The Tulip Driven Life Podcast

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

IT'S THE END OF THE (REFORMED) WORLD AS WE KNOW IT


Image result for strange fire

By: Thomas F. Booher


The Reformed church is dying at the feet of Wokeback Mountain, and some prominent ministers are beginning to erect high places on Wokeback Mountain.


If you told me ten years ago, when I first became a flame-throwing, cage-stage Calvinist, or even several years later after I matured a bit, that this is where we would be at the end of 2018, I would not have believed you. The Reformed church has been cowed by the culture, especially the homosexual culture and the so-called racial reconciliation movement. The Revoice conference put this on the map for homosexuality, and the MLK 50 conference did the same for racial issues, but make no mistake, these things didn't just pop out of the ground overnight. They have been growing and festering long before I knew anything about the doctrines of grace.


Nine years ago I saw it at Covenant College, which is the college of the PCA, when my psychology professor praised his gay friend for marrying a woman and only occasionally cheating on her with another man. I've seen it in my current presbytery where the first presbytery meeting I went to featured a white guilt sermon and a terrible understanding of the church and the gospel. What repulsed me more was all the old white men Amen-ing the sermon left and right and trying to boogie right and left during the groovy smooth Jazz worship music. 


The Gospel Coalition shoulders much of the blame here. They got woke before we knew what woke was. But now even Al Mohler and SBTS is trying to get half woke. The SOGI compromise is leading to churches and Christian colleges accepting greater freedom and liberties to the LGBT community. And men who know better on all these counts are very slow to respond, either out of fear or hopefully because they think the long process/game is still the best one. But it is clear to me that we need more prophets crying in the pulpits, in the town halls, and in the streets. Shoot, even a blast by way of a blog post from a bigshot in the Reformed world would be helpful. But mostly they are keeping silent or blasting for the wrong team.


R.C. Sproul is dead, and he hasn't been punching the same as he did in his earlier years for quite some time. Probably due to poor health. John Piper is a bit of an enigma, but some of the stuff posted on Desiring God is soft and fluffy, and he seems to be trying to work out his own racist past, which he has admitted to having. Ligon Duncan seems to be trying to exorcise his racist demons as well by getting woke and crying on stage and talking about how foolish and blind he was to ignore racism in the churches in the south, etc. He's writing forewords to books that are going to lead the church away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and straight into theological liberalism, which is unbelief for those afraid to admit they are unbelievers or who stand to profit by still pretending to keep the faith.


Other compromisers I am seeing are Michael Horton, Derek Thomas, Russell Moore, and probably others that I am forgetting at the moment. The current version of two kingdom theology circulating is not doing the church any favors at all.


Strictly speaking, I don't know any big name in Reformed Evangelicalism that is consistently toeing the line anymore. I appreciate Doug Wilson and John Macarthur, but both are controversial theologically, Doug Wilson for his alleged federal vision theology, and John Macarthur for his Dispensationalism. But believe it or not I've been shaped by Doug Wilson more in the last three years than any other minister outside of my own, and John Macarthur has earned wide admiration and appreciation from me over the years, and was formative in my early years as a Calvinist in getting the gospel right. 


James White, Voddie Baucham, Tom Ascol and the Founders movement, are the faithful few that remain, along with Macarthur, who at 80 years of age may be the last stalwart and elderly statesmen that is holding the line consistently and actually pushing back. I signed this social justice statement (linked below), and you can see the other signatories. I think it is an imperfect statement, and I disagree with it in some places as I do think the Gospel of itself deals with social issues (since the good news is the good news of the Kingdom, and a kingdom must contain a society, in fact it is a society that we pray in the Lord's prayer to be realized on earth as it is in heaven). 


The problem right now is that Satan is using the Gospel message to subvert the Gospel by taking Calvinism and twisting it so that its social ramifications are coming out wrong, wickedly wrong in fact. We are enabling homosexuality in the church, we are at best over-correcting racist sins of the past to now commit racist sins in the opposite direction in the present, and we are doing it all in the name of righteousness! That's how you get Revoice and the MLK 50 Conference and that is also how you begin to be quiet and wonder if baby murder really is so wrong after all. Dealing with sexual sins in society and racial issues are all legitimate, Gospel concerns. The problem is how they are being addressed. Ironically, I think the key issue is that the resurgence of Calvinism has been truncated by a bad or altogether absent Covenant theology. We have seen a revival of the doctrines of grace, but often stripped from its covenantal context, which has led to legalism on one hand and antinomianism on the other. We have cried justification by faith alone and chosen by grace alone for so long that we have lost the context, the covenant soil out of which these doctrines live and move and have their being. Or perhaps we never learned about God's covenant and so we have weaponized these extracted biblical doctrines for wicked ends. 


Anyway, here is the statement on social justice: https://statementonsocialjustice.com/






And if you want bold predictions, here you go:


1.) In 5-7 years, The Gospel Coalition will either not exist, will exist by another name, or will at least have some on its council who do not accept the inerrancy of Scripture. It will not be Calvinistic, at least not exclusively, in 2-3 years, if it isn't already so.


2.) The PCA will either have a major split, or a significant trickling of conservative churches departing from it, in the next 1-2 years. To be more precise, if there isn't an epic showdown and rally by the conservatives this summer at General Assembly (in wake of the Revoice Conference), the PCA is toast and those who are conservative and biblically faithful are going to wake up quick and realize it.


3.) The fragmentation of the Reformed world will continue throughout the Trump presidency, as everything in our nation seems to be fragmenting at this time. Some will go liberal and prove to be goats and wolves. But some will become more biblically faithful, and there are some small streams of Reformed righteousness already forming, by God's grace. And that is the silver lining. 






The best thing we can do right now, is pray to God and live faithfully. I believe Martin Luther said something to the effect of if he knew Christ was returning tomorrow, he'd plant a tree today. Well, even if we know the bulwark of Christianity in our nation is smoldering and burning down today, we need to plant seeds for the hope of resurrection and revival tomorrow. And Christ, after all, says to take heart, for He has already overcome the world (Jn. 16:33), and in Him we have too. Even the falling and faltering Reformed world.

Monday, June 11, 2018

Review of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Part 5)

By: Thomas F. Booher

Due to my lack of time, this will either be the last chapter I review for a while, or I will begin reviewing the other chapters in a much briefer format. At any rate, this chapter by Alexander Jun is going to still be a lengthy review, as it is the longest chapter by far and will be met with some of my strongest disagreement.

