Itamah's Blog

Here are some more thoughts and reactions from my previous post:

I don’t hate ethnic church planting. I just think they’re short-sighted and potentially short-lived in our context. I think it would be wise to plan for that.

If you live in a homogeneous context, then your church will reflect that. No need to bus your favorite token minority 2 hours each way every Sunday morning just so your church can “pave the way” in diversity. In the book of Acts, after Pentecost, the new believers went home– some to a specifically homogeneous context (ie: just Jews) and others to a more diverse one. I happen to be writing from the latter.

If you’re called to reach Russians outside of Boston then, by all means, preach the Gospel in Russian. Don’t hear me saying a nicer, softer version of “This is America! Speak English (one of the hardest, idiosyncratic languages to learn) NOW”. My problem comes when we use the Church to preserve culture instead of to bring news of salvation. I think this is part of the reason the church becomes inflexible, stagnant and irrelevant.

The point is this: the Church is the means to live and share the Gospel as Scripture calls us to– in community. Don’t cheapen the Gospel by using it to propel culture; but I do think one should use culture to propel the Gospel.

A few things sparked some of my recent thoughts on why I believe exclusively ethnic church starts (or planting as it is called in church circles) is short-sighted. First was an NPR piece I heard on the radio on multiculturalism. Second was a friend’s response to it. Third was an article I read about why an African American was “leaving the black church”– an article I neither bookmarked nor can find on Google. Sorry. (Although I will say that article was much more theologically based, while my thoughts are more cultural). And fourth was a lengthy conversation I had recently at a university coffee shop about ethnic mapping and church planting.

Let me just start by saying a few things:

1. I am not disavowing my cultural heritage. I love my history, language, and Latin flavor. I will also point out I’m writing this from a 2nd generation urban Latina perspective.
2. I grew up in and I am currently a part of a predominately Latino church. I love my church family, but it’s changing. More and more people are coming who either do not speak Spanish well or are not even Hispanic (and yes, I use the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably. I’m aware of the dispute of the terms, I just don’t care to go there).
3. I am not personally putting my foot down on this issue indefinitely. If God calls me to be a part of a predominately Puerto Rican church plant, then I’ll go. But here are some of the reasons I say I won’t:

My faith and my culture should not be synonymous. This has been a problem for generations now. I can see the benefit in linking faith with culture. It provides a community or a support system to identify with. But this does an incredible disservice to the second generation who will inevitably grow up with a blended culture. Tying faith and culture together facilitates leaving the faith as we move away from our parents’ culture and into our own.

In this model, faith can now be seen as something my parents did– along with the foods they eat, the language they speak and the traditions they hold dear to. And while I embrace many of these traditions, I also eat burgers, speak English and can sing Jingle Bells along with those villancicos.

I will blend both my cultures, and thereby blend my faith, with whatever my other culture dictates. What tends to happen is that my Christian faith becomes a lovely version of tolerance, moralism, and cultural identity instead of the power of God to save… but more on that below.

New England Youth Camp Staff 2011. I'd join this "church".

For better or for worse, the world I grew up in was and is multicultural. This opened the doors to learn new cultures but has closed my generation’s eyes to legitimate threats…

North America, like most of the free world, is becoming increasingly diverse. The United States continues to be the nation of immigrants we’ve always been but one game-changer has been added to the mix. In the 20th century we openly welcomed multiculturalism. The idea of multiculturalism is generally defined as the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures.

Diversity is becoming a welcomed reality. But before that can happen, we need to identify a common culture and provide the means to integrate into it. This is where education is pivotally involved. Integration involves a degree of assimilation but total assimilation is not the goal. Integration requires a mutual degree of acceptance– not the blind acceptance of multiculturalism– but an analytical and critical acceptance based on common values. (Multiculturalism demands insurmountable levels of tolerance and relativism that simply cannot and should not be accepted. Some things are wrong.  Period. Going on a shooting spree is wrong. Strapping a bomb to yourself is wrong).

Now, even though I’m alluding to those “legitimate threats” as being terrorists ones because it’s a reality today, we need not go there. There are aspects of my own culture that threaten my capacity to showcase the glory and grace of God. If culturally, I am expected to aspire towards very high levels self-reliance, this can prevent me from accepting or sharing grace. I’d have the potential to become the most disciplined religious person who ever lived, but in the end, I will have accepted a gospel that glorifies self, masks sin, nullifies the cross and is powerless to save.

Heterogeneity, not homogeneity, challenges us more to genuine community. This was an interesting point in the conversation as to why we don’t seek to work with, much less live in community with, people from other cultures. Working with people of other cultures requires a lot of patience. Westerners crave efficiency over relationships. Much of the world doesn’t function this way. It’s racist to say we will not work with one another for the sake of homogeneity. It’s much safer to say we will not work with one another for the sake of efficiency. Neglecting relationship building because of its inefficiency is pretty common and, unfortunately, exclusively ethnic/homogeneous churches facilitate this mindset.

