Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Will Christians Lead or Follow on Questions of Diversity?

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 10-07-2008 | 12:56pm
Print
28 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Even as I was reporting Bart Campolo's challenging questions on cross-cultural community last week, I had the beginnings of a response already drafted. It made sense to save it for a later post, and now that Jimmy McCarty-spontaneously and unsolicited-made one of my key points for me, I'm glad I waited a little. Hopefully other voices will add to the mix, regardless of their perspective and experience. We do want an honest conversation here.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

To me, Jimmy's most compelling point is this:

It seems that Mr. Campolo is not speaking to the reality of many in America today. He assumes one has a "culture of origin" as if everyone has only one. For many in my generation, this is just not true. What do I identify as my culture of origin? Am I the child of an immigrant from Korea? The child of a white family with deep roots in the American south? Or both? Clearly these cultures are different, and yet I encompass both and more. My entire existence is an exercise in cross-cultural relationship, and I am comfortable in multiple cultural settings. This is increasingly becoming the reality for many in America. It is one more reality that complicates the "unrealistic-ness" of cross-cultural intimacy.

In my last post, I mentioned a church retreat that Bart led where we discussed these issues. Of the folks there that most strongly challenged Bart on the realism of cross-cultural intimacy, many-including my wife-had one thing in common: Like Jimmy, they were "third-culture kids"-children of parents from two different cultures, or even people who grew up as the only minority in a mostly homogenous community-people for whom the core group of people who share most of your cultural assumptions just hasn't existed. So my question then and now is: Does it just suck to be them, or can their lifelong struggle and relative success at forming cross-cultural relationships-including intimate friendships-set a precedent for those of us with the privilege of, in Jimmy's words, "cultures of comfort"?

Can the rest of us acknowledge that though life might be easier with homogenous friends, a homogenous church, a homogenous workplace, because we believe the Kingdom of God is wildly diverse, we will practice "inaugurated eschatology" (to borrow a term from N.T. Wright). Meaning, we'll begin now to inaugurate the divinely integrated worship described in Revelation 7:9. We'll begin now living in the "household of God" among former "aliens and strangers" (Ephesians 2:11-22). And at the risk of discomfort and even burnout, we'll refuse to accept the fallenness of dis-integrated institutions and communities-refusing to tolerate this aspect of "normal" broken humanity any more than we would, in the name of "realism," tolerate natural inclinations toward violence or sexual sin?

At this point, I think it's fair to emphasize that no one in this conversation is questioning the diversity of the body of Christ, or even our need for meaningful cross-cultural relationships. Often disagreements in conversations like this are more over degree and definition: The degree to which we attempt to realize biblical ideals in the present world. The degree to which we intentionally seek diversity in all aspects of our lives. The definition of words like "reconciliation," "diversity," "integration," "community," and "intimacy." The definition of how one body with many parts (1 Cor. 12:12-26) applies to our local churches and communities. Those differences of degree and definition have real implications for how we live our lives; what relationships we invest in, and how; and where we live, work, or worship.

My concern is that as the cross-cultural reality that Jimmy lives every day permeates our nation and world, that our churches and Christian communities are able to embrace and reflect that reality, and are not hindered by the inertia that sustains our "cultures of comfort." Additional factors such as class, education level, and entrenched attitudes of all kinds make this even more difficult. But my hope and prayer is that the church can be a leader and a light of hope to a divided society, and not a reluctant late-comer to the multicultural mosaic.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners.

[Read all posts in this conversation on New Monastics and race.]

28 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: brandydaniels

10-16-2008 @ 2:39pm

I just recently picked up on this conversation, I often find myself too busy to keep up with blogs, but I'm glad I've stumbled upon this conversation, so much so that I'd even like to put in my two cents.

First of all, I'm thrilled that this conversation is being had! Too often, I think, we assume that the new monastics, in their radicalness, are ahead of the game in issues of diversity--and many times that may be so... but not necessarily, and this conversation seems to point out the complexities of this issue of diversity---what defines reconciliation, who defines it, how do minority communities feel, etc.....

One wrench I would like to throw into this conversation is the expanse of which we define diversity. I have been disheartened (but not at all surprised) that the scope of our notions of diversity have centered on racial and ethnic issues. Now, to be fair, the thread IS called New Monasticism and race, and I think that race is a VASTLY important issue, especially in light of what the NM movement is trying to do.

Yet I think this post Belier, and others who've posted, have rightly asked what diversity means and how far it reaches--what about economic diversity, about more nuanced ethnic diversity (it goes beyond black and white!)--what about women as leaders within the new monastic community. One of the bloggers drew our attention that most of the people in the limelight in the NM conversation are white males. This is problematic--not only because of the white part, but the male part as well......

But, I'm frustrated with Beiler, and with ALL the other posts and comments on this whole long thread. Not ONCE is sexual orientation mentioned. If we are going to speak of diversity, isn't it fair to speak of all the ways in which diversity is manifested? To leave out a major category of diversity is to reproduce a hegemony.

Now, I know the whole gay question is one a lot of people aren't comfortable with.... its something people believe is wrong, or that they're unsure and uncomfortable about. Fair enough.

But, like it or not, there are gay and lesbian (and bi, and transgendered, etc...) Christians who care about the same things many new monastics do and who feel entirely abandoned by the NM movement. I'm one of them.