In case you were unaware, Alexander Jun (the author of this chapter) was elected as the moderator last year of the PCA General Assembly. Per the bio on each author, he is "a TEDx speaker and Professor of Higher Education at Azusa Pacific University’s School of Behavior and Applied Sciences. He has published on issues of postsecondary access for historically underrepresented students in underserved areas and conducts research on equity, justice, and diversity issues in higher education. He is author of From Here to University: Access, Mobility, and Resilience Among Urban Latino Youth and White Out: Understanding White Privilege and Dominance in the Modern Age. He serves as associate editor for the Journal of Behavior and Social Sciences. A ruling elder at New Life Fullerton in southern California, Jun also serves on the Study Committee on Racial Reconciliation for the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the PCA Unity Fund, and the Committee for Mission to the World. Jun was elected Moderator of the 45th General Assembly of the PCA in 2017."

Jun has many credentials and is a big mover and shaker in the PCA. Which is why I have even greater consternation over some of the things he says in his chapter, entitled Multivocality in the Church: Striving for More Harmonious and Diverse Faith Communities.

Jun begins with a basic story where a giraffe invites an elephant into his home. Not surprisingly, the giraffe's home is too narrow for the elephant to fit through, and the elephant is bumping into things and causing quite a few issues. The giraffe gets frustrated, eventually saying the elephant should slim down or "become a giraffe" in order to fit. The elephant knew the house was built for a giraffe and not an elephant, and so he declines. Jun says this fable is helpful when examining Predominantly White Churches (PWCs), defined essentially as a church that has at least 80 percent of its congregation to be one ethnicity (in this case white). According to some research by Emerson and Smith, 90 percent of churches are comprised of 90 percent or more of the same race/ethnicity.

Jun quotes a definition of structural racism, calling it the:

normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics—historical, cultural, institutional, and interpersonal—which routinely advantage Whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color. It is a system of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized by White supremacy—the preferential treatment, privilege and power for White people at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab, and other racially oppressed people. [Brown, Leon. All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Kindle Locations 824-827). Storied Publishing. Kindle Edition.] 
[Quoted from: Keith Lawrence, Stacey Sutton, Anne Kubisch, Gretchen Susi and Karen Fulbright-Anderson, Structural Racism and Community Building (Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community, 2004).]

He then tells us that structural racism is found (citing the same source as above) today in:

1) history, which lies underneath the surface, providing the foundation for white supremacy in this country, 2) culture, which exists all around our everyday lives, providing the normalization and replication of racism and, 3) interconnected institutions and policies, the key relationships and rules across society providing the legitimacy and reinforcements to maintain and perpetuate racism. Examples include racialized laws and institutional policies, dominant cultural representations, popular myths, and compounded and chronic inequities, etc. [Brown, Leon. All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Kindle Locations 830-834). Storied Publishing. Kindle Edition.]

Jun then addresses the PCA, saying it has been "struggling to acknowledge its racist past" and is largely middle-class, so that the PCA is struggling "to reach and embrace people of lower socioeconomic standings."

Jun next references an evangelical scholar named Soong-Chan Rah, who says that multi-ethnic voices are silenced because of the dominant (white) group gets "to define and shape the parameters of discussion on what the church ought to look like." This brings about White Normativity, which Jun defines for us as essentially that how whites do things, whether ideology, practices, understanding about society, etc., are just the way it is, and thus whites are at the top of the "racial hierarchy" and therefore will see anything deviating from their preferences as "abnormal". While Jun says this does not make every individual white church leader who is not multivocal racist (but keep reading my review to see what changes this), it does mean that a "Eurocentric, Western, White lens" is normalized and perpetuated. "Failing to acknowledge that one’s own views may be rooted in normativity can lead to cultural myopia for a majority of members and their leaders." 

In short, white people in leadership should be more aware of other ministry philosophies, church plant approaches, and styles of worship, and be willing to accept and adapt to some of these, not thinking that their views are the only normal, orthodox, and biblical ones. "White normativity in churches is often revealed within the music style, preaching style, and perhaps even the time management of a church."

Jun quotes others and the overall takeaway is that even in ethnically diverse churches, white normativity often rears its ugly head, and therefore perpetuates "racial inequality". Jun advocates for racial/ethnic diversity in leadership to overcome this inequality of white normativity. He gives another example of playing the clarinet in different music ensembles. When just the clarinets played in warm ups (sectionals), the sound was "repetitive, predictable, and boring." It was only when all instruments came together into a symphony that things sounded great, and Jun got chills due to the multivocality of the instruments. A lack of diversity leads not only to boredom according to Jun, but even "a figurative death in terms of the fellowship of the saints, which should make any given faith community vibrant and mutually enriching." (Kindle Locations 915-916).

Recall that I disagree that multivocality would produce such harmony but would rather produce something looking more like a platypus if we truly want each culture/ethnicity present in our worship services to have a share of the direction the worship of a given church is going to move in (I talked about this in greater length in an earlier review). In other words, I fear the diversity would be at the cost of coherence, unity, and even things being done decently and in order, because it would come off as patch-work and piecemeal rather than a united vision that looks to Scripture rather than cultural preferences as foundational for the worship service. I realize that worship reformed according to Scripture is always in some way going to be mediated through culture, even if musical instruments and such are not present, but I think it would be exceedingly difficult and unwise to try to merge multiple ethnic expressions into one worship service, and when it is argued that this is God's way for worship, we have even bigger problems. Taking various elements from each ethnic expression of worship? Sure, not a bad idea at all in my opinion. But that is a different thing than transporting entire cultural worship expressions and smashing them together into one service. Perhaps Jun and others would not want to do that either and have something more in line with what I would say is appropriate and perhaps beneficial. But if we do this, we will not be preserving or expressing a diversity of cultures' worship/liturgies, we will either still be upholding one culture's expression of worship predominately and sprinkling in a few elements of others here and there, or we will be creating a synthesis that produces something brand new. But then cultural identity is lost in the worship service, and I thought that is what Jun and others wanted to incorporate and uphold.

Jun next addresses the benefits of diversity in our churches and church leadership. "Research by Espinoza-Gonzalez et al. has found that multicultural institutions promote greater work of social justice, reduce prejudice, and change negative effects of stereotypes, while also promoting empowerment, combatting deculturalization, and enhancing other-group orientation."

Also, "Multicultural churches help congregation members become more aware of diverse perspectives, beliefs, and expressions of worship. This awareness then helps people from both dominant and subordinate groups to reflect on the experiences of The Other, which are often vastly different from their own experiences, thus helping people from all groups seek to understand God from a different vantage point." (Kindle Locations 938-941).

There could be some real truth in this. Each culture that is worshiping the true God in Spirit and in Truth are going to give different shades and perspectives on the manifold glory of God, and that is wonderful! However, I do not see how blending worship styles from disparate cultures together will produce these viewpoints, rather they would obscure them. A sprinkling here or there may be helpful and would not destroy the unity, but again I ultimately believe Scripture teaches a way to worship God that God Himself desires, and that must remain the guideline over against any one cultural expression of worship. Is exposition of Scripture optional? Do we really need preaching at all? What are the limits to diverse expressions of worship? Liturgical dance by men in tights? These are the questions we need to focus on.

