theophiles.org - Why many Americans prefer their Sundays segregated

Why many Americans prefer their Sundays segregated

Written by wezlo

Monday, 04 August 2008 15:49

The Rev. Paul Earl Sheppard had recently become the senior pastor of a suburban church in California when a group of parishioners came to him with a disturbing personal question.
They were worried because the racial makeup of their small church was changing. They warned Sheppard that the church's newest members would try to seize control because members of their race were inherently aggressive. What was he was going to do if more of "them" tried to join their church?

Comments

wezlo - Bad start, better ending

|2008-08-04 16:56:45

This article depressed me at the start, and then got better as it went...

emperorbma - Racism must die...

|2008-08-04 18:15:40

It should go without saying, I think racist bigotry has no place in Christian faith. Any race should be welcomed as equally as any other in the Church.

PineHall - It's Cultural too

|2008-08-07 11:00:40

You are right on. Bigotry has no place in the Christian faith. We need to work at it. But I think it is broader than just race. Pastor Woo says:

Quote:

"Everyone understands the rules, the lingo, the mind-set -- except you," he says. "It was invaluable, but I didn't know it at the time."

He was describing being a minority in high school. There is a cultural component that needs to be overcome too. That is why when we trace denominations back to their roots you can see the ethnic make up of the denominations today. For the most part we are culturally segregated in our churches. That does not seem to be an easy thing to deal with, but we must deal with it so we can be welcoming to everyone.

PerpetualAgnostic - Preaching style?

|2008-08-06 15:56:44

I have to wonder if preaching style is part of it. For part of the time I was in college, the chaplain was a black preacher.

Compared to the services to which I was/am accustomed, he maid the service feel like a circus. He'd make proclamations, and then ask the attendees to shout an "amen", before we even had a chance to consider whether or not what he said was worthy of agreement. I *really* didn't like attending chapel while he was there.

I get the sense (perhaps from watching Blues Brothers) that that kind of preaching style difference between black and white churches isn't entirely rare.

Maybe *that's* part of the reason for the segregation?

wezlo

|2008-08-06 22:51:31

Yes, that comes out in the article.

onfire - Preaching style?

|2008-08-08 09:13:53

Actually, I think the most culturally defined expression in Christianity is worship style, not preaching style, although preaching style may be part of the issue).

I have struggled with this at times. As a 30-something African-American from New York, I tend to get into worship music that is Urban Contemporary Christian Gospel. i do not connect well with the old spirituals that my Mother and Grandmother preferred, nor do I connect well with the rock & roll type worship style.

wezlo

|2008-08-08 13:52:21

OK, this is another topic but I can't let this go. I think you mean "music style" rather than "worship style," the last time I checked Preaching was supposedly part of worship.

onfire

|2008-08-10 15:09:03

In most of the churches that I've gone to, they also consider giving part of worship. In some of these churches, you'll get a mini sermon on giving, while at others the offering is done quickly and without a lot of fanfare. Worship style refers to the entire worship service, but yes, I guess I did mean music style :)

jonathanbrickman0000 - Style

|2008-08-09 18:53:26

There are actually different "preaching styles". This is where church-culture can get serious and dangerous to the soul. Some cultures insist on three hours of sermon, and even if the three hours is the same three sentences repeated thousands of times (I speak as a witness), the people are satisfied. Other cultures insist on types of content by which they consider themselves superior to others.

In other words, I suggest that the cause of church-fragmentation is simple: human sin, by which human beings wish to define their worship and service to God by acts of flesh and other things which are not according to that which the Lord has said.

J.E.B.

emperorbma - ecclesia invisible

|2008-08-09 20:26:28

As I see it, the problem is actually in how one understands Christ's command. There are actually differing views, for example, of the question of justification. Are we justified by "faith and works," or by "faith alone?" Neither side doubts that works will be a part of saving faith, but one side considers works a form of merit and the others consider it a side-effect of grace. Likewise, there is the question of whether a Sacrament is merely a symbol or it is truly Christ's presence. Issues of this sort are not merely a trivial difference in preaching style, but a substantive difference in the quality of the Gospel message. It is our duty, as Christians, to preserve sound doctrine because, as Paul says, we must "teach what accords with sound doctrine." (Titus 2:1) Even the Apostolic Church was critical of erroneous doctrine and some people actually were exiled for it.

