"The fact is small groups aren't as important to other ethnicities as they are to white people."
Out of Ur asks “Are Small Groups Just for White People?”
“White people rely on small groups to connect. Other ethnicities form community more organically, more relationally. Immigrant communities find fellowship within extended families. In the city a lot of community happens on the front porch or sidewalk. So non-whites aren’t as eager to set up structures and systems like small groups.”
The article is a bit surprising seeing that it opens the door for responses not just contained in the article (which sadly, once again, posits the “white” as failing to be the asset and appreciate others). But it has been my experience that honest and frank discussion concerning the anthropological/biological differences in the races (one may even have in view ethnic demarcations) is truly not possible in most settings. And certainly those settings include Christian brothers and sisters who, even among conservative Christians, have been poisoned with the guilt of political correctness, hence intimidating their own minds and souls and forbidding themselves to say what is obvious, true or discoverable.
Of course, the problem with all of this (“all of this” meaning the discussion and merits of an anthropocentric centered church structure) is that if one purposes to have a small or large group they have departed from the design by God. The cause for gathering is first Christ and then with respect to being taught, the Pastor/teacher, not the preference for group size.
An interesting quote from the article demonstrates just why there will never be a fruitful conversation with many believers:
Of course, the problem with all of this (“all of this” meaning the discussion and merits of an anthropocentric centered church structure) is that if one purposes to have a small or large group they have departed from the design by God. The cause for gathering is first Christ and then with respect to being taught, the Pastor/teacher, not the preference for group size.
An interesting quote from the article demonstrates just why there will never be a fruitful conversation with many believers:
Jennifer Idoma-Motzko (elder): They say it’s not the right way to do church. And I respond bluntly by saying, “You mean it’s not the white way to do church.”Sad but typical.
Bro. Alex- that’s pretty much how I felt on the first reading of this article. There are cultural differences, and ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. But why does this have to degenerate into ‘this is a white thing’ and ‘that’s a black thing’ along with the implication that one is ‘good’ and the other is ‘bad’.
I do not think the above responses are profitable ways of engaging the article. It’s anecdotal, obviously, but, unless we are accusing the respondents of being liars or mistaken, then at least in their church what they say is true.
It seems eminently plausible that different cultures would have different means of forming community, and small groups do fit nicely into the priorities and cultural sensibilities of many white Americans. So, that seems like something worth discussing, especially if one is in an a multi-ethnic community and is, hopefully, thus trying to have a church that represents the community in which it is placed. It’s quite possible that the observations about small groups are not generalizable; even still, the relationship between culture and community formation is an important one. It would be interesting to hear from Jason Janz, for example, on this, as he works in a multi-ethnic church, if I recall properly.
As to Alex’s statements about “anthropological/biological” (I’m not sure what this means) differences, many conservative Christians have good reason to be afraid of such talk, as they have already been justly tarred for being racist in their past (certainly in the South). That said, setting aside the language Alex uses, a lot has been written about these issues, and I am among those who find the attempts to explain IQ differences, for example, by reference to race a very dubious procedure indeed.
Besides the problems with “race” as a category, I think invariably culture plays the determinative role in these issues, including a role that could and in some cases actually has led to group characteristics.
Obviously eugenics in principle has an obvious biological point: if you mix a highly intelligent person with an unintelligent person, you will get an overall reduction in the transmission of intelligence. There has been controversial research on Jews in New York (maybe all of America, I can’t remember), that plausibly argued that, yes, in fact Jews are smarter than most because of their culture and the way it affects whom they marry, etc. (There was an article about this in Slate a couple years back).
But, again, note that it is cultural factors the produce what is eventually generalizable observations about the group in question.
Until certain groups, like poor blacks in America, are given better educational opportunities and adopt a different cultural view of education, work, etc., no data about race or biology are going to be remotely persuasive or even relevant. Generally speaking, the appeal to biology or race by some and the appeal to material environment by others are both ways of avoiding the much more difficult and relevant question of culture, a question on which there has been a good deal of research - some of which, incidentally, is presented in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers.
