Everything is Backwards

George Yancey writes in One Body One Spirit that there are seven characteristics of multi-ethnic churches that are worth noting. Some of these were surprising.

1. Inclusive Worship. Music is so important to people that when they sing to God it needs to take on a form that is culturally meaningful for them. In the Euro-white culture, we have everything from Indie-Rock, to pipe organs, to Coldplay, to acoustic folk in our churches. But others prefer a keyboard and rhythm section driven sound. I suppose in India people would want a Sitar with Ravi Shankar sound. The point is that the musical style of the church must reflect the diversity of the people that come there.

2. Diverse Leadership. Yancey writes, “multiracial leadership is important because members of different racial groups desire to feel represented by the members of the church, especially racial minorities who historically have received a lack of respect for their opinions and perspectives.”

3. An Overarching Goal. Yancey observes that many multi-ethnic churches that he studied did not make racial diversity its highest goal, but rather a necessary component to achieving an even higher goal. He notes that “there is a certain amount of racial fatigue in our society. People are tired of discussing racial issues and trying to solve racial problems. But if members of a church are committed to another and higher goal – such as winning people to Christ or serving the community – then it becomes easier for those members to accept the importance of creating a multiracial environment.” This is right on point.

Another friend of mine who pastors a multi-racial church in Cincinnati recently told me that there is a generational element to this as well. Older people, who have long memories of segregation, bussing, and Jim Crow laws, need to have their racial prejudices more directly addressed. But it is the younger generation who grew up in the “Cosby Show” era and now the “Obama” era that grow fatigued, because they do not have these same experiences that were so difficult for their parents. There should be a sensitivity to where people are. But hopefully the days of addressing race will become less tense and emotionally charged.

In downtown Cincinnati, our goal is to reach the entire area, not just the white population. Thus in my context, we must build a multi-racial church to serve the unique needs of our diverse community.

4. Intentionality. Yancey writes, “it takes work to create and sustain multiracial churches. Their development does not just happen accidentally.” A church needs to know what they are trying to do and work to achieve it. Yancey notes that churches that became multiethnic almost by accident sustained the multiethnic environment by intentionally cultivating it.

5. Personal Skills. Some of this is simply having a well developed social IQ that understands the dynamics of relationships. Pastors especially have to have good personal skills since they are the ones who will be helping people to adjust to a multiethnic environment where conflicts arise from unexpected places. Specifically, Yancey identifies “sensitivity to different needs, patience, the ability to empower others and the ability to relate to those of different races” as key personal skills.

6. Location. You can’t create a multiethnic environment in a neighborhood that is almost completely monolithic. You have to be in a location that already has the diversity in the population. And all white or all black churches in all white or all black neighborhoods shouldn’t be regarded as inferior; they just reflect their neighborhoods.

7. Adaptability. Yancey says that “a monoracial church has only a single culture to adapt to. However, by definition, a multiracial church brings into it individuals from several different cultures. Learning how to blend these cultures together is an important part of adapting to the new social reality caused by the formation of a multiracial church.”

I would say that many of these fall into the biblical category of self-denial (Mk 8:34-35). We have to be willing to die to ourselves and our own cultural preferences and be willing to adopt, to some degree, the values and preferences of other cultures. This is the 1 Corinthians 12:12-15 vision of the church: we don’t merely tolerate one another, we need one another.

To do this not only requires spiritual maturity but it creates it as well.

No, racial reconciliation isn’t dead, but perhaps Christians need to talk about the topic differently.

God has put in my heart a dream of a multi-racial church in the heart of downtown Cincinnati. In that previous sentence, there’s about three things that people have told me are foolish ideas. I have been told that (1) Cincinnati is “rough soil” for church planting, and (2) downtown Cincinnati is especially difficult, but to be (3) multi-racial is just plain out of the question.

I believe that God can and will do it, however. And right now, God has answered my prayers of raising up a core group of Christian leaders who want to see the same thing happen downtown in Cincinnati. But I have been beating my head against a wall trying to figure out how to make our group more ethnically diverse.

Yesterday, I met Alvin Sanders, the Chief Diversity Officer for the Evangelical Free denomination. He recommends talking in terms of simply “reconciliation” rather than the more emotionally charged “racial reconciliation.”

