The Institute (協会)

Can you be concrete - what is something that a black Reformed person would say that that doesn't "sound like them"? It would help me understand things better.

Anthony, as we have seen recently in the FV controversy throughout the Reformed world, even white guys are often not allowed to preach/teach/think in ways that do not simply parrot the standard forms and patterns of Reformed theology. Large parts of the Reformed world are not just stuck in a Eurocentric perspective, they are stuck in a 16th- and 17th-century Eurocentric perspective. If we're in a context in which white guys are bullied out of denominations for thinking outside the box, then men of non-dominant-culture backgrounds may find the going even more difficult. As you point out, a black or hispanic pastor may even teach all the "approved" content, but if his style doesn't mirror Mr. Rogers or [some standard, white Reformed, 3-point sermon preacher] then he may still not be accepted.

That is depressing to me for many reasons. Not the least of which is that I need people speaking the gospel into my life from many different perspectives, even if they make me uncomfortable--probably especially if they make me uncomfortable. It's easy to develop corners of my life that I can hide sin in that my own packaging of the gospel doesn't fit into and root out.

"If y'all could have heard the radio interview or recently witnessed a multiply hour meeting I had with Carl Ellis and Xavier in Chattanooga."

Let's stick with the important stuff here: you were in Chattanooga and didn't come to see me?

Barlow, read any of the Xavier's other articles or listen to any of the sermons at Epiphany Fellowship church in Philly (http://www.epiphanyfellowship.org/pages.asp?pageid=46446) so you can hear "how booming God's word is."

Listen to the sermons of Weldon Williams in the Chicago area.

Or the sermons of Eric Waldon (http://www.mthermonbaptistchurch.org/)

Or just listen to the sermons of any of the guys on RBA's website that serve actual all black churches. It's Reformed but is not Eurocentric in imagery, illustration, diction, etc. Some would argue it's so different that it explains why whites will not become members of predominantly black Reformed churches even if those churches are full of middle class blacks (like Redemption Fellowship in Altanta for example). The sermons won't "connect." These pastors, for example, have a platform to help people deal with how the gospel applies to dealing with anger that comes when you experience "white privilege" (like I experienced in Atlanta a few weeks ago at the movies). Without a unique perspective from these pastors their black congregants would never hear, for example, nor have any vision for, how to process "white privilege" when it happens. The dominant culture generally assumes that what is normative for them is normative for all and many are simply incapable to seeing it because they have never been a minority for extended periods of time.

RBA's mission, in part, is to develop reformed Black perspectives because they are going to be different from the dominant culture's view of the world. The resistance of comes with those from the dominant culture are unwilling to acknowledge that the black community is a totally different universe and theology must be completely re-packaged when applied (like one would expect in international missions). There are well-intentioned white guys doing good work in black communities but are missing critical issues that need to be addressed because they are from the dominant culture and can't relate black identity struggles as it relates to the black experience and their people are missing out on a lot.

And don't even get me going about the music. The black experience in America and Africa would warrant culture specific hymns like the ones written directly for Anglos that the dominant culture sings today.

If the dominant culture (conservative or liberal) had ever realized this in the past black liberation theology would have never been created. James Cone wrote because the dominant culture failed to address issues in the black community in ways that blacks could understand and connect.

Sorry Ben, I was only in Chattavegas for a few hours. It was exclusively to meet with those guys while I was driving to Atlanta.

Fellas, in case some still don't get it, Shondell commented this over at RBA's website in response to Xavier's article:

"Well done, Xavier. I too would like to see us move to a place where we did not measure our worth against the backdrop of white theologians and dominant reformed society by simply "blackening" their text."

Fellas, I wish I could communicate better how important this is for blacks who are in the dominant culture's organizations. I'm probably not doing the best job.

Anthony,

You're a cool cat. I have a ton of respect for you, which is why I am probably not knee-jerk reacting to this as I always do. I have generally read/heard things like this and thought" oh great, reverse-racism, that helps." But I do see your point in embracing cultural differences instead of trying to act as if those lines were not there. The difference is not in skin color alone, but life experience, culture, etc. I can see that.

My question in this is what are we whites to do about it? My CO in the Chaplain Corps is a black United Methodist, and really embraces black (in the "African" sense) culture. It's honestly pretty cool if you ask me. I don't really understand it, but I can certainly embrace someone embracing their heritage.

But if the black culture is so different from the Eurocentric leadership of white churches, is black leadership in Eurocentric churches the answer? Or is black leadership in black churches the answer? I would never argue this on the basis of race and stereotype, but your argument for cultural differences can be applied here too.