The Gospel restores the brokenness of ALL peoples and all cultures. I love the way Tim Keller puts it in his book The Reason for God:

Biblical texts such as Isaiah 60 and Revelation 21-22 depict a renewed, perfect, future world in which we retain our cultural differences (“every tongue, tribe, people, nation”). This means every human culture has (from God) distinct goods and strengths for the enrichment of the human race. As [Historian Andrew] Walls indicates, while every culture has distortions and elements that will be critiqued and revised by the Christian message, each culture will also have good and unique elements to which Christianity connects and adapts… [In short], Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths…”

Before the Gospel draws us together in community, it shows us who we really are: not Puerto Ricans, Italians, African Americans, Koreans, Brazilians– but sinners. Will I find it easier to identify with like-minded sinners? Yes. Unfortunately, the Gospel isn’t easy news, it’s good news. If the gospel and its commission are what fuel church planting and God is the Gospel and God is love, then the only thing that should compel our church planting is love, not ethnicity.

Do I believe there is a place for ethnic minorities to gather in gospel community? Yes, and this can be expressed in numerous ways, including church planting. But I’d recognize that culture is fleeting and ever-changing. The Church should consider this when planting in culturally rich soil.

I’ve often mentioned that I was born in the wrong decade. I absolutely love studying and reading about the civil rights’ movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. I’ve pictured myself at sit-ins and marches, singing in churches awaiting a speech by Rev. Dr. King. (This is also why I’d love to pack up and move to South Africa as they are currently in their post-segregation generation). I am fascinated with the non-violent movement, proud of those within the Church who stepped up against injustice and deeply saddened by the forces of people who used the Christian faith to justify their own comforts and a sinful status quo.

The emotions I feel about our history are perhaps what fuel my shock about our present complacency both culturally (in our wider secular context) and within the Church. Segregation is more prevalent today than it was right before the civil rights movement. I lead a workshop of high school freshmen and they could very well attest. Their school and neighborhood are “dominated” by Hispanics while the next town over “is all white people”. They are also quick to respond that it’s different today than it was in Rosa Parks’ era of civil disobedience. When asked why, students respond that it is because it is their choice. They choose to stay in their particular town and not move to the next town over. Nobody is forced. There are no signs to determine which race or ethnicity can live where.

It’s our choice. Equality is now the law. Separation is our choice. My response was, “so we’re essentially separate… but equal”.

The kids could recognize the phrase that carries a heavy connotation to anyone who has studied the civil rights movement, but it rings true today. Here are some thoughts on our current complacency that justifies separation and blinds us to our responsibility…

Separation limits our choices. I love being Puerto Rican. I really do. We’re an odd bunch and I love it. But there are some things I do not like about my culture. It’s prideful and stupid of me to accept things of my culture that are ineffective, irrelevant or, worse, damaging (although this happens all the time). There are things about the Asian culture (as a random example) that I love and incorporate in my life. Things that are solid, sound, and biblical. If I choose to separate myself, I limit my exposure—securing ignorance, delaying growth, stunting progress and exposing disobedience. Freedom is based on a freedom to choose. Just as sin enslaves, thus giving the illusion of freedom but forcing us to live under its consequences, the sin of intentional separation gives the illusion of freedom but limits rather than liberates.

Separation erodes our understanding of one another.  I confess: I love shortcuts. I like spending less time to get to exactly where I need to go. Stereotypes often seem like shortcuts to genuine community. I’m guilty of this one all the time. I don’t need to ask her, I know she’ll say no because she’s like this… It leads me to believe that I know others when I really don’t. This essentially deceives us into believing we’ve taken a shortcut when it’s only deviated us from genuine community. This has only gotten worse through the polarization of our politics. There is no need to have a conversation with anyone who votes Democratic or Republican because, well, we already know what they will say. People become static; a caricature, even.

I don’t want to go into the dangers of caricatures, stereotypes, segregation and hate but instead speak with the Church. I do see a direct link between willing separation and facilitating stereotypes, even subtle ones. And while I like groups with similar interests in background because of the support they can often provide, I’m bothered when these are more common than (or even replace) our explicit efforts of integration.

So what, then, shall we do? We, the Church, need to lead efforts of explicit integration by incorporating diversity not only in policies but in preaching, teaching, mission statements, and outreach. Encourage conversation with like and unlike-minded people. Remind each other that Jesus ate with known liberal types and sat down with conservative judges and was willing to compromise his reputation with some without compromising his character.

We often watch television, look at our bi-racial president and believe Jim Crow is dead when he’s quietly making a living in our churches, social circles and implicit belief systems. Intentional separation, like any other sin, is to be fought with repentance and empowered by grace. We shouldn’t be okay with separate fellowships based solely on race. We shouldn’t be okay with distinguishing our worship styles based on ethnicity. And we shouldn’t be okay with not addressing these issues simply because we want to avoid difficult theological conversations that expose our desperate need for grace.