He told me that the racial reconciliation conversation is dead. Christians should be talking about how God is in the business of reconciling all things to Himself, not merely races. I agree with him, as I have argued here.

He wrote about this recently:

So let me define racial reconciliation from my perspective. To begin, the Duke Center for Reconciliation defines reconciliation as God’s initiative, restoring a broken world to God’s intentions by reconciling “to Himself all things” through Christ (Colossians 1:20): the relationship between people and God, between people themselves, and between people and God’s created earth.

It is important to note that racial division is but one of many forms of brokenness found in our world that needs to be reconciled. Therefore, reconciliation in any form is the mission of God in our broken world.

The church is the only institution that has been supernaturally commissioned to practice reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). In fact, Jesus told us that a blessing follows as we engage in bringing peace to divided situations (Matthew 5:9).

The only way reconciliation-whether racial or any other type-will become a priority within a church is if it is viewed as a mark of the gospel. Oftentimes, churches resist stressing reconciliation, offering up the explanation that they are focused on fulfilling the Great Commission.

My response is that it is impossible to fulfill the Great Commission without fulfilling the first and second greatest commandments-which, together, are a call to reconciliation (Matthew 22:37-40). Reconciling brokenness of all forms to a world dominated by political, cultural, racial, and ethnic conflict is a witness to the superiority of the authentic Christian life.

It is ironic that as I type this, many national news outlets are reporting that minorities as a whole will outnumber whites by 2043 within the United States. History has proven that with these demographic changes will come numerous racial incidents and ethnic tensions.

The church must have a uniquely Christian response to these demographic changes that reflects the love of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we will be viewed as just another powerless institution.

I have written four previous posts over the last few months on the top 10 reasons to plant a racially diverse church in downtown Cincinnati. Here’s a recap of the first four, and the remaining six reasons as well.

1. Racial reconciliation is biblical. Every society has its own racial tensions to deal with. The early church had the Jew/Gentile tension. We have the black/white tension. We apply the same biblical principles to both.
2. The world wants racial reconciliation, but only the gospel can achieve it.
3. Change needs to begin with Christians, like me, dealing with their own racial pride in order to love their Christian brothers of other races.
4. Racial reconciliation cultivates a missionary mindset.

The remaining six reasons are more practical than theoretical, so they require less comment.

1. Cincinnati is about evenly divided between white people and black people. Any person who is called by God to be a missionary to a city, as I am, cannot single out certain people as more favorable to hear the message of Jesus. Part of my calling is to tell everyone about Jesus, not just the white people.
2. A reconciled church is a powerful witness to the community. Reconciliation should begin in the church. When that happens, it stands out as a monument to the greatness of the God we serve.
3. This is a great time in our country’s history to deal with this issue. I was working toward this goal long before Obama was elected president, but his election does affect the way people think of race. The most powerful man in the world comes from a race that has been oppressed historically. This alone can open new avenues of dialogue that were more difficult before. We should be able to discuss racial issues a little more freely now.
4. A church that is mono-racial has isolated itself from the insights and spiritual vitality of other Christian communities. White Christians can learn a great deal from black Christians, just as black Christians can learn from white Christians. I want to learn biblical insights from people who read the Bible through the lens of a minority class. What verses and concepts stand out to them? I’ll bet you they are quite different from the ones that stand out to me.
5. Church plants are the Research and Development arm of the body of Christ. We try new ideas and take bigger risks because we have nothing to lose. If I’m not willing to try this as a church planter, what larger church will take the risk?
6. I want to pave the way for future churches to do the same. Hopefully, our mistakes and our successes can be a learning tool for other churches who want to embrace racial reconciliation.

Here is a quote from Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the willingness of most Americans to enter into dialogue about race with others, particularly those of another race:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.“

Furthermore, he says this: “the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.”

Please allow me to decode this: what he is saying is that people are willing to put up with racial differences when it is to their professional advantage to do so, such as in the workplace. But they are not willing to allow it to interfere with their personal lives. Perhaps even more troubling to me is the fact that he specifically mentions “the weekends,” which is when Christians gather for worship.

Could this be a veiled criticism of the church? I believe it is. Many have lamented the fact that Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America. The blame goes in both directions because both whites and blacks have different reasons for not worshiping together.

Many white churches fancy themselves a place where people of all races can come to freely worship. But they make few attempts to modify their styles to accommodate others.

