Lamenting Churches Labeled by Race

I think you have to consider history as well. Since blacks were usually not welcome in white churches back in the day they formed their own and put their own culture into them. Also consider that most black churches reflect their originally rural roots -- which is probably why services last so long, even though many (if not most) today are based in the city. (I cannot speak about Latino assemblies, however.)

It would be interesting to see if there are any statistics on church makeup out there. My guess would be that there has been some slow convergence, based on my own observations. But I don't know that for a fact and I can't blame Mr. Barber for being concerned about this issue.

I don't have any easy answers, or even any hard answers for that matter, but I suspect that if there's an answer at all it will begin with us focusing on the most basic things we have in common, starting with Christ crucified and risen.

LV

I would disagree with your characterization of "latino" churches - in my experience in a Pentecoastal hispanic church the type of songs, worship style, and sermons were all very similar to those in the "white" Assembly of God church with the exception of the language. Perhaps it depends on the denomination. In my community which has approximately equal amounts of white and hispanic popoulations and a very small black minority, there is much more integration between white and latino churches (although still very small) than with the local black churches. I would agree though that it is largely an issue of culture and comfort level in terms of the church "experience." I think the segregation of races in churches is a huge hinderance on the spritiual growth and strength of a church.

Rev. Barber, allow me to share a few thoughts:

I love African-American spirituals. Some of my favorites include songs written and sung by African-Americans. But I don't particularly like to endure standing endlessly for that portion of the worship service. The same comment applies to majority-white churches. I'm an equal opportunity squirmer. After nearly 70 years, I've earned the right to be choosy in that regard.

Some of the best sermons that I have heard were delivered by black preacher. MLK's "I Have A Dream" after all was as much of a sermon as it was a speech. That said, all preachers should realize that sermons have a beginning and an end. I attended the funeral of a black friend and it was the only funeral in my memory where the sermon lasted so long that people were actually leaving before the service was over.

I think that we're finally starting to witness more churches where black and white congregants worship together and that is a healthy thing. If the only outcome of this integration is that both black and white churches concentrate more on preaching the gospel and less in political posturing then the experiment will have been successful.

I have to demur on this. While segregation by race is awful, it must be remembered that there is much cultural diversity, and the differences noted in this article were cultural rather then racial.

So what? What's wrong with that? While a certain cultural mode of expression might energize some, it would bore others.

I'd like to illustrate my point with my own experience. Years ago, I belonged to a church choir where, each Sunday, we saong a mass by Mozart, Haydn, or Schubert. Among our parishioners, it was sparsely attended, but the pews were still filled by people who came to our church from all over the area who loved that kind of music.

Are you bothered by immigrant churches using a language different than English?

I appreciate your piece. In some ways I think the racial segregated worship IS THE issue in this nation. On the other hand, I think it matters not at all.

I have spent most of my adult life as the only white guy in black congregations. I have been to national conventions of many thousands--and been the only white.

I tend to think it is not the simple fact of cultural segregation of worshipping communities that bothers us. Rather it is knowing the background and cause of the segregation that troubles our hearts.

Sounds wonderful. If classical music isn't available, count me as one white person who would choose Gospel over CCM any day of the week. I find CCM literally unendurable, and I can certainly understand why someone would avoid a church with which he or she feels no cultural connection.

I once heard James Cone, the father of black liberation theology, speak and someone made the point that segregated congregations are really a matter of cultural preference, not racism, and he said something like "If you aren't worshipping in a diverse church, you aren't really living a Christian life". I've heard many white church people claim they wanted their church to be diverse, but were really unwilling to make any changes that would be welcoming to a more diverse crowd (include gospel music, not freak out if people stand up and clap, whatever). Gotta be willing to change if you want change. Can't really speak for him, but something tells me Jesus would be more impressed with the relationships building in a diverse congregation than he would be with a nice choir that sings Bach, or puts on a professional level gospel extravaganza. On the other hand, if I were black, I think I might want to stay at a predominantly black church, to have at least 1 aspect of my life that isn't dominated by white people.

"I find CCM literally unendurable..."

Glad I'm not the only one who feel that way.

Racially and ethnically diverse congregations occasionally happen by accident, but only if the worship style is non-liturgical and the music style has crossover appeal. In these churches, racial inclusivity often isn't prized, it just happens. Genuinely inclusive churches have to be planned and work best as new church starts that are intentionally diverse, feature an inter-racial pastoral team and strive for a blend and balance in worship that provides something for everybody.

But the most important element is theological. We must realize that the gospel is intrinsically inclusive. I am not confident that established churches, especially if the congregation is older and its ethnic make-up differs markedly from the surrounding community, have much hope of becoming more inclusive despite the best of intentions.

I am not confident that established churches, especially if the congregation is older and its ethnic make-up differs markedly from the surrounding community, have much hope of becoming more inclusive despite the best of intentions.

Well, my own church has done exactly that. Scroll down to pages 5 and 6 of the link below.

http://studentlife.biola.edu/page_attachments/0...

Not a huge fan of CCM myself. Very much prefer the grand old hymns, or Gospel. Somehow the "easy listening" music style just doesn't do Christianity justice.

LV

"Somehow the "easy listening" music style just doesn't do Christianity justice."

For once we're in complete agreement.

Group hug by the old farts!

Allow me just one more comment. No one (even including me) would ever claim that all the religious music that h=is worth listening to and singing has already been written. But what we are witnessing now (and for the past 20-25 years) is an era in which "church music" has a half life measured in weeks. By the time we learn the words and can come close to the melody, the song is gone.

To me, the really good songs have stood the test of time. Sorry to go so far afield from the original topic.

Actually, I don't think this is off topic at all. Musical taste is certainly one of the main reasons-if not *the* main reason-people choose a church. Many churches, IMO, have made a big mistake by devaluing music to the extent of treating it only as a tool for evangelism. The thinking seems to go something like this: "Music that is catchy, simple and forgettable brings in the crowds, and once we get them here, we can tell them what they're really here for." What's forgotten in the process is that the music itself can be a reason for being there-that it can be a powerful conduit to God in its own right.

OK, getting off soapbox now.

BTW, black churches I've been to tend to "get" this much better than white churches. Full circle completed: over.

I have always attended churches that have had a variety of people attending, why? Because all of these congregations went out of their way to invite immigrant populations. The church where I was baptized invited Vietnamese, and integrated them into the service. Our pastor had been a missionary in Vietnam. The church I attended while in college invited people from Lao, offering ESL classes, that my mother taught. Then I attended a church where 3 small churches, European, Af/Am, and Latino merged. The congregation I attend now has a healthy mixture of African-American, Polish, Irish, German, Hispanic and Philippeno congregants. Sermons are periodically offered in native tongue.
My point? Churches don't magically appear integrated, just because God wishes we love each other beyond our melanin and native language. Humans have to make a concerted effort to reach out to each other, offer each other blessings of companionship and desire to learn one from another. Another reason to purposefully integrate? The best fellowship meals!

My only regret from my 44 years in integrated (and yes, not all of these were urban churches) is that I didn't take the time to learn Vietnamese from the other members of my church as a youth. I could really use it now.

Leroy, I would encourage you to check out Curtiss Paul DeYoung's new book, Coming Together in the 21st Century: The Bible's Message in an Age of Diversity. It may prove helpful in your work with Mission Year.

I think you hit the nail on the head about culture being more important than race. I attended a very small African American church in the south for a year. I enjoyed a lot of aspects of it (the music, being the token minority, the superficial friendliness of the people, the sense of history, the different traditions like feet washing and calling each other Brother or Sister or Deacon or Mother so and so). But in the end things that I would ascribe to "black church culture" made me leave. I didn't want to spend 2+ hours in church of which a solid hour was the sermon the meat of which could easily have been cut to 15 minutes because of so much repetition and showmanship, the inconvenient hour (11-1 or 1:15), the lack of fellowship I experienced (church meals consisted of everyone taking take out boxes back home for lack of space to sit and eat and I ultimately only made one friend there), and lack of interaction/opportunity for intimacy (no small group Bible studies in homes or home groups). So to ask churches to integrate is essentially to ask someone to give up their culture and that's not something most people are prepared to do.

And as a white guy, the descriptions above (which I agree with) usually mean the White Church is the boring one.