Please, do correct me if I misunderstand! This just seems to "beg the question" if what you say is true (and I am increasingly inclined to believe).

Great article, Anthony. Some niggers can think for themselves, and thanks for turning me on to this Xavier cat because he's one of them. So are you. Up against the wall dominant culture!

Brad, thanks for the kudos. Great questions. I would say that international mission is probably the best paradigm for understanding the dynamics here. Who would probably be better at reaching Mayan Indians in the Kital region of northern Guatemala, some dude from the US or a Mayan who is a Christian and capable of teaching. I think this is why missions has shifted to raising and training indigenous leadership instead of simply sending in guys from the West.

Many black communities need indigenous leaders who can truly relate and communicate with local black neighborhoods and cultures. This is why Eric Mason is doing such an amazing work among hip hop blacks in Philly, why Driscoll's so effective in Seattle, why Bell exploded in Grand Rapids, etc. they were all indigenous movements within particular cultures.

It's not reverse racism. It's missions. It's understanding that America has sub-cultures that need indigenous leadership and raising indigenous leadership has been lacking. It's ok to recognize that we're not all the same and we don't have to try to be. We need more indigenous leaders to bring the kingdom to their subcultures regardless or what that subculture is. It's missions. The dominant culture does seem to get this which may explain why I get asked, "hey what can we do to get more blacks to come to our church?" This question exposes a couple of things: (1) you don't know many black people and (2) you're not too familiar with many black church cultural norms; otherwise the answer to that question may seem pretty obvious. When you're part of the dominant culture you're not always able to embrace that your norms are not norms. I've never been asked by black church leaders, "what can we do to get more whites in our church" because they know that whites will not embrace and own black cultural norms but many in the dominant culture have no problem expecting blacks to conform to theirs (of course, the dominant culture doesn't usually view themselves that way--as having norms, that is).

When I preach in black churches I have a completely different style, applications, and illustrations, although the theology is the same.
Again, it's missions.

Anthony, do you think this relates to your post regarding college grads in churches? I've been pondering it for a couple days, and I think socio-economic status can result in different cultural norms even among people of the same race/ethnicity. (Although perhaps to a lesser degree?)

Jamie, "I think socio-economic status can result in different cultural norms even among people of the same race/ethnicity"

Absolutely, bro, this is very correct. The black church in America is mainly divided according to doctrine and class. The black middle class and black underclass DO NOT worship together in general. Much like you won't find white trailer park residents worshiping in the same churches as middle-class whites. What would happen their kids starting dating each other? Oh, no!!

thanks Anthony and Xavier for addressing these issues. i've have learned an important lesson in this area...you don't need permission from anyone to be who God created you to be. if you can't be who God created you to be then you aren't free, and if you aren't free then revisit the Gospel which says, "who the Son sets free, is free indeed."

Son of the King, Puerto Rican and Proud...also Reformed

Anthony,

I greatly appreciate that, particularly the missionary distinction and Guatemalan illustration. In that, I wholeheartedly agree and greatly see what you are coming from. Please, allow me to repent of my past views of 'reverse racism,' as I am greatly beginning to appreciate the value of differing cultural norms.

That said, how should (does) this affect church diversity? I hear the guys at The Journey in St. Louis talk about how they want the church to be a cross-section of the community (which, if you ask me is the only way to go). But if the community is very diverse, how does one do that under a united leadership or a single leader (Jesus)?

Again, I totally get what you are saying, but am struggling with how this is played out practically. In the above situation, should a community have multiple self-segregated churches to be relevant to each? Or, is this simply extending consumerism to racial demographics from the retarded trend of having separate "churches" for different age groups? (By this I am referring to the infinite number of programs that families split up to attend and consume instead of remain united and go to church together)

So in short, how does this play out practically?

This is great stuff to chew on, bro... thanks for the continued insight...

Brad, what does it look like? Probably not what many people desire. I've always been against decorating a church like a racial Christmas tree (for the sake of pictures on brochures and bragging about how much better they are than all the homogenous churches--and these people like to brag a lot, it's pathetic--as if something is actually being accomplished because they have gather different people in the same building).

This may be too simple but I'm in favor of churches reaching their local neighborhoods with the Kingdom and letting the results fall providentially instead of manufacturing them. A local neighborhood needs as many different types of churches to reach whatever peoples are there is there, namely the lost, the broken, the poor, the oppressed, etc. I could easily make a case that Hispanic congregations of Latino immigrants might actually be better for Latinos than them being in a multi-ethnic, dominant culture lead church. This strikes me as a particularly Protestant problem. All churches are "self-segregated" anyway. That's unavoidable.

