Maybe We Are Doing This Wrong

When the neighborhood changes, does the church really have to change?

by

Special to United Methodist Insight

It has been my experience that when black people attend a multiracial/multicultural church (MR/MC), the music or worship style of the church will reflect the diversity of the audience, but the pastors and leaders of that church will all be white. Not always, but usually. What kind of message does that send?

The message received is, worship is for black people, and theology is for whites.

Fortunately, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has been much more aware than evangelical churches of this dynamic and has appointed black clergy to MR/MC church leadership. However, every year during appointment season, I see black pastors being appointed to MR/MC churches, but rarely do white pastors receive cross-racial appointments. It appears that the MR/MC church appointments are a one-way street.

MR/MC churches have been proposed as a solution to the racial divide that has existed in the church in America since before Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that “eleven o’clock on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in Christian America” on Meet the Press in 1960. Professors Christian Smith and Michael Emerson detailed the depths of this division in their book Divided by Faith. So disturbed was Christian Smith by some of the findings in this book that he co-authored another book, United by Faith, as a solution. This book proposes the MR/MC congregation as an answer to the problem of race. This concept has been embraced by emerging Christian leaders like Shane Claiborne, Leroy Barber, and many within the UMC. Indeed, it can be argued that the reason there are so many black church members in MR/MC churches is that they believe in the unity of the faith, among other reasons.

However, I noticed that when the demographics of the neighborhood around the church changes (which is code for Asian, blacks and Hispanics are moving in) the MR/MC model is being implemented in white churches. Yet, that the same model is not implemented when white people move into predominantly black neighborhoods, as is the case in Atlanta. Several neighborhoods, including my own, were predominantly black according to the 2010 U.S. Census, and are now majority white with the release of the 2020 Census (see this map for more details). Now most people who subscribe to a postcolonial critique or are defenders of the Black Church would object to the MR/MC model being used as a tool of gentrification, and I would agree with them. However, that does not preclude white clergy from receiving cross-racial appointments ever! It is one thing to study Black Theology in seminary, or to minister to those who are in need of life’s basic necessities, but it is a very different experience to be a white minister in a Black Church that does not need a White Savior. Dietrich Bonhoeffer discovered that Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem had more to offer to him than he had to give them.

But this is not an essay on cross-racial appointments, and my point on the lack of white clergy receiving these appointments should be viewed in the light of the changing demographics of various neighborhoods in America. I want now to turn your attention to why MR/MC churches are unsuccessful. While it is great to understand that God created every nation, tribe, and tongue, and we will all stand before the throne of God, getting people here on earth to worship together has been a much harder row to hoe. Upon closer inspection, one has to notice that when the MR/MC church model is implemented, people will be displaced.

Let me give you a scenario. A neighborhood in Kansas City has a United Methodist Church that has been historically white, reflecting the demographics of that area. However, over the last decade Asians, blacks, and Hispanics move into the immediate neighborhood around the church, white residents of that area have moved out. Despite this, the church continues to thrive as a white church, even though more people commute to attend the Sunday morning service(s) there than ever before. Should that church change to meet the new demographics of the neighborhood? Many who subscribe to the MR/MC church model would emphatically say, yes! Some denominational leaders might encourage the white church to offer their space for services in different languages, such as Spanish or Korean. But what if all the new neighborhood residents spoke English as their first language, or communicate more effectively in English than they do their “mother tongue?” Should the white church have to change to accommodate other races and cultures?

While some would say that my argument is unfounded, the research clearly shows the MR/MC churches have mixed success at best. Many black folks who join these types of churches, eventually leave feeling disheartened that unity will never exist here on earth. Many felt like they had to sacrifice themselves to achieve the ministry of reconciliation, and got very little in return. I can’t help but notice that intentional MR/MC churches almost never quote African and Asian theologians, such as Athanasius or John Chrysostom, even though these were the theologians that John Wesley read. In fact, most of the theologians that work their way into the sermons of MR/MC churches are European or American and are almost always white. Every once in a while the theology of James Cone or Howard Thurman has been espoused upon in MR/MC churches, as well other liberation theologians. But much of the theology of MR/MC churches depends heavily on higher criticism, which Stony the Road We Trod calls the most Eurocentric method of biblical interpretation. Worship is for black people, and theology is for whites!?!

But what if the answer to this problem is not race or culture?

In other words, instead of looking at changing neighborhood demographics as a problem for white churches, what if we employed a different model altogether? What if we looked at the culture of the church, the culture of the neighborhood, and developed an optimal response instead of a trying to incorporate a “blended” church model? We are already do this for foreign language speakers in our communities. Several churches in Queens offer many different language services over a weekend. Would it be a stretch to do the same for English-speaking church services?

Some homogenous churches already offer a traditional and a contemporary service every Sunday. Some of these churches even “go for the gold” and have a modern service as well. The clergy of these churches have realized that while the people in the pews may be of the same race and/or culture, they do not all have the same personality or temperament.

Let me give you another example. When white churches offer a traditional service, there are hand bells, candles, a pipe organ, and a lecture-style sermon. When black churches offer a traditional service, there is clapping while singing, a Hammond B3 organ, talking back to the pastor, and talking to your neighbor. White and black people are not speaking the same language when we are talking about a traditional church service. We don’t even play the same kind of organ!

White traditional church services are more contemplative, and generally attract introverts. Black traditional church services are more expressive, and generally attract extroverts.

Who is the genius that would try and blend the two of these groups together? Yet that is what is happening when some denominational leaders look at the changing demographics of a neighborhood, and a church that does not look like the neighborhood. I implore leaders of the UMC to resist the urge of mixing introverts and extroverts together in a church service under the guise of changing neighborhood demographics. The results will be disastrous! The introverts will leave because the extroverts do not like hand bells and will stop at nothing to limit their use to the Christmas play only. Then the extroverts will declare the introverts to be racist because they left the church and did not attempt to make your “Tower of Babel” theology work.

So what is the answer?

Churches should continue to offer a contemplative traditional service for introverts, and add an expressive service for extroverts, if the demographics of the neighborhood warrant it. If we are already doing different service styles for homogenous churches, why would we try and blend heterogeneous groups in our churches? When we do this – value that God made introverts’ and extroverts’ worship styles different – then we will discover that there are white people who prefer an expressive style of worship and black people who prefer a contemplative style. And maybe we should focus on meeting up together in Sunday School class or small group instead, which might create another conundrum, but it’s just a thought.

I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas, and stories. Please leave a comment below.

Odell Horne, Jr. serves as president of North Georgia Conference United Methodist Men. He has a Master of Arts degree in African and African American Studies and is a Doctor of Theology candidate in Contextual Theology.