I'm not asking that everyone agree, or that people stop struggling with this significant theological issue---but know that its more than an issue, and that there are some of us who are now struggling in a different way( not with integrating our sexuality and our faith, but with dealing with the Christian community that ignores or rejects us), and getting very exhausted by continually being left out of the conversation. Many of us were so excited when the New Monastic movement started---FINALLY, we thought, there is going to be a movement that cares about the radical things we care about--about social justice, about reconciliation, about Christian community. And, in many of ways, we were right. But, we didn't expect that we weren't going to be invited to the table.

I found the title of this blog post very illuminating--Will Christians Lead or Follow on Questions of Diversity? Sure, we've finally gotten around to talking about racial reconciliation---something many thoughtful people have been doing for a long time. But, the struggle for LGBT equality (or even voice) has been happening for a long time, yet gets nearly ignored in these conversations--in this case, completely ignored.

I worry that the answer to Beiler's question is that we are following. I hope that this is not the case, and that, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can let ALL of those who have been ignored and marginalized into the conversation.

by: SisterMarie

10-07-2008 @ 3:50pm

Well, Ryan, you wrote a very interesting and thought-provoking article. Maybe, I am just from a different generation but I think that your use of the word "suck" does nothing to promote your ideas.

Regarding diversity, I think that all of us could do more and be more tolerant of differences in our culture. Personally, I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to a worship style that expects the people to stand for 30-45 minutes and repeat the same words to the same chorus at least 10 times. Actually, I could compromise a little if those who prefer that repitition would include a hymn or two. On several occassions, I've found it necessary to turn my hearing aids off while leaving them in my ears to effectively muffle the extremely high decibel level. If this practice continues, these young people will require hearing aids at age 40 instead of 65 when I started wearing them.

by: Hiranuma

10-10-2008 @ 1:32am

It is difficult to understand the nature of diversity within the body of Christ without also understanding the culture in which Jesus lived.

There is an implied monoculturalism that is the same across all ethnic lines, albeit with their own peculiarities. Such thought is in error. Cultures are distinct in a core sense. There are cultures where the nuclear family and individuality is central. There are cultures where extended family rather than individual needs is central. There are cultures where the entire race is central and everyone within it must accede to its demands.

Think of early Christianity as the latter: a Jewish culture where the entire body of Jews is central. To break from this culture, Jesus had to teach the new faith as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He taught his followers to embrace not only other Jews in this new culture of inclusion but also those outside its ethnic boundaries. "There is neither Jew nor Greek." It was not a movement toward individualism but rather one toward a oneness of all humans, called to be one people.

Western civilization is focused on individual achievement. By the very nature of climate, this culture arose as a basic matter of survival. The strongest survived. The weaker ones died.

The semitic peoples, on the other hand, were a collective body where everyone had his or her place in the group. There was an established interdependence and departure from this relationship could mean the collapse of the community. Survival, therefore, was not by who was strongest, but in how strong the bond of community was. If they succeeded, they did so together. If they failed, they did so together. This element drew the individuals into a commitment to one another.

Today, we are now confronted by a world community. Cultural norms are challenged. We are not alone any more. The survival of the earth has become more dependent on the interdependence of all peoples. We are not doing very well at this point. So how do we overcome the cultural barriers? First, we must, as a Christian body, learn what it means to be committed to one another--across all denominational lines. We haven't even gotten to that point yet because we cling to our individual doctrines (note the individualist versus community mentality). If we can do that, then we can move to step two: to move beyond our Christian community to reach out to other world communities. It is called evangelism. So far, we have little good news to bring to other peoples. We still fight one another.

Diversity? What is that? Everyone singing the same hymn? White urban people eating collard greens and ham hocks? Black rural folks eating sushi? We don't need more diversity, we need to define ourselves as a Christian body and find how each part (group, culture, ethnicity) contributes to the whole.

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:31pm

SisterMarie,
God Bless you sister. I'm with you all the way on this one. I visited a church Sunday that played 4 songs that all sounded alike stretched out for 30+ minutes played very loud. I was on the verged of an epiletic seizure.

I try to add worship styles and preferences into our worship that appeal to our members. So we have hymns, old choruses and new. But no 7/11 songs (7 words sung 11 times). I believe this builds respect for each other.

We are also attempting to bring in a worship leader/associate pastor from West Africa for a year. My aim is to broaden my peoples worldview on what worship is and what being a christian is.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:32pm

I'm also with you on the use of the word "suck".

by: carlcopas

10-08-2008 @ 3:08pm

Likewise. The word is overused and, if you trace the origins of its current meaning, is quite vulgar.

And is anyone else as disgusted as I am by the ubiquitous "Oh my God!"?

Guess I'm getting older and more crotchety.

by: Veryl

10-07-2008 @ 6:54pm

As I read this, I thought of the worship communities here in Hawai`i. In this area, maybe we can be the example for the rest of the country. I know few worship communities here that don't contain people from many different races and cultures. It is part of life in the 50th state. To say there is always harmony would be to defy our humanness; but for the most part we get along and enjoy each others company.

by: Tony_D

10-07-2008 @ 8:12pm

The term "inaugurated eschatology" goes back a lot further than Tom Wright. The Strassburg (now Strasbourg)-born theologian Oscar Cullmann developed the concept in the first half of the last century (most notably in his book "Christ and Time"). Cullmann, incidentally, would have had some inkling of what Ryan is talking about in relation to life in a cross-cultural setting. Strasbourg, at the time of his birth, was a city of the German Empire (having been ceded by France thirty years earlier at the end of the Franco-Prussian War). By the time he was appointed to a teaching post in the Protestant seminary there it was French again and before his death in 1999 he had seen his birthplace change hands between France and Germany twice more, in 1940 and 1945.

by: sigride

10-07-2008 @ 8:39pm

If I may, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think some of the problem lies in the fact that the movement defines everyone by color. If you keep separating them out in this way, you focus on the differences.