With that said, even a doctrinal division is NOT a true division in the Church. Yes, it is a visible disagreement and there is not a shared pastor between the groups. Yet a visible division in the Church is not actually a real division in the Church. There are Christians on both sides of the divide, regardless of any imperfections on either side. That's because the visible Church is only a manifestation of the true invisible Church (also known as the "communion of saints") into this world and it is not the whole thing as God sees it. The true Church is Spiritual and it manifests in this world through the gathering around the Word and Sacrament. If you will, any Christian service with true Word and/or true Sacraments (preferably both) is actually an outbreaking of God's Kingdom into the world for a short time. Yet, as I said above, it is not the real form of the Church as it truly is. Because it is only a worldly manifestation of the genuine higher truth, the manifestation is not perfect.

Even so, God knows who are His and who are not and in the rolls of Heaven are already found the names of all true Christians. The determinant of this is faith alone. The true Church is comprised of all genuine believers in Christ regardless of denominational affiliation. Therefore, the true Church, as such, cannot truly be divided. After all, "is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13) All that is maintained is a distinction against a group of Christians understood to have a practice detrimental to the true teaching of the Gospel.

As such, I can confess, even not being a Roman Catholic, that I believe in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." That Church both exists and is undivided.

patronpeter - i don't see a problem....

|2008-08-11 00:04:13

Quote:

Neither side doubts that works will be a part of saving faith, but one side considers works a form of merit and the others consider it a side-effect of grace.

Well, if you have faith in God, and faith that he's watching everything your doing (like a super santa) wouldn't you be inclined to sin less since you know your being held accountable in heaven? so where's the argument?

emperorbma - Reformation "faith"

|2008-08-11 09:30:10

Quote:

Answering this requires me to dissect what you mean by "faith." Do you mean that someone merely believes that God exists or do you mean that their heart is transformed by God's grace?

If you mean that someone "merely believes" God exists, then I must say that this is not true faith as a Lutheran would describe it. Even James says "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19) Yes, James, this so-called "faith" would not save... because it isn't faith. Faith is a trust in God's mercy, not merely a vain protesting that there is a God.

A true faith does desire to sin less, but not because God is watching everything. Rather, the heart is transformed by God's free gift of forgiveness to desire to do what God wants. God creates a new nature, through faith, in the believer which struggles against the sinful one that is found in every person. This is why Luther describes a Christian, not as a mere "saint," but as "both saint and sinner." The saint struggles against sin because of God's grace, not to earn merits.

This highlights a major difference in the Roman Catholic parlance. The Roman Catholic sees "grace" as being a merely a God-given disposition which acts as a deposit and enables a believer to act meritoriously and "faith" is merely (virtuous, as Aquinas saw it) belief in truths about God. (As I see it, it looks very much like man is the key operator) A Lutheran sees "grace" as God's love and forgiveness and desire to save His children and "faith" as an inner transformation by which God brings us to receive His grace and, therefore, be saved. (God is clearly the key operator in Lutheran doctrine)

There is a marked difference in the understanding of the terms and the Lutheran one, as I see it, is more representative of the Biblical description and less apt to be construed in a way in which one feels one must earn salvation by one's own merits. It is only natural, as Luther was a Catholic and suffered under that mistaken belief in merits for decades before he realized that grace means "free gift."

P.S. The ELCA's "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" actually describes the aforementioned terminology difference, but it also claims that it is does not affect the validity of doctrine. As an LCMS Lutheran, I would disagree with the latter assessment. A lack of sound doctrine and Biblical presentation is quite damaging to the integrity of RCC doctrine as it can easily mislead souls regarding their own salvation. The literal doctrine of saving faith is outlawed by the Council of Trent with the following words of Canon 9: "If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward obtaining the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema," or Canon 12: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this trust alone by which we are justified, let him be anathema," or Canon 14: " If anyone says that a man is absolved from sins and justified because . . . he confidently believes that he is absolved and justified . . . and that through this faith alone absolution and justification is effected, let him be anathema."

Even if saving faith can be maintained in principle by many Catholics despite its proclamations against "faith alone," it is not always maintained and works are often placed alongside faith in a damaging manner. In that, I think there is still call for Reformation on that issue.

EaglesFan113 - Reading This Is Exactly Why

|2008-11-12 22:44:29

I don't bother going to Church anymore. On Sundays I can sleep till 11AM, get up read the Bible and pray. Like I said before, I don't need to go to Church to be saved. The Bible and prayer is all I need. Then at this time of the year I can watch my Eagles and some nice McNabb to Westbrook plays and cheer them on.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member wezlo has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Are people of faith more likely to do right? (05 July 2009)
Figure of Christ as 'revolutionary hero' (10 April 2009)
Small Church's Obama Sign Causes Big Controversy (19 November 2008)
Methodism founder Charles Wesley's secret code dia... (27 August 2008)
Heavy metal monk in second album (18 July 2008)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online