by Alvin Sanders | Mar 5, 2012 | Feature |
RACIAL PROVOCATEUR: Touré, the outspoken journalist and cultural critic, takes the post-racial conversation to another level with 'Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?'.
Cultural critic and Rolling Stone contributing editor Touré is not one to shy away from breaking Black racial norms, and he does exactly that in his racially rowdy book, Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness?: What It Means to Be Black Now. The title refers to the notion that in the 21st century there exists a new understanding of the Black identity. He interviewed 105 well-known Black personalities from a variety of vocations on his journey to unpack “Post-Blackness.”
Post-Blackness like most terms under the post-modernist umbrella is an attempt to redefine meaning. Touré borrowed the term from the art world where Black artists were envisioning a way to practice their craft without being pigeonholed into the genre of “Black Art.” So to define their shows and artistic pieces they constructed the term Post-Black. This term is not to be confused with the more controversial “Post-Racial,” a term that suggests race does not play a significant role in America anymore. Post-Blackness is contrarian to such a notion (“It doesn’t mean we’re over Blackness; it means we’re over our narrow understanding of what Blackness means.”)
Racially Touré believes one age has ended and another begun (“the age of Obama.”) When using this term, he is not talking politics but rather using it as a signifier of a new racial day. Obama’s racial identity is “rooted in, but not restricted by, his Blackness” as interviewee Dr. Michael Eric Dyson puts it. Obama’s refusal to engage in racial identity politics, while at the same time maintaining a strong connection to Black America, has been nothing short of a political revolution. By taking such a posture, he was able to move from fighting the power to being the power. The same could be said of the President Obama’s good friend Oprah Winfrey (“She ruffled a lot of Black feathers by turning Blackness inside out and allowing it to breathe in the white world on its own with little explanation or apology.”)
For the author, both Oprah and Obama serve as metaphors for a new generation of Blacks that refuses to be pigeonholed into a stereotypical racial Black narrative. This generation vigorously defends their rights to individualism while at the same time value the history of the collective Black experience. Concerning that experience, they refuse to be limited or totally defined by it. This is the author’s core argument (“the number of ways of being Black is infinite” and “what it means to be Black has grown so staggeringly broad, so unpredictable, so diffuse that Blackness itself is undefinable.”)
Of course the “age of Obama” and corresponding Post-Black posture doesn’t necessarily sit well with all. For instance, Dr. Cornel West and broadcasting luminary Tavis Smiley have been super critical of Post-Black posture and have publicly accused the president of ignoring issues specific to the Black community. Really the charge is Obama has not been Black enough. Anyone who has been Black for more than a few minutes knows this charge is not limited to politics. There are “racial police” in all venues enforcing all kinds of chameleon-like rules of Blackness.
One incident the author addresses happened while he was a college student at Emory University. At 2:30 a.m. he entered into a discussion with some fellow Black students concerning always being stuck with cleaning up after a party. A linebacker-sized Black man who wasn’t even in the conversation silenced the whole room by shouting angrily, “Shut up, Touré! You ain’t Black!” He talks about the embarrassment of being charged with being an Uncle Tom and reflects on the racial wrestling that followed. Touré desires this type of attitude to be abolished (“I wish for every Black American to have the freedom to be Black however he or she chooses and to banish from the collective mind the bankrupt, fraudulent concept of ‘authentic’ Blackness.”)
So how does the Post-Black dynamic affect us in Christian circles? Historically, seven major denominations comprise the traditional Black church — the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church; the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AMEZ) Church; the Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church; the National Baptist Convention, USA., Incorporated (NBC); the National Baptist Convention of America, Unincorporated (NBCA); the Progressive National Baptist Convention (PNBC); and the Church of God in Christ (COGIC). Blacks have also had a significant presence in historic White denominations such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, United Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches. Over the last century, the primary perspectives of the Black Christian experience have arisen from those two groups (traditional Black denominations and historic White denominations) with good reason.
