Churches Should Stay Segregated
(h/t E. Cho and the random platypus)
The sentiment expressed in this title is one that I wholeheartedly am against. Citing my past context(s), I believe Korean churches / missions ought not stay Korean forever (the only exception is if Korean immigration continues at the rate it did in the 70’s to 90’s which it is not ). My current context also says, white churches in fastly diversifying towns ought not stay white (or should at least make initial forays into cross-cultural ministry and diversity education). What’s happening in this dialogue however is that I am finding some voices across the ’sphere that say churches SHOULD stay in their ethnic enclaves. What do you think? Ethnic ghetto-ization or preservation of our valued heritage?
I also want to debunk some myths about “multi-ethnic” churches:
- The purpose of m.e. churches is to lose our own culture. Wrong. The purpose of m.e. churches is to empower people of culture to become missional.
- M.e. churches steamroll over culture. Most people who attend diverse churches have a strong sense of their culture even though several generations removed from it.
- If we join m.e. churches we forget our heart language. Correction. Multi-ethnic churches give our heart languages an expression to a broader-reaching audience. For example, the virtues of “early-morning Korean prayer” ought be shared with other peoples. Why should we keep these treasures to our selves?
- M.e. churches are just another politically-correct attempt to “melting-pot” the church. Nope. I would argue there is a very strong theological rubric and argument for diversity. Call me out on this one.
- M.e. churches are out to destroy the ethnic church. No way man. We respect mother-tongue churches. There’s a legitimate need for them. But we question the effectiveness of English ministries that cannot get past the hangups of cultural codes, inside jokes, ethnic biases.
No I totally agree with what you’re saying. I’ll write more on this later but I do believe there is a LOT of value in interacting with someone unlike you and who comes from a different culture than you and still being able to worship God together. I think that is great. That is a great biblical value.
At the same time I do see the issue as much more complicated than: “The bible says diversity therefore multiethnic churches are the biblical ideal.” I see the value in multi-ethnic churches as an expression of diversity, but I also see the value of mono-ethnic churches as a expression of the same diversity.
I’m sure you’ve read: http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/2007/01/12/asian-churches-unbiblical-i-think-you-mean-multiethnic/#comments
I see what you’re saying in debunking myths of the multi-ethnic church, but in practical terms, in real multi-ethnic churches the losing of culture/melting pot stuff are still real issues. There are a whole bunch of post-colonial/power discourse/dominant culture/mimicry issues that must be dealt with. That doesn’t mean they cannot be dealt with, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Maybe I’ll write my thoughts on the issue in more detail a bit later.
PS I was reading your blog (and adding it to my reader) for the first time too when I saw your comment :p
I would argue that M.E. churches and the M.E. movement perpetuate a counter-productive ideology to mission and Kingdom expansion.
We need to define multi-ethnicity in the context of a church community. From there we can understand how multi-ethnicity is constructed and how it is practiced. Is multi-ethnicity based on population, values and norms, or ritualistic practices? Is a multi-ethnic church a form of community where various cultures have (about) equal representation in the population? Or perhaps a multi-ethnic church is a community with one dominant culture (with a majority of representation) with many minority cultures? Do these communities worship together, eat together, live together and work together? Or are these communities that worship separately and have separate political structures but merely share a church name? Or perhaps, are these communities that mere share a church building? Or perhaps is this a totally newly created community that is only a community because of the notion and ethos of this overarching idea of the “multi-ethnic” but in fact is a singular culture?
Often times multi-ethnic churches are birthed through a singular ethnic group specifically addressing multi-ethnicity in a urban/multi-cultural context which preserves dominant practices and forms of worship that are native to the original ethnic group. The minority ethnic groups must assimilate into the dominant culture of the community, sometimes preserving some of their cultural practices, but more often conforming to community values and practices. And while multi-racial churches do exist, they often perpetuate a singular culture along class lines (upper/middle income). Multi-ethnic churches are centralized. No matter how you argue this, they are centralized through values, worship, language, class and culture. Ethnic groups are always ethno-centric—everyone sees life through their own values and perspectives and will always prefer that perspective. Thus multi-ethnicity cannot be a marginalized ethnic value. Chinese people will always value Chinese values. Blacks will always value the black experience. Instead, it is a white American value to be multi-ethnic, to become the façade of “one people”—a disgraceful color-blinding of race and culture. However, these are merely observations of mine through readings and personal experiences—not generalized fact. I appreciate any counter-perspectives
Therefore, we need to approach the discussion of multi-ethnic churches on a theoretical and theological level.
From a theoretical perspective of multi-ethnicity, any centralized form of culture and community acts contrarily to the “sending forth” of the Gospel. In missiological discourse, Jesus Christ, the central and key actor of the Christian faith, became man (in the fullest sense of “man”) to manifest Himself to us in a way we could understand—through flesh and blood. He put aside his glory and power to be with us and to love us (Phil 2:6-8). The Incarnation has never been centralized. Instead, it is decentralized in manner, it is outward, propelled forward–not “bringing in” or attractional in any way. Christ was “sent forth” from the glories of splendor of the heavens into the wretchedness of the human experience. All for what? For the sake of God’s unexplainable, unfathomable, incomprehensible love for us. Then how can ethnic communities meet in one centralized house of worship and at the same time preserve the beauty of diverse cultures? How can cultures express their love for Christ in their mother-tongue, their traditions and rituals, in the way God meant them to? This is virtually impossible. There will always be a dominant and singular culture and a dominant way of worship, community, ritual and values that will be perpetuated within the community. This totally deconstructs the notion of a missional M.E. church. Instead, true mission happens through contextualization—the manifestation of the Gospel through cultural practices, norms and values. Perhaps the form of the M.E. church needs to be examined. I would opt for a multi-site, multi-ethnic, church planting church that preserves and encourages cultural practices in their indigenous communities.
Wayne,
Thanks for bringing these issues up. They’re important. As a middle-class white dude who cares about church and church planting, I really have internal tensions here. I read a book earlier this year (People of the Dream) that had a convicting statement in it – white people tend to only do well in a multi-ethnic church if it has a “white culture.” Once an M.E. church starts expressing another culture as dominant, the white people go away. I think this says A LOT about power in our culture – we white folks are very accustomed to having it – even when we don’t realize we have it. It seems that we need to learn how to name that power, and willingly give it up in order to share it.
ecsupa – You said “true mission happens through contextualization.” I agree with that – but there are a lot of cases in which that would point to the need for a multi-ethnic church. I live in the Seattle area and work in the University District. When I walk the streets I see people of every background, restaurants representing the food of most of the world, and a big mix of people. Wouldn’t contextualization in that area look multi-ethnic?
That’s all I’ll say on this. Again, as a white male, I need to listen more than speak.
@ ecsupa: I really have a hard time with your opening thesis: “I would argue that M.E. churches and the M.E. movement perpetuate a counter-productive ideology to mission and Kingdom expansion.”
I think I understand where you’re coming from and I’m sympathetic to that and even agree with it to an extent. But I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and your zeal for your argument is blinding you to some different perspectives. You’re arguing cogently, but I think you’ve picked the wrong cause to apply your (formidable) debating skills.
“any centralized form of culture and community acts contrarily to the “sending forth” of the Gospel.” Doesn’t that already debunk your argument for monoethnicity?
“true mission happens through contextualization”. Exactly. Then how is staying culturally monoethnic contextualizing to its larger community? Unless, of course, that “larger community” is all the same ethnicity as the church, but I know of *very few* places left that are like that. In such places, sure, monoethnic churches are needed because English is not the primary language. But a few generations later, I would say get out and engage the culture at large around you.
@ steve: I observed much the same about the U district when I was working there a few years back… I’m not too far from u, up in the burb of Bham. This quote:
“white people tend to only do well in a multi-ethnic church if it has a “white culture.” Once an M.E. church starts expressing another culture as dominant, the white people go away. I think this says A LOT about power in our culture – we white folks are very accustomed to having it – even when we don’t realize we have it. It seems that we need to learn how to name that power, and willingly give it up in order to share it.”
is killer. I really really feel this and need to chew on this for a long time. I’ve observed this phenomenon as a church planter and couldn’t place my finger on it, but it bothered / hurt me at times. I dismissed it as reverse-race frustration but no, I think you’ve vindicated some of my feelings. Thank you my brother… and by all means listen but talk too.
I agree with what steve lewis said about m.e. churches having a dominant culture. I addressed this in a post entitled “The myth of diversity” where I make the case that often these well-meaning churches may appear multi-ethnic, but they contain a single culture:
http://danielkeng.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/the-myth-of-diversity/
Minorities spend six days a week living in a white world. We spend most of our lives realizing how different we are. There are many well-meaning white Christians who look at their mostly white social groupings (churches), realize how politically incorrect it is, and wonder why minorities don’t go to their churches. Then many of them condemn our ethnic-specific models, citing Revelation 7 and other Scripture passages because (I venture to suggest) they feel guilty about their own segregation, and decide to blame it on the minorities’ refusal to go to their churches.
What I want to ask is, if you want diversity, why don’t you come to my church? Why do I have to join their white churches so they’re the ones who stay comfortable? Ken Fong wrote about this in his book, “Pursuing the Pearl.” It seems like whites don’t want to leave their discomfort level for even 3 hours on a Sunday, while minorities stay uncomfortable all week. What’s wrong with this picture?
Will you find out about me, my Chinese-experience, in order to minister to me? I’m not saying you have to have had the same experience, but will you care enough to learn about me? Or do you want me in your church to fulfill your quota just to make your church look politically correct?
“Churches Should Stay Segregated”
While I believe that it’s acceptable and sometimes beneficial for churches to stay segregated, I would never say “churches should stay segregated” as one general statement. The issue again, is very complex. It’s not a right or wrong, black and white issue. I believe there’s a lot of value in interacting and worshiping with people of different skin colors and ethnicity but I also see a lot of value in worshiping with people of your own ethnicity with your own cultural expressions, in your heart language.
That’s quite a strong statement.
Well said, Daniel.
