Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed has a recent post on the topic. He askes the questions about the most common temptations of pastors (non-sexual). Past readers of McKnight will notice that his blog is now on beliefnet. I’m not sure I like that move, but I’m sure it is because his blog is so successful.
What do you think are the most common temptations of pastors?
Took my 8 year old to vote today as I have done since he and his brother could walk. Usually, I am in the voting machine in about 3 minutes. Today, it took 40 minutes. My wife took my other son when we got back and it took them only 20. My 8 year old was about as excited as he could get. I think it helped having the long line. He saw neighbors and friend’s parents. He wanted to know what the folks were doing in trying to hand out R and D voting guides (in PA supporters are allowed to stand right by the door and try to influence your vote). He read the ballot and wanted to know who was this Ralph Nader guy and some Bob Barr on the ballot for president.
I confess he helped me push the vote button.
Filed under News and politics
Before considering a theological apologetic for multiethnic churches or some solutions, let’s first consider some background:
Changing Demographics. The racial profile of near suburban communities are changing (those communities just outside of cities). In my community there has been dramatic change. In the last ten years, nearly 2,000 African Americans have moved into my town while some 4,000 have moved into a neighboring town. Approximately 15,000 people of color live within 15 minutes of my church (not counting those that live just across the city line one mile away). While we have attracted a few interracial couples and African immigrant families, Black families have not shown up in significant numbers, and those that have may not stay long or become members.
Lest we become too excited about the presence of interracial couples in predominantly white churches, we should consider why they say they attend these churches. Apparently, these couples find white churches an uneasy, but tolerable, fit. It is hard for either spouse to be a minority but it is less hard for the African American spouse, as they are more used to living in a white world.
Economic Differences? Although census data provide excellent data regarding the change of racial profile of a region, the economic status of new arrivals to a community is a bit less clear. One African American church planter suggested that there are 3 general categories of African Americans in a diversifying suburban community: Upper Class, Blue Collar, Lower Class. The upper class, from his perspective are those who have been in the suburbs for some time and are primarily seeking status in work, house, and church relationships to prove their arrival. He suggested that these folks would be unlikely to attend a White middle-class church, as there would be little status gained in doing so. The middle or blue-collar class folk are those who may also have been in the area for some time and are working hard to maintain their home, and family relationships. The lower class consists of those recently out of poverty and out of the city environment. He suggested that these individuals would be most inclined to return to church in the city in order to give a sense of familiarity and “déjà vu”.
Worship Culture Differences. It is sobering to note that 97 percent of African Americans and 99 percent of Whites attend racially segregated churches. Some of the reasons for such a divide have to do with church culture differences. The Barna report, African Americans And Their Faith, sheds light on the multifaceted nature of Black worship and faith. People of color are much more likely to feel connected to their church when they perceive it to be a place of refuge, a place that understands and supports them in their struggle against subtle but very real forms of oppression. Would they find such a refuge in a predominantly white church? Would they hear words that communicate an understanding of what it is like to live in their world? Further, African Americans spend twice as much time at church than whites and are inclined to see the church as their extended family. On the whole, they seem less interested in small group bible studies at private homes and more likely involved in small groups that focus on specific ministries (e.g., music, child care, diaconal, etc.).
Racism, Stereotypes, Prejudice, Ignorance and the Church. Issues of racism remain at the forefront of minority life. While the more obvious and violent forms (e.g., baseball bats to bodies, burning crosses) are rare, the subtler forms of racism (e.g., institutional) and prejudice are alive and well. First, few whites understand the power of white privilege: the ability to move about in the community without being noticed or suspected of crimes, the ability to have one’s identity be based on more than skin color. Organizational prejudice (e.g., glass ceilings, suddenly filled jobs or apartments, etc.) continue.