It seems eminently plausible that different cultures would have different means of forming community, and small groups do fit nicely into the priorities and cultural sensibilities of many white Americans. So, that seems like something worth discussing, especially if one is in an a multi-ethnic community and is, hopefully, thus trying to have a church that represents the community in which it is placed. It’s quite possible that the observations about small groups are not generalizable; even still, the relationship between culture and community formation is an important one. It would be interesting to hear from Jason Janz, for example, on this, as he works in a multi-ethnic church, if I recall properly.
As to Alex’s statements about “anthropological/biological” (I’m not sure what this means) differences, many conservative Christians have good reason to be afraid of such talk, as they have already been justly tarred for being racist in their past (certainly in the South). That said, setting aside the language Alex uses, a lot has been written about these issues, and I am among those who find the attempts to explain IQ differences, for example, by reference to race a very dubious procedure indeed.
Besides the problems with “race” as a category, I think invariably culture plays the determinative role in these issues, including a role that could and in some cases actually has led to group characteristics.
Obviously eugenics in principle has an obvious biological point: if you mix a highly intelligent person with an unintelligent person, you will get an overall reduction in the transmission of intelligence. There has been controversial research on Jews in New York (maybe all of America, I can’t remember), that plausibly argued that, yes, in fact Jews are smarter than most because of their culture and the way it affects whom they marry, etc. (There was an article about this in Slate a couple years back).
But, again, note that it is cultural factors the produce what is eventually generalizable observations about the group in question.
Until certain groups, like poor blacks in America, are given better educational opportunities and adopt a different cultural view of education, work, etc., no data about race or biology are going to be remotely persuasive or even relevant. Generally speaking, the appeal to biology or race by some and the appeal to material environment by others are both ways of avoiding the much more difficult and relevant question of culture, a question on which there has been a good deal of research - some of which, incidentally, is presented in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers.
[Joseph] I do not think the above responses are profitable ways of engaging the article. It’s anecdotal, obviously, but, unless we are accusing the respondents of being liars or mistaken, then at least in their church what they say is true.
I wouldn’t accuse anyone in the article of being liars or mistaken, but I do not believe that their means of engaging on this subject (assuming the bottom line subject is why and how to best minister to particular cultural/ethnic groups) is profitable.
[Joseph] I do not think the above responses are profitable ways of engaging the article. It’s anecdotal, obviously, but, unless we are accusing the respondents of being liars or mistaken, then at least in their church what they say is true.I happily will tell you that I believe they are mistaken and quite misaligned. And if you wish I will happily debate the merits of that singular point here with you Joseph (if such a debate is allowed here on this thread seeing that though it is only one issue of the whole article, nevertheless a point within the article to be discussed, however I find a bit too unpredictable what is and is not allowed on some threads at some times so I submit this qualifier).
[Joseph] It seems eminently plausible that different cultures would have different means of forming community, and small groups do fit nicely into the priorities and cultural sensibilities of many white Americans. So, that seems like something worth discussing, especially if one is in an a multi-ethnic community and is, hopefully, thus trying to have a church that represents the community in which it is placed. It’s quite possible that the observations about small groups are not generalizable; even still, the relationship between culture and community formation is an important one.It is interesting, Joseph, that you simply offer an unqualified claim that “small groups do fit nicely into the priorities and cultural sensibilities of many white Americans” without any substantiation other than your own observation. While someone or I might accept this, I often do read your rebuttals containing cynical responses to unsubstantiated claims like this. But that aside, I resubmit in response to your point about culture and formations of worship groups, again this position:
[Alex Guggenheim] Of course, the problem with all of this (“all of this” meaning the discussion and merits of an anthropocentric centered church structure) is that if one purposes to have a small or large group they have departed from the design by God. The cause for gathering is first Christ and then with respect to being taught, the Pastor/teacher, not the preference for group size.While cultural colors and flavors are given certain liberties they are not given carte blanche and there are biblical precedents and principles that trump the convenience of culture (ex: just what I stated above). This seems to be absent in your evaluation.
[Alex Guggenheim] As to Alex’s statements about “anthropological/biological” (I’m not sure what this means)Apparently Joseph, it appears you do recognize what I mean sufficiently to state:
[Joseph] Obviously eugenics in principle has an obvious biological pointSo I do believe you have an acceptable gauge here as to what I meant.