If anyone out there does not think their church is self-segregated they are sadly deceived. The question really is, "on what axis is the segregation occurring--theological, racial, language, economic, etc?"

And I haven't figured out why Koreans, and other Asians, never get challenged about their "self-segregation." I know many black leaders who wish that the dominant culture would leave them alone much like the dominant culture leaves Asian Christians along to do their thing.

Overall, it would be nice if Protestants quit trying to manufacture churches cosmetically and got on with the business of reaching people the Truth. Trying to manufacture the racial result creates oppression and manipulation.

For example, I was working in a church once that was committed to serving the urban poor and bringing them into the church. The problem was that "urban" had been confused with "black." So when I brought them a urban white kid who needed a lot of help and was poor (and had crazy parents) THEY DID NOTHING. I couldn't believe it. They helped tons of others but they were black. They didn't pursue the white kid 'cause he was from the wrong ornament color. That's when I realized that much of the "urban" ministry movement was not really about helping poor people in urban areas.

If a pastor-dude is reaching his local community with the gifts and skills that God gives that particular preacher who cares what the racial cosmetics are? This may explain why the dominant culture is fixated on the urban black community which is the most heavily evangelized areas in America. You can't drive a mile in a black neighbor and not find a church anywhere in America. Meanwhile, poor whites and others get completely passed over. It's really odd.

I'm waiting on a schools to start offering "rural ministry" tracks since most of America's poor are actually white people and drug abuse rates in rural America are far worse than in urban areas. It's not really about "the poor" it's about something else.

berkeleyrican, you are correct and there's a "trail of tears" in south Florida that bears witness to what happens with you're not allowed to remain true to your cultural distinctives.

These are good discussions. I'm interested in your critique of multi ethnic churches and how attempts to form them have led to stupidity and sin (in the example of the white kid you took to the church).

How ever this appears to be more a critique of that church and it's cultural hangups ? and yes I agree (dominant culture) people have all kinds of weird ways which come to the fore in attempts to manufacture diversity.

But ... for multi ethnic church (which I currently do not have access to) -
i) it's my life (family, work, social, sadly not church !)
ii) Scripture commands a blanket outreach to all and then doesn't seem to divide people up - weren't alot of the NT problems in churches the result of people who weren't societally together coming together in church
iii) I am involved in a youth outreach in a city in the UK, where we have on a regular basis at least 5 diff ethnicities - but no church looks like this - I think our 'urban' neighbourhoods are vastly more diverse than yours.
iv)the impact of mixed relationships and by extension mixed parentage children - I get the impression that this is not such an issue in terms of nos with you in the US - but here 50 % of black men are in mixed relationships - so of course black and white are real lived out categories, with consequences (racism, privilege or not etc), but things are a little more complicated, which of course is where class kicks in.

So I'm not sure we should give up on them ...

Colin Thomas

Dude. Anthony. I like it.

Thanks for the explanation, particularly the honesty. I kinda always felt like being "multi-ethnic" was good in that we could fellowship and learn about different cultures, but also felt like we lost something in the relevancy department, and wondered if we were maybe even making an idol out of diversity.

I greatly appreciate the explanation. If Jesus is authentically affecting the hearts and minds of the lost, I don't particularly care how this is done. As long as the "self segregation" (good point with the Koreans, btw) is seen as such and it is very clearly communicated that it is not due to prejudice, I'm very open to it.

Thanks bro, very enlightening.

"As long as the "self segregation" (good point with the Koreans, btw) is seen as such and it is very clearly communicated that it is not due to prejudice, I'm very open to it."

That's hilarious.

If whites "self segregate" it's bad, because it's due to prejudice. When Koreans do it, it's a good thing, because it's not based on prejudice.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Dude, I take it you've not met many Koreans. Or if you have you haven't gotten to know them beyond hi how are you. Because anyone who knows Koreans well (or any Asians for that matter) knows just how they feel about black people. They regard them as little better than monkeys. Yes, even the Christian Koreans. The Christians may not put it that starkly, but they regard blacks as profoundly inferior to all other races, and they look upon social interaction with profound revulsion. You can imagine how they feel about one of their women marrying a black man.

Korean churches aren't self segregated out of prejudice?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

For the record, Koreans and other Asians also regard whites as inferior to them. But they regard whites as far, far above blacks. They look down on us even more for the fact that we think racism is wrong, and allow our people to go to school with and marry blacks.

I'd like to see Mr. Bradley go to some of the Korean Presbyterian churches, which all big cities have several of, and tell them what he has said about whites on more than one occasion: that they'll know they really love Jesus when their sons and daughters start marrying blacks. Let me know it goes, Mr. Bradley.

It's true that you don't see many Asians and Blacks together. I knew one half Thai/half Black girl at school.

Asians understand a nation as a common language, people and religion. Americans understand a nation as an empire, which is exactly what America is.

Merle,

Well, it's a good thing we aren't making sweeping generalizations about half of the global population. But I'm sure you know all about Anthony's personal experience on this matter, as well as how every Korean Presbyterian church would react in this situation (much less an entire country).

Thank you for you profound and incredibly useful insight. We have all grown as a result.

What interesting discussion is taking place here!

What thought provoking questions are being raised!

Clearly after two millennia we still haven't got the race/class issue properly sorted out....

It appears, first and foremost, what is apropos for all is to take a humble look at themselves; it is then easy to see where the roots of racism and classism stem from (consider the comments in regard to how Koreans see blacks and whites. Can we truly say this is indicative of all or even most of Koreans? If we say yes, how do we quantify it? How would we go about developing a mechanism that discovered what every Korean believe?) Truly, in regards of classes of people, we must be very wary of inductive reasoning—even when it appears we have enough evidence to make such statements.

Due to the historical particularity of black life in America and the resulting cross-pollination between cultures, we must recognize there are different expressions to black culture as a whole. As such, it is very plausible that black expressions of culture may look totally different in certain instances to Anglo expressions of culture, and in other cases not so. (This is also true of all cultures by the way.) This may even be the case for one particular group's cultural expression of black culture. That is, depending upon the context, one group may display tendencies that mimic white culture, and a few minutes later display tendencies that are totally foreign. As a consequence, black leadership will look different in each of these contexts.
What seems to be the major point of the article— and its message must not be overly stretched—is recognize and to celebrate each cultural group's distinctions as gifts when they are presented, not just as gifts to that local community but by extension to the communities of the world.

What interesting discussion is taking place here!

What thought provoking questions are being raised!

Clearly after two millennia we still haven't got the race/class issue properly sorted out....

It appears, first and foremost, what is apropos for all is to take a humble look at themselves; it is then easy to see where the roots of racism and classism stem from (consider the comments in regard to how Koreans see blacks and whites. Can we truly say this is indicative of all or even most of Koreans? If we say yes, how do we quantify it? How would we go about developing a mechanism that discovered what every Korean believe?) Truly, in regards of classes of people, we must be very wary of inductive reasoning—even when it appears we have enough evidence to make such statements.

Due to the historical particularity of black life in America and the resulting cross-pollination between cultures, we must recognize there are different expressions to black culture as a whole. As such, it is very plausible that black expressions of culture may look totally different in certain instances to Anglo expressions of culture, and in other cases not so. (This is also true of all cultures by the way.) This may even be the case for one particular group's cultural expression of black culture. That is, depending upon the context, one group may display tendencies that mimic white culture, and a few minutes later display tendencies that are totally foreign. As a consequence, black leadership will look different in each of these contexts.
What seems to be the major point of the article— and its message must not be overly stretched—is recognize and to celebrate each cultural group's distinctions as gifts when they are presented, not just as gifts to that local community but by extension to the communities of the world.

The entire discussion leaves me profoundly sad that the dynamic love shown by Jesus has not changed us more profoundly. It seems that even when a church has seemingly positive motives for reaching-out to others with different skin colors with the gospel, well, it's still just not good enough. It causes me to have a sense of dispair.

Anthony- Are you familiar with the Black Consciousness movement led by Steve Biko in South Africa during the 1970s? I thought of it while I was reading Xavier's article. Biko led a group of black students out of the progressive mixed-race party and formed a new all black one. His reasoning was that the white liberals believed that blacks and whites were equal and that equality meant the blacks had the right to be just like the whites. But Biko said that wasn't enough. Essentially it was keeping the status quo and simply expanding it to allow blacks in. What Biko wanted was to wipe the slate clean entirely and start over.

It sounds a lot like that's what Xavier is getting at as well, is that a fair assessment?

Merle, you have major issues. What you spewed out is so foolish, nasty, and disgusting, you should probably never comment on this blog again. Really, for the sake of preserving honest, helpful discussion, please stay out.