It is fair to ask whether Caucasian churches participate in this kind of behavior? The evangelical church, while not supporting racism and even speaking out against it (though maybe rarely), participates in institutional racism when it remains ignorant or silent about the current painful experiences people of color face. It participates in institutional racism when it individually repents of prejudice but ignores the need for corporate social justice so sadly missing in our society.[1]Dominant culture individuals tend to see reconciliation and justice through the lens of individual behaviors. But when the church ignores people of color in its own community while sending ministry teams to needy individuals in the inner city it may send a message that minorities aren’t in this community but only “over there.” The church participates when it treats minorities as strangers when they have attended the church for some time. The church participates when it sends foreign missionaries to training schools to learn how to contextualize the Gospel but seems unaware or unwilling to engage ethnic minorities living next door. Neglect of race issues, whether from ignorance or from seeing it as not pragmatic or important is a sin and minimizes the fact that the church should be a visible testimony to “God’s wisdom of making Jew and Gentile one creature in Christ.”[2] Prejudice exists in many White churches today because of the inherent power of being in the dominant culture coupled with the sin if complacency and indifference. In short, we white folk just don’t have to be concerned about race and racism.
[1] For an historical and sociological review of the Evangelical response to racism, see Emerson and Smith’s Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America published by Oxford in 2000.
[2] Ware, p. 28.
On Halloween I took the family to the suburban cemetery woods to look for deer. Spotted 7 or so, including a 4 pt. buck. The youngest was afraid of being head-butted by a deer. I told him none would get that close to us.
Well, I was wrong about how close. After going down one trail, we decided to turn around. 30 seconds after turning around I spot a deer trailing us. We froze and the deer kept coming, eating yellow leaves as she picked her way closer. She clearly saw us but was intrigued. My 10 year old held up a yellow leaf to see if she’d come all the way. She got within 8 feet and then sauntered off in another direction. Later when we were returning to the car, we ran into her again (her face had a pretty unique marking near the mouth). Again, she wasn’t particularly concerned about our presence. Maybe others nearby feed her?
On Sunday, I returned to the trails to take my eldest and his friend. They got to see several deer but also as we were driving away, we saw a statuesque red fox observing us and the deer nearby.
For the suburbs, the kids see way more wildlife here than I did growing up in Vermont. There are some benefits to suburban sprawl (at least to us humans interested in seeing the wildlife). In the last week they have seen wild rabbits, ground hogs, fox, deer, and an opossum.
Filed under Uncategorized
I plan to put forward an apologetic for multiethnic churches (where possible of course) over the course of several posts. Here’s my start that ends with several key questions I’ve heard asked over the years:
Imperative or Immaterial?
Church fellowship is not an optional part of the Christian life. It’s the God ordained structure whereby we corporately worship him, are refined in our faith, and serve others. It is to be a place that exemplifies the character of God: united (i.e., as the Trinity is united and as God is actively breaking down the walls between Himself and his children and between his children), pure (e.g., leaders and members that honor God in all of life), full of mercy (e.g., care for those within and outside the body), lovers of justice (e.g., Matt. 23:23f, Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.), and lovers of the Gospel of reconciliation. The body of Christ is a complex organism, needing every member, every gift, in order to function properly. The church, when it functions well, balances discipleship, evangelism, and worship as a means to root the Gospel into the whole of every member’s life. Although the church is its own community, it always exists within a larger community and is called to love its neighbors both near and far. To reach that end, the church must be a welcoming community to all in order to bring the Gospel to all. The welcoming church strives to exhibit more of the culture of the Gospel and less the dominant human culture. This does not mean that human culture is somehow irrelevant or that any people can remove themselves completely from their own culture. However, it does mean that we do not pay homage to our human culture in ways that hinder others. Instead, we willingly respond to the cross by sacrificing our own comforts for the sake of the spiritual growth of others. So, we always labor to shape the church’s culture by questioning how we best serve the lost around us.
But, when the church no longer represents her local community, how does she create a welcoming environment that emphasizes Gospel culture and welcomes cultural minorities? Is there more to this than greeting new people and inviting them to join our groups? More fundamentally, we must ask ourselves why we do not attract the culturally different? Do we have the option of remaining a monoculture, instead only financially supporting those ministries that minister to a particular ethnic group (because we believe that those churches will minister more effectively to that group)? While funding other ministries is a good idea, the church that desires to be a welcoming community must be willing to enter the world of minority cultures in order to know its issues, concerns, desires, beliefs, etc. Only then will we know how to welcome them and how to point them to Jesus. This will require us to be uncomfortable and to work against the tide of indifference. If you are like me, you have to admit that we more comfortable supporting ministries half way around the world than we are crossing the street to reach the culturally different in our own world.