Today we need to acknowledge the existence of a significant Post-Black church movement. Over the last 40 years, many Blacks have come to faith through White parachurch ministries such as Navigators, InterVarsity, and the like. Many have matured in their faith within independent evangelical churches, been educated in predominately White Seminaries, and found homes in White denominations looking to become multiethnic. This group has a set of distinctives that differs from the historic Black church. Will the Post-Black Christian generation be grafted into the overall Black church experience?
I have a significant dog in this fight. Post-Blackness presents to us the idea of being rooted in, but not restricted by, Blackness. That is where I, and many Black Christians, live today. I have historic roots in the traditional Black church, but possess a Post-Black Christian identity. Which leads me to wonder, is there room for people like me in the traditional Black church? And, frankly, what does a Post-Black future signify for Christianity as a whole?
by Robert Gelinas | Mar 9, 2010 | Headline News |
In his latest book, Brian McLaren calls the church to a deeper and broader vision of the gospel that makes room for contemporary issues of justice and reconciliation. But has the controversial author gone too far this time? PLUS: Keep reading to find out how you can receive a FREE copy of McLaren’s book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith.
Reading a Brian McLaren book is not for the theologically faint of heart, nor is it for those who wish to stay safely ensconced within their doctrinal comfort zones. McLaren is, to put it mildly, an evangelical agitator. He has been labeled everything from “unbiblical” to “dangerous.” A lot of that stems from his prominent role as a leading proponent of what we now call the “emergent” or “emerging” church movement, which seeks to recast the Christian faith in the context of postmodern culture while staying true to Scripture. More often than not, this means questioning the customs and practices of the modern evangelical movement and its various institutions.
The founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland and a popular speaker and writer, McLaren has traveled far and wide with his controversial ideas on spirituality and faith. In 2005 TIME magazine named him one of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America.”
His latest book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith, envisions a Christianity revitalized by outside-the-box approaches to ten crucial issues the church must address:
• The Narrative Question: What is the Bible about, and what problem is it trying to solve?
• The Authority Question: What does it mean to say the Bible has authority?
• The God Question: Is God violent? Does he make innocent people suffer?
• The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and why is he so important?
• The Gospel Question: What is the core message of the Christian faith?
• The Church Question: What are the church’s primary, essential functions?
• The Sex Question: Can we move beyond polarization to constructive dialogue on the issue of homosexuality?
• The Future Question: What is our vision of the future?
• The Pluralism Question: How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
• The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question: How can we open a discussion about these questions without creating needless controversy and division?
McLaren argues that he’s not proposing a new set of beliefs, but rather a “new way of believing” the truth of God’s Word.
Not surprisingly, the book is already stirring up debate. In Christianity Today, North Park University theologian Scot McKnight, usually generous toward thinkers in the emerging church, finds the book lacking in evangelical orthodoxy. And Kevin DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, takes it a step farther. He writes: “McLaren’s Christianity is not new and certainly not improved. I don’t believe you can even call it Christianity. It is liberalism dressed up for the 21st century.”
With these criticisms in mind, UrbanFaith’s resident Jazz Theologian, Robert Gelinas, spoke to McLaren about what he wants to accomplish with his new book, as well as the popular critique from many that the emerging church movement is a decidedly “white” phenomenon that has very little relevance for non-Caucasian believers and those coming from an urban context.
JAZZ THEOLOGIAN: How does A New Kind of Christianity build upon your past works, and what’s wrong with the old kind of Christianity?
BRIAN McCLAREN: Several people have said that the book summarizes my work to date and extends it into new territory, and I think there’s a lot of truth to that, although it is less directly engaged with contemporary crises than Everything Must Change, or with spiritual formation than Finding Our Way Again. Instead of saying what’s wrong with the old kind of Christianity, I’d simply say that as the Christian faith matures over the centuries, we are ready for new challenges, new learnings, and it would be a shame to fail to keep maturing. So older kinds of Christianity were appropriate to their times and our maturity, but we need to keep growing, learning, and maturing.