[Joseph] many conservative Christians have good reason to be afraid of such talk, as they have already been justly tarred for being racist in their past (certainly in the South). That said, setting aside the language Alex uses, a lot has been written about these issues, and I am among those who find the attempts to explain IQ differences, for example, by reference to race a very dubious procedure indeed.It is an interesting barometer that while IQ. was not mentioned you brought this up rather immediately. Certainly it is part of the broad consideration but it is worth noting it appears you are attempting to use this element as a forceful weapon in your rebuttal. But then, this is exactly why I stated what I stated and Joseph, here I think you illustrate my earlier point:
[Alex Guggenheim] But it has been my experience that honest and frank discussion concerning the anthropological/biological differences in the races (one may even have in view ethnic demarcations) is truly not possible in most settings. And certainly those settings include Christian brothers and sisters who, even among conservative Christians, have been poisoned with the guilt of political correctness, hence intimidating their own minds and souls and forbidding themselves to say what is obvious, true or discoverable.
[Joseph] Obviously eugenics in principle has an obvious biological point: if you mix a highly intelligent person with an unintelligent person, you will get an overall reduction in the transmission of intelligence. There has been controversial research on Jews in New York (maybe all of America, I can’t remember), that plausibly argued that, yes, in fact Jews are smarter than most because of their culture and the way it affects whom they marry, etc. (There was an article about this in Slate a couple years back).This is a bit baffling. You affirm the reality of biological differences (my earlier point) and their social affects and then argue against your own point and blame “culture” for the superior mentality of the Jew. I could care less who is and isn’t biologically at an advantage regarding their intelligence but I certainly am not afraid of simply admitting this if it can be discovered to be true. It seems, Joseph, this is a very hard thing here for you in that you clearly state, “eugenics in principle has an obvious biological point” but then seek to combat this positive assertion as if to argue with this concession.
Alex,
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you should know why I rarely continue arguments with you. I make no claims whatsoever to admirable prose in my internet excursions, but your writing is often prolix, and I find myself rereading your sentences to make out their meaning. The result is confusing writing, to which direct responses would be inordinately long. This no doubt is simply a vice of impatience on my part, but there it is.
That you think me somehow contradicting myself above is an example of a tangle that would take far too much time to unwravel, given that it’s quite obvious to me that I am not contradicting myself. Recognizing that some persons are in any some sense physically or mentally (choose one’s category, so long as it has a plausible genetic origin) superior to others in no way supports the appeal to race as a good explanation of group differences. My limited understanding of eugenics, as seen in people like Sanger, is that is usually moves from the above fact about biological inequality, which no one denies, to a recommendation or prescription, based on some theory of what humans should be, etc., that only certain types of people breed, etc.
Finally, of course I mentioned IQ because it the most obvious, and certainly most common, public issue that has some people appealing to racial differences to explain IQ discrepancies. Indeed it’s the only such issue I’m myself aware of although I’m sure there are others.
You’re quite right that many are chary of these discussions and, as I said, with good reason. I think political correctness mutes some important issues that swirl around these matters, especially the issue of culture. But approaches like yours, using the languages of “anthropological/biological” difference is certainly a good way to put people on their guard, especially when, as it is often noted, eugenics and racism have almost always appealed to science to justify themselves, and both of them have led to many of the greatest horrors of our century.
So some tact and soft-stepping would go a long way towards getting certain important topics onto the discussion table without chasing everyone off right from the start.
If there is anything unforgivable in our culture and point in history, it is a lack of sensitivity to perceptions of racism. No one has an excuse for being anti-semitic, for example, after the holocaust. Christians instantly undermine their credibilty if they give people a foothold for thinking they may support racism, even if it’s simply through an incautious use of language.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you should know why I rarely continue arguments with you. I make no claims whatsoever to admirable prose in my internet excursions, but your writing is often prolix, and I find myself rereading your sentences to make out their meaning. The result is confusing writing, to which direct responses would be inordinately long. This no doubt is simply a vice of impatience on my part, but there it is.
That you think me somehow contradicting myself above is an example of a tangle that would take far too much time to unwravel, given that it’s quite obvious to me that I am not contradicting myself. Recognizing that some persons are in any some sense physically or mentally (choose one’s category, so long as it has a plausible genetic origin) superior to others in no way supports the appeal to race as a good explanation of group differences. My limited understanding of eugenics, as seen in people like Sanger, is that is usually moves from the above fact about biological inequality, which no one denies, to a recommendation or prescription, based on some theory of what humans should be, etc., that only certain types of people breed, etc.
