Regardless of the reasons for ethnic and socio-economic segregation - and there are many - what is most unfortunate about the segregation that exists in Richmond is that it even exists in the vast majority of churches.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/01/is-this-possible.php
i) To begin with, "segregation" connotes intentional racial separation. How is the fact that many churches are predominantly one race or another intentional, rather than a side-effect of where people happen to live, their preferred worship style, and who chooses to attend?
For instance, I expect you can find more women attending a ballet performance than men. Is that "segregation"?
ii) Suppose a church is 90% white and 10% black. Does Leon think 80% of the whites should stop attending that church to make it even? Does he tell his white parishioners: "There are too many white folks in this church. Most of you should go away. Drop out!"
Why does Leon assume that white churchgoers are responsible for the choices of black churchgoers? How are they responsible for who doesn't attend? Does he think black churchgoers are responsible for the choices of white churchgoers?
iii) BTW, isn't Leon's confrontational approach counterproductive? Say you're a black pastor of a predominantly white church. Isn't the best way to promote racial harmony to be a good pastor? Become a beloved pastor because you do the things a good pastor does?
If, on the other hand, you're constantly putting your white parishioners on the defensive for being white, then isn't that guaranteed to foster racial acrimony? Should they feel guilty about attending the church you pastor? Is it wrong for them to attend your church?
In St. Louis during the early 1980's, there was a large church with African-Americans in attendance probably in proportion to their percentage of the general population. The music in the worship services was contemporary style. The African-Americans decided that they existed in enough numbers that they could justify their own church, albeit smaller, and where they could, more importantly to them, have music that was more in line with their history and tastes. They held no animus for the large church, and the large church had certainly embraced them and involved them. There were no doctrinal or personality issues. It was strictly an issue of music and cultural preference. The two congregation parted ways without either feeling animosity or ever looking back.
ReplyDeleteSomeone coming on the scene later, and unaware of the history I just recounted, might look at the two congregations and lament that "segregation is still alive." The large church would be shamed for its lily-white make-up (even though they had been welcoming with the minority came and accommodating when it wanted to leave), and the small church would be pitied because it could only have been white-privilege that discriminated against them and relegated them to worshiping apart (even though they were quite content because this was exactly what they wanted).
I remember this whenever I hear someone condemn some group merely because their racial composition does not match that of the population at large. Which is to say that I am reminded of it a lot these days.
One ironic thing about this series: Protestants originally specifically advocated for different ethnic churches. It's part of the Reformation heritage that we have black and white churches, and I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. The Reformers insisted that Church must be in the vernacular, and that different national churches would have different liturgies as opposed to the uniformity of the Latin Mass.
ReplyDeleteComing to 21st century America, people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds go to different churches with different liturgies. What is wrong with that? As long as we acknowledge each other as equal brothers and sisters in Christ, are in communion, and support each other in the mission of the Christian Church to disciple the nations, what could possibly be the objection?
I suspect any objection would be rooted in secular philosophical notions of multiculturalism (a rather opaque concept that roughly translates into celebrating and embracing, not merely tolerating, diversity) and the politics of difference. I assume the fear is that if we do not take time to sympathetically understand others--and part of this is in some way experiencing the life of the other--then we will find it much easier to do violence toward "the other."
DeleteI think this ideal plays a large role in public culture (e.g., programs like NPR's Tell Me More). It even routinely appears in computer games.
I know the SEP has an article on multiculturalism, if you want an additional (or better, perhaps) explanation:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/
I understand the problem of multiculturalism (I was raised to despise it). I think that it is ironically named because those who find no problem with ethnic churches are the ones celebrating a legitimate sort of diversity. I find no problem in acknowledging that people of different ethnicity have different cultures and the non-sinful aspects of those cultures should be celebrated.
DeleteThe opponents of ethnic churches want to throw everybody in some giant "melting pot" and totally destroy their identities. Once the "melting pot" idea was a uniquely American idea, but now it is being held up as something the whole world should strive towards. As a legitimate multiculturalist, I think we would lose something if all of our national and ethnic distinctions were totally destroyed. I don't even think some of our national distinctions will be destroyed in heaven, considering John could identify people of all tribes, tongues, and nations.
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
ReplyDeleteEverybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.