In your 2001 book, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey, you draw an analogy between modern churches that look like everything is fine with being like “horse buggies” that were built when the automobile was invented. That is, the best buggies were built right when they were becoming obsolete. Is that who your new book is for, Christians who have bought into a form of Christianity that is fading?
Nobody has asked me that question yet, and it forces me to face something that I probably haven’t really faced so far, namely, that the folks who are thoroughly bought into current forms of Christian faith are unlikely to change. They’ll be likely to interpret this new book as an attack on what they hold dear, which really isn’t what I intend at all.
I’d say this book is more for Christians who have tried and tried to buy into the dominant forms of Christianity today … traditionalism, the religious right, the prosperity gospel, and so on — and who simply can’t give their hearts to those forms of Christian living. They feel there’s something more calling them, and they’re on a quest for that something more. That’s more, I think, who I’m writing for, although I’m glad to have any of the others come along who are willing.
I’m assuming that you believe that the emerging church is not just a renewal movement for young middle-class Caucasian Christians. So I’d like to ask you a few questions to get at how emergent Christianity addresses the issues of following Jesus within the urban context. First, how does A New Kind of Christianity help urban Christians address issues such as the high incarceration rate among young men, substandard schools, and fatherlessness while at the same time there is a proliferation of churches preaching a prosperity gospel?
In the book, I’m trying to help us get a deeper and broader vision of the gospel. The gospel that many people believe in says very little about issues of justice and peace in this life; it focuses on personal morality in this life and salvation from hell after this life. It would be very concerned about, say, homosexuality, but not very concerned about systemic racism and economic exclusion and oppression. It would say a lot about personal morality but not so much about social morality. I’m proposing that the gospel of the kingdom of God — the gospel Jesus preached (and Paul too, I propose) — is about God’s will being done on earth as in heaven, and so that has everything to do with the city, with racism, with incarceration, with unemployment, with equity in education, and so on.
I’m also suggesting that the eschatologies that many of us were taught — eschatologies that predict the world will get worse and worse and then be destroyed — work against working for the healing of this world, including our cities. So I would say that this book, along with Everything Must Change, would be of real interest to folks engaged with urban issues.
You argue that a new kind of Christianity will require that we ask, “What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?” How will the answer to this question help African American churches that often read the Bible through an Exodus or Exile narrative?
Actually, in this book I’m saying that those African American churches that read the Bible through an Exodus narrative have been right all along, and that the white churches that tended to read the Bible exclusively through an atonement and evacuation narrative are missing something tremendously important. Sadly, in my experience, quite a few of our African American churches are switching over to the more traditional white narrative, which says that it’s only about Jesus and me (and maybe my family, or my religion), with little concern for the more social dimensions of the gospel for the poor, oppressed, excluded, marginalized, and forgotten, not to mention our enemies. I’m recommending that we take that Exodus narrative that African American theology has cherished, and then set the narrative of Creation as its prequel, and the narrative of reconciliation as its sequel. In that way, I think we’ll have a three-dimensional narrative that has room for us to live, serve, and breathe.
Not long after telling our nation about his dream, Martin Luther King Jr. said that he started to see his dream turn into a “nightmare.” One of the reasons for this can be found in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in which he expressed his love for the church while at the same time he pled with pastors to reject the “fear of being non-conformists.” Do you ever feel like that?
The pressure to conform really is great, and the punishment for stepping out of line can be harsh. For a lot of years, I did what a lot of people do: tried to conform and stay out of trouble! But eventually, I just couldn’t do so any longer. In part, the Bible drove me out of conformity, because the Bible didn’t fit in the narrow framework I was given. In part, people drove me out — when I met people who were experiencing injustice, and when I took seriously my call to love them as I love myself, their burdens and concerns became my own and I had to take some risks.
Knowing how much to risk when is a real matter for spiritual discernment. Some of us are liable to be too timid, and others of us to be too rash, so I think there aren’t one-size-fits-all answers to this, except to say that we need to be prayerful and open to the Spirit’s guidance, and we need to have a circle of soul-friends with whom we can process our lives and our work.