If everyone is just people -- basically the same -- I find it easier to treat them the way I like to be treated. The language of culture is then reserved for when some action or another is misunderstood. "Where I come from, that's an insult" may be more accurate than saying, "Asian Americans take offense when you do that."

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2008 @ 10:13pm

The values/norms/beliefs of any group (i.e. culture) should be critiqued based on whether they line up with God's rule.

The "diversity" of groups ought to flow out of the group's faithful fleshing out of God's life as the group stewards its life for Kingdom purpose.

ie.. Diversity is a byproduct of obedient/just/righteous living; and dependent greatly on the context and mission of any given group.

And once a 'diverse' group exists--it has created its own uniform culture with boundaries of who is "in" and "out" and whose values are good and bad; and whose behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable; what the language is that will be used to communicate with each other, etc. etc.

I have made this point. Maybe I am off point. I do notice none of the authors speak to the issue that every grouping creates its own culture. There is an assumption that the only way a culture creates something of goodness is if it exports its cultural contributions to a "diverse setting." e.g. How do we receive the gifts of immigrant groups from Puerto Rico if there was no cultural grouping from which they come? Diversity, in the way it is usually discussed presumes there are distinctive cultures of value; yet at the same time implies those disinctive cultures need to become extinct.

But what culture will replace the old traditional homogenous culture. A new homogenous culture called diversity. And it can be every bit as much exclusive, narrow, idolatrous and oppressive as any culture.

by: brandydaniels

10-16-2008 @ 2:39pm

I just recently picked up on this conversation, I often find myself too busy to keep up with blogs, but I'm glad I've stumbled upon this conversation, so much so that I'd even like to put in my two cents.

First of all, I'm thrilled that this conversation is being had! Too often, I think, we assume that the new monastics, in their radicalness, are ahead of the game in issues of diversity--and many times that may be so... but not necessarily, and this conversation seems to point out the complexities of this issue of diversity---what defines reconciliation, who defines it, how do minority communities feel, etc.....

One wrench I would like to throw into this conversation is the expanse of which we define diversity. I have been disheartened (but not at all surprised) that the scope of our notions of diversity have centered on racial and ethnic issues. Now, to be fair, the thread IS called New Monasticism and race, and I think that race is a VASTLY important issue, especially in light of what the NM movement is trying to do.

Yet I think this post Belier, and others who've posted, have rightly asked what diversity means and how far it reaches--what about economic diversity, about more nuanced ethnic diversity (it goes beyond black and white!)--what about women as leaders within the new monastic community. One of the bloggers drew our attention that most of the people in the limelight in the NM conversation are white males. This is problematic--not only because of the white part, but the male part as well......

But, I'm frustrated with Beiler, and with ALL the other posts and comments on this whole long thread. Not ONCE is sexual orientation mentioned. If we are going to speak of diversity, isn't it fair to speak of all the ways in which diversity is manifested? To leave out a major category of diversity is to reproduce a hegemony.

Now, I know the whole gay question is one a lot of people aren't comfortable with.... its something people believe is wrong, or that they're unsure and uncomfortable about. Fair enough.

But, like it or not, there are gay and lesbian (and bi, and transgendered, etc...) Christians who care about the same things many new monastics do and who feel entirely abandoned by the NM movement. I'm one of them.

I'm not asking that everyone agree, or that people stop struggling with this significant theological issue---but know that its more than an issue, and that there are some of us who are now struggling in a different way( not with integrating our sexuality and our faith, but with dealing with the Christian community that ignores or rejects us), and getting very exhausted by continually being left out of the conversation. Many of us were so excited when the New Monastic movement started---FINALLY, we thought, there is going to be a movement that cares about the radical things we care about--about social justice, about reconciliation, about Christian community. And, in many of ways, we were right. But, we didn't expect that we weren't going to be invited to the table.

I found the title of this blog post very illuminating--Will Christians Lead or Follow on Questions of Diversity? Sure, we've finally gotten around to talking about racial reconciliation---something many thoughtful people have been doing for a long time. But, the struggle for LGBT equality (or even voice) has been happening for a long time, yet gets nearly ignored in these conversations--in this case, completely ignored.

I worry that the answer to Beiler's question is that we are following. I hope that this is not the case, and that, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can let ALL of those who have been ignored and marginalized into the conversation.

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 9:33pm

Yes, I am also uncomfortable with "Oh my God". This fits the main topic, the previous small town church I pastored partnered with an inner-city church whose members were mostly from Puerto Rico (sp). OMG was a very common expression for then and bothered some of my folks. Some flexiblity from both sides was needed.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:31pm

SisterMarie,
God Bless you sister. I'm with you all the way on this one. I visited a church Sunday that played 4 songs that all sounded alike stretched out for 30+ minutes played very loud. I was on the verged of an epiletic seizure.

I try to add worship styles and preferences into our worship that appeal to our members. So we have hymns, old choruses and new. But no 7/11 songs (7 words sung 11 times). I believe this builds respect for each other.

