# Culturally Diverse Churches



## JS116 (Oct 3, 2011)

Hello fellow PBer's

I'm back with a topic that has caused mixed emotions over the years with christians of all denominations.Me and a my new friend are having a discussion tomorrow before class over church history and racism over the years.We agree that certainly racism has declined in churches as far as things they participated and practiced,but still a form of racism existing in the churches today.We will discuss things that drove churches apart such as theological differences but also cultural differences.

Also we are going to talk about the compromise of churches who seek to be missional and diverse,but shy away or have no desire to speak on theological topics,because they feel it causes division in the body.I think this discussion will be very beneficial because we both are young,different races(I'm black he's white),but we have been reconciled by the gospel,covered by Christ and have passion for God's word.I look at him as brother and so does he toward me,only Christ could've done that.

That's why we so fervently talk about the reformed faith because we believe it has much better biblical view of things,especially emphasis on interpretation on passages about reconciliation than any other system.

How do you guys feel about this matter,do you sense racism and separation in the churches?How do you think we should deal with it?


Also I know there are some who don't like rap but again my favorite artist Voice(I talk about him alot haha) has a song out speaking on the matter.
it's not a song you probably don't wanna dance to but it's very good as far as the lyrics go,listen to the words!

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYbsjCeV4e0


----------



## Jack K (Oct 4, 2011)

Churches in America today—even very faithful ones—are largely segregrated, especially when it come to white/black separation in the south. But in many cases this is not due to intentional design or to overt racism. Rather, the churches remain segregated largely because both whites and blacks feel more comfortable that way.

Centuries of institutional racism, racist culture and socio-economic differences have created separation. "White" and "black" churches have developed different views of the gospel, different approaches to worship and different notions of church community. In cities that are racial divided by neighborhoods, they also tend to find themselves geographically surrounded by people of mostly the same race. Add to that the subtle racism that still exists on both sides, and the vast majority of believers end up in churches made up largely of people of their same race.

So, the segregation we see today is...

...rooted in sin both past and present. So it ought to be something the church fights to end. The fact that segregation is also inconsistent with the gospel, which tells us that believers of every nation and social status are one in Christ, is still more reason to battle segregation.

...deeply engrained and complex. It will not be easy to get out of. This is in part due to sinful foot-dragging, judgmentalism and our addiction to cultural comfort zones. But it is also due to legitimate concerns about not letting things like doctrinal purity, freedom of conscience or commitment to our neighborhoods get pushed aside in some sort of forced integration. Deliberate effort and mutual tolerance _will_ be necessary. But insisting on too much tolerance destroys the foundations of the church. So this is hard, complicated work.

How does this play out? For me as a typical white guy, when I was part of a "white" church in North Carolina, the issue when I visited "black" churches tended to be twofold: I didn't feel comfortable with their teaching and worship style, and I also didn't feel comfortable just being there as a white guy. How much of that was my sin and theirs? And how much of it was legitimate concern for biblical truth and worship? I believe it was some of both. We must sort out these things and figure out how to fight the sin while not giving in where it's good to take a stand. The dialogue you're engaging in on these matters sounds like a good thing.


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 4, 2011)

Jack K. is correct, but I'll take it two steps further: 

1.) In one sense, our "cultural diversity" is supposed to give way to the faith, not the other way around. Anything of culture that I hold must give way to the Word of God, rather than trying to conform Christianity to my characteristics and "culture." John Stott said that, in one sense, the church is supposed to be countercultural: not bound by white notions, black notions, hispanic notions, etc., but rather the body of Christ is to place these things AT BEST on a secondary level.

I do not have the right, for example, to "Italianize" my church (me being Italian) and exclude others who are not Italian enough-deficient though they may be  Back on topic, the faith is supposed to shape who we are as Christians, and that may mean at times defying what is culturally expected out of us. 

2.)we need to be VERY careful not to use "diversity" as a badge of pride. Just because you have an ethnic mix in your church does not mean you are a good church, nor does a primarily white or black or fill-in-the-blank-with-your-color-of-choice congregation mean you are racist. I've mentioned before that the Baptist church I attended in my youth was primarily white, not because we were racist, but because very few minorities lived in the area, and those minority Christians who did mostly weren't Baptist, period. No other reason, no hostility, no crosses burned in the front yard or anything: it was just incidental. 

And running out to go get a differing person or family and sticking them in your pews just for the sake of your church's self-image (be it a minority in a white church or the other way around) is not diversity, it's pharisaical pride. It's doing exactly what Jesus said NOT to do in Matt 6, which is doing your works to be seen and praised by men. 

If a person of a different ethnic background comes into your church, welcome him. Treat him as a brother in Christ. But don't you DARE use him as a poster boy for cultural diversity. 

Oh, one other thing: I like to point out that much of the racial mistreatment that came about at the turn of the nineteenth-twentieth century came about as a result of Darwin. Read about how immigrants who were not Caucasian were treated by the U.S. Government some time. You'll find it rather enlightening.


----------



## baron (Oct 4, 2011)

I do not know if this deals with the question in America but I read this in Michael Horton The Gospel Commission page 130.

Apartheid in South Africa can serve as a cautionary tale in this regard. According to some of the leading theologians who challenged this racially based system of segregation, apartheid evolved out of a missionary strategy. According to John de Gruchy, Reformed churches were not segregated until the mid-nineteenth-century revivals by holiness preacher Andrew Murray and pietist missionaries. "It was under the dominance of such evangelicalism," says de Gruchy "rather than the strict Calvinism of Dort, the Dutch Reformed Church agreed at its Synod of 1857 that congregations could be divided along racial lines." He adds, _Despite the fact that this development went against earlier synodical decisions that segregation in the church was contray to the Word of God, it was rationalized on grounds of missiology and practical necessity. Missiologically it was argued that people were best evangelized and best worshipped God in their own language and cultrual setting, a position reinforced by german Lutheran missiology and somewhat akin to the churcu growth philosophy of our own time. 13 John de Gruchy, Liberating Reformed Theology._

This is what a was told for years that white people like it better in white churches and blacks people like it better in black churches.

But I attend a church that is reformed and our pastor is balck and the congreation is made up of a bunch of races. I could care less for the color of a person, but will attend a black church that preaches the gospel.


----------



## TimV (Oct 4, 2011)

Apartheid was about culture and not about race.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 4, 2011)

The problem is that often times a church will wing from mono-racial to a affirmative action mindset where they look to incorporate "diversity" for the sake of diversity. A church should reflect its context in the area of style and atmosphere. A church in a upper class suburb will look totally different from a church near the projects. Unfortunately race is then mixed in there to where some churches will only appeal to black people or white people or whatever other kind of people you insert. My parents went to a "black church" and were told they should not come in. They weren't prohibited but it was given as a strong warning against. On the other hand a church in an upscale suburb of a to-remain-nameless-city had some members suggest that the lower class latino immigrants attend another church because it would make the rich white people uncomfortable. Both of these instances are sick and anti-Gospel. In Christ there is neither slave nor free.


----------



## raekwon (Oct 4, 2011)

There's nothing necessarily wrong with a church being mono-ethic, but any (ANY) efforts that church makes to remain mono-ethnic or preserve mono-ethnicity are of the Devil.


----------



## Andres (Oct 5, 2011)

raekwon said:


> There's nothing necessarily wrong with a church being mono-ethic, but any (ANY) efforts that church makes to remain mono-ethnic or preserve mono-ethnicity are of the Devil.



This is an excellent point.


----------

