A Few Thoughts on Diversity

I know this is a well-worn issue, but I thought I'd post this since there hasn't been any action in a while. This is an excerpt from an email I sent to a professor. My reason for posting it is to bounce around the idea that racial diversity in local churches occasionally has in it an impulse towards legalism.

The issue of race is extremely complicated in my opinion. Racial tension, really, is a much more profound reality throughout history than any kind of tension that has existed between men and women. Racial disunity and harmony are issues that carry a profound pride of place throughout the Bible. Just to mention a few passages from the NT Romans 9-11; Eph. 2:11-22; Acts 15; Gal. 2, are passages that are deeply influential in my thinking on this topic. It is clear from these passages that race is not something that ought to ever determine the boundaries of a church's fellowship. Eph. 2:11-22 makes it clear that it was part of the design of the cross to reconcile human beings across racial divides. It is important to say that it was a part of the design of the cross, and not merely a convenient result. That being the case, I would think it to be central to my leadership to labor to see people in fellowship with one another regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.

That said, I am reticent to say that churches must represent the exact demographic of the neighborhoods they are in in a kind of "thus sayeth the Lord" sort of fashion. I don't see the biblical texts moving in quite that direction. The way I would want to approach a lack of racial diversity in a particular local church is by raising questions about mission. If the church finds that they are in a neighborhood made up of a demographic that is unrepresented in their church one wonders if they are taking their call to fulfill the Great Commission seriously. However, maybe they are. Maybe they are reaching out to people with the gospel, and people are simply picking other churches to attend. This can be a bad thing. It can mean that a particular church's worship is offensive, and therefore unpalatable for the people that actually take up residence in the church's neighborhood. In that case the church may simply need to disband. But, it can also be something that is quite tolerable. Forcing unwanted diversity can often create a distasteful homogoneity. That doesn't have to happen. Paul, of course, encouraged people to maintain their diversity, and to restrain themselves from passing judgment on each other (Rom. 14:1-10). But, it would be sad if the church lost its colorful differences in self-expression for the sake of not causing offense. Having bland non-offensive styles of worship and practice, and calling that diversity, in my opinion, lowers the bar. I attend a very white very traditional Presbyterian church. There are aspects of it that I find distasteful, but I also believe it would be a shame to erase the styles of worship that the congregation has developed over the years. Surely we would all want to say the same for churches that bear different stylistic characteristics.

The Church always must be moving forward evangelizing every people group. That alone will bring racial tensions into the Church's purview. Inasmuch as that is the case, the church must be willing to "welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7).

I hope this doesn't sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. I have seen too much hand-slapping and back-patting from people who think their church's have arrived at a heavenly level of ethnic diversity. As if their services are straight out of Revelation chapter 7. I commend these leaders, but I am also aware of the pride that comes from faithfully fulfilling self-announced moral imperatives. Possibly the antidote for this is not forcing diversity, but letting it happen organically through obedience to the Great Commission. This would, perhaps, distract us from the temptation to be proud.

Absolutely Chinese

I couldn't help but post this.

"Calvin is a cataract, a primeval forest, a demonic power, something directly down from the Himalaya, absolutely Chinese, strange, mythological; I lack completely the means, the suction cups, even to assimilate this phenomenon, not to speak of presenting it adequately. What I receive is only a thin little stream and what I can then give out again is only a yet thinner extract of this little stream. I could gladly and profitably set myself down and spend all the rest of my life with just Calvin."

Karl Barth, Revolutionary Theology in the Making: Barth-Thurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925. 101

Wise Company

“…reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.” (9:8-9)

"...he who hates reproof is stupid.” (12:1)

The Proverbs are replete with pleas to gain wisdom through others. It is not a solo quest but a community affair. Counselors, parents, teachers, guides, friends, those who encourage, rebuke, reprove, and correct all contribute. The wise lean hard on others. The road to wisdom is filled with friends.

Despair Over the Church

Despair over the Church is the great vice of modern Christianity, even (and perhaps especially) when harnessed to strategies of calculated and frustrated renewal.

Page 9 "Hope Among the Fragments" Ephraim Radner

Biblical Studies Toolbar

Cambridge's Tyndale House just put out a pretty sweet biblical studies toolbar.  Check it out/download it here.

How They Miss the Point

I think biblical scholars are unique in that they have more time to waste than the rest of us.

Are We Still Evangelical?

This is partly in response to PD's comments on my most recent post, but it is also something I have been mulling over for a while.

A classic, concise definition for "evangelical" as it exists in the English speaking world (meaning, it does not necessarily entail Lutheran Evangelicals) and its antecedents has been put forward by historian David Bebbington.  According to him, there are four markers of an evangelical:

1. Conversionism: Meaning that, as opposed to the Catholic view, evangelicals emphasize conversion as the real sign of membership in the Kingdom of God.
2. Biblicism: Or known classically as Sola Scriptura.  This is fairly self-explanatory, but as pointed out earlier, variously understood among evangelicals.
3. Activism: Whether its slavery in late eighteenth century Britain, women's rights in late nineteenth century Britain and America, abortion in the 1970s and 80s, or Southern Baptists boycotting Disney in the 1990s, evangelicals have always been very active in society.  In my opinion, this trait is one of the most interesting historically.
4. Crucicentrism:  This ties in heavily to point number one, but this does tend to occupy a considerable amount of evangelical theology.  This is in contrast to, say, the Eastern Orthodox Christians who might emphasize the incarnation as the main soteriological event.

There are some more nuanced lists out there, but this one is the most concise, and tends to appear fairly often.  Interestingly, this is quite distinct from many parts of Pentecostalism, which can overlap with evangelicalism, but not always.

What do you think?  Are we still evangelical?