We are also attempting to bring in a worship leader/associate pastor from West Africa for a year. My aim is to broaden my peoples worldview on what worship is and what being a christian is.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:32pm

I'm also with you on the use of the word "suck".

by: SisterMarie

10-08-2008 @ 11:57pm

My Favorite Song:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul

by: carlcopas

10-08-2008 @ 3:08pm

Likewise. The word is overused and, if you trace the origins of its current meaning, is quite vulgar.

And is anyone else as disgusted as I am by the ubiquitous "Oh my God!"?

Guess I'm getting older and more crotchety.

by: SassyChick

10-09-2008 @ 12:39pm

Mine also. I love the hymn and I love the Audio Adrenaline version. Beautiful words of grace and comfort. There's room for more than we can imagine in God's worship.

by: carlcopas

10-09-2008 @ 3:33pm

Jeff,
I hadn't realized that OMG is that common for Puerto Rican folk. Though when you mentioned it, I recall two recurring characters on "Mad TV" who were PR young women in NYC and they were constantly saying "OMG." Makes sense now.

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 9:33pm

Yes, I am also uncomfortable with "Oh my God". This fits the main topic, the previous small town church I pastored partnered with an inner-city church whose members were mostly from Puerto Rico (sp). OMG was a very common expression for then and bothered some of my folks. Some flexiblity from both sides was needed.

Jeff

by: SisterMarie

10-08-2008 @ 11:57pm

My Favorite Song:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul

by: SisterMarie

10-07-2008 @ 3:50pm

Well, Ryan, you wrote a very interesting and thought-provoking article. Maybe, I am just from a different generation but I think that your use of the word "suck" does nothing to promote your ideas.

Regarding diversity, I think that all of us could do more and be more tolerant of differences in our culture. Personally, I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to a worship style that expects the people to stand for 30-45 minutes and repeat the same words to the same chorus at least 10 times. Actually, I could compromise a little if those who prefer that repitition would include a hymn or two. On several occassions, I've found it necessary to turn my hearing aids off while leaving them in my ears to effectively muffle the extremely high decibel level. If this practice continues, these young people will require hearing aids at age 40 instead of 65 when I started wearing them.

by: SassyChick

10-09-2008 @ 12:39pm

Mine also. I love the hymn and I love the Audio Adrenaline version. Beautiful words of grace and comfort. There's room for more than we can imagine in God's worship.

by: Hiranuma

10-10-2008 @ 1:32am

It is difficult to understand the nature of diversity within the body of Christ without also understanding the culture in which Jesus lived.

There is an implied monoculturalism that is the same across all ethnic lines, albeit with their own peculiarities. Such thought is in error. Cultures are distinct in a core sense. There are cultures where the nuclear family and individuality is central. There are cultures where extended family rather than individual needs is central. There are cultures where the entire race is central and everyone within it must accede to its demands.

Think of early Christianity as the latter: a Jewish culture where the entire body of Jews is central. To break from this culture, Jesus had to teach the new faith as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He taught his followers to embrace not only other Jews in this new culture of inclusion but also those outside its ethnic boundaries. "There is neither Jew nor Greek." It was not a movement toward individualism but rather one toward a oneness of all humans, called to be one people.

Western civilization is focused on individual achievement. By the very nature of climate, this culture arose as a basic matter of survival. The strongest survived. The weaker ones died.

The semitic peoples, on the other hand, were a collective body where everyone had his or her place in the group. There was an established interdependence and departure from this relationship could mean the collapse of the community. Survival, therefore, was not by who was strongest, but in how strong the bond of community was. If they succeeded, they did so together. If they failed, they did so together. This element drew the individuals into a commitment to one another.

Today, we are now confronted by a world community. Cultural norms are challenged. We are not alone any more. The survival of the earth has become more dependent on the interdependence of all peoples. We are not doing very well at this point. So how do we overcome the cultural barriers? First, we must, as a Christian body, learn what it means to be committed to one another--across all denominational lines. We haven't even gotten to that point yet because we cling to our individual doctrines (note the individualist versus community mentality). If we can do that, then we can move to step two: to move beyond our Christian community to reach out to other world communities. It is called evangelism. So far, we have little good news to bring to other peoples. We still fight one another.

Diversity? What is that? Everyone singing the same hymn? White urban people eating collard greens and ham hocks? Black rural folks eating sushi? We don't need more diversity, we need to define ourselves as a Christian body and find how each part (group, culture, ethnicity) contributes to the whole.

by: carlcopas

10-09-2008 @ 3:33pm

Jeff,
I hadn't realized that OMG is that common for Puerto Rican folk. Though when you mentioned it, I recall two recurring characters on "Mad TV" who were PR young women in NYC and they were constantly saying "OMG." Makes sense now.

by: Veryl

10-07-2008 @ 6:54pm

As I read this, I thought of the worship communities here in Hawai`i. In this area, maybe we can be the example for the rest of the country. I know few worship communities here that don't contain people from many different races and cultures. It is part of life in the 50th state. To say there is always harmony would be to defy our humanness; but for the most part we get along and enjoy each others company.

by: Tony_D

10-07-2008 @ 8:12pm

The term "inaugurated eschatology" goes back a lot further than Tom Wright. The Strassburg (now Strasbourg)-born theologian Oscar Cullmann developed the concept in the first half of the last century (most notably in his book "Christ and Time"). Cullmann, incidentally, would have had some inkling of what Ryan is talking about in relation to life in a cross-cultural setting. Strasbourg, at the time of his birth, was a city of the German Empire (having been ceded by France thirty years earlier at the end of the Franco-Prussian War). By the time he was appointed to a teaching post in the Protestant seminary there it was French again and before his death in 1999 he had seen his birthplace change hands between France and Germany twice more, in 1940 and 1945.

by: sigride

10-07-2008 @ 8:39pm

If I may, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think some of the problem lies in the fact that the movement defines everyone by color. If you keep separating them out in this way, you focus on the differences.

