Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 4

This blog series presents a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  My initial intent was to post a new question each week...well, extensive travel in October/November blew that program out of the water.  So much for good intentions.  In any case, these are the prior questions:  

Part 1 "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  

Part 2  "Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?" 

Part 3  "How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood?"

Question 4: If mission among our Neighbors is biblical (and not just recently biblical with the sudden interest in ‘missional’ ministry), why are we not already in relationship with Others in our midst?  

 

If we have come to conclude that multicultural body life is an accurate representation of biblical character, we must acknowledge as well that it has always been biblical!  This begs the question, if a multicultural congregational character is biblical, then why is our church not already diverse?  In other words, what are the pathologies in our church which have kept us from this vision and perspective up until now? 

There are three realms of abiding denial—racialization, cascading demographic change, and Christian segregation—realities which American churches rarely acknowledge...except in conversations of economic and political alarm.  And we wonder why there is such missional paralysis in our churches!  These “elephants” trample around us daily while our indifference cloisters us from social realities.  John Perkins aptly challenged, “Can a gospel that reconciles people to God, and not people to people, be the gospel of Jesus Christ?”  Absolutely not!  But, our friendship networks tell a different story...  Much more can be said, but not now.  However, I will leave you with an thought provoking series on racialization from Paul Louis Metzger.

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 3

This blog series presents a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  In Part 1 I explained the background to these questions and a presented the first question, "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  Part 2 addressed this question: Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?   Which leads us to the third question: 

Question #3: How does God want us to relate to Others in our neighborhood? 

As people to people!  Relating to Others in your neighborhood/community means pursuing relationship, which means spending time together, pursuing friendship.  Are we willing to take the time necessary to get to know our Neighbors?  We are called to reciprocate in hospitality, serve one another, care about each other’s lives...in other words, living as humans together in relationship—incarnating the love of the One who ‘Neighbored’ us.  Usually, we are more concerned about our agenda—‘helping’ them, evangelizing them, organizing them—than actually befriending and loving as Neighbors to Neighbors.  Often, the most we want is occasional participation in some compassion delivery system.  But, our mandate is to love fully and completely with Christ as our standard.    How are we doing in this area…especially as it relates to other Christians?   Our Neighbors...are they scenery? (to ‘color’ my world) are they machinery? (those who do the things I need) or are they people? (like me, created in God’s image)  

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 2

Last week I began a blog series reflecting on a series of questions which arose out of a recent visit with two prospective church planters.  In Part 1 I explained the background to these questions and a presented the first question, "What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?"  Which leads us to the second question:

Question #2: Do we see those with different languages, cultures and beliefs as a threat to cohesiveness in our community?   

Let’s face it many Americans (i.e. those whose immigrant past has faded from present consciousness) have a basic discomfort about the validity of distinct cultures to exist in America without rapid assimilation.   Often there is disconnect between political/economic reservations and outreach motivations which often lead congregations to employ an ‘Evangelism Plus’ mentality.  In other words, not only do they need ‘the gospel’, but they also need to become more like us so that we can all live together.  (The subtext is 'if you become more like me then that makes me more comfortable'.)  Such expectations not only violate the meaning of “love your neighbor,” but they also reveal ethnocentric possessiveness which forgets there is nothing we have that we haven’t been given.  The way of Christ is to love and accept people, any person, as they are, and for who they are.   Recognize and repudiate our tendency to lump people in categories—whether it be economic, political, religious, ethnic, generational, lifestyle—and treat them accordingly, with pre-determined attitudes and arguments.  We are to not sin when it comes to people and identity; such as, realizing that actions may be ‘illegal’, but people are not...therefore, to call a person illegal is to dehumanize someone who an image bearer of God.  

Stay tuned for question #3 next week...

Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic or Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions: Part 1

A couple weeks ago I met with a couple guys who are seeking to plant a daughter church in a significantly diverse neighborhood.  Their sending church is completely homogeneous (all Euro-American), but they are desiring and expecting that their new church plant will be multi-ethnic/multicultural.  This is commendable, but is it naive? Perhaps.  Because presumption kills. 

These fellows came asking for any advice I could give them, but, before extending advice, there were critical questions they needed to ask of themselves.  Key, critical questions which determine how ready and prepared one is for intercultural ministry in a multicultural context.  So, this blog series will introduce the questions I asked of these two church planters and why I asked them.

