Charlottesville: How Should the Church Respond?

There are so many good quotes throughout this article. Here are two of them that we who interact on Sharper Iron can think about:

Today more Christians are willing to see racial reconciliation as a genuine gospel issue, but sadly we still disagree on how urgent the issue is and how to confront it. As Carson goes on to say, “Black Christians are far more likely to see that this is a crucial gospel issue, an issue of huge importance, one that is often ignored, while white Christians are more likely to imagine that racial issues have so largely been resolved that it is a distraction to keep bringing them up.”

and later,

Fifth, Christian leaders must learn to listen carefully to ethnic minority voices within our church circles. Sitting down and engaging Christians of color in meaningful conversation to hear their perspectives on local and national social justice issues might be a helpful start. Hear their recommendations on how to make your church more welcoming to minorities. White Christians must be willing to share their privilege and power with other Bible-based Christian leaders and must be willing to invest in emerging minority leaders and to hear their concerns. All of us, whatever our color or culture, must be willing to sacrifice our preferences and comfort zones to build and model genuine multiethnic community for our divided neighbors to see.

My church is in the Pacific Northwest. It’s a very diverse area. Our church reflects that. Here is one quote I have an honest question about:

One of the most significant ways a church can serve its city is by modeling the racial reconciliation that society is desperately looking for within its four walls. Multiethnic churches that bring people together around the gospel and demonstrate loving unity in diversity have a voice and an influence that can radically impact our communities, cities, and nation.

Let’s get practical. Most churches don’t do active evangelism at all. Fact. I’m leading a team of people this Saturday out to several sub-divisions within a mile of my church. We’re passing out doorhangers, inviting people to send their children to our weekly bible club that begins soon. We’ll also be giving the Gospel to folks we encounter along the way. The doorhangers also have the Gospel printed on the back. Here is my question:

• How can I model “racial reconciliation” in a practical way, in real life, as I do evangelism?

I don’t care who lives in the house; they’re getting a doorhanger, being invited to church, hearing the Gospel, and having their kid invited to bible club.

This kind of advice (from the article) is well-meaning, but sounds divorced from practical reality. I don’t care who lives in the house; I’ll be speaking to them. That, by its very definition, is “multicultural.” If God grants them repentance, they’ll come to faith, hopefully join our church, and join us in sharing the Gospel. I have no control over whether an Asian woman comes to Christ, a Hispanic man, or a black woman. How can I? Unless I deliberately restrict my outreach to WASP, middle-class families, this advice is useless to me.

…is whether there are some things typically done in “supermajority caucasian” churches that inadvertently creep out some minorities. On a light note, I can imagine that if a majority Italian church were to greet everyone with the holy kiss, those of Puritan stock might run, and on a more serious note, if your church had a whole bunch of anti-Obama literature, even black Republicans might wonder what was up.

But beyond the obvious stuff, stuff where I think my church is pretty much minding their Ps & Qs, I’m needing some thoughts from people on the ground. In the pews of churches I’ve been in, I see a fair number of asians, Africans, and people from the Caribbean….but not so many of Mexican descent or african-Americans. We see their kids in AWANA, but not on Sunday morning.

[TylerR]

How can I model “racial reconciliation” in a practical way, in real life, as I do evangelism?

I don’t care who lives in the house; they’re getting a doorhanger, being invited to church, hearing the Gospel, and having their kid invited to bible club.

This kind of advice (from the article) is well-meaning, but sounds divorced from practical reality. I don’t care who lives in the house; I’ll be speaking to them. That, by its very definition, is “multicultural.” If God grants them repentance, they’ll come to faith, hopefully join our church, and join us in sharing the Gospel. I have no control over whether an Asian woman comes to Christ, a Hispanic man, or a black woman. How can I? Unless I deliberately restrict my outreach to WASP, middle-class families, this advice is useless to me.

Hear, hear!

In my experience, when people use the terms “social justice” and “racial reconciliation,” they mean something quite beyond just treating every single person around you, regardless of race, with respect, whether personally or in your church.

[TylerR]

My church is in the Pacific Northwest. It’s a very diverse area. Our church reflects that. Here is one quote I have an honest question about:

One of the most significant ways a church can serve its city is by modeling the racial reconciliation that society is desperately looking for within its four walls. Multiethnic churches that bring people together around the gospel and demonstrate loving unity in diversity have a voice and an influence that can radically impact our communities, cities, and nation.

Let’s get practical. Most churches don’t do active evangelism at all. Fact. I’m leading a team of people this Saturday out to several sub-divisions within a mile of my church. We’re passing out doorhangers, inviting people to send their children to our weekly bible club that begins soon. We’ll also be giving the Gospel to folks we encounter along the way. The doorhangers also have the Gospel printed on the back. Here is my question:

• How can I model “racial reconciliation” in a practical way, in real life, as I do evangelism?

I don’t care who lives in the house; they’re getting a doorhanger, being invited to church, hearing the Gospel, and having their kid invited to bible club.

