Evangelical Leaders Overlook Minorities

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.

"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.

[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.

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.

"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.

[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.

Great post.. 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.

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.

Perhaps Sojo could write a blog on how many suburban mega-churches are partnering with inner-city churches to work on various ministries to help the poor and needy.

Not many, probably.

Anyway, that's beside the point -- because such suburban mega-churches and other white evangelicals are the ones most guilty of the cultural imperialism that masquerades as authentic Christian witness. The real issue, and what the post was getting at, is who determines what Christianity is and how it's expressed in public life -- and NAE members don't have their ear to the ground.

Maybe if the NAE would lower it's dues, churches would start focusing on people instead of their programs and money, pastors would stop having their churches dabble in politics which is all they are allowed to do under current law, and all of them would start supporting grass roots efforts of the Christians themselves things could get moving forward in this country again.

I know Sojos roots go back to TEDS, and I don't deny its an evangelical publication. I meerly suggest that a majority of readers I know belong to white mainline churches. The 95% numer was meant to be a little tounge-in-cheek, as our original poster here seems to pull that percentage out of the air as he speculates the make-up of the NAE's board.

I don't deny that there are serious race issues going on in a lot of American Evangelical Churches. I'm only observing the fact that the people who'd like to think they're the most "progressive" when it comes to multi-ethnicity are the ones who aren't able to actually integrate. Again, I invite you to look at the Pew study and see the facts: evangelical and pentecostal churches have become more multi-ethnic than liberal churches. I could offer my own anectdotes about rural conservative churches who defy these stereotypes and have latino, asian, and white believers worshiping and serving side-by-side. Similarly, I know of more than a few young urban progressive Christians who dissafected with their suburban evangelical upbringing embrace social-justice and plant urban churches only to see them fill up with other young, white, like-minded people. Consider recent migratory patterns in a city like mine (Chicago) and you'll find the inner ring of suburbs are now swelling with an influx of people of color, and they're filling the pews where those young white Christians once sat.

There is plenty of need for honest and critical dialouge about racism in the Church, but I don't think its well served by painting conservative evangelicals with such a broad brush. I say the same thing to my conservative friends about stereotypes they have of progressive Christians.

ray ban uk
ray ban sunglasses sale
ray ban online

It's really a connotation for those top notch age group of your old-fashioned manner
ray ban online. Currently being began to the conquer having its 1950's style of the better sinuous, subtle not to mention thinner curves, it happens to be proficient at outclassing it can be predecessors, but the early ray ban aviator
has also got massive succeed inside the sun business. The wayfarer newer ray ban sunglasses sale functions the fresh know-how any time a shot molding,

Actually, that was the point I was trying to make. But the NAE is one of the public faces of the evangelical movement and still has some pull.

There is a movement in evangelicalism towards a more holistic gospel, and that is an energy progressive Christians need to tap into. For that to happen there needs to be colaboration and understanding built between these different camps. Its simply unfortunate that many progressive bloggers and authors would rather spend more of their time and energy critizing an evangelical "straw man".

When you consider that some conservatives have been criticizing the "progressives" -- and keep in mind that, theologically, many of the progressives would themselves qualify as evangelical -- perhaps the rift isn't all the progressives' fault. Some years ago an interviewer in World magazine tried to paint Ron Sider, no fire-breathing radical, as a dangerous and misinformed socialist, and the conservative Presbyterian seminary here sponsored a lecture about the dangers of the "emerging church."

And I wouldn't entirely agree with the racial "tokenism" in the pews in mainline churches. My former PCUSA church has had black staff (had I stayed there I might have become an elder), and the rector of one of the most prominent Episcopal churches in my city is African-American. The problem is that, in many cases, such assemblies have become little more than social clubs with a veneer of religion, so the tough questions aren't even addressed.

judge not, lest....

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.

Perhaps Sojo could write a blog on how many suburban mega-churches are partnering with inner-city churches to work on various ministries to help the poor and needy. Personally, I'm not a fan of mega-churches in general -- smaller churches often hear a giant sucking sound pulling away former members -- but they can provide both financial and personnel resources to partner in ministries.

As for the decline in attendance of white Christians, one need not look any further than the post-modernization of society, and the denial of the importance of faith in one's life. One hopes that Sojo will not try to politicize the issue, as they have on so many other issues.

Perhaps Sojo could write a blog on how many suburban mega-churches are partnering with inner-city churches to work on various ministries to help the poor and needy.

Not many, probably.

Anyway, that's beside the point -- because such suburban mega-churches and other white evangelicals are the ones most guilty of the cultural imperialism that masquerades as authentic Christian witness. The real issue, and what the post was getting at, is who determines what Christianity is and how it's expressed in public life -- and NAE members don't have their ear to the ground.

Traditional Evangelical Christianity is becoming a favorite target for progressive Christians to shoot at, but take a look at the most recent Pew Survey of religious life in America and you'll find that self-identifying "evangelical" churches are many times more multi-ethnic than "mainline" liberal Churches. I wonder if we did a survey of Sojourners subscriptions how many of them would belong to lilly-white mainline liberal Christians? Probably 95% or more.

That said, Rah and Noll's research is sound and I encourage anyone to take a look.

It's really a connotation for those top notch age group of your old-fashioned manner
ray ban online. Currently being began to the conquer having its 1950's style of the better sinuous, subtle not to mention thinner curves, it happens to be proficient at outclassing it can be predecessors, but the early ray ban aviator
has also got massive succeed inside the sun business. The wayfarer newer ray ban sunglasses sale functions the fresh know-how any time a shot molding,

That's just what happened beginning in the 1950s and '60s, when center cities became "blacker," my friend, and in some cases the churches started following them (mine nearly did about a generation ago but decided to stay put -- fortunately). It's a bad thing because folks start making judgments about the poor without actually knowing the situation. Just like the ones you just made.

For our purposes that's irrelevant because it was never as politically involved. This post -- indeed, this blog -- deals strictly with evangelicals.

I know Sojos roots go back to TEDS, and I don't deny its an evangelical publication. I meerly suggest that a majority of readers I know belong to white mainline churches. The 95% numer was meant to be a little tounge-in-cheek, as our original poster here seems to pull that percentage out of the air as he speculates the make-up of the NAE's board.

I don't deny that there are serious race issues going on in a lot of American Evangelical Churches. I'm only observing the fact that the people who'd like to think they're the most "progressive" when it comes to multi-ethnicity are the ones who aren't able to actually integrate. Again, I invite you to look at the Pew study and see the facts: evangelical and pentecostal churches have become more multi-ethnic than liberal churches. I could offer my own anectdotes about rural conservative churches who defy these stereotypes and have latino, asian, and white believers worshiping and serving side-by-side. Similarly, I know of more than a few young urban progressive Christians who dissafected with their suburban evangelical upbringing embrace social-justice and plant urban churches only to see them fill up with other young, white, like-minded people. Consider recent migratory patterns in a city like mine (Chicago) and you'll find the inner ring of suburbs are now swelling with an influx of people of color, and they're filling the pews where those young white Christians once sat.

There is plenty of need for honest and critical dialouge about racism in the Church, but I don't think its well served by painting conservative evangelicals with such a broad brush. I say the same thing to my conservative friends about stereotypes they have of progressive Christians.

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.