From Segregation to Interaction

IF I’VE HEARD IT ONCE, I’ve heard it a thousand times: “Sunday is the most segregated day of the week.” When some of my brothers and sisters in Christ hear this oft-quoted statement, they assume the end game should be multiethnic churches comprised of members representing a variety of hues and ethnicities. They for good reason, see such congregations as counter to the troubling disunity within the Body of Christ, particularly as it exists in the United States. For, when a church is truly multicultural,1 a special oneness takes place. The world sees the power of Christ at work, and the congregation experiences the beauty and strength that each culture brings. After all, wouldn’t it be great to have fellowships here on earth that resemble the heavenly scene recounted by John the Revelator? Clearly, there won’t be segregation in heaven, so why should local churches be monocultural or monochromatic?

Attacked with this line of reasoning, many an American pastor has been made to feel guilty over the lack of diversity within their churches. My guess is that white pastors have faced this critique at a greater frequency than their ethnic minority counterparts.2 This is understandable given our nation’s ugly history of racism, even and especially within the church. However, is it fair to critique white pastors solely on the number of black and brown bodies in the pews? If so, what percentage would get them off the hook—5%, 10%, 25%? And then how many types of people are required for the pastor to pass the diversity test? At some point, it becomes subjective. I have had more than one conversation with such conscientious leaders who seem to feel a sense of shame that their best efforts have not led to an influx of diversity. Lest I be misunderstood, my intention is not to tell these pastors to stop trying. Rather, my hope is to encourage them to approach the task differently. There is another way.

While I respect the view that the creation of multicultural churches is the answer to combat Sunday segregation, my thoughts are that multicultural churches are simply one way of tackling this age-old problem. And this solution will likely be the exception, not the norm. To all the pastors who have a bona fide call and passion to start a multicultural church, go for it! However, for the majority of leaders, such a church will never be a reality. And that is okay. For starters, people have preferences. These preferences are often core to how believers experience God. Basic anthropology would say that when it comes to spiritual matters, people move toward the forms that communicate meaning for them. For example, in the summer of 2013 I had a very memorable, Spirit-filled worship experience in Nakuru, Kenya with an ethnically-diverse group of Kenyans. During one particular time of worship, each ethnic group had an opportunity to come to the front of the room and present a song. I enjoyed each presentation, but the Masaai leaders’ musical offering impacted me profoundly. The Masaai believers led us in song as we together jumped up into the air and landed firmly, the ground shaking beneath our feet. We grunted and moved our necks back and forth in traditional fashion. The experience was amazing for me, but it was so much deeper for my Maasai brothers. I wonder how long the novelty of such a worship style would last if that became the primary worship expression in a multicultural church. Just picture Joel Osteen and the Lakewood congregation jumping and grunting in the former Compaq Center every Sunday. Not gonna happen.

Multicultural churches, while they are beautiful, will to a small degree address our Sunday segregation issues. But the model to bring about the most change, that of having local congregations interface, will have a much more profound impact.

Further, if there are let’s say 5 distinct cultures in a local church, does each culture get a Sunday to showcase its styles? “Uh, excuse me pastor. Next up in the rotation is southern gospel Sunday. We had salsa praise last week.” This taking turns can work for a while, but what happens when additional cultures are added? Do they have to wait until their numbers reach a certain threshold in order to get into the rotation? What often happens in my experience is that the congregation settles on a worship style that reflects the cultural norm established by the leadership or the majority. Everyone else simply assimilates to the established style, but what is in their hearts does not die. Assimilation is not wrong, but many people are not willing to swap their heartfelt forms of worship for someone else’s. The issue is not necessarily selfishness as one might assume.

Take for instance the majority white, suburban, jean-wearing, coffee-drinkingin-the-sanctuary, pastor-sitting-downwhile-he-preaches church I attended for three years. My initial experience was one of fascination and intrigue. That soon began to change as I began to long for more familiar cultural expressions. But, I suppressed those feelings all in the name of unity. Granted, the leadership of the church didn’t seek to make the church truly multicultural, but I digress. If this was my experience, and I was one who showed up with a certain degree of cultural curiosity and exposure, what would it be like for others with no such background?

Enter the African-American granny who needs a healthy dose of whooping and who connects deeply with her AME tradition. She does not necessarily have a disregard for diversity. Could it simply be that she connects best with God a certain way? For believers like her who identify closely with certain styles of worship, people who in my estimation make up the bulk of our churches, there is nothing wrong with them attending a church that resonates with their Christian tradition. This is not the issue central to segregation, nor is it a violation of the oneness found in Ephesians 4. On the contrary, the global Church (note the capital ‘C’) is called to be diverse, not necessarily the local church.3 We understand this in relation to doctrinal differences, but we have a harder time accepting this with ethnicity. Perhaps this is why different congregations interacting together will be the more common solution than the formation of multicultural churches. The primary roles of the pastors would be to convey their allegiance to the same Lord, express mutual regard for one another as family in Christ, demonstrate a posture of welcome to all, and highlight their shared mission in Christ. This should then lead to initiatives that bring together local churches to worship, fellowship, and do mission together. What does this look like?

A white pastor serving in Gainesville, Florida befriended an African-American pastor from a nearby church. The two pastors spoke from each other’s pulpits. They facilitated choir swaps and even a joint

choir. The two pastors and their wives also had dinner together in each other’s homes and at restaurants on multiple occasions. The white pastor invited his pastor friend to go on a short-term missions trip to Lesotho. The African-American pastor hadn’t taken such a trip before, so the trip especially bonded the two of them together. Back at home, their churches joined hands and did local missions together. Relationships began to form. People who were regular participants got into each other’s lives outside of the planned activities. All the while, both pastors emphasized to their respective congregations that despite their differences, there’s only one Church.

What if other pastors took the same initiative? By worshiping together, believers experience diverse expressions and have the opportunity to encounter God in unfamiliar ways. Hearts are knit together as one group ushers the other into its unique worship and focus on the one true God. By hanging out together, believers get to know each other informally. Kickball games, picnics, cooking classes, movie nights: the possibilities for interaction are endless. Fellowship helps to tear down barriers and build genuine friendships. Too much of our bickering is between people who have spent no significant time together. Finally, by doing mission together, believers from different churches model John 13:35 just as effectively as if they attended the same local church. Such was the case with the two churches from Gainesville. The recipients of service will see the diversity and won’t care whether or not the synergistic team is from a multicultural church. The sight alone is powerful.

Churches will always be segregated based on preferences. An accordion doesn’t capture some believer’s hearts the way a saxophone does. Insert theological, ethnic, linguistic, and other differences, and the point is clear. Multicultural churches, while they are beautiful, will to a small degree address our Sunday segregation issues. But the model to bring about the most change, that of having local congregations interface, will have a much more profound impact.

Only in heaven can we speak in our own languages and worship in our own styles without having to assimilate or water down our unique expression. But, for the here and now, this is what is most important: Churches must be willing to welcome all, and they must work hard to maintain the unity of the Body (note the big ‘B’). The local Black Reformed church should periodically worship with the Korean Presbyterian church. The local suburban white church should fellowship with the Hispanic Baptist church. The local inner city multicultural church should do mission alongside a Nigerian Pentecostal church. After all, we are all one Church.

References are available in the online version of this article.

Richard Coleman has been a missions trainer and mobilizer for nearly 20 years. He recently resigned from his role as senior director of mobilization and candidacy with TMS Global in order to pursue an opportunity in E. Africa with the same organization. Richard also proudly serves as a Perspectives instructor and volunteer within the Lausanne Movement.

by Richard Coleman