Black churches do the same thing. But consider this: the workplace is still a predominately white environment in most cases. This means that African Americans still feel the pressure of being a minority in a white world and they learn to adapt themselves to their environment. But when they go home, or go to church, they may seek a community where it’s safe to be black.

The process of reconciling Christians of various races will be difficult because we’re not just talking about skin color. We’re talking about entire histories of peoples from various backgrounds. Different tastes, styles, preferences.

But when the first African American Attorney General calls Americans racial “cowards,” I think this is the time for the church to say, “not us; we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure that there is no division in the body.”

I’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere before. (1 Corinthians 12:25)

The fourth reason to plant a racially reconciled church in downtown Cincinnati is this: racial reconciliation forces us to have a missionary mindset.

One of the most important things for aspiring missionaries to learn in preparation for the mission field is how to best communicate with people who are different from them. This is called contextualization. Basically, the patterns of communication that work for me in my context may not work so well in someone else’s context.

For example, I have spent two summers in Argentina leading short term mission projects. I had to speak to people who didn’t know English primarily and had different culture and customs. It was perfectly acceptable for men to kiss each other on the cheek. In fact, to not greet someone with a “beso” would have been perceived as an insult.

But they also had different customs in terms of food, time, family, and community. As missionaries, we recognized that this was their country, and to reach them we had to be aware of that fact and work within their context.

This experience has led me to a couple of conclusions regarding racial reconciliation in Cincinnati. First, we are first and foremost citizens of the city of God, and only secondarily citizens of any earthly city. God requires us to interact with one another on the basis of mutual love for each other and seek the highest good of other people.

Secondly, yielding our cultural preferences to another person is not easy to do, but can be learned with patience, practice, and accountability. Suppose a person is part of a church body that constantly urges him to consider the perspectives of a person of a different race. This person would learn to love and respect the other person because (1) he is his neighbor and (2) he is a fellow believer in Christ.

When I was in Argentina, many of their customs seemed strange to me. Yet I respected them because my purpose was to die to myself and show them Christ, not be a cultural colonialist. Likewise, there is much about the African American community that I do not understand as well. But since my citizenship is in heaven and not white America, God has called me to behave according to Christian conviction first and foremost. That’s what it means to be on mission: I respect my neighbor as a fellow bearer of God’s image before I indulge my own cultural preferences, even if I have good reason for them.

As Christians, our calling is to die to ourselves daily and follow Christ. We are to be good neighbors and not cultural colonialists. White people are terribly uncomfortable with this. What if, God forbid, we had to mix in some Fred Hammond with our Chris Tomlin? What if we had to follow a Bible study leader who votes for Obama (never!). What if this experience led us to places in our own hearts where we realize that maybe we’ve baptized white Americanism and called it Christian?

We can’t be cowards. It takes guts to consider other people as better than ourselves; to allow others to be first while we’re last. Regular American Christians don’t live this way, but missionaries do.

Here’s my prediction: a gospel saturated, Christ glorifying, self-denying, racially reconciling, poverty killing, cross-cultural church will send lots of missionaries to crazy places because the people will have developed a mind-set of gospel centered self-denial.

That’s reason #4 why I’m planting a racially reconciled church in downtown Cincinnati.

Thomas Chatterton Williams answers this question.

Black children would be able to avoid internalizing what James Baldwin called “the propaganda of race inferiority,” since every night on the news there would be a visible reminder that there is nothing whites can do that blacks cannot. That is the real change Obama offers-all of a sudden the world young black kids imagine themselves inhabiting would seem a richer place to live, one without an upper limit. To Biggie Smalls’ dismal list of career options afforded young black males-”You either slang crack rock / Or you got a wicked jump shot”-we could add the office of president. And in response to what Jay-Z cynically defined as the black man’s lot in life-”All we got is sports and entertainment/ Until we even, thievin”-we could say, No, not anymore.

The symbolism of a black man in the Oval Office would certainly advance the cause of racial equality in America. Unfortunately, we do not elect a symbol for President, we elect a man (or woman) who has a worldview and a set of policies that they wish to enact to shape the country and world to their liking.

If Obama were elected, racial reconciliation would improve in America. But the plight of the unborn will become more bleak. The black woman’s womb will be one of the most dangerous places in America, government expansion might make poverty worse in America which will adversely affect blacks, and an out of control liberal media will further their attempts to silence voices of dissension.