Finally, of course I mentioned IQ because it the most obvious, and certainly most common, public issue that has some people appealing to racial differences to explain IQ discrepancies. Indeed it’s the only such issue I’m myself aware of although I’m sure there are others.
You’re quite right that many are chary of these discussions and, as I said, with good reason. I think political correctness mutes some important issues that swirl around these matters, especially the issue of culture. But approaches like yours, using the languages of “anthropological/biological” difference is certainly a good way to put people on their guard, especially when, as it is often noted, eugenics and racism have almost always appealed to science to justify themselves, and both of them have led to many of the greatest horrors of our century.
So some tact and soft-stepping would go a long way towards getting certain important topics onto the discussion table without chasing everyone off right from the start.
If there is anything unforgivable in our culture and point in history, it is a lack of sensitivity to perceptions of racism. No one has an excuse for being anti-semitic, for example, after the holocaust. Christians instantly undermine their credibilty if they give people a foothold for thinking they may support racism, even if it’s simply through an incautious use of language.
[Joseph] Alex,I should? I don’t keep records of how often or when others engage with me. So, whether having encountered once or many times or favorably or unfavorably, each encounter or debate I approach with a spirit of renewal not with the prejudice of the past. Maybe this ideal is worth your own consideration in what appears to be a certain predetermination on your part to not engage with certain others (in this case me) due to “past” experiences rather than present potentials. But then it appears we are quite engaged now, hopefully the irony isn’t missed :).
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you should know why I rarely continue arguments with you
[Joseph] but your writing is often prolixIndeed it is and I plead guilty but it is good to know you are an example otherwise :)
[Joseph] My limited understanding of eugenics, as seen in people like Sanger, is that is usually moves from the above fact about biological inequality, which no one denies, to a recommendation or prescription, based on some theory of what humans should be, etc., that only certain types of people breed, etc.And of course the problem here is that your straw man is an excuse for throwing the baby out with the bath water. No one here is suggesting anything like that and to assert because some foolish minds wish to abuse certain observable biological truths with inhumane demands such as forbidding the perpetuity of those in less than a premium intellectual class, we can not then value the weight nor the discussions that involve such realities, actually stifles the truth and liberates no one.
[Joseph] You’re quite right that many are chary of these discussions and, as I said, with good reason. I think political correctness mutes some important issues that swirl around these matters, especially the issue of culture. But approaches like yours, using the languages of “anthropological/biological” difference is certainly a good way to put people on their guard, especially when, as it is often noted, eugenics and racism have almost always appealed to science to justify themselves, and both of them have led to many of the greatest horrors of our century.I certainly take issue that there is somehow a failure for anyone using frank language to have properly couched or presented realities of the human condition and be guilty of introducing a “racist” context. But if you want “racist” contexts or provocative claims that point to possible “racist” context you only have the article to look to and some quotes:
So some tact and soft-stepping would go a long way towards getting certain important topics onto the discussion table without chasing everyone off right from the start.
If there is anything unforgivable in our culture and point in history, it is a lack of sensitivity to perceptions of racism. No one has an excuse for being anti-semitic, for example, after the holocaust. Christians instantly undermine their credibilty if they give people a foothold for thinking they may support racism, even if it’s simply through an incautious use of language.
Hill: White people rely on small groups to connect.Wow! And if this were reversed with a generalization being made about blacks or browns you would be saying what? That it is “tactful” or “soft-stepping”?
Carlos Ruiz (coordinator of community groups): I think whites really value efficiency.Need I repeat myself?
Antoine Taylor (director of Sunday morning ministries): And releasing that value is really hard for a lot of them. They perceive other ways of operating as inefficient or disorganized.I see, it isn’t that others can’t release THEIR value but that the white won’t release their value of “efficiency”. I see, blaming the white. And again Joseph, what “tact” is here?
Jennifer Idoma-Motzko (elder): They say it’s not the right way to do church. And I respond bluntly by saying, “You mean it’s not the white way to do church.”Need I comment on the potential “racist” context of such a comment in light of your own concerns?
And in fact I contend that it is the fault of those who seek to inject such charges toward others, who do not use racist language but speak honestly and frankly about such realities, that are the ones that have failed to use “tact” and open the door to getting such important topics on the table because it is just these kinds of calumnious dispositions that chase people away.