“Don’t Pursue Multi-ethnic/Multicultural Ministry Without Asking These Questions...”

In recent years scores of pastors have shared their excitement about launching into multi-ethnic/multicultural ministry.  As one who coaches churches in this direction of ministry, I find these conversations usually begin with a series of questions...How do we reach them, or this neighborhood?  What do we do to get started?  How much time does it take?  What resources do we need?  All good questions, but are they the right questions?  When a new ministry vision takes root we naturally gravitate toward organization and implementation; besides, how else would anything get done?  On the other hand, if implementation strategies dominate our planning, then we are presuming that we are ready to pursue this vision.

Any business owner considering a new sector of business opportunity wouldn't dream of diving into a new arena without the due diligence necessary to have a clear picture of what the initiative will mean for every angle of the company.  While I am reluctant to compare church with business (I think there is already far too much of the latter in the former...) However, this ‘due diligence’ concept is a great analogy.

The motivator behind due diligence is the need for caution in the face of an unknown arena, and the list of questions above indicates a significant bloc of inexperience in this sphere of church life and ministry.  While the above questions are not wrong, they are misplaced, premature.  What they reveal is that any church asking such ‘implementation first’ questions likely doesn't have much experience with Otherness.  Appropriate due diligence begins with the right questions, and, they begin with us.

Question #1: What is our church’s track record with Otherness in our community?

Multi-ethnic/multicultural ministry involves engaging the Other, those who are alien to my life experience and networks—it is my ‘them’.  First, there is the neighbor Other, those who occupies my same community spaces, and who may be a recent newcomer, or not.  What makes ‘them’ Other to me is the gulf of life and culture between us.  Far too often, these ‘neighbor Others’ are also the ‘invisible Others’…the ‘unconsidered ones’ who populate the fringes of my awareness. 

In biblical terms, we should read Otherness as “my Neighbor;” the object of the second of two commands which summarize God’s heart for people—love God, love Neighbor.  Far too often we read only incidental immediacy in ‘my neighbor’, as in, ‘my near neighbor who is in need’.  However, Jesus’ reference in Luke 10 draws from Leviticus 19 which teaches God’s people to love “strangers among you,” and “your neighbor as yourself” because they are just like you were, aliens in a strange land.  Why?  because strangers—Others—are the hardest Neighbors’ to love!  Besides, since anyone can be your neighbor, everyone is your neighbor.  Jesus is saying, ‘love the one you are least likely to love’…with all the alacrity and sacrifice we expect for ourselves.  Attitudes and behaviors toward Others flow from beliefs and assumptions we hold about the Other.   Are ‘us’ and ‘them’ clearly understood, if not spoken? 

Lastly, what about the kingdom Others, those who worship and serve our Lord?  We seem oblivious to the reality that—‘if we belong to Jesus, then we belong to those who belong to Jesus’!   What are the implications of this ‘belonging’?   

I'll post question #2 next week...

The Zimmerman verdict and racialization in America

The current blog climate leaves one with the distinct impression that I would be supremely negligent to not weigh in on the topic de jour, the acquittal of George Zimmerman.  My comments, though, address the commentators...pundits and analysts and bloggers.

The bottom line is that the polarization of commentary clearly exhibits the continued and pervasive racialization of American society.  By "racialization" I am not saying that American society is a 'racist' society.   Rather, I mean that race is a constant companion in our society...a factor which has a continually reverberating role.  Not sure you agree? Here are some examples: religion-look at the racial segregation at most places of worship: neighborhoods-segregation is stubbornly present in real estate; economic wealth-as of 2007 median wealth of White families was 20 times greater than Black families; marriage; health; media preferences; life expectancy; politics; loan rates; advertising & marketing; music; and the list goes on and on.  

Racialization is a constant presence in America, and commentary about the Zimmerman verdict reflects this reality.  More specifically, it points to a foundational difference in the way the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy is viewed.  In general, White-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the altercation and aftermath as the narrative of an individual actor.  Whereas African-Americans tend (and are acculturated as such) to view the situation and the aftermath as a narrative of societal systems.  The lenses are different, therefore, what is seen highlights a different hue.

While the consequences of these different perspectives are numerous, I will highlight two.  The first is the assumption that we all see the situation purely objectively without any sort of filtering.  The truth is, we all filter reality.  Secondly, there is the problem of the relative strength of the narratives.  The systemic narrative is at a disadvantage because the individual actor narrative is the dominant voice.

