgies, and his challenging theological reflections do not prohibit him from serving effectively as a bishop in the church." The statement also said that his election was done in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and noted that Thew Forrester had received "wide support" from his diocese.

WaveTossed

The Episcopal church in some ways has a similar structure to Baptist churches. Each diocese has their own authority to set many of the standards. What may be acceptable in Washington may not be acceptable in other dioceses. This is because the Episcopal church, unlike the Catholic church which it is frequently compared with, has no central authority that set policy.

As far as the study of Zen Buddhism: The article states that he is incorporating "Zen Buddhist Meditation" as a style of worship. This is not the same as converting to Zen Buddhism and denying the existence of Jesus as the Son of God. In our church, we've studied Celtic spirituality. This is not the same as incorporating the beliefs of pre-Christian Celtic religions as our own.

The membership in the Episcopal church has not been declining as much as it is reshaping itself. Some dioceses have incorporated non-traditional styles of worship. On the other hand: go into some of the evangelical "mega-churches" where they play rock and roll music to worshippers that love it. Myself, I prefer traditional hymns out of our hymnal and that's what my church practices. We have a few non-traditional practices such as an occasional liturgical dance. Plus we sometimes incorporate cultural elements such as African rituals. This doesn't mean that we believe in non-Christian African deities. It just means that we are incorporating diverse traditions into our worship.

Eric77

The specific Episcopal church you attend may be growing, but the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is, unfortunately, losing members.

WaveTossed

Our Episcopal church is gaining members because we reach out to those that other people despise. Jesus always reached out to Outcasts. Actually, reaching out and following Jesus' Word has never been a popularity contest. But our parish is taking in people that would be rejected by other parishes. That's why we are growing. We are a church of Outcasts. For that I'm very proud of my church.

As for the rest of the Episcopal church, maybe some other churches are losing members because of events like this. One of the breakaways "conservative" pastors is now under indictment. This news comes from the Website of the American Family Association (somehow I got on their email list).

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?i...

From the article:

"COLORADO SPRINGS, CO - The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado says a legal dispute with 1,200 former Episcopalians over church property has been resolved.

The dispute began in 2007 after members of Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish in Colorado Springs left the Episcopal Church to join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America.

The breakaway congregation and the diocese both claimed to be rightful owners of the church and parish buildings. But Episcopal diocese officials say both sides have now agreed to uphold a judge's ruling that gave the property to the diocese in March.

The parish's rector, the Rev. Donald Armstrong, remains under indictment for allegedly taking thousands of dollars from the church and a trust fund. He has denied wrongdoing."

BlueDeacon

Where I live, pretty much an entire diocese -- including a church I considered joining over a decade ago -- left the Episcopal Church. And I would agree that, at least in this case, the "liberal" churches are losing membership and the conservatives are gaining.

WaveTossed

As I said before: preaching the Truth is not a popularity contest. Nevertheless, perhaps in the Episcopal church in your area might be losing members. Or perhaps not. Perhaps they are losing some members and picking up others. This will happen if this Episcopal church does what my church is doing: reaching out to those who have been outcast and rejected by other churches.

It is very sad when oppressed minorities are turned against each other. The only people who benefit in this case are the dominant communties. The African-American Episcopal bishops (including the bishop in my diocese) are in favor of supporting and joining in with all of the oppressed communities. So a group of White bishops are bypassing African-American Episcopal bishops -- none who are supporting this new movement. Instead, you see White bishops shopping around until they reach some of the African bishops (not all -- cerctainly not Archibishop Desmond Tutu). Then they can claim that they are not "racist" as they continue to oppress, split people from each other and exclude.

BlueDeacon

You're right in saying that "truth" is not a popularity contest. But where I live the conservative churches are actually growing -- and a lot of that has to do with people (especially men) who want a church that is actually harder to join because they want churches that actually maintain standards. (Even Ron Sider, no hard-core conservative, made that observation.)

The African-American Episcopal bishops (including the bishop in my diocese) are in favor of supporting and joining in with all of the oppressed communities. So a group of White bishops are bypassing African-American Episcopal bishops -- none who are supporting this new movement.

BTW, these bishops don't represent the black Christian community, much of which rejects homosexual conduct in the church. FWIW, I've been a part of two interracial churches in my life -- one that is "welcoming" but has never had more than 100 members and the one I attend now that maintains a traditional "conservative evangelical stance" on sexual matters which grew eight-fold within a generation. (In fact, next week we go from four to six services.)

And here's something that is important but that we don't often stress -- the Gospel is at times exclusionary. God loves us as we are but is determined to change us so that we reflect Him. It cannot be seen as "good news" unless you accept that "bad news" of sin.

But let's not get too far off the topic. Christianity started as an underground movement that rejected the hedonism of that day and was strongest when it remained such. As such, the "underground" churches that the poster mentioned might very will represent the future of Christianity and will shift it in a new direction. And that might scare some people.

WaveTossed

But in terms of the Episcopal church. You see White bishops ignoring African-American bishops. Because African-American bishops don't take the "correctr" White conservative position. Wouldn't this be the sort of racism that you would oppose?

Or is your opposition to Gays and how they express their love for each other stronger than any commitment that you might have against this sort of racism? You would accept these sorts of racist actions by White bishops if it will strengthen your desire to exclude?

As a Straight man with Straight male privileges, you have very little understanding of the oppression that those who are not Straight or male would face every day. I believe that you are African-American and not White. I'm rather surprised that you would identify with Straight male privilege (you said above "especially men") rather than with the oppression that African-Americans, women, and Gays face. This is a form of identifying with the oppressor. This is a way that the dominant oppressor splits off oppressed communities from each other.

I would suggest reading some of the works written by Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Black African anti-apartheid activist who fought hard against the oppression of his people. Instead of identifying with the oppressor in accepting Straight male privilege, he continues to fight against all forms of oppression and discrimination.

BlueDeacon

You see White bishops ignoring African-American bishops. Because African-American bishops don't take the "correct" White conservative position. Wouldn't this be the sort of racism that you would oppose?

I have never equated racism with homosexuality, nor does much of the black community. It's believed that many black Obama supporters also voted in favor of Prop 8 in California. And it has nothing at all to do with their race.

Or is your opposition to Gays and how they express their love for each other stronger than any commitment that you might have against this sort of racism? You would accept these sorts of racist actions by White bishops if it will strengthen your desire to exclude?

Based on the biblical definition of "love," let alone its culture, I believe it to be illegitimate. Sorry if that offends.

WaveTossed

"I have never equated racism with homosexuality, nor does much of the black community. It's believed that many black Obama supporters also voted in favor of Prop 8 in California. And it has nothing at all to do with their race."

Yes, I know a few Gay leaders who made rather racist comments about how Blacks were responsible for Prop 8 in California. I do not believe that it was Blacks who were responsible, especially as a race. Nor do I hold Whites as a race responsible. As for whether some or even most Blacks hold similar views as your own: the Blacks that I know (both Gay and Straight) agree more with Bishop Desmond Tutu and Corretta Scott King and most of the Civil Rights leaders than they do with you. They oppose ALL forms of bigotry.

[I don't know how to do italics on this board. So I'm using single and double quotes]

"[I wrote]'Or is your opposition to Gays and how they express their love for each other stronger than any commitment that you might have against this sort of racism? You would accept these sorts of racist actions by White bishops if it will strengthen your desire to exclude?'

"[Blue Deacon wrote] Based on the biblical definition of "love," let alone its culture, I believe it to be illegitimate. Sorry if that offends."

I guess I got my answer to my questions. So I know that I should read all of your future exhortations for various civil rights with a few grains of salt.

I'm not offended. I am saddened that you would relate more to heterosexual male privilege -- cloaking it as religion -- than you would to the struggle for civil rights for all people.

Please do me a favor and read the works of Bishop Desmond Tutu and then come back and tell me if you still are opposed to our civil rights.

In two weeks, I'm going to an annual gathering in Mississippi for a memorial service for the Mississippi Movement Martyrs including James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. The people that I've worked with are right by my side -- as I am on their sides -- in the continuing struggle for civil rights for ALL people.

As we've always said in the Movement: Freedom is a constant struggle. And we WILL overcome.

BlueDeacon

As for whether some or even most Blacks hold similar views as your own: the
Blacks that I know (both Gay and Straight) agree more with Bishop Desmond Tutu
and Coretta Scott King and most of the Civil Rights leaders than they do with
you. They oppose ALL forms of bigotry.

You must not know that many. I've recently been surprised just how much the
African-American community -- much of which goes to conservative churches even
now -- as a whole is opposed to homosexual conduct.

So I know that I should read all of your future exhortations for various
civil rights with a few grains of salt.

Now who's being "prejudiced?"

Please do me a favor and read the works of Bishop Desmond Tutu and then
come back and tell me if you still are opposed to our civil rights.