If everyone is just people -- basically the same -- I find it easier to treat them the way I like to be treated. The language of culture is then reserved for when some action or another is misunderstood. "Where I come from, that's an insult" may be more accurate than saying, "Asian Americans take offense when you do that."

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2008 @ 10:13pm

The values/norms/beliefs of any group (i.e. culture) should be critiqued based on whether they line up with God's rule.

The "diversity" of groups ought to flow out of the group's faithful fleshing out of God's life as the group stewards its life for Kingdom purpose.

ie.. Diversity is a byproduct of obedient/just/righteous living; and dependent greatly on the context and mission of any given group.

And once a 'diverse' group exists--it has created its own uniform culture with boundaries of who is "in" and "out" and whose values are good and bad; and whose behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable; what the language is that will be used to communicate with each other, etc. etc.

I have made this point. Maybe I am off point. I do notice none of the authors speak to the issue that every grouping creates its own culture. There is an assumption that the only way a culture creates something of goodness is if it exports its cultural contributions to a "diverse setting." e.g. How do we receive the gifts of immigrant groups from Puerto Rico if there was no cultural grouping from which they come? Diversity, in the way it is usually discussed presumes there are distinctive cultures of value; yet at the same time implies those disinctive cultures need to become extinct.

But what culture will replace the old traditional homogenous culture. A new homogenous culture called diversity. And it can be every bit as much exclusive, narrow, idolatrous and oppressive as any culture.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

10-07-2008 @ 3:50pm

Well, Ryan, you wrote a very interesting and thought-provoking article. Maybe, I am just from a different generation but I think that your use of the word "suck" does nothing to promote your ideas.

Regarding diversity, I think that all of us could do more and be more tolerant of differences in our culture. Personally, I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to a worship style that expects the people to stand for 30-45 minutes and repeat the same words to the same chorus at least 10 times. Actually, I could compromise a little if those who prefer that repitition would include a hymn or two. On several occassions, I've found it necessary to turn my hearing aids off while leaving them in my ears to effectively muffle the extremely high decibel level. If this practice continues, these young people will require hearing aids at age 40 instead of 65 when I started wearing them.

by: SisterMarie

10-07-2008 @ 3:50pm

Well, Ryan, you wrote a very interesting and thought-provoking article. Maybe, I am just from a different generation but I think that your use of the word "suck" does nothing to promote your ideas.

Regarding diversity, I think that all of us could do more and be more tolerant of differences in our culture. Personally, I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to a worship style that expects the people to stand for 30-45 minutes and repeat the same words to the same chorus at least 10 times. Actually, I could compromise a little if those who prefer that repitition would include a hymn or two. On several occassions, I've found it necessary to turn my hearing aids off while leaving them in my ears to effectively muffle the extremely high decibel level. If this practice continues, these young people will require hearing aids at age 40 instead of 65 when I started wearing them.

by: Veryl

10-07-2008 @ 6:54pm

As I read this, I thought of the worship communities here in Hawai`i. In this area, maybe we can be the example for the rest of the country. I know few worship communities here that don't contain people from many different races and cultures. It is part of life in the 50th state. To say there is always harmony would be to defy our humanness; but for the most part we get along and enjoy each others company.

by: Veryl

10-07-2008 @ 6:54pm

As I read this, I thought of the worship communities here in Hawai`i. In this area, maybe we can be the example for the rest of the country. I know few worship communities here that don't contain people from many different races and cultures. It is part of life in the 50th state. To say there is always harmony would be to defy our humanness; but for the most part we get along and enjoy each others company.

by: Tony_D

10-07-2008 @ 8:12pm

The term "inaugurated eschatology" goes back a lot further than Tom Wright. The Strassburg (now Strasbourg)-born theologian Oscar Cullmann developed the concept in the first half of the last century (most notably in his book "Christ and Time"). Cullmann, incidentally, would have had some inkling of what Ryan is talking about in relation to life in a cross-cultural setting. Strasbourg, at the time of his birth, was a city of the German Empire (having been ceded by France thirty years earlier at the end of the Franco-Prussian War). By the time he was appointed to a teaching post in the Protestant seminary there it was French again and before his death in 1999 he had seen his birthplace change hands between France and Germany twice more, in 1940 and 1945.

by: Tony_D

10-07-2008 @ 8:12pm

The term "inaugurated eschatology" goes back a lot further than Tom Wright. The Strassburg (now Strasbourg)-born theologian Oscar Cullmann developed the concept in the first half of the last century (most notably in his book "Christ and Time"). Cullmann, incidentally, would have had some inkling of what Ryan is talking about in relation to life in a cross-cultural setting. Strasbourg, at the time of his birth, was a city of the German Empire (having been ceded by France thirty years earlier at the end of the Franco-Prussian War). By the time he was appointed to a teaching post in the Protestant seminary there it was French again and before his death in 1999 he had seen his birthplace change hands between France and Germany twice more, in 1940 and 1945.

by: sigride

10-07-2008 @ 8:39pm

If I may, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think some of the problem lies in the fact that the movement defines everyone by color. If you keep separating them out in this way, you focus on the differences.