I wish to God I could vote for the first black Presidential to run successfully at the top of a major ticket. But I’m afraid the cost is simply too high.

There are so many reasons why its a good idea to plant a racially diverse church in downtown Cincinnati. Numbers one and two have already been covered, and I’ve got 8 more good reasons to write about. Three months after moving here, I’m very optimistic that this will work and that its God’s desire for this to happen.

Fortunately, I’ve identified the biggest obstacle to planting a racially diverse church in downtown Cincinnati: me. And the third reason why I’m planting a racially diverse church in downtown Cincinnati is to strip away my own barriers and, God willing, the barriers that other people have to forming genuine relationships with people of another race.

Am I willing to do what it takes to apply the gospel comprehensively to lingering and even undiscovered racial residue? If I am ready to do that in my life, the real test will be whether or not I will be willing to help expose the racial residue in others’ lives as well.

Last week, I had lunch with Chris Beard, pastor of another congregation in Cincinnati that is targeting racial reconciliation, and Sherman Bradley, a local leader in poverty ministries. This conversation challenged me that I cannot merely be content to be introspective and address issues in my own heart, I need to be an “agitator,” as Chris put it.

I believe that most Americans, both white and black, filter their perceptions of other people of different races through a grid of incorrect perceptions and assumptions that prevent genuine relationships from forming. Many white people will lock their car doors when a black pedestrian is near their car, for example. His appearance generates the perception that he is somehow a threat. Now, suppose a relationship is formed with this man and he becomes a trusted friend. All will not be remedied by this because he will simply become “one of the good ones.”

Suppose even further, then, that genuine friendships can be formed with about 10 or 12 African American men, from different neighborhoods. Now, there can be perhaps enough to begin to challenge one’s predisposition to assume that black men are a criminal threat. There need to be enough relationships formed with others of another race to change one’s overall perception of that race.

My contention is that the best place for these relationships to form is the body of Christ. This will be potentially more difficult for white people than black people, because we can easily tune black culture out and refuse to learn and understand it if we wish. BET is only one channel, and VH1 is just a click away. But black people must understand and work within white culture if they are to survive. In other words, black people already understand white culture automatically, white people can learn black culture electively.

That is where being an “agitator” comes in. I need to be the person who constantly brings up racially diverse perspectives into conversations. I need to be an advocate in the white world and refuse to allow white people to choose to ignore their black neighbors. I must not allow weak excuses for white disengagement in racial justice to go unchecked.

This will undoubtedly cost me relationships with white people and potential church members. So this is why the biggest barrier to planting this church is me: I often lack the courage to be an agitator. Planting this church forces me to face my own fears of not being liked by people who’s approval I crave. If I feel called to plant this church and am too timid and cowardly to confront white people with their racial residue, who then will do it?

My wife and I have been scouting out neighborhoods in Cincinnati for church planting and we think we’ve found a neighborhood in the city that will work for us.

Oh yeah, and Planned Parenthood will be one of our neighbors.

Oh, and by the way, they’re “excited” to accept donations earmarked for the termination of African American women’s pregnancies.

Black Pastors complain about it here.

Further incriminating evidence can be viewed here.

Planned Parenthood has a history of racist policies concerning African-American abortions.

For Christians, abortion is about creation, the image of God, protecting the widows and orphans and not making more widows and orphans. It is about sanctity of life.

But make no mistake: for the abortion industry, it is all about money. What started out as an ideology of personal privacy and women’s health choices is now a billion dollar industry with no small amount coming from the federal government.

In the video above, a person posing as a racist wanting to help abort black babies because he’s tired of Affirmative Action offers a large donation to Planned Parenthood. He specifically says that he wants his money to go towards aborting black babies.

The woman’s voice on the line admits that she’s “excited” about this and wants to make sure she gets the donation information correct. It was all about money, not about women’s health as Planned Parenthood would have us believe.

Watch the video. You’ll want to throw something when its over.

Barack Obama’s candidacy and his speech on race in America have brought America’s original sin and subsequent racial issues back to the front of our collective conscience.

This is good and healthy for America. Too many white Americans (myself included) have little idea of what is going on in the African American community, while assuming that since we in the Civil Rights Era there is no more work to do.