Jun concedes that embarking on this multi-vocal endeavor will likely lead to more rather than fewer problems initially. But he says those leaders who try to take a "color blind" policy will likely perpetuate White Normativity and will isolate and push away people of color, leading to relationship conflict with them. Intentionality must be used to overcome issues in multivocal congregations, and the use of small groups with multiple ethnicities together is very helpful with this. I concur with Jun here; small groups would be greatly beneficial, as I have seen this first hand in a small group that I lead. Everyone gets to know each other better. Fundamentally, we are one in Christ, and cultural differences are secondary and not a major point of contention at all, though you do get to know each other's heritage and family traditions better.

Jun concludes with ten practical steps to move forward. I found many of these to be very weak. One is about putting yourself in social and ministerial situations where you are not the majority. This, you might realize, means making yourself the minority. Then you are to listen to those different from you, concerning their experiences, beliefs, and backgrounds. So that means that the current majority should become the minority, and should make sure they listen to others. Hmm. Okay, listening to others is always good. But I don't see a requirement to put oneself where you are in the minority. That may happen and may be a blessed thing, but the requirement I do not understand. Jun applies the same to small groups, essentially saying to target minorities and bring them into your group intentionally so you can get fresh perspective. He then says to get a mentor who can teach you about other cultures, and says we need to be intentional about learning about other cultures. I don't think learning about other cultures is bad advice at all, and getting someone to help you do it could be beneficial. But if I live abroad in a foreign culture, I will not demand that those churches conform to my worship preferences, or that they give me a leadership position just so we can shake things up and diversify a bit. 

Jun then says we ought to hold leadership accountable for being "proactive or responsible to racial reconciliation. Some churches may want to have church leadership provide regular updates on how they sought to create a diverse leadership team." Inviting people of color to preach on a variety of issues may also be helpful to "normalize different interpretations, ministry styles, and backgrounds." That may be, though I would have to know what interpretations Jun is referring to before I could say that this would be beneficial. Finally, Jun says to "think differently about the delivery of the elements of worship. From music and song selection, speaking styles, delivery of God’s Word, and communion, all of these elements may be helpful in meeting the many different needs of a diverse community while still maintaining a focus on the primacy of the Lord during worship." (Kindle Locations 1034-1037). Again, my question would be where do we draw the line with this? Our worship must uphold the truth of God, be pleasing to Him, and conform to what He has required in worship. Undoubtedly there is diversity within that, but God takes seriously how we worship Him and there are serious penalties for doing something according to our own desires (see Lev. 10:1ff.). 

Jun states, "a majority of what has been presented in this chapter has focused on an unintentional and unconscious yet dangerous assumption of normativity among those in a dominant majority. This normativity has been built over generations and is reinforced by racialized structures and systems that continue to benefit some at the expense of others. This problem permeates society as a whole, including in the church." Then Jun pulls out the dagger, quoting the abolitionist William Wilberforce, who said, "You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know."

So, now white people know their guilt, their unintentional sin, if they have read this chapter by Jun. But now that we know it, to perpetuate White Normativity would indeed be intentional sin, and presumably then racism. So while Jun earlier says that one is not racist if he promotes White Nomativity unawares, now that Jun and others have enlightened white people of the (sinful) privilege they enjoy in society and the church, it is the white person's job to forfeit such privilege and to cease pushing down people of color. But if you followed a bit of advice Jun gave above, it sure sounded like he is advocating for more than a place at the table for ethnic minorities, but rather a situation where white leaders give up their positions and take lessons from non-white leaders, who then get to implement their own forms and expressions of worship.

My conclusion is that indeed, we should listen to all voices, and make everyone who comes to our churches feel loved and welcomed and involved (regardless of ethnicity). But it is simply the fact that each church is going to worship in a certain way. Jun prefers to blend multiple ethnic cultures' liturgies together to produce something in his mind that is beautiful in worship, and apparently his preference is not a mere preference but is binding with the authority of God. To not follow his method is apparently to not follow God's method, and thus is to be engaged in sin. So while Jun says white people are elevating their mere preferences to the level of what is biblical and God's will, I would charge Jun with doing the very same thing -- elevating his preference to the position of "thus saith the Lord."

I'm simply unpersuaded by Jun's reasoning, though there are some things that he says that are beneficial. But for me to not be persuaded seems to mean that he would regard me as perpetuating the sin of White Normativity, making me a racist (even if unbeknownst to me), a bigot, selfish, and unloving to each ethnicity in the body of Christ that is not my own. It seems to Jun that this is as clear as the issue of slavery, given his quote at the end of the chapter by William Wilberforce. I have read his chapter, so now I cannot say that "I didn't know," and so now I should know the truth of multivocality as God's way for corporate worship, and thus I and many white men in leadership must repent and change our ways.

But, alas, I remain unpersuaded. And keep in mind Jun does not apply White Normativity just to the church, but to society as well. In fact, most of his quotes seem to come from those examining society, and he is taking those principles and trying to apply them to the church. 
















Friday, June 8, 2018

Review of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Part 4)

By: Thomas F. Booher

We now turn to Jarvis Williams' chapter The Gospel: A Uniquely Planned Strategy for Reconciliation.

Williams reminds us that through Christ, man is reconciled to God, to his fellow man, and to all of creation/the cosmos itself. So naturally, cultures can find common ground and unity through redemption in Christ. Williams has some strong, perhaps controversial statements, such as "race in the American narrative has prioritized majority White culture and dehumanized and marginalized minority (and especially Black) cultures." In the 1600's race developed in our nation as a social construct in order to establish and maintain a racial hierarchy of whites over blacks. The construct of race has served "as a way to dehumanize and marginalize black and brown people and subjugate them to the White majority." And one more for good measure -- "The construct of race in the American experience has historically operated as a category of privilege for the majority White culture over black bodies and as a category granting to majority White culture social, economic, and political power and privileges over black and brown bodies both inside and outside the church, and even in many other Christian spaces."

To grow, Williams says we need to see "the ways in which race still socially privileges and marginalizes different races in the church, in Christian institutions, and in society."

