Megachurches Make (Some) Progress on Crossing the Racial Divide

Yes -- I think that's just an excuse based on laziness. The early church was multi-racial and multi-cultural; believers then were called "Christians" because, in that tribal-based culture, no one else knew what to call them.

Anyway, having specific race- or culture-based assemblies can lead to hostility and/or misunderstanding toward other groups, even though they may be fellow Christians. Remember that the civil-rights movement, to the church universal's everlasting shame, pitted one group of Christians against another group of Christians.

Some years ago I, an African American, visited the church of my white then-girlfriend and saw some literature I suspected (later confirmed) to be racist. (It was a factor in the relationship's eventual demise.) About 30 years ago, when I was in college, I began attending meetings of a white campus fellowship whose staff invited me to leave because I was black; the umbrella ministry had actually formed a black fellowship and suggested that I go there. The trouble, aside from my race, was that they had not considered that I had already been worshipping with whites for the previous decade and actually was more comfortable there than with other blacks.

When my own current church integrated (long before I got there), it did the hard work of cultural diversification, which showed in the worship services. When I started there in 1998 we used two classic hymns, two contemporary choruses and two black gospel numbers in every service, plus our music ministry was and is required to be versatile. The lead pastor also adjusted his preaching style. Far from watering things down, that actually led to explosive growth because people actually wanted that kind of church experience; one couple drives in from a neighboring state to be a part of our congregation. Amazingly, we also have a large number of elderly African-Americans who attend -- which tells me that they always believed in integrated churches but never had the opportunity to attend one before.

See, the days of "church culture" are coming to an end and God is always doing something new -- and it will generally not be easy. Then again, growth, especially in the spiritual realm, isn't easy.

Yes -- I think that's just an excuse based on laziness. The early church was multi-racial and multi-cultural; believers then were called "Christians" because, in that tribal-based culture, no one else knew what to call them.

Anyway, having specific race- or culture-based assemblies can lead to hostility and/or misunderstanding toward other groups, even though they may be fellow Christians. Remember that the civil-rights movement, to the church universal's everlasting shame, pitted one group of Christians against another group of Christians.

Some years ago I, an African American, visited the church of my white then-girlfriend and saw some literature I suspected (later confirmed) to be racist. (It was a factor in the relationship's eventual demise.) About 30 years ago, when I was in college, I began attending meetings of a white campus fellowship whose staff invited me to leave because I was black; the umbrella ministry had actually formed a black fellowship and suggested that I go there. The trouble, aside from my race, was that they had not considered that I had already been worshipping with whites for the previous decade and actually was more comfortable there than with other blacks.

When my own current church integrated (long before I got there), it did the hard work of cultural diversification, which showed in the worship services. When I started there in 1998 we used two classic hymns, two contemporary choruses and two black gospel numbers in every service, plus our music ministry was and is required to be versatile. The lead pastor also adjusted his preaching style. Far from watering things down, that actually led to explosive growth because people actually wanted that kind of church experience; one couple drives in from a neighboring state to be a part of our congregation. Amazingly, we also have a large number of elderly African-Americans who attend -- which tells me that they always believed in integrated churches but never had the opportunity to attend one before.

See, the days of "church culture" are coming to an end and God is always doing something new -- and it will generally not be easy. Then again, growth, especially in the spiritual realm, isn't easy.

I appreciate the point that the world watches. I am often very saddened how "the world" often seems to have a more keen conscience about the church's integrity and/or hypocrisy than does the church. I suppose Satan might be busy pointing these things out to the world to discredit Jesus; but I fear it is too often the case that we give off a bad odor. And maybe most sad is the appearance that we don't truly believe that in Jesus there is truly good news.

I agree with BD that our passions for political division are often greater than our passion for expressing Jesus' love through a vibrant political engagement.

I don't think we will be fighting the same battles in 10 years. I think white evangelicalism is at far greater risk than many believe. We have still not truly overcome the fundamentalist backlash against the social gospel. Some believe we have and that we are in a new day. But what I see is an openness to more progressive ideals and a loss of evangelical fervor. This, to me, is a sign of a pendulum swing rather than an embrace of a holistic Gospel.

So I see either an accelerating decline of a church divided by race, politics and theology; or a true socio-spiritual awakening to Jesus and the fullness of his Shalom.

And actually--I believe both will occur. This is not going to be an apathetic decade. God's moves are not going to be minor or hidden.

I think one of the best parts of Affirmative Action is allowing us to experience the wonderfulness of the diversity that is the Image of God. If I hear only from a white pastor, I really miss out on the message that God has to bring me from a black man or a Latina. God is about incarnation and contextualization; the story of the Gospel is going from unlike to unlike, and being willing to die to yourself and transform yourself to better love those who are different. What Gospel is it if I hear only from those who look like me?

I appreciate the point that the world watches. I am often very saddened how "the world" often seems to have a more keen conscience about the church's integrity and/or hypocrisy than does the church. I suppose Satan might be busy pointing these things out to the world to discredit Jesus; but I fear it is too often the case that we give off a bad odor. And maybe most sad is the appearance that we don't truly believe that in Jesus there is truly good news.

I agree with BD that our passions for political division are often greater than our passion for expressing Jesus' love through a vibrant political engagement.

I don't think we will be fighting the same battles in 10 years. I think white evangelicalism is at far greater risk than many believe. We have still not truly overcome the fundamentalist backlash against the social gospel. Some believe we have and that we are in a new day. But what I see is an openness to more progressive ideals and a loss of evangelical fervor. This, to me, is a sign of a pendulum swing rather than an embrace of a holistic Gospel.

So I see either an accelerating decline of a church divided by race, politics and theology; or a true socio-spiritual awakening to Jesus and the fullness of his Shalom.

And actually--I believe both will occur. This is not going to be an apathetic decade. God's moves are not going to be minor or hidden.

That's not really the point, because that doesn't generally translate into changed churches.

I responded that way in large part because we're not a part of each other's lives and not even shared "volunteer" efforts will change that. Oh, and it's not true at all that the poor have always been integrated -- especially in the South, the most racist whites are often the poorest.

I attend two churches. The one in the morning is a bilingual church -- Spanish and English -- which is majority Hispanic. It's also Pentacostal and somewhat conservative. The congregation continues to grow, because the people are not looking as much for political correctness as the Spirit of God to work in their lives, as well as the greater city they inhabit.

They run a food pantry, but they also run a school where the Hispanic pastor may be found cleaning up backed-up toilets in the basement. Or the senior pastor -- White and non-Spanish speaker -- comes early to help care for the kids who are dropped off before 7:30 a.m.

While I may not agree with the theology and the worship can be a bit overwhelming to my ears, but I sense a true yearning for the holistic gospel of Jesus that transcends race, language, politics and socio-economic status.

I think one of the best parts of Affirmative Action is allowing us to experience the wonderfulness of the diversity that is the Image of God. If I hear only from a white pastor, I really miss out on the message that God has to bring me from a black man or a Latina. God is about incarnation and contextualization; the story of the Gospel is going from unlike to unlike, and being willing to die to yourself and transform yourself to better love those who are different. What Gospel is it if I hear only from those who look like me?

I belonged to a 40-member integrated congregation. The one advantage there was the informality. We didn't have to search for a worship and program culture to meet the comfort/familiarity needs of a diverse group. Relationships were the central unifier.

Have you ever seen a church with senior pastor that is black and a worship style rooted in black church located in black community that integrates?

That's not really the point, because that doesn't generally translate into changed churches.

My comment was more of a challenge to look beyond what we've been taught that "the Church" is. The poor and disenfranchised throughout history have always been integrated, all the while maintaining a strong faith and hope in Christ their provider. I am beginning to question whether traditional churches, especially mega-churches, are relevant at all. Where do they leave the "salt", so to speak? They heard up the sheep into their comfortable stalls of blessing each appointed time so they can feed in peace and where they can grow indifferent to the suffering of the Church at large. Considering the deeply rooted history of most churches and denominations, especially within the US, I don't see a dramatic shift in their racial divides anytime soon. So, the point of my comment was to say if you're having a hard time seeing the breakdown of racial walls in your church, step outside and take a look around, the Church will go on united even if the churches can't keep up.

Blue, I guess I'm not sure how you and I got into this line of conversation. My comment was not meant to be directed towards or a criticism of any of your statements on this thread. I was sharing my opinion and that's really all that any of this forum is. I response to your last comment, specifically when you stated "we're not part of each others lives" the last time I checked the bible we are all part of the same body so WE ARE part of each others life through Christ, the head of the Church. I would say that it is very easy for this sort of indifference towards other believers (and non-believers, for that matter) based on geography to also be applied to our very own neighbors and this is why I do not see change happening within the church and this is also why I say we should look for a change elsewhere. And yes, you could be right about historically "it's not true at all that the poor have always been integrated", I admit, that wasn't a well thought-out statement. I'm sure that this subject is debatable but this isn't the right thread to talk about that. My only response to this is where do we go from here in regard to the racial divide in mega-churches? I say look elsewhere.

Well, if the relationship isn't based on mutuality, of course it would be
oppressive and patronizing. There's a difference between integration and
desegregation, you know.

And close proximity and shared lives do not guarantee mutuality, love, dignity, justice, healing or righteousness. Blacks and whites sharing households, plantations, churches, streets, parks, beds, doctor's offices and parenting--knowing each other inside-out--did not make for loving and just relations.

In this day, however, I agree with you that the simple element of knowing/connecting/sharing is fundamentally important. I think we are at the point it is largely getting past turning each other into "the other."

I just note we can be in the most intimate of relationships (e.g. husband -wife) and maintain very violent, oppressive, twisted and sinful relationships.

I used to think an integrated church was the best thing. But church is more than worship of God. It is also a place of rest, of community and of culture. I am white but attend a Chinese church with my daughter because she is adopted from China. The service, the food everything is Chinese (except the Sunday School for kids and youth because they don't always speak Chinese). As white people, what right do we have to force people to give up their culture and dilute it with ours? Often, my highly educated and well off Black friends today go to a Black church not because they feel like they can't go to a white church, but because they prefer to hold on to their culture, prefer to hear a certain style of preaching or singing that is very different than one would hear in a white church. Same thing with Hispanic friends. I also think that people of other cultures need to be able to relax and get together with other people of their own culture, speak their language, or if there is no language issue, just be themselves without worrying about having to "cater to" the dominant culture which in the US is white. These integrated churches almost always have diluted culture down to a white megachurch atmosphere. I make sure at my church just to bring my daughter, and teach the English speaking Sunday school. I don't try to make any changes or push for things to be different since I am in someone else's culture. Other Americans tend to go into minority places and try to change them to be more comfortable for the white majority. I am not saying that there is no place for integrated churches. Just that it is not necessarily the worst thing in the world to have churches that cater to different folks of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Having spent years hanging out with people of different cultures, I have come 180 degrees away from my original position that is the one seeming to be held here. Has anyone thought about it from the other side?