When people from the dominant culture begin to wrestle with the prospect of multiethnic churches, a variety of questions arise:
a) Is multiculturalism part of the Gospel or a relativistic fad? Is it really practical?
b) If “they” are most comfortable in their churches and we are most comfortable here, is it really necessary to work so hard to make us both uncomfortable?
c) Won’t we lose our own culture and identity if we integrate with people from other ethnic and cultural surroundings?
d) Are we really doing anything that would discourage others from coming if they wanted to be here?
e) Is it really practical or possible in this racialized world?
Filed under Christianity, church and culture, Race, Racial Reconciliation
Congratulations to the Phillies. They stayed focused after 46 hours of delay to win the World Series. It was fun that the game last night lasted only 3 more innings. I let my boys stay up to watch it and so the weird rain-delay suspension worked in their favor. I’ve thought that MLB was doing a disservice to their future fans by having the games so late here in the East.
This morning I heard reports of hooliganism: cars overturned, windows smashed, and other destructive behavior. Likely the number of violent and criminal actors were small and similar to other cities that win national championships. Normal maybe, but it does raise the question as to WHY do individuals engage in violence as a means to celebrate their team?
So, I got on my PsychInfo database to see what I could find on the topic.
Not surprisingly, most of the literature is about European and South American soccer matches. It seems that English hooligans are seen as the worst. But, I found little in the way of helpful information to get to the psychology of mob violence after sporting wins. But I did find these little tidbits:
1. Intergroup relationships that increase a common identity serve to establish group power and a sense of legitimacy. Hence why most of Broad Street was impassable. Individuals by the thousands hung out on the street with no sense to make room for cars. They felt they had a legitimate right to be in the street and the power to be there even when cars might need to get through.
2. The higher the profile of policing, the higher risk of disorder. Hmmm. Seems the more police appear in para-military or riot-gear the more fans feel aggressive. The flip side was found true in 2004 in Europe. Lower profile policing seems to build the sense that the police and the fans share the same goal: celebration. Hmmm again. Maybe this is why when I become more authoritarian in the home, I get less cooperation.
3. The pathway to violence may be this: winning plus alcohol = increased aggression. Apparently, losing does not increase violent behaviors. Winning doesn’t dramatically increase happiness (so the study found) but does increase aggressiveness.
By in large, this is an understudied phenomenon. Someone developed an incomprehensible “Elaborated Social Identity Model of Crowd Behavior” but it wasn’t particularly helpful to my questions.
I guess one of my problems is that I am not attracted to crowds of any kind and so mob celebrations whether at an official parade or after a game make me want to run. Just watching the crowd last night on TV made me feel a bit claustrophobic.
Filed under Identity, Psychology
In the last 2 weeks I’ve heard several stories of individuals getting into heated discussions with other christian friends about whether to vote for Obama or McCain. Each of these stories are told by someone considering Obama as their vote. Each one describes their friend as nearly or actually questioning their sanity or faith if they would vote for Obama. I have yet to hear someone saying that a vote for McCain has cost them a relationship in their church.
Seems to me there are a couple of key reasons some Christians get up in arms over Obama.
1. He is clearly pro-abortion rights. He has as much as said he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice nominees. Thus, a vote for Obama is a vote for the continuation of abortion and probably a roll-back on restrictions that have been one in the last decade.
This argument has merit and I can see Christians having strong opinions and questions about the conscience of other Christians who are planning to vote for him. On the other hand, justice issues take many sizes and shapes. While you may disagree with the democratic plan for dealing with the poor, they are the ones more likely to talk about care. Justice and care for the widow and orphan (the poor) is considered to be one of the key facets of the Christian faith (Matt. 23:23). Should abortion trump all other justice issues. Do those who vote for McCain squirm over capitalistic idolatry and the false assumption that individuals will do enough to care for the poor? Do Republicans walk the walk about voluntary sacrifice (and so actually really give sacrificially to the poor) when they accuse Democrats of trying to force it via taxation?