I am twenty-eight years old. This doesn't ring true in my experience, but I admit my experience is very brief, my memories beginning in the early to mid 1990's. I do not doubt that race has been used to denigrate certain people groups because of the color of their skin, among other things. But it is also true that whites have been viewed as oppressive in overly generalizing ways, that all white people are bad just because they are white. While there may be some "white structures" that still privilege white people, I know in my situation there has been scholarships made available to ethnic minorities that never would have been given to me, simply because I am white. Is that biblical justice? I don't really think granting scholarships for one group of people over another, based on ethnic background, makes a lot of sense. That is not to say that I think receiving such a scholarship if it is available to you is evil, but I do wonder why we do these kinds of things. If it is to make up for a deficit or mistreatment of minorities in the past, then at some point will things be "even" and these scholarships will disappear? Or are we saying it is bad that privilege exists in any sense, and thus the advantages of a majority culture are by their very nature sinful and should be done away with by various measures? I do not expect, if I was in Japan let's say, to be given special scholarships just because I was not Japanese.

There are plenty of white people that I know who are not experiencing much if any so-called "white privilege," and there are blacks and others who are being privileged beyond some whites, and sometimes their advantages come because they are being rewarded just for being an ethnic minority. Surely this is an over correction? Let each receive based on their own merit, their own capacity. At the foot of the cross, are not debts forgiven?

More importantly, trying to do the math on who owes who what is not something that can very easily be done. In fact, if we are honest it cannot be done at all. Only by picking out one sin (like racism) could one perhaps try to do this, but even then it will become much more complex and difficult than might be initially thought. I imagine Williams and others in this book might would laugh at that and say it is fairly easy and straightforward, and that I cannot see that because of my white privilege. But privilege isn't inherently bad, and not everything said to be privilege is in fact privilege.

What if I find out that I had a direct ancestor who was a wealthy slave owner? If I was born into a wealthy family (which I wasn't, not even close), would that obligate me to give some of that wealth to the descendants of the slaves of my direct ancestor? What if I was middle class, lower middle class, or poor? What if the slave's descendants, when I come across them, are enjoying more privilege and prosperity than I am? What if they are really awful, terrible, vile and wicked people? Do I blame their wickedness on my ancestor who enslaved their ancestors, and do I assume that the ripple effect of that led to a bad living environment and mistreatment, which bred sinfulness and a bad life of crime down through the generations to the vile black man whose great-great-great grandfather was enslaved by my vile great-great-great grandfather? And if I am an elder in the church, how do I sift through not only my own personal debts that I owe for transgressions that pre-exist me, but also the debts of others in my congregation?

Now, extrapolate that out to the level of entire towns, counties, states, etc. The truth is that we have cultures and societies dominating and mistreating one another, because men are sinners, and we sin against each other, blacks against whites, whites against blacks, whites against whites, blacks against blacks, and everyone else against everyone else. Only Jesus can wash away all our tangled sin, and our parents and ancestors tangled sins, and we are called to forgive others of their debts as God has forgiven us of our own. Who is to say, if we went back far enough in history, that if justice was meted out perfectly, all the way down to when you or I was born, that we wouldn't be born into a better life-situation? Who knows. It could be better, or it could be worse. We are called to live faithfully and love others, not to unduly stress about the past and who owes us what and what we owe to others because of what people we never knew and never met did with their lives. This is not to deny that we are born into this world with different degrees of privilege, or that some of us are born into really terrible situations because of the sins of others destroying and ravaging our parents, grandparents, and further back. But I am saying that only God can give justice to the dead, and we all have suffered injustices, and have received advantages, because of our forefathers and others' forefathers. 

Yet, consider that all of us who live in the United States are born into a blessed situation compared to most countries, and we live in a blessed time of medical and technological advancement that is much better than what was available even just 100 years ago. Adam is our representative, our federal head, something we did not ask for, and yet we are guilty in Adam and born dead in trespasses and sins (Romans 5), unable to trust in Christ for salvation or do anything good because of our inherited and inherent sinfulness (Romans 3). Perhaps we could thank God for what we have been given, decry racism where it is found, including structural racism when and where it exists, and admit that one can be unjustly prejudiced not only against blacks, but any ethnicity, including whites. So we love each other without regard to ethnic background or prior grievances that have been confessed and repented of. 

Williams discusses the already/not yet nature of the kingdom of God, and points out that disunity, division, factions, and so on are all something we are presently being delivered from, but will not be delivered from totally until Christ returns. Nevertheless, we experience kingdom life now by the power of the Spirit and as we all live together in harmony with one another as the body of Christ (Gal. 3:14, 28; Eph. 4:1ff.). Williams correctly notes that the diversity of the Church universal right now represents the bride of Christ that is gathered around the throne in Rev. 7:9. He says quite plainly that redemption in Christ "neither guarantees every church will be multi-ethnic, nor that Christian unity will happen without hard work and intentional efforts." I am glad to see that he acknowledges this, and I agree that reaching out to others who are not just like us is not always the easiest thing in the world. However, I don't fully understand why it is made out to be such a big deal sometimes. I have had, and do have, friends from different backgrounds, cultures, skin colors, and we seem to have a lot in common, particularly Christ. 

Williams puts his finger on one of the most confusing aspects of racial reconciliation for me when he says "when location allows and the Spirit enables, Christians should live now in imperfect reconciled communities in our local churches on earth as we reflect in part the inaugurated presence of the kingdom on earth with redeemed brothers and sisters from different tongues, tribes, peoples, and nations in Christian spaces (Eph. 2:11-3:8). Certainly we should remove all possible barriers to have churches that can fellowship together regardless of cultural differences. But language differences? And again, when and where and how do we know that the location does indeed allow for and the Spirit i sin fact enabling us to live in imperfect reconciled communities (whatever that exactly is)? Isn't every church, broadly speaking, empowered by the Spirit to live together as imperfect reconciled communities, regardless if the church is mainly white, black, or brown, or a balanced mix? My point is that racial and cultural differences are not the only thing that divides us and causes imperfection concerning our reconciliation with one another. Not even close.

For those churches that can live out what Williams says is the "Gospel's strategy for reconciliation in churches located in communities where multiethnic expressions of reconciliation are possible," he offers a few strategies to pursuing this end. In short they are to pursue multi-ethnic friendships, and Williams makes the curious comment that "preferences are also attached to a particular ethnic or racial culture. With that racial or ethnic culture comes a certain theological culture with which we identify." He doesn't elaborate further on that last sentence, but I am concerned that he is saying that we need to soften our doctrinal rigidity in order to be reconciled with those of other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. This is simply sub-biblical if that is in fact what he means. We never sacrifice the truth of God in order to get greater reconciliation in the process. It is impossible. Certainly we can speak with other Christians (regardless of background) and have fellowship with them, and regardless whether they have the exact same theology as we do. But why the need to state something as basic as that? That happens all the time already.