If everyone is just people -- basically the same -- I find it easier to treat them the way I like to be treated. The language of culture is then reserved for when some action or another is misunderstood. "Where I come from, that's an insult" may be more accurate than saying, "Asian Americans take offense when you do that."

by: sigride

10-07-2008 @ 8:39pm

If I may, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think some of the problem lies in the fact that the movement defines everyone by color. If you keep separating them out in this way, you focus on the differences.

If everyone is just people -- basically the same -- I find it easier to treat them the way I like to be treated. The language of culture is then reserved for when some action or another is misunderstood. "Where I come from, that's an insult" may be more accurate than saying, "Asian Americans take offense when you do that."

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2008 @ 10:13pm

The values/norms/beliefs of any group (i.e. culture) should be critiqued based on whether they line up with God's rule.

The "diversity" of groups ought to flow out of the group's faithful fleshing out of God's life as the group stewards its life for Kingdom purpose.

ie.. Diversity is a byproduct of obedient/just/righteous living; and dependent greatly on the context and mission of any given group.

And once a 'diverse' group exists--it has created its own uniform culture with boundaries of who is "in" and "out" and whose values are good and bad; and whose behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable; what the language is that will be used to communicate with each other, etc. etc.

I have made this point. Maybe I am off point. I do notice none of the authors speak to the issue that every grouping creates its own culture. There is an assumption that the only way a culture creates something of goodness is if it exports its cultural contributions to a "diverse setting." e.g. How do we receive the gifts of immigrant groups from Puerto Rico if there was no cultural grouping from which they come? Diversity, in the way it is usually discussed presumes there are distinctive cultures of value; yet at the same time implies those disinctive cultures need to become extinct.

But what culture will replace the old traditional homogenous culture. A new homogenous culture called diversity. And it can be every bit as much exclusive, narrow, idolatrous and oppressive as any culture.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2008 @ 10:13pm

The values/norms/beliefs of any group (i.e. culture) should be critiqued based on whether they line up with God's rule.

The "diversity" of groups ought to flow out of the group's faithful fleshing out of God's life as the group stewards its life for Kingdom purpose.

ie.. Diversity is a byproduct of obedient/just/righteous living; and dependent greatly on the context and mission of any given group.

And once a 'diverse' group exists--it has created its own uniform culture with boundaries of who is "in" and "out" and whose values are good and bad; and whose behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable; what the language is that will be used to communicate with each other, etc. etc.

I have made this point. Maybe I am off point. I do notice none of the authors speak to the issue that every grouping creates its own culture. There is an assumption that the only way a culture creates something of goodness is if it exports its cultural contributions to a "diverse setting." e.g. How do we receive the gifts of immigrant groups from Puerto Rico if there was no cultural grouping from which they come? Diversity, in the way it is usually discussed presumes there are distinctive cultures of value; yet at the same time implies those disinctive cultures need to become extinct.

But what culture will replace the old traditional homogenous culture. A new homogenous culture called diversity. And it can be every bit as much exclusive, narrow, idolatrous and oppressive as any culture.

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:31pm

SisterMarie,
God Bless you sister. I'm with you all the way on this one. I visited a church Sunday that played 4 songs that all sounded alike stretched out for 30+ minutes played very loud. I was on the verged of an epiletic seizure.

I try to add worship styles and preferences into our worship that appeal to our members. So we have hymns, old choruses and new. But no 7/11 songs (7 words sung 11 times). I believe this builds respect for each other.

We are also attempting to bring in a worship leader/associate pastor from West Africa for a year. My aim is to broaden my peoples worldview on what worship is and what being a christian is.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:31pm

SisterMarie,
God Bless you sister. I'm with you all the way on this one. I visited a church Sunday that played 4 songs that all sounded alike stretched out for 30+ minutes played very loud. I was on the verged of an epiletic seizure.

I try to add worship styles and preferences into our worship that appeal to our members. So we have hymns, old choruses and new. But no 7/11 songs (7 words sung 11 times). I believe this builds respect for each other.

We are also attempting to bring in a worship leader/associate pastor from West Africa for a year. My aim is to broaden my peoples worldview on what worship is and what being a christian is.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:32pm

I'm also with you on the use of the word "suck".

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 2:32pm

I'm also with you on the use of the word "suck".

by: carlcopas

10-08-2008 @ 3:08pm

Likewise. The word is overused and, if you trace the origins of its current meaning, is quite vulgar.

And is anyone else as disgusted as I am by the ubiquitous "Oh my God!"?

Guess I'm getting older and more crotchety.

by: carlcopas

10-08-2008 @ 3:08pm

Likewise. The word is overused and, if you trace the origins of its current meaning, is quite vulgar.

And is anyone else as disgusted as I am by the ubiquitous "Oh my God!"?

Guess I'm getting older and more crotchety.

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 9:33pm

Yes, I am also uncomfortable with "Oh my God". This fits the main topic, the previous small town church I pastored partnered with an inner-city church whose members were mostly from Puerto Rico (sp). OMG was a very common expression for then and bothered some of my folks. Some flexiblity from both sides was needed.

Jeff

by: jeffp

10-08-2008 @ 9:33pm

Yes, I am also uncomfortable with "Oh my God". This fits the main topic, the previous small town church I pastored partnered with an inner-city church whose members were mostly from Puerto Rico (sp). OMG was a very common expression for then and bothered some of my folks. Some flexiblity from both sides was needed.

Jeff

by: SisterMarie

10-08-2008 @ 11:57pm

My Favorite Song:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul

by: SisterMarie

10-08-2008 @ 11:57pm

My Favorite Song:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll,
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well with my soul

by: SassyChick

10-09-2008 @ 12:39pm

Mine also. I love the hymn and I love the Audio Adrenaline version. Beautiful words of grace and comfort. There's room for more than we can imagine in God's worship.

by: SassyChick

10-09-2008 @ 12:39pm

Mine also. I love the hymn and I love the Audio Adrenaline version. Beautiful words of grace and comfort. There's room for more than we can imagine in God's worship.

by: carlcopas

10-09-2008 @ 3:33pm

Jeff,
I hadn't realized that OMG is that common for Puerto Rican folk. Though when you mentioned it, I recall two recurring characters on "Mad TV" who were PR young women in NYC and they were constantly saying "OMG." Makes sense now.

by: carlcopas

10-09-2008 @ 3:33pm

Jeff,
I hadn't realized that OMG is that common for Puerto Rican folk. Though when you mentioned it, I recall two recurring characters on "Mad TV" who were PR young women in NYC and they were constantly saying "OMG." Makes sense now.

by: Hiranuma

10-10-2008 @ 1:32am

It is difficult to understand the nature of diversity within the body of Christ without also understanding the culture in which Jesus lived.

There is an implied monoculturalism that is the same across all ethnic lines, albeit with their own peculiarities. Such thought is in error. Cultures are distinct in a core sense. There are cultures where the nuclear family and individuality is central. There are cultures where extended family rather than individual needs is central. There are cultures where the entire race is central and everyone within it must accede to its demands.

Think of early Christianity as the latter: a Jewish culture where the entire body of Jews is central. To break from this culture, Jesus had to teach the new faith as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He taught his followers to embrace not only other Jews in this new culture of inclusion but also those outside its ethnic boundaries. "There is neither Jew nor Greek." It was not a movement toward individualism but rather one toward a oneness of all humans, called to be one people.

Western civilization is focused on individual achievement. By the very nature of climate, this culture arose as a basic matter of survival. The strongest survived. The weaker ones died.

The semitic peoples, on the other hand, were a collective body where everyone had his or her place in the group. There was an established interdependence and departure from this relationship could mean the collapse of the community. Survival, therefore, was not by who was strongest, but in how strong the bond of community was. If they succeeded, they did so together. If they failed, they did so together. This element drew the individuals into a commitment to one another.

Today, we are now confronted by a world community. Cultural norms are challenged. We are not alone any more. The survival of the earth has become more dependent on the interdependence of all peoples. We are not doing very well at this point. So how do we overcome the cultural barriers? First, we must, as a Christian body, learn what it means to be committed to one another--across all denominational lines. We haven't even gotten to that point yet because we cling to our individual doctrines (note the individualist versus community mentality). If we can do that, then we can move to step two: to move beyond our Christian community to reach out to other world communities. It is called evangelism. So far, we have little good news to bring to other peoples. We still fight one another.

Diversity? What is that? Everyone singing the same hymn? White urban people eating collard greens and ham hocks? Black rural folks eating sushi? We don't need more diversity, we need to define ourselves as a Christian body and find how each part (group, culture, ethnicity) contributes to the whole.

by: Hiranuma

10-10-2008 @ 1:32am

It is difficult to understand the nature of diversity within the body of Christ without also understanding the culture in which Jesus lived.

There is an implied monoculturalism that is the same across all ethnic lines, albeit with their own peculiarities. Such thought is in error. Cultures are distinct in a core sense. There are cultures where the nuclear family and individuality is central. There are cultures where extended family rather than individual needs is central. There are cultures where the entire race is central and everyone within it must accede to its demands.

Think of early Christianity as the latter: a Jewish culture where the entire body of Jews is central. To break from this culture, Jesus had to teach the new faith as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He taught his followers to embrace not only other Jews in this new culture of inclusion but also those outside its ethnic boundaries. "There is neither Jew nor Greek." It was not a movement toward individualism but rather one toward a oneness of all humans, called to be one people.

Western civilization is focused on individual achievement. By the very nature of climate, this culture arose as a basic matter of survival. The strongest survived. The weaker ones died.

The semitic peoples, on the other hand, were a collective body where everyone had his or her place in the group. There was an established interdependence and departure from this relationship could mean the collapse of the community. Survival, therefore, was not by who was strongest, but in how strong the bond of community was. If they succeeded, they did so together. If they failed, they did so together. This element drew the individuals into a commitment to one another.

Today, we are now confronted by a world community. Cultural norms are challenged. We are not alone any more. The survival of the earth has become more dependent on the interdependence of all peoples. We are not doing very well at this point. So how do we overcome the cultural barriers? First, we must, as a Christian body, learn what it means to be committed to one another--across all denominational lines. We haven't even gotten to that point yet because we cling to our individual doctrines (note the individualist versus community mentality). If we can do that, then we can move to step two: to move beyond our Christian community to reach out to other world communities. It is called evangelism. So far, we have little good news to bring to other peoples. We still fight one another.

Diversity? What is that? Everyone singing the same hymn? White urban people eating collard greens and ham hocks? Black rural folks eating sushi? We don't need more diversity, we need to define ourselves as a Christian body and find how each part (group, culture, ethnicity) contributes to the whole.

by: brandydaniels

10-16-2008 @ 2:39pm

I just recently picked up on this conversation, I often find myself too busy to keep up with blogs, but I'm glad I've stumbled upon this conversation, so much so that I'd even like to put in my two cents.

First of all, I'm thrilled that this conversation is being had! Too often, I think, we assume that the new monastics, in their radicalness, are ahead of the game in issues of diversity--and many times that may be so... but not necessarily, and this conversation seems to point out the complexities of this issue of diversity---what defines reconciliation, who defines it, how do minority communities feel, etc.....

One wrench I would like to throw into this conversation is the expanse of which we define diversity. I have been disheartened (but not at all surprised) that the scope of our notions of diversity have centered on racial and ethnic issues. Now, to be fair, the thread IS called New Monasticism and race, and I think that race is a VASTLY important issue, especially in light of what the NM movement is trying to do.

Yet I think this post Belier, and others who've posted, have rightly asked what diversity means and how far it reaches--what about economic diversity, about more nuanced ethnic diversity (it goes beyond black and white!)--what about women as leaders within the new monastic community. One of the bloggers drew our attention that most of the people in the limelight in the NM conversation are white males. This is problematic--not only because of the white part, but the male part as well......

But, I'm frustrated with Beiler, and with ALL the other posts and comments on this whole long thread. Not ONCE is sexual orientation mentioned. If we are going to speak of diversity, isn't it fair to speak of all the ways in which diversity is manifested? To leave out a major category of diversity is to reproduce a hegemony.

Now, I know the whole gay question is one a lot of people aren't comfortable with.... its something people believe is wrong, or that they're unsure and uncomfortable about. Fair enough.

But, like it or not, there are gay and lesbian (and bi, and transgendered, etc...) Christians who care about the same things many new monastics do and who feel entirely abandoned by the NM movement. I'm one of them.

I'm not asking that everyone agree, or that people stop struggling with this significant theological issue---but know that its more than an issue, and that there are some of us who are now struggling in a different way( not with integrating our sexuality and our faith, but with dealing with the Christian community that ignores or rejects us), and getting very exhausted by continually being left out of the conversation. Many of us were so excited when the New Monastic movement started---FINALLY, we thought, there is going to be a movement that cares about the radical things we care about--about social justice, about reconciliation, about Christian community. And, in many of ways, we were right. But, we didn't expect that we weren't going to be invited to the table.

I found the title of this blog post very illuminating--Will Christians Lead or Follow on Questions of Diversity? Sure, we've finally gotten around to talking about racial reconciliation---something many thoughtful people have been doing for a long time. But, the struggle for LGBT equality (or even voice) has been happening for a long time, yet gets nearly ignored in these conversations--in this case, completely ignored.

I worry that the answer to Beiler's question is that we are following. I hope that this is not the case, and that, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can let ALL of those who have been ignored and marginalized into the conversation.

by: brandydaniels

10-16-2008 @ 2:39pm

I just recently picked up on this conversation, I often find myself too busy to keep up with blogs, but I'm glad I've stumbled upon this conversation, so much so that I'd even like to put in my two cents.

First of all, I'm thrilled that this conversation is being had! Too often, I think, we assume that the new monastics, in their radicalness, are ahead of the game in issues of diversity--and many times that may be so... but not necessarily, and this conversation seems to point out the complexities of this issue of diversity---what defines reconciliation, who defines it, how do minority communities feel, etc.....

One wrench I would like to throw into this conversation is the expanse of which we define diversity. I have been disheartened (but not at all surprised) that the scope of our notions of diversity have centered on racial and ethnic issues. Now, to be fair, the thread IS called New Monasticism and race, and I think that race is a VASTLY important issue, especially in light of what the NM movement is trying to do.

Yet I think this post Belier, and others who've posted, have rightly asked what diversity means and how far it reaches--what about economic diversity, about more nuanced ethnic diversity (it goes beyond black and white!)--what about women as leaders within the new monastic community. One of the bloggers drew our attention that most of the people in the limelight in the NM conversation are white males. This is problematic--not only because of the white part, but the male part as well......

But, I'm frustrated with Beiler, and with ALL the other posts and comments on this whole long thread. Not ONCE is sexual orientation mentioned. If we are going to speak of diversity, isn't it fair to speak of all the ways in which diversity is manifested? To leave out a major category of diversity is to reproduce a hegemony.

Now, I know the whole gay question is one a lot of people aren't comfortable with.... its something people believe is wrong, or that they're unsure and uncomfortable about. Fair enough.

But, like it or not, there are gay and lesbian (and bi, and transgendered, etc...) Christians who care about the same things many new monastics do and who feel entirely abandoned by the NM movement. I'm one of them.

I'm not asking that everyone agree, or that people stop struggling with this significant theological issue---but know that its more than an issue, and that there are some of us who are now struggling in a different way( not with integrating our sexuality and our faith, but with dealing with the Christian community that ignores or rejects us), and getting very exhausted by continually being left out of the conversation. Many of us were so excited when the New Monastic movement started---FINALLY, we thought, there is going to be a movement that cares about the radical things we care about--about social justice, about reconciliation, about Christian community. And, in many of ways, we were right. But, we didn't expect that we weren't going to be invited to the table.

I found the title of this blog post very illuminating--Will Christians Lead or Follow on Questions of Diversity? Sure, we've finally gotten around to talking about racial reconciliation---something many thoughtful people have been doing for a long time. But, the struggle for LGBT equality (or even voice) has been happening for a long time, yet gets nearly ignored in these conversations--in this case, completely ignored.

I worry that the answer to Beiler's question is that we are following. I hope that this is not the case, and that, regardless of our personal beliefs, we can let ALL of those who have been ignored and marginalized into the conversation.