Some time has passed since this discussion was revisited (and of course some of the knocks and bruises I sustained for merely presenting the consideration that there are “biological/anthropological” reasons for differences among races and ethnicities without my rejecting the cultural element…well okay I didn’t really get bruises from the knocks but I did feel the knocks, I have a rather magnanimous outer layer :) that fortunately isn’t constantly in search of being injured, rather it keeps me from unnecessarily being injured by reckless or well meaning types that imagine by ego is my prized possession) and now that I am healed of my faux wounds, I wanted to share a remarkable article I came across that speaks to this issue without the racist overtones of those in the article who portrayed a certain antagonism toward “whites”. So with that amusing revelation and parody of myself, I move on to the substance of my post.
What I want to do is approach the most basic or underlying question of the entire issue and that being whether or not there is a biologic reason, which I referred to more broadly as a biological/anthropological reason, as part of the formula for the differences in groups, particularly as it relates to the question about whites and others and their preference for collectivism or individualism (I do want to warn you that the article does contain some “evolutionary speculation and consideration” but it does not impugn the hard facts presented). In others words, does our DNA really separate us in a way that produces characteristics and/or behavior in races or ethnicities or is culture the really dominant cause or are both? And if both, then we must discuss BOTH and not be intimidated or ashamed of labeling when discussing both or either element.
Some “informational egalitarians” might wish to offer an appeasing 50/50 split as to the degree one or the other contributes without any evidence so as to propitiate the political correctness Gods. I, myself, offer no estimation as to what or how much, rather I offer some science to consider by way of the article. Now understand, when I offer this it does not mean I am offering it as if no other information or considerations exist or should be included. But as far as “facts” go and valid research and those claiming how horrible or offensive it is to use the language and findings of biology and particularly genetics in determining a formula as to why we, as different kinds of humans (that is races and ethnicities) do what we do, well sorry but science is science and if science is scary I cannot help you.
So without further adieu I offer first the link and some interesting quotes:
http://www.physorg.com/news175955032.html
Now whether one accepts how these genetic differences came about and/or any subsequent propositions in regard to them is something to discuss, how what is true is that they are identifiable and real.
What I want to do is approach the most basic or underlying question of the entire issue and that being whether or not there is a biologic reason, which I referred to more broadly as a biological/anthropological reason, as part of the formula for the differences in groups, particularly as it relates to the question about whites and others and their preference for collectivism or individualism (I do want to warn you that the article does contain some “evolutionary speculation and consideration” but it does not impugn the hard facts presented). In others words, does our DNA really separate us in a way that produces characteristics and/or behavior in races or ethnicities or is culture the really dominant cause or are both? And if both, then we must discuss BOTH and not be intimidated or ashamed of labeling when discussing both or either element.
Some “informational egalitarians” might wish to offer an appeasing 50/50 split as to the degree one or the other contributes without any evidence so as to propitiate the political correctness Gods. I, myself, offer no estimation as to what or how much, rather I offer some science to consider by way of the article. Now understand, when I offer this it does not mean I am offering it as if no other information or considerations exist or should be included. But as far as “facts” go and valid research and those claiming how horrible or offensive it is to use the language and findings of biology and particularly genetics in determining a formula as to why we, as different kinds of humans (that is races and ethnicities) do what we do, well sorry but science is science and if science is scary I cannot help you.
So without further adieu I offer first the link and some interesting quotes:
http://www.physorg.com/news175955032.html
80 percent of the population of Asian nations “carry this so-called ‘short’ allele, or variant, of a stretch of DNA known as 5-HTTLPR.”
As China emerges as a world leader, its cultural tendency toward collectivism will most likely enhance the international drift towards socialism.
The article explained that, “Ancient cultures in Asia, Africa and Latin America highly exposed to deadly pathogens, they conjecture, may have tended toward collectivist norms in order to better combat disease.”
European cultures, however, are different.
“By contrast, in countries of European origin that prize self-expression and the pursuit of individual over group goals, the long or ‘L’ allele dominates, with only 40 percent of people carrying the ‘S’ variant.”
Now whether one accepts how these genetic differences came about and/or any subsequent propositions in regard to them is something to discuss, how what is true is that they are identifiable and real.
Discussion