In the very near future, my family will be moving to Cincinnati to plant a new church. Our desire is to begin a church that will specifically embody the gospel in its racial makeup. Is this possible? “No, it isn’t,” I have been told recently, because I’m white. A white person told me this. I also spoke with an African American pastor in Cincinnati, who told me “Yes, it is possible.” His reasoning? Because I’m white.

How can my whiteness be a source of both credit and discredit to African Americans? This is just one example of the many inner struggles and complexities that the African American community faces. I cannot speak intelligently to these complexities because I’m just beginning to learn and listen. Any attempt to do so would further reveal my ignorance.

But I have provided a few highlights from Ta-Nehisi Coates’s recent article about Bill Cosby’s “black conservatism.” Coates clearly appreciates Cosby, but indicates that many African-Americans have mixed views about him. Some see him as a needed prophetic voice to blacks, others see him as a sell-out to whites. Cosby is popular with many whites because he is a black man criticizing the black community about things that whites are too afraid to say for fear of receiving the dreaded label, “racist.”

I have italicized key sections that I found interesting.

Cosby was an avowed race man, who, like much of his generation, had come to feel that black America had lost its way. The crisis of absentee fathers, the rise of black-on-black crime, and the spread of hip-hop all led Cosby to believe that, after the achievements of the 1960s, the black community was committing cultural suicide…

Black conservatives like Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, have at times allied themselves with black liberals. But in general, they have upheld a core of beliefs laid out by Garvey almost a century ago: a skepticism of (white) government as a mediating force in the “Negro problem,” a strong belief in the singular will of black people, and a fixation on a supposedly glorious black past…

…[P]olitical strategists argue that the Republican Party is missing a huge chance to court the black community… He votes Democratic, not out of any love for abortion rights or progressive taxation, but because he feels—in fact, he knows—that the modern-day GOP draws on the support of people who hate him. This is the audience that flocks to Cosby: culturally conservative black Americans who are convinced that integration, and to some extent the entire liberal dream, robbed them of their natural defenses…

Cosby argues, disadvantaged blacks should start by purging their own culture of noxious elements like gangsta rap, a favorite target. “What do record producers think when they churn out that gangsta rap with antisocial, women-hating messages?,” Cosby and Poussaint ask in their book. “Do they think that black male youth won’t act out what they have repeated since they were old enough to listen?” Cosby’s rhetoric on culture echoes—and amplifies—a swelling strain of black opinion: last November’s Pew study reported that 71 percent of blacks feel that rap is a bad influence…

I wished, then, that my 7-year-old son could have seen Cosby there, to take in the same basic message that I endeavor to serve him every day—that manhood means more than virility and strut, that it calls for discipline and dutiful stewardship. That the ultimate fate of black people lies in their own hands, not in the hands of their antagonists. That as an African American, he has a duty to his family, his community, and his ancestors…

As to the notion that Cosby is a privileged elitist who condescends on fellow African-Americans, Coates offers this:

Cosby was born into a troubled home. He was raised by his mother because his father, who joined the Navy, abandoned the family when Cosby was a child. Speaking to me of his youth, Cosby said, “People told me I was bright, but nobody stayed on me. My mother was too busy trying to feed and clothe us.” He was smart enough to be admitted to Central High School, a magnet school in Philadelphia, but transferred and then dropped out in 10th grade and followed his father into the service.

This oped in the NY Times reveals that the term “African-American” is not a one size fits all category for those who are “black.” The problem is that it is self-segregating based on physical characteristics, not ideology or something more substantial.

Beyond this, it isn’t accurate. Let me demonstrate.

Pop quiz: How many African Americans are in Dave Matthews Band? Look closely.

Answer: there are 5 members in the band. There are two white guys. And there are four African Americans. How is this possible? Dave (2nd from the right) is from South Africa, making him both white and African American.

Alan Keyes argues that the label “African-American” only belongs to those who are descended from African slaves. But this does not do justice to African Blacks of non-slavery descent.

Unfortunately, any politically correct term can develop pejorative uses over time, creating the ever present cycle of new politically correct terms.

I am frequently at a loss as to the most appropriate and respectful way to talk about race with African-Americans. It seems that either way, there is the potential for offense.

In the opinion of the NYT editorial, the term “colored” works just fine. Provocative…