It is for this reason that I appreciate the thoughts of another blogger, Eugene Cho, who reminds those of us of the dominant voice to stop and listen http://eugenecho.com/2013/07/16/if-our-black-brothers-and-sisters-are-hurting-why-cant-we-just-shut-up-listen-and-mourn-with-them/

When death is close and personal...

My best friend is dying of pancreatic cancer.  He may just have a few more days in this life.  When I spoke with him last week, I didn't know it was likely my last conversation with him; for his condition rapidly nose-dived four days ago.  It took all of us by surprise, especially his dear wife of 37 years, but she is inspiring in the midst of her grief.

Of course, we have prayed that God would have mercy on him, that he would be granted many more years. I have known him for over 40 years, I know his life, and such a request seems so reasonable, so clearly beneficial.  You see, my friend is an exceptional example of faith, scholarship, humility and leadership.  His continued life and contribution would be a wide blessing for so many.  He has taught hundreds, even thousands, around the world...and there is so much more he could do for many years to come...and many would glorify God as a result.  Such aspirations seem so reasonable.

Herein is the quandary.  If God takes him now in these next days, this means that God has determined that such a narrative brings him greater glory than the scenario I envision above, the one that seems so reasonable.  Why then do I remain dismayed?  My feelings of confusion are not unlike those of the disciples who scattered in dismay during our Lord's crucifixion...  They were so convinced of another, more glorious, more normal, more expected narrative.

If the death of God's saints brings him great glory, then we do not really understand very much about the glory that godly service in this life supposedly brings.  And so, to take this thought further, doesn't this mean  that our missional service in the world is not as impressive as we might assume?

We don't know so much...

The Bible is too long . . . and too short!

As I read through the Bible yet again, I'm reminded how loooooong it is.  Serious editing needed to cut it down to a manageable read.  Tangents, rabbit trails, and those lists...enough already.  What we need is a concise collection of what is really important, right?  Then again, as I read, I'm often left with questions...what happened next?  why does the story end there?  what is missing from the description which would help me understand?  why can't there be more explanation?    So, clearly, the Bible is too short, because there is so much missing, right?

Could it be that I'm not such a good judge of what is too much and too little?  Someone with more experience in these matters ought to decide . . . I know, the Author.

Label conundrums for diverse churches

Well, I would never be accused of being an avid blogger.  I'm always blogging avidly in my head, but rarely does it move further...  Besides, spewing forth words without direction and organization contributes nothing noteworthy.  Don't we wish more agreed?  Now for the post...

I came across this article in recent days from Michael Emerson and I celebrate the progress where diverse churches are more prevalent than ever.  http://reflections.yale.edu/new-day-multiracial-congregations  I so appreciate Emerson's research and analysis.

The professional sociologists seem peer-bound to use "multiracial" instead of the more common "multiethnic" or "multicultural" or "intercultural."   This is understandable, but it is interesting to note how the rest of us settle on one term as opposed to another.  Some choose the term their favorite author uses.  Others prefer the term their congregation has adopted.  Some see these terms as interchangeable, others strongly disagree.
I'm not bothered if one is preferred over another...I hold them loosely.

Yet, it seems to me that there are some key considerations.  "Multiracial" seems to accentuate the reified  nature of "race," the affirmation of something which doesn't actually exist. Race is presented as something biological, when it is really just an arbitrary social construction.  "Multiethnic" seems to focus too heavily on the genetic aspect, following quite directly from the Jew/Gentile dynamic, but leaving out dimensions which divide us, such as lifestyle interests, economic levels, generations, etc.  Such concerns would seem to push us toward "multicultural" which has a broad net...too broad for some folks.

In the end, though, it is not the 'multiplicity' which matters most, that is, the multiple compounding of ethnicities or cultures.  Rather, it is the relational character of a diverse congregation which most completely reflects the "one new man" reality of the body of Christ.  In this regard, "intercultural" gains traction because it  draws attention to the relational nature, the "inter" aspect...as in "interdependent" or "interactive" or "inter-whatever."

Personally, I prefer to describe the organizational nature of a congregation made up of diverse peoples and cultures as "multicultural."  But, when referring to the character of such an congregation, I believe "intercultural" is preferred.  In other words, a multicultural church, made up of intercultural people.  It's a mouthful, and not so useful as a label, but it tells the story more completely.

So, that's what I think...what about you?