Malcolm X’s main critique of Christianity in America had to do with how race seemed to determine our habits more than Jesus. Which of your ten questions in A New Kind of Christianity can lead us closer to the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17 and why?
The first of the ten questions probably is key here — the Narrative Question. I suggest that what many of us take to be the biblical narrative is actually the Greco-Roman narrative, and that narrative is inherently dualistic. It creates us vs. them, civilized vs. barbarians, insiders vs. outsiders, and that dualism easily gets translated into racism and related -isms — white versus black, settlers versus native peoples, Americans versus immigrants, whatever.
I’d also say that the third question is really key, the God Question: Is God violent? If we believe that God plays favorites — loves some, hates others; chooses some, rejects others; makes some rich, lets others be poor — then it becomes very easy to see our race (or nation, or denomination) as blessed and everyone else as cursed. That connects us quickly with the fourth question, the Jesus question, because if we believe that God is like Jesus, and we see Jesus constantly crossing boundaries to show love to the other, then we see God as being the God who breaks boundaries too, rather than the one who creates boundaries.
Then I think about the sixth question, the Church Question, because we need to ask how we manifest and embody our view of the biblical narrative, our view of God, our view of Jesus, in our local churches. All of our theology needs to be translated into real life in local faith communities. That’s where it makes a difference — especially in our cities, where it is needed so much!
You’re a musician and songwriter and I’m a jazz theologian, so let’s jam a bit. Jazz assumes standards and practices before one takes the stage. What are the basic practices that need to be assumed before we can experience A New Kind of Christianity?
First, that there’s a key we’re playing in: that’s the key of the gospel of the kingdom or dream of God. Second, that there’s a rhythm we’re working with: that’s the rhythm of Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, and indwelling. Third, that there’s a bandleader who calls the tune and sets the rhythm: that’s the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Fourth, that there’s a chart, the Bible, that gives us some basic chords and notes and melodies to learn by heart and play from the heart. Fifth, that the chart makes room to improvise — that each of us has the freedom, opportunity, and even responsibility to let loose and make our unique solo contribution, always being sensitive to what the other musicians are doing and to the integrity of our song. Sixth, that there are dynamics to be respected — you don’t play too loud, you don’t solo too often or too long. And seventh, that there is a goal — to get people up off their seats and dancing with joy to the music of God, so they’re caught up in the glorious dance, something bigger than any of us, something that enfolds all of us in God’s song of celebration and love.
Win a FREE Copy of A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren, compliments of UrbanFaith.com and HarperOne
To enter, leave a comment below that responds to the following questions: What should genuine, biblical Christianity look like in the 21st century? And what shouldn’t it look like?
Post your responses until Sunday, March 21. We’ll randomly select FIVE names from among those commenting and notify the winners the next day, Monday, March 22. The odds of winning depend on the number of comments we receive. Though you’re welcome to leave as many comments as you’d like (we encourage you to interact with other readers), there’s a limit of one contest entry per commenter for the giveaway. Comments must be received by March 21 at 11:59 p.m. Central Time in order to qualify. (If you have trouble leaving a comment, please send a message to info[at]urbanfaith.com.)
The retail value of the book is $24.99. No purchase is necessary to enter or win, and the giveaway is void where prohibited.
by Edward Gilbreath | Jul 1, 2009 | Headline News |
If spiritual renewal breaks out in a forest and no American Christians are around to witness it, does that mean it never happened?
Pardon the paraphrase of the old philosophical riddle, but this probably sums up the thinking of many in the evangelical community in years past. But the times are a-changin’. According to Soong-Chan Rah, author of The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (IVP), if the American church is going to be a relevant participant in the future of global Christianity, it had better recognize the church’s new multicultural reality. And the future is now.
Today African, Asian, and Latin American believers make up 60 percent of the world’s Christian population. According to researchers, the United States and Europe will soon no longer be the center of evangelical activity in the world. With this in mind, Rah calls the North American church to break free of its de facto allegiance to a Western, Eurocentric, and white American mindset and to embrace a new evangelicalism that is global, diverse, and multiethnic.
Soong-Chan Rah is a pastor, theologian, and activist who has (how to put this lightly?) ruffled a lot of feathers over the years by calling attention to issues of racism and cultural insensitivity in the evangelical community. Those familiar with the Rickshaw Rally incident and the Zondervan/Youth Specialties controversy, both covered in his book, will know exactly what we’re talking about. But his passion for reform is surpassed by his compassion and concern for the health of the church.
For years Rah led Cambridge Community Fellowship Church, an urban, multiethnic, post-modern congregation in the Boston area. Now a professor at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, he has inspired many a spirited discussion among Christians with The Next Evangelicalism, a book he confesses is intended to provoke its readers. One Christian radio station abruptly canceled its interview with Rah on the day of the broadcast after the host took a closer look at the book.
Rah doesn’t pull any punches in his critiques of the evangelical movement, but he hopes any discomfort he creates will motivate his readers to pursue positive change. He recently responded to questions from UrbanFaith readers.
How do you respond to those who suggest that your challenges to the church do more harm than good?
Soong-Chan Rah: I understand that this is a challenging topic for American Christians, and I know that I can come across sometimes as pretty intense about these issues. I am concerned that some folks will dismiss my book as an angry rant or will consider it to be excessively critical. I state early on that my intention is the reform of the church, rather than the downfall of the church. My hope is that we would bring out into the open the issue of race and racism in the American church — particularly given the changes in the demographics of American Christianity.
Practically speaking, do you think the strong tone and language of your book will change the mind of someone who isn’t already passionate about diversity in the church?
One of the questions I often grapple with as a pastor and as a professor is, how do people change? How do they grow? Particularly when I teach a course on discipleship, this question seems to emerge repeatedly. My theory on spiritual growth is that growth does not occur without the combination of two factors: the creation of a safe place coupled with the introduction of discomfort. Having just one of the two factors is not sufficient for growth. If you only create a safe place, you can become too comfortable and feel no need to change and grow. If you only have the presence of discomfort, you generate too much stress to allow for growth. Both a safe place and discomfort must exist to move towards growth. My book is an attempt to introduce a bit of discomfort to the overly comfortable culture of American evangelicalism.
Won’t ethnic-specific churches suffer from becoming multicultural, particularly those that serve immigrant populations?
I don’t hold the position that all churches in the United States have to be multiethnic. I believe that there is still a place for ethnic-specific churches, particularly among the immigrant communities. The need for language-specific churches still exists. Racism in America still necessitates the existence of the African American church. We are still many years away from multiethnic churches being the norm in American Christianity. We don’t want to mandate that the church enter into an era that we are not prepared for. I would want the church in America to be prepared and moving towards that multiethnic reality. I think, however, that we need to take a hard look at what we are doing and what cultural captivity we need to break off in order to enter into this multiethnic reality.
On the local church level, how will minority and immigrant groups maintain the kind of close-knit community that gives them encouragement and empowerment?
Part of the success of the immigrant church in America is the ability to develop a strong community in the context of suffering and difficulty. Throughout the book, I talk about the “language of primary culture,” which is the type of personal relationships that many ethnic churches develop and maintain. I think the ethnic churches will benefit from interacting with secondary cultural dynamics (usually Western cultures), as long as their primary culture is not obliterated by coming into contact with secondary culture. Maintaining the positive primary cultural dynamic of ethnic and immigrant churches is more likely to happen if we understand these dynamics to be an issue of relationships and power rather than simply an issue of culture.
You seem to suggest a connection between the Korean/Korean American church and the African American church. Where does this come from, and why do you establish such a connection?
Actually, I’m not the first to make this connection. Theologian James Cone makes this assertion in the commonality of suffering that is found in the Black church experience and the experience of the Korean community. As a Korean American, I do think there is a powerful common thread in both the Korean and Black communities in the stories of tremendous victory amidst great suffering and persecution. Both communities have experienced oppression (slavery, Jim Crow laws, racism, conquest, