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?