This kind of advice (from the article) is well-meaning, but sounds divorced from practical reality. I don’t care who lives in the house; I’ll be speaking to them. That, by its very definition, is “multicultural.” If God grants them repentance, they’ll come to faith, hopefully join our church, and join us in sharing the Gospel. I have no control over whether an Asian woman comes to Christ, a Hispanic man, or a black woman. How can I? Unless I deliberately restrict my outreach to WASP, middle-class families, this advice is useless to me.

Modeling racial reconciliation in real life is about intentionally going deep in relationship with people from different ethnicities such as African-American, Latino or Asian-American. When the world sees Christians of different ethnicities truly loving each other and ministering together, my experience has been that many unbelievers ask why we love each other because there is so much racial division in today’s culture. I have been able to share the gospel on numerous occasions to progressive liberals that are blown away that a conservative evangelical church like ours is living out racial reconciliation centered on the gospel, but that sees racial justice as a vital implication of the gospel of Jesus. This gives glory to Jesus and adorns the gospel.

Joel wrote:

Modeling racial reconciliation in real life is about intentionally going deep in relationship with people from different ethnicities such as African-American, Latino or Asian-American. When the world sees Christians of different ethnicities truly loving each other and ministering together, my experience has been that many unbelievers ask why we love each other because there is so much racial division in today’s culture

That answer sounds good, and I know you mean well. But, it means nothing to me, practically speaking. We witness to everybody, and develop relationships with everybody - no matter who they are. I’m not going to buy into a “multi-cultural” lens that informs everything I do. That isn’t an issue out here. Out here, we have secular manics at Evergreen State College who make Bernie Sanders look like John MacArthur.

I, too, have often wondered what being a multi-ethnic church would look like for my church in the predominantly white, upper-class subburb where it’s located. Would that mean intentionally not looking like our surrounding community? How does a church become intentional in inviting more ethnic minorities into the church, apart from demographic targeting? We have a Wednesday night evangelism team that goes out every Wednesday night (while it’s still light) and is systematically visiting all the homes in our surrounding community. We run Upward basketball in the winter months. We have VBS in the summer. What else could we be doing to invite more ethnic minorities into our church?

[pvawter]

I think we need to be careful about the assumptions which color much of the conversation about race in today’s church. This article gives some helpful thoughts in that regard.
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/critical-theory-a…

Let me ask you a few questions before so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that the Davis’ article falls into this trap? Why or Why not? Would you agree with these men that the concept of White Privilege is a secular theory that undermines the unity of the church?

[TylerR]

Joel wrote:

Modeling racial reconciliation in real life is about intentionally going deep in relationship with people from different ethnicities such as African-American, Latino or Asian-American. When the world sees Christians of different ethnicities truly loving each other and ministering together, my experience has been that many unbelievers ask why we love each other because there is so much racial division in today’s culture

That answer sounds good, and I know you mean well. But, it means nothing to me, practically speaking. We witness to everybody, and develop relationships with everybody - no matter who they are. I’m not going to buy into a “multi-cultural” lens that informs everything I do. That isn’t an issue out here. Out here, we have secular manics at Evergreen State College who make Bernie Sanders look like John MacArthur.

That’s great that you witness and build relationships with everybody, but I do find it interesting that when we send missionaries overseas, we expect them to be intentional and develop deep cross-cultural relationships, but when it is at our doorstep we can easily dismiss it as buying into a “multi-cultural” lens. I think it would also be wise to remember that the book of Acts goes to great lengths to show that although the church began multi-lingual, it took some time and some struggle to become multi-cultural (Acts 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15).

I get it that the liberals/progressives are quite liberal and progressive, but you have them everywhere, its just more concentrated out in the Northwest. In my early years of urban ministry, I sat on community boards and committees with real socialists. Here was one of their documents that they crafted to make Grand Rapids a more “just” city. Their suggestions are incredibly crazy, such as disarming the police force and of course radically redistributing wealth through a radical tax progression (90% over $100,000, 99% over $1 million, 99.9% over $10 million, etc.) http://radiantjustice.tripod.com/index2.html#

[Joel Shaffer]

pvawter wrote:

I think we need to be careful about the assumptions which color much of the conversation about race in today’s church. This article gives some helpful thoughts in that regard.
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/critical-theory-a…

Let me ask you a few questions before so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that the Davis’ article falls into this trap? Why or Why not? Would you agree with these men that the concept of White Privilege is a secular theory that undermines the unity of the church?

[pvawter]

Joel Shaffer wrote:

pvawter wrote:

I think we need to be careful about the assumptions which color much of the conversation about race in today’s church. This article gives some helpful thoughts in that regard.
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/critical-theory-a…

Let me ask you a few questions before so I understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that the Davis’ article falls into this trap? Why or Why not? Would you agree with these men that the concept of White Privilege is a secular theory that undermines the unity of the church?