Williams does place the bulk of the burden on the privileged/majority cultures, and by that he means whites, to bring about this reconciliation by being "aware and intentional about their need to negotiate, to share, and to leverage some of the privileges and preferences they have due to their majority cultural status for the sake of reconciliation." Specifics are not given here, but I do wonder what this means. Is theological precision something that must be forfeited? If so, how much, and why (isn't truth, well, truth, which transcends culture)? Worship styles? Does this extend outside of the church services? I love trying different kinds of foods, but I don't consider eating diverse food to be giving up a privilege. Do I need to give up my job to someone else who is less privileged (or why can't I have the job of someone who is less qualified than me but got it just because of the privileged family or situation he was born into?)? Should I move into a home that is surrounded by those not of my own culture (I've done that, but not because I was trying to give up my white privilege)?

Williams also says that we should ask God to "help us embrace the racial and ethnic diversity in our communities". We should come to learn about the ethnic diversity in our own neighborhoods. If we can't do this because we are surrounded by our own culture, Williams says we should read books "by and about women and men from different racial and ethnic groups and cultures. We can listen to music, lectures, and observe art from cultures that represent the beautiful racial and ethnic diversity of our world." He also says to attend conferences led by ethnic minorities. Finally, he suggests that we rely upon the Spirit, who produces the unity in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). This is, for Williams, the Gospel's strategy for reconciliation as we pursue and walk in the power of the Spirit. I have no problem doing these things, but I think that they should occur naturally. I don't feel obligated to listen to someone of my own ethnic group or another's, I just listen to sermons and lectures that happen to be good. The same for music, and art. And that means I listen to and enjoy lots of different things from lots of different cultures. But again, not because I feel a moral obligation to make doing so my mission in life, and not because if I fail to do so I fail to faithfully live up to the ideals of the Gospel. I don't expect anyone to have to endure country music after all! I do not wish to be ignorant of other cultures, so I think in general Williams' advice is okay, but to indicate that we are being unfaithful to the Gospel if we do not go out of our way to listen to a certain number of songs, sermons, or whatever from cultures other than our own is absurd.     

Next up is chapter 4, Alexander Jun's chapter on Multivocality in the Church: Striving for More Harmonious and Diverse Faith Communities
   

  

Review of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Part 3)

Part 3 of my review covers chapter two of the book, and I must say from the outset there is much in here that is commendable and helpful. The author is Irwyn Ince, graduated of Reformed Theological Seminary and Covenant Theological Seminary. He is Pastor and Director of the GraceDC Network Institute for Cross-Cultural Mission.

Much of the chapter is spent demonstrating the undoing of the Tower of Babel in Acts 2, where the nations are gathered, the Spirit is poured out on them, and the unity of the nations is seen in the power of the Spirit bringing the nations to faith in Jesus Christ. Ince opens with Col. 3:11 and Gal. 3:28. The religious bond, the bond that we have in Christ, runs deeper than any other bond. We have one Lord, one Father, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit. We are the body and bride of Christ, and Christ's body and bride is comprised of human beings from every tribe, tongue, and nation. That is a very beautiful and glorious thing. that's the power of the cross.

Ince argues that "the good news in Jesus Christ contradicted the acceptance of ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic division. The reality of union with Jesus Christ manifested itself in his people striving for union and unity with one another across dividing lines. Thankfully many American churches are taking more seriously the biblical call to build and participate in multiethnic churches and communities." Further, he sets out to show that the new normal of "redemptive ethnic unity" was possessed in the 1st century church and that we need to today regain what we have lost.

Ince uses Isa. 19:23-35 to demonstrate that the New Testament church is to be one of multiethnic worshiping communities. On the Day of Pentecost, all the nations are represented (Acts 2:9-10) and receive the Spirit, and three thousand souls are added to the church from among the nations (Acts 2:41) and are committed to Christian fellowship, love, and peace with one another (Acts 2:42-45). This is a beautiful thing. However, I would want to point out that the miracle of being able to hear in one's own language was not a new normal. There are still language barriers, and I would argue potentially cultural barriers, that can make worshiping together difficult, and if one cannot hear the Word of God and understand it, that is not a profitable situation. Does Ince want us to believe that our aim should be that we all speak multiple language, even all the languages, so that we can all worship together and understand each other? I doubt he would take things that far, but my point is simply that the picture of Pentecost is one of a consummated reality, which can only be fully realized when Christ returns. I agree that this reality is present now, and that it will grow by the grace of God. More and more nations and cultures will stream into the Kingdom of God, and will worship Him. There will be churches that are ethnically diverse and the diversity and breadth of the Kingdom of God will be displayed in some individual churches. But is this diversity within each individual church something that we must seek to achieve? Is God promising this kind of diversity for every or even most churches that are on the face of the earth today? I do not believe so.

Ince brings out helpful and relevant material when he notes the ethnic diversity of the Greco-Roman world:

Migrations and invasions occurred, such as that by the Celts into Macedonia and Asia Minor. Merchant-driven colonization occurred. Jews were scattered throughout the region. Roman soldiers and foreign auxiliary soldiers retired and settled in areas away from their homes; and slaves were captured from a variety of areas of the Roman frontier and transferred throughout the Empire to be incorporated into the diverse mix of peoples that inhabited the cities of the first century AD.

 Ince notes how quickly discrimination spread in the early church, looking at Acts 6 and the neglect by the Hebrews of the Hellenists' widows, who were not receiving the daily distribution of resources. Acts 10:15 shows Peter needing to be taught that all persons have been made clean, that Christ is saving people for Himself from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Acts 11:19-20 is also noted, and Ince points out that at the Tower of Babel and throughout history since, man has turned his ethnicity into idolatry. The church is not supposed to be like this.  One can only amen the following:

The new normal of the multiethnic church in the New Testament moves the focus to Jesus Christ, and finding our identity in him helps avoid cultural idolatry. Jewishness was not to be at the center of anyone’s identity. Egyptian-ness, Libyan-ness, and Arabian-ness were not to be at the center of anyone’s identity. The Spirit of God worked to press the people of God into the new normal with Jesus Christ at the center of identity. Again, this did not mean that ethnic identities were no longer apparent or significant. The work of God was not a call to strike a balance between identity in Christ and ethnic identity, as if too much of one washes out the other. Instead, those who belonged to Christ were to understand ethnic identity as subservient to identity in Christ.
Ince closes with a powerful statement about our unity in Christ. Jesus is the center, bearing the weight of it all, for our ethnicity and culture cannot do it. God brings together the different threads of the nations and produces something beautiful and amazing. This is the new normal that we have lost from the early church and must regain, says Ince.