2. Obama is a socialist and is for big government control and mandate into all aspects of life. Our faith rights will be restricted under his power.
Again, it is an interesting debate about the role of government. I think we should be discussing the size and influence of government. Do all Americans have a right to health-care? Should the government pick up the tab? Why? These are good questions. But, should a debate here lead to the questioning of one person’s faith? I don’t see that. Scripture doesn’t support a capitalistic or socialistic government, a small government or large one. We are commanded to submit to our leaders. We are commanded to care for the poor.
Let’s not divide the church and question each other’s faith when we have political differences. The issues are important and there will be real consequences when either candidate gets elected. Let’s debate those and not the faith commitments of our brothers and sisters.
Here in PA we’ve been under a barrage of political ads for some time now. The kids hear or see them quite regularly. When my now 10 year old was 4, he wanted to know why a certain candidate was so angry. He was seeing ads by the candidate’s opponent with less than flattering photos. He proclaimed that he would vote for the one candidate because he smiled more than another.
I suspect we adults choose using similar decision-making skills. Voting may be less intellectual than we would like to admit.
Now we come down to the wire and here are snippets of conversations with my kids
8 year old: Dad, who are you going to vote for? I hope it is Obama?
Me: Why?
8 year old: Well, he’s black.
Me: Why do you want a black president?
8 year old: White people are always being president and leaders and its about time a black person gets to be president.
Me: Yeah, I agree with you, its about time.
8 year old: Why do they have to be so mean to each other?
Conversation with my 10 year old this am:
Me: So, who would you like to vote for
10 year old: Obama
Me: Why?
10 year old: [after saying I don’t know]. I guess because he seems to have more ideas.
Me: Does his being black have anything to do with it?
10 year old: Yeah, about 50% of my reason.
FYI, my kids are black. It is clear that without any real influence one way or the other by their parents, they both really identify with Obama based on color. And I’m pretty sure that my youngest will be very crushed if Obama isn’t elected. He takes these things very personally when things don’t go the way he hopes.
Filed under cultural apologetics, News and politics, parenting, Race, Racial Reconciliation
Yesterday I had the good pleasure of walking in the woods with my camera. Didn’t get great pictures but enjoyed a game of tag with several does. Was hoping to see the buck who had been scraping off his velvet. Maybe next time.
This little wood is an undeveloped part of a local cemetery in the middle of suburbia. Not much of anything, really. Yet, it gives me a wonderful experience: a great sense of quietness, light from the bright-colored leaves, the focus for walking silently and observing every little noise or movement, and connection to my younger days of going off in the woods to play or hunt for real. It was great medicine for a Sunday pm irritability that I hadn’t been able to shake.
Does walking in the woods do something for you?
Filed under Uncategorized
Jennis Brandon-Watson has a short pieceon her experience of whiteness. She is southern-raised, white, (possibly married to a black man?), progeny of a slave owner, schooled in both racialization and Christianity and a member of Theta Nu Xi sorority. She concludes her thoughts with this question,
“Who defines what multiculturalism is? Is it defined according to the dictates of those in power–whites–or is it defined by minorities? These are interesting questions to ponder, but we must reach beyond settling for an answer and we must consider why it is important to answer the question. The answer will determine who we are as a multicultural sorority. I will further direct this examination by posing another question to you, reader. Is multiculturalism the support of our present social arrangement with all of its institutional manifestations by merely declaring peaceful coexistence and railing against the concept of racial categorization, but without engaging in potentially self-sacrificial action? Or…is multiculturalism the act of tackling fundamental issues of justice and perpetuating, in word and deed, the spirit of the Civil Rights era?” (p. 14)
All isms have a dream attached to them. What is the best dream of multiculturalism? (note, not the downside or the unintended consequences, the best dream). Peaceful coexistence? Demurring racial categories (color-blindness)? Mutual submission and/or cross pollination? Justice for all?
Filed under Black and White, Christianity, Identity, Race, Racial Reconciliation
Musings on Faith and Psychology 