Hey Cindy. Yes, us bloggers are sensationalists. We have to put up these ridiculous yet eye-catching titles. That’s all it’s about
Yeah despite this multi/mono ethnic dialogue I do agree w/Eugene Cho that in the end we’re arriving at the same conclusions. I voice a very strong pro-ethnocentric opinion over @ DanielEng’s site which talks about white churches saying it’s unbiblical for minorities for not going “multiethnic” – western imperialism at its’ finest.
If multiethnicity has as an objective to smush everyone into the proverbially flawed “melting pot” then something is seriously jacked up. Culture should never be eradicated in favor of being blind to race.
dead link. here it is again to Daniel’s post…
http://tinyurl.com/meltpot
I got the impression that everyone seems to agree with diversity in principle and just differs in methods or models to achieve it. Let’s get on with some discussion and sharing about the pro’s and con’s of certain methodologies and models.
I like to study the word and the Greek or Hebrew meanings behind the translations that exist today. On this subject though, I have a very simple approach.
Once upon a time, there was a man named Adam and a lady named Eve. And then a little later on there was a man named Noah who, along with his wife and children and their wives, restarted humanity after a great flood.
Every person I meet is a long, lost relative that I haven’t taken the time to meet – but I would like to.
I am always intrigued by these ideas of diversity. There are probably billions of differences between me and another human being, yet we typically focus on 4 or 5 things to distinguish ourselves from another. We have been trained to do that…. and now we must untrain ourselves and our children.
That is not to say the diversity (our differences) shouldn’t be celebrated. I celebrate my wife’s birthday on a different day than my daughters because they are on different days, but I celebrate them both in the same spirit. That does not cause division it actually causes unity because we look forward to those differences.
Peace.
http://tonyyork.wordpress.com
Wayne: I am defining a multi-ethnic church as a form of newly hybridized mono-ethnic church which serves under the facade of “diversity.” I have never seen a church that truly demonstrates a multi-ethnic demography (where no one ethnic group dominates the population) and work. Under this assumption my statement “any centralized form of culture and community acts contrarily to the ’sending forth’ of the Gospel,” makes sense… because multi-ethnicity in the States is merely a hybridization of cultures (usually yuppie, AsiaAm, upper-middle class).
“True mission happens through contextualization” –I am talking about form here. I believe in cross-culturalism and an incarnational approach to mission (missionary conforming to culture, not culture conforming to missionary), However I do not believe in mono-ethnicity under the facade of multi-ethnicity–something that you seem to be advocating. Correct me if I’m wrong.
However, I do feel that the M.E. movement does serve a beneficial role for Asian Americans and second generation Asian immigrant children. Many Asian-American churches/pan-Asian churches call themselves “multi-ethnic,” even they aren’t really multi-ethnic. However, the M.E. movement allows these second-gens to rationalize theologically their exodus from the ethnic church.
Multi-Ethnic churches are REALLY either White or Asian American by culture (with an emphasis on cross-cultural awareness). Thats just a fact of the matter.
What I would REALLY like to see is a hardcore missionary movement to reach peoples and nation groups across the world, that we would be more concerned about Christ than multi-ethnicity, that we would be more concerned about demonstrating Christ’s love through social justice, community development and political advocacy, rather than a yuppified, colorblind form of church. The M.e. movement, to me, seems to be a weak-sauce manifestation of a “lets-all-just-get-along” mentality, rather than a full-blooded prophetic call for this generation to rise up to the challenges of our time. Stop making multi-ethnicity a theological argument or a catch-all movement and accept the racial realities of the Asian-American experience.
Perhaps you can tell me about your church. How do you celebrate diversity within your church? How many languages do you worship in? How many cultural services do you have? What is the ethnic/racial demographic?
Steve Lewis:
I appreciate your sensitivity to the topic. But don’t think just because you’re a white guy you can’t say anything substantial.
I agree that globalization is uniting cultures around the world in cities and communities like the University district of Seattle. In the church I used to go to (an ethnic Chinese church) the community mostly consisted of Filipinos and Vietnamese and Mexicans. However, there are still distinct ethnic enclaves that exist within these communities that cannot be ignored. And these distinctions need to be recognized and the tensions between these ethnic communities need to be addressed. There is also an immigrant reality that exists with ethnic community groups in America that needs to be understood in the context of cultural domination and Western colonialist cultural assimilation. I am wary of white churches going “multi-ethnic” because ethnics usually have to assimilate to a dominant Western Christian values that can be harmful to our understanding of the Gospel.
While multi-culturalism is nothing new, I would argue that only urban/city centers have a multi-ethnic aspect and many rural and country-side communities remain mostly homogeneous. I don’t advocate an urban theology, unlike Tim Keller, because I find that argument biblically unsubstantiated. Are we to label rural communities unbiblical on the grounds that they lack a multi-ethnic calling? Are we to deem country-side communities as less special or less spiritual on the grounds that heterogeneous populations are more holy? This is what I mean by “true mission means contextualization” with an understanding that the gospel is sent forth to ethnic groups across the world, never coercing them into a centralized few of the Gospel, instead a transformed and renewed understanding of Christ’s love in their individual cultural context.