Well, as I have said throughout, there is much to commend here. However, I am not sure how to regain and recreate Pentecost. I am not convinced that is the point of Acts 2. Acts 2 and all of the book of Acts indicates that there is neither Jew nor Greek, that the Gospel is to go out to all indiscriminately. I should desire to tell anyone and everyone about salvation in Christ. I should not get mad at God if He is only calling one primary ethnic group into this or that particular local church, despite my efforts to proclaim the gospel without partiality. Then there is the consideration that many in our churches are not evangelistic, or at most talk to their closest friends about Christ. And here we have to recognize that for particular cultures to continue to exist at all, there has to be some people in one culture and other people in another culture. Otherwise, all cultural distinctions are blurred and bleed together. One does not have to repent for growing up in the South and enjoying much of southern culture, nor does one have to repent for growing up in the North and enjoying its culture. But these differences will have to be recognized and overcome in churches where northerners and southerners are together. Can they be overcome? Of course, and they can enrich one another. But does one have to give up their culture in order to overcome barriers to the cultures of others? No. But we know that even different personalities come into play, not to mention different theological traditions, when one decides what church he is going to attend. I want to be winsome and passionate about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who calls all men to repentance and to trust in Him for salvation. We are to do so without discrimination.

Churches and church services, to some extent, are going to be shaped by the predominant culture that its membership comprises. I know of one author who is contributing to this book, and his church is said to be multi-ethnic. I went to a Presbytery meeting that was hosted at his church, and their worship service and style was not familiar to me and "my culture". And as long as the expression of worship is biblical, worshiping with reverence in spirit and truth, and is not salacious and is done with decency and in order, that is perfectly fine. But it was evident that this multi-cultural church was not really incorporating multi-ethnic worship into its service. But how could one do so anyway without obliterating the distinctives of each culture, or without the absurdity of having multiple services, multiple preachers of different ethnicity perhaps, and/or each worship song and part of the liturgy is fashioned after a different cultural groups traditional liturgical expression in worship. Again, this would yield something more like a platypus, not the most elegant and beautiful of God's creatures, and less like a well-turned 6-4-3 double play. So take that one element from baseball, then tack on an alley-oop slam dunk, then a flea flicker, and try to make them come together in a brand new sport with perfect harmony. I don't think we want to lose all our other sports to create one new mega-sport.

At the end of the day, I would say our focus needs to be on the preaching and proclamation of the Word of God, the quality fellowship we should have with the saints, and the loving bond expressed in that Christian community. Whether the music is what I am used to or not doesn't really matter in comparison. The theology of the church, the quality of its preaching and pastoral care, the breaking of bread and fellowship with the saints, the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline, these are the things that should unite us. I think this will lead to some congregations that are very integrated, but some, perhaps many churches, are going to retain a certain liturgical identity, and that identity is going to draw certain cultures and ethnic groups more than others. And that, I do not believe, is an inherently wicked thing.   

Next time, chapter 3 with Jarvis Williams, entitled The Gospel: A Uniquely Planned Strategy For Reconciliation. 

Review of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Part 2)

We now turn to chapter one of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church. This chapter is written by Eric M. Washington, who is "Associate Professor of History and Director of the African and African Diaspora Studies at Calvin College." The chapter is entitled The Most Segregated Hour: Roots and Remedies of An American Evangelical Problem.

Washington opens with a lengthy quote of Martin Luther King Jr., who said in 1963 at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo that the worship hour on Sundays is the most segregated hour in the United States, and that the church can begin repenting by removing "the yoke of segregation" from itself. King goes on to say that "the church itself will stand under the judgment of God" for its racial segregation. (Certainly, I would agree that racism in the church will be met with the judgment of God if it does not repent.) Washington replies -- "Sadly these words still hold true." He then shares a 2008 report that indicates only 7 percent of the nation's churches are multiracial, and that a 2015 LifeWay Research survey found that eight out of ten American churches had only one main ethnic group, and that most church-goers were okay with this.

Washington turns to the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Black Lives Matter movement to note that white Evangelicals often claim that people of color are causing more problems with racism by bringing attention to these killings. "In the aftermath of the Michael Brown killing, it became clear how racially divided America is. This includes the church." Washington shares the thesis of his chapter:

This chapter provides historical perspective regarding why a Black Church came into existence, and even continues, in light of calls for multiracial and cross-cultural churches. This chapter’s argument is that the Black Church is a product of White racism beginning in slavery and extending even now. African American churches function as a safe haven from the ravages of a racist society where African Americans can worship unashamed of their culture and lead in distinct cultural fashion.
Before we turn to Washington's historical survey, I'd like to comment on this quote. Is it true that African American churches exist today because of past and present racism? I think (as you will see) Washington makes the case that black churches began because of racism and slavery, but I am not persuaded that the predominant reason black churches still exist is because of present racism. I don't doubt this could be true in some circumstances, but I know of many welcoming churches that are mostly white, including my own church. If the argument is that white churches that do not go out of their way to reach out to blacks specifically are therefore guilty of racism (because of the history of slavery and racism in our nation), I cannot agree. Denominations recognizing and confessing the racial sin in their denomination (whether that sin is past or present) is necessary and beneficial. But pretending that we can go back and make amends for past sins by reaching out to the black community in such a way that prioritizes them over every other ethnic group is not a Gospel solution. Let me explain why by first turning to Ephesians 6:5-9,

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
God commands Masters to give up threatening, to not be harsh to their slaves. The command does not extend back to their father or grandfather's slaves, nor is their an explicit command to immediately set their slaves free, presumably even if they had been treating them harshly! Now, I am not saying that Christian love wouldn't lead to setting your slaves free (or NEVER having slaves to begin with because it was inherently wicked given the treatment of the slaves in route to the New World, among many other problems with slavery). What I am saying is that the biblical record itself does not demand reparations for the sins of our great, great, grandfathers. Even when God says he visits the sins of the fathers on the God-hating children down to the third and fourth generations, I do not see how this could be made to mean that all white people ought to be concerned to determine who in their family might have been slave owners, who treated their slaves harshly, and how today white people can pay back these slaves' offspring now some 150 or more years after the fact. Or if you had a Grandfather who owned a company and systematically chose to bar blacks from being his employees, I do not see how the Grand-child is obligated to hire black people specifically to make up for the injustice toward someone else who is now deceased. Could I choose to do this as an act of good-will and kindness? I don't see why not. But whether that is the right or wisest thing to do would depend on a multitude of circumstances.

One might say that black people today are growing up in terrible communities because of the sin of slavery and racism,  that those ripple effects are still being felt today. That may be true, and that is sad, and the gospel needs to be taken to them (as well as everyone else). But there are many sins which we commit, and many sins against many people, regardless of ethnicity, that have privileged some and disadvantaged others (and this cuts across ethnic lines; some ethnic minorities might find themselves in a more privileged position than a white person). Families cut each other down. Parents abort their children (and to my understanding, black parents abort their children at an alarmingly high rate compared to other ethnic groups), and children murder their parents. There is a tangled web of sin that cuts across ethnic and cultural lines in such a way that things cannot be sorted out until Christ returns. What God does say to do is to live a holy, righteous life, not showing favoritism to the rich or the poor (Lev. 19:15).