I won't bother because, despite his credentials, I still think Tutu is wrong
about that. And this may surprise you: When the original church was founded
gays did have "rights" -- but they weren't a part of it. It was an
underground movement.

WaveTossed

[I wrote]"'As for whether some or even most Blacks hold similar views as your own: the Blacks that I know (both Gay and Straight) agree more with Bishop Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King and most of the Civil Rights leaders than they do with you. They oppose ALL forms of bigotry.'

[Blue Deacon wrote]"You must not know that many. I've recently been surprised just how much the African-American community -- much of which goes to nservative churches even now -- as a whole is opposed to homosexual conduct."

I think that we simply know different African-Americans. It's not a matter of unwarranted asssumptions and generalization such as "you must not know that many".

"[I wrote]'So I know that I should read all of your future exhortations for various
civil rights with a few grains of salt.'

[Blue Deacon wrote]"Now who's being "prejudiced?"

I would say exactly the same thing if a White racist segregationist proported to exhort for Gay freedoms. People who support civil rights for some and not for others -- no matter the subject: I would always take their opinions with a grain of salt. To truly be for freedom and civil rights, I believe that one should (like Desmond Tutu and others) be in favor of supporting freedom and civil rights for all and not just for some.

[I wrote]'Please do me a favor and read the works of Bishop Desmond Tutu and then come back and tell me if you still are opposed to our civil rights.'

[Blue Deacon wrote]"I won't bother because, despite his credentials, I still think Tutu is wrong about that. "

I guess you don't need to read anyone because you are all knowledgeable and know all of the facts. Have you ever thought of opening your mind to other opinions, not just your own? I am on the email list of the American Family Association which has lots of links for their positions -- many (though not all) which are opposed to mine. However, I have remained on their list and have read the articles on their links. You might want to do something similar and read the views of someone who does not agree with you.

[Blue Deacon wrote]: "And this may surprise you: When the original church was founded gays did have "rights" -- but they weren't a part of it. It was an underground movement."

I was not around when the early church started, so I have no idea who had what sexual orientation. So I won't presume that Gays either were or weren't a part of it.

I do know however, that the modern church that supports civil rights for all and which support the dignity of all are still part of an "underground movement" which you have absolutely no idea about -- because if you truly understood the oppression of women and Gays, you wouldn't be clinging to your heterosexual male privilege. Instead, you would be on the side of those who fight for freedom and dignity for all.

Freedom is a constant struggle. And we WILL overcome.

Eric77

Wave - You write that "You see White bishops ignoring African-American bishops. Because African-American bishops don't take the "correctr" White conservative position. Wouldn't this be the sort of racism that you would oppose?"

Maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but it appears you're saying that because particular white bishops are "ignoring" (not sure what that means) particular African-American bishops because of the African-American bishops' views on homosexuality that black Americans, such as Rick, should take your side on the issue of gay-equality. If so, why is this racism? Aren't the conservative white bishops also "ignoring" other white bishops? The white bishops who are "ignoring" the black bishops are doing so because of their views on homosexuality, not because of their race, right? Maybe I'm just not understanding the point you're making.

WaveTossed

"Maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but it appears you're saying that because particular white bishops are "ignoring" (not sure what that means) particular African-American bishops because of the African-American bishops' views on homosexuality that black Americans, such as Rick, should take your side on the issue of gay-equality. If so, why is this racism? Aren't the conservative white bishops also "ignoring" other white bishops? The white bishops who are "ignoring" the black bishops are doing so because of their views on homosexuality, not because of their race, right? Maybe I'm just not understanding the point you're making. "

I probably was not completely clear. Blue Deacon was claiming that White evangelicals were ignoring Black people. Blue Deacon went on about the Episcopal church. So I was pointing out that here is a case where a few White Episcopal bishops (certainly not the majority of them) were ignoring all of the African-American bishops. And instead of criticizing them, like he was criticizing the White evangelicals, he was supporting these bishops. So I pointed out that this was because the African-American Episcopal bishops didn't have the "correct" view (in both Blue Deacon's and these White bishop's minds) about Gay issues.

I believe that Blue Deacon has been very inconsistent in his comments about oppressed minorities and their places in Christian churches. On one hand, he has stated that African-American evangelicals have been ignored by White conservative evangelicals. But when it comes to African-American Episcopal bishops being ignored by White conservative Episcopal bishops -- then in that case, it's perfectly OK. because in this case, the White conservative Episcopal bishops support Blue Deacon's own views.