I don’t know if the author in the OP embraces all the categories of critical race theory. Upon a closer reading his article does seem to assume some of them, and he seems to contradict himself by arguing for “racial reconciliation” while also suggesting that the categories associated with “race” may not be entirely biblical.
As far as the idea of white privilege, I find it to be a convenient way to bludgeon an entire group based only on skin color. In general I find all types of racism to undermine the unity of the church.

I think you are very naive about human nature to discount the idea of white privilege. It’s hardly bludgeoning an entire group based on skin color, rather it points out you may have some blind spots when it comes to race/culture. Let me share how my pastor has described it:

White privilege is a measurable thing. It’s far too easy to dismiss the perceived experience of a person of color so studies have demonstrated that it is an objective, measurable reality as much as it is a subjective reality. Numerous examples abound. A white man at a used car dealer will be offered a price that is an average of $200 lower than the black man who checked it out earlier that morning. White children aged 12-17 are more likely to use and sell drugs than black children 12-17, yet black children are about twice as likely to be prosecuted for it.When identical resumes are sent to businesses with the only difference being one has a stereotypically white-sounding name and the other has a stereotypically black-sounding name, the white resume is far more likely to get a call back than the black resume. A similar thing is demonstrated when calling on apartment availability. “Tammy” will be told that an apartment is still available while “Tamika” will be told it is not, even though Tammy and Tamika are the same person and called five minutes apart. There are numerous studies that demonstrate these things.”What many white folk fail to understand is that white privilege, while an established fact, is not the problem. The problem is that people of color are not given the same privilege. If Dontae went to the same college, has the same work experience, and has the same community involvement as Donald, then if Donald is called for an interview, so should Dontae. Studies demonstrate that it does not work that way. That’s a problem.Let me add that the concept of white privilege does not mean a white man was hired simply because he was white. That’s a common rebuttal against the idea, but it is not a legitimate argument against white privilege for it misses what white privilege actually is. Most people are hired because they’re qualified. White privilege means that a man was more likely to be interviewed for the position because he was not black. That’s a problem. That is a serious problem. To demonstrate such preferential treatment—and I’ll grant that it’s often unbeknownst to the one demonstrating it!—is contrary to God’s purposes in this world and is an attack on the image of God in man. That’s a problem.” J.T. Richards

The term racial reconciliation came about in the 1960’s and 1970’s through a rural and then urban missionary to impoverished people of Mississippi named John M. Perkins, 20 or 30 years before the whole concept of critical race theory came into existence. Racial Reconciliation was about creating unity among the body of Christ, not divisions.

…is to remember that too many fundagelical churches spent the Civil Rights era trying hard not to integrate—sometimes in ways we don’t even clue into today—and perhaps to reverse that, we ought to make a little extra effort to be attractive to minorities. Make a point of greeting people—let’s be honest, folks, skin color is easy to see. Learn (see my comment above) a little about cultural “dont’s”. Take a look at the decor, music, preaching style, and see if there are some things that are so stereotypically “white” that might be altered without harm. Visit “Stuff White People Like” to get a grasp on some of this. (OK, it’s mostly urban liberals whites, but it’s a start)

Even in Scandihoovian/German Minnesocold, you can find minorities. Give it a shot.

I am quite convinced this “multi-cultural” narrative is not driven by facts. I, too, can give you anecdotes. I have participated in hiring several regulatory investigators, and have interviewed countless people for positions in state government. Nobody here cares about whether they’re white, black or purple. We care about their credentials.

I believe we create more division than we solve by embracing a “multi-cultural” lens which informs everything we do. We are all equal, because we have been made in God’s image - whether we’re Christians or not. People need to realize it, and acknowledge that racism is a terrible sin. In our own contexts, we should press that whenever we have an opportunity to speak truth about racial issue, then pivot to the Gospel as soon as we can.

Beyond that, I see nothing to be gained by apologizing for an alleged “white privilege.” I went to public high school, got married, went into the Navy, had kids, got a degree, and went to Seminary. None of this had anything to do with the color of my skin, and I refuse to apologize for being a white person. I am very concerned this “lens” will foster a self-identity of perpetual victimhood, and will create far more problems than it solves.

In some communities, particularly in the inner-city, multiculturalism and an emphasis on the equal dignity of all people is a theme that is necessary and prudent. People experience racism, and it is a problem. I am not convinced this is a legitimate issue, in my neck of the woods. We’re a multi-cultural area, with people from everywhere. The Pacific Northwest isn’t rural Illinois (where people can be overtly racist).

If you’re in an urban ministry context, I grant you that this is likely an issue. I’m not in that context. This is a big country, with lots of different contexts for ministry. I appreciate where you’re coming from, Joel. I just don”t see it.

… and there are enough bad things I’ve done to feel guilty over things I haven’t.
Besides, some of my ancestors were Latinos, native Americans, and west African slaves, even though I look white. So I never quite know where to hang my hat these kind of debates. Doesn’t seem fair that I have to be with the whites because of my physical appearance. :)