Another helpful passage is Deuteronomy 10:17ff.:

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Clearly, God does show kindness and mercy in an extra special way (and frequency) to the downcast and downtrodden. Yet as Deut. 7:7 and other verses show, God did not choose Israel because they were great and mighty. Their slavery did not absolve them of their sinfulness and unworthiness of redemption (whether physical or spiritual). God chooses whom He chooses for His glory, to make His name great, to overthrow Pharaoh and raise up an enslaved people to inherit the earth. And yet, when the Israelites sinned and rebelled, they could not appeal to their poor and wicked upbringing as slaves to the cruel Egyptians as an excuse for their sinfulness and God's eventual exiling them from the Promised Land. God did not tell them to return to their former overlords in Egypt and demand reparations (and note, those wandering in the wilderness were the same generation of Israelites that were set free from Egyptian slavery). Because Israel longed for slavery again and grumbled against what seemed to them to be a meager freedom in the wilderness with God, God was displeased and eventually punishes them (see Ex. 16-17, Num. 11, esp. v. 31-35) and ultimately causes them to wander in the wilderness for forty years, until a new generation can inherit the covenant promises.

Now, as I noted in part one, I do not consider my neighbors who are of a different ethnicity than myself to be a different nation that I must reach out to, certainly not in the sense that Christ in the Great Commission passage addresses (Matt. 28:19-20). Zacchaeus (see Luke 19:8-10) was required (see Ex. 22:1 and elsewhere) to make fourfold restitution of those he had defrauded, and he chose to give half of his possessions to the poor because he was rich, and Scripture demands that the rich be generous with their possessions. And he was rich because, as a tax collector, he naturally defrauded people and took more than he was supposed to take, in order to keep the extra for himself. But let's suppose he came from a long line of swindling tax collectors. Would he be required to make restitution for all those whom his fore-fathers had defrauded? Certainly not. And to my knowledge, we do not see that kind of thing occurring anywhere in the Old or New Testament.     

Returning to chapter one, highlights of Washington's historical survey include how whites were exclusively in leadership during the colonial period through the Revolutionary War, with only rare exceptions. Then, as free Africans migrated North, churches began segregating African American congregants. Whites in the south were able to control both enslaved and freed African Americans, regarding those who worshiped with them as only second-rate church members. Early on, few slave owners cared to catechize their slaves or baptize them, fearing this might mean they could no longer keep them as slaves. Dutch Reformed churches did more in the way of catechizing and allowing the enslaved to become members, marry, and baptize their children, however it does not appear that they could serve as deacons or elders. Congregationalist pastors believed their slaves were part of their covenant household and so they catechized their slaves, seeing the conversion of many. Other groups and even some catechism schools formed to reach out to black slaves with the gospel.  The First Great Awakening and New Light Presbyterians also served as a catalyst for more slaves converting to Christianity.

Washington then writes about the first black churches among the Baptists, Methodists, African Methodist Episcopal Church, and others from the 1770's and onward. It is all very interesting and well worth reading. Washington highlights the common refrain of racism and prejudice that blacks experienced: "Racial prejudice and the need to have churches under their own leadership prompted free Blacks in the urban North to start churches in the early nineteenth century....In integrated churches, African Americans had to sit in segregated seating in the galleries, and the leadership prohibited them from singing or speaking in worship."

Turning to the Antebellum Period, during the 1820's "States passed laws that eroded the independence and the ability of free African Americans from forming their own churches under their own control. Because of the Nat Turner rebellion, African American men were no longer permitted to preach legally without White supervision."

Following the Civil War, "the AME denomination flooded the South with missionaries who planted churches. At the end of Reconstruction, there were AME churches from Florida to Texas. One reason for such growth was the obvious newfound sense of independence among African Americans. The AME also successfully implored freedmen to join the church to be under African American leadership." This is similar for Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, where "church segregation was more a force perpetuated by white racism and gerrymandering than attitudes by African American Christians despising fellowship with their White brothers and sisters."

Washington analyzes his historical findings, and asks how we can be a more catholic/universal church, where blacks and whites are no longer segregated in worship. Washington concludes that, given the aforementioned history, the burden is on the white churches to solve this problem. He mentions strides made by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 1995 to apologize for slavery, as well as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in 2002 and 2016, where confession and repentance was made for not loving black neighbors during the Civil Rights era. Washington then adds, "History demands White churches repent from their past and present racism and that African American churches walk with them down the road of repentance from racism." He closes his chapter by noting how African American culture has been largely denigrated in the United States, and that racism is woven into the fabric of our society. Thus Christians, black and white together, must be committed to removing racism in the church and society. Of course, that means removing racism in our churches today requires that our churches be a healthy mix of blacks and whites (and I suppose he would add other ethnic groups as well).

I agree that we must be committed to doing all we can to remove true racism from the church and society. But I am not sure exactly how far-reaching racism is in the minds of the authors of this book. If I do not favor black people over others in my evangelism, outreach, mercy ministry, etc., am I guilty of being a racist? Are churches who refuse to do this guilty of being a racist church? I do not think so. I would say just the opposite, that to favor any one ethnic group over another due simply to injustices committed in history is actually a form of racism and disrupts the unity and oneness that we all have in Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:3, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

True integration should be desired in our churches, but not by showing partiality or favoritism. A church that is predominately white, or black, or any other ethnic group, may still be regarded as integrated, so long as they are not trying to be segregated. The desire to be integrated and the actual accomplishment of that are two different things, however. God has not promised that each church planted in an ethnically diverse community is going to yield an ethnically diverse church. Our goal should be to take the Gospel to all the peoples in our community, without showing partiality, and then to allow the Holy Spirit to save and bring into our particular churches whomever He wills. That may or may not lead to a church that reflects something of the ethnic diversity of Revelation 7:9-10, because Revelation 7:9-10, among other things, is not speaking of each individual church but of the church universal and the gathering of the church universal before the throne of God and Lamb of God. Revelation 7 is speaking of the consummated reality of the church universal, that is, the gathering of the Church from the four corners of the Earth at the time when all things are made new. Yet I have heard this used as a primary text in the racial reconciliation debates to support the idea that right now, all churches that are planted in ethnically diverse communities should reflect Revelation 7 diversity. The implication seems to be that if Revelation 7 diversity is not found, then that church is racist. But I do not see how taking the Gospel indiscriminately, without partiality and favoritism, is racist!

Or put another way, if each individual church is a species of the church universal, which would be the genus, then what some are claiming in the racial reconciliation movement today belongs properly to the church universal/genus, but they are mistakenly attributing this diversity to many if not all individual churches/species.

Or to put it one other way. If I order a pizza with each slice having only one topping, and each slice has a different topping from the other slices, the pizza collectively would have at least eight toppings (assuming there are eight slices of pizza). But does each individual slice of pizza have eight toppings? No, each has only one topping. In our churches today, it is simply impossible to have every topping/ethnicity represented, because I do not know of any one location where every nationality and people group is represented. So it is not possible for any individual church to truly reflect what Rev. 7:9 is addressing. Would it be hopeful and desirable that a church that is planted in a location with two or more ethnic groups also reflect that diversity? Certainly. But the Bible does not teach that the goal of our evangelistic ministry should be favoring ethnic minorities (or sexual minorities as the Revoice conference might desire) or any particular group over another. That doesn't mean that we might not have a group of  church members reach out especially to a nearby community that is primarily black, or white, or Latino, or whatever. Given the gifting and desires of each member in the local congregation, this might well occur, and praise God! But the church is not forced or commanded by God to pick and choose certain peoples or groups over others in order to reach the lost. 

Next time, we will examine chapter two, entitled, Regaining What We've Lost: The First-Century Church.












Thursday, June 7, 2018

Review of All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church (Part 1)

By: Thomas F. Booher

I have decided to write chapter-by-chapter reviews of the book All Are Welcome: Toward a Multi-Everything Church, which is edited by Leon Brown. (Find parts two, three, four, and five of my review here).

Each chapter is written by a different author, not a few of whom are in the PCA, my own denomination. From the book's introduction we find that: 

"Within these pages you will hear from men and women, African Americans, an Indian American, a Hispanic, and those of mixed-ethnic heritage. Their insights are valuable. Their perspectives—like yours—have been shaped by their cultures, ethnic heritages, histories, and financial standings."

This book comes with endorsements from some real heavy hitters in the Reformed world, including Michael Horton, Derek Thomas, D. Clair Davis, and others. The exhortation from Horton and others is to let non-whites/ethnic minorities do more talking concerning racial reconciliation. Horton also adds that "racism is a systematic as well as personal sin. Repentance and reconciliation must be both as well." 

Perhaps I am already violating what Horton and others want by not merely listening but also responding and pointing out where I agree and disagree with this book, and giving my reasons why. I certainly believe that all should be allowed to speak on the issues of racism, multi-culturalism, and how our churches should be reaching out to the culture(s) around us. The introduction gives a reason for All Are Welcome's existence, namely that our nation is becoming increasingly multicultural and multi-ethnic. 

Put more provocatively, the introduction asks, "Will the makeup of our churches remain the same—segregated?1 If we are going to reach the nations at our doorstep, something has to change." 

I am eager to see what must change for us to reach the nations at our doorstep, and I believe some good and helpful things will be said. But my first concern is the idea that multiple ethnic groups and cultures means that there are multiple nations within the one nation of the United States. I am sure this will be discussed in more detail as we go along, but for now I just want to note that I am not persuaded that my whiteness or culture or upbringing makes me one particular nation, and my neighbor who is black and perhaps has a different cultural upbringing and family traditions is therefore of a different "nation" that I must reach out to specifically and in a fundamentally different way than how I would speak to my white neighbor across the street from me (who I suppose it will be argued is of the same "nation" as me since we are both white and presumably have similar cultural beliefs and upbringings). 

Further, I am not convinced that churches that are predominately white (or black, or Korean, etc.) and are planted in multi-ethnic towns are necessarily engaging in sin by virtue of being mostly mono-cultural. I do not think this necessarily indicates a failure to reach out to the so-called nations around them (thought certainly it could indicate something sinful at a systemic level). My church is predominately white, and we live in a town that has a sizeable portion of ethnic minorities represented. While I think our church could be more evangelistic in general, I do not think that our "whiteness" is due to racism or a failure to love people of all skin colors and cultures equally. There is a wonderful black family at my church that is part of a covenant group that I lead, and we are good friends, despite my being Presbyterian and their being Reformed Baptist (now isn't that something!). 

I teach at a Christian school whose student body is predominately black, and I have taught more students who are non-white than those that are white in my three years of teaching. Everyone gets along very well, or at least, the leading concerns in our school and church are not stemming from racism, cultural differences, etc. 

This is not to say that I do not think racism is a real issue, or that racism is non-existent. I know there is racism in Christian schools and churches, and I wouldn't say that racism at any and every level is utterly non-existent in the school I teach at or even at my church. That would be quite foolish given the sinfulness of man. I also do not believe that only white people are capable of racism, sinful discrimination, and bigotry. We all have much sin to repent of, and racism doesn't "privilege" one ethnic group or skin color over another. Anyone can be racist. 

The introduction says that while "multi-everything" is meant to be hyperbole, they do affirm that "our congregations should be welcoming to everyone, affirming the good of the various cultures expressed in one’s community, and seeking to implement those cultural distinctions in our church services. Is that biblical? Is that possible?"

Since they asked if this is biblical and possible, I'll offer an answer. I certainly agree that our congregations should be welcoming to everyone and should affirm the good within cultures. I am not so sure that we should be or are required to implement those cultural distinctions into our church services. I frankly do not see how one church and one church service could incorporate distinctives of three, four, or more cultures. I also must confess that I do not know what implementing these cultural distinctions into our church services would even look like. Should we have multiple services with different music styles (which would still likely lead to so-called segregation, each ethnic group attending its favorite cultural expression of worship)? Wouldn't mixing multiple cultural expressions create a hodgepodge that would lose the distinctives of all the cultures, creating something new that would result in something more like a platypus and less like a symphony? I doubt whether this is possible, and I also doubt whether such an effort, regardless of pure or impure motivation, is biblical. I simply do not see Scripture emphasizing this kind of melding in church services anywhere. I do see Scripture speaking about the glory of all nations (Rev. 21:23-24), but not that we should try to incorporate the good of each culture represented in our community into each of our worship services. 


I do wonder how this book will wrestle with the oneness we all have in Christ as Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:27-29) given the language and concern to be a "multi-everything" church. The second to last paragraph of the introduction offers this: 

While every contributor is united as an ethnic minority, we also are all unified by confessing that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are infallible and inerrant. We believe there is only one God, who exists in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and there is no salvation outside of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. We value the local church, and we love all our brothers and sisters in the faith.

The closing paragraph hopes that "we would truly become a multi-everything church where all are welcome." I indeed hope and pray that our churches welcome all, and I believe that many by and large do. I am not sure yet how being "multi-everything" ties in with being welcoming to everyone. Must a church be multi-everything in order to truly be a church that loves and welcomes all peoples in a way that God would want us to love all peoples? We shall see. 

Next time, I'll begin discussing and examining chapter one, entitled The Most Segregated Hour: Roots and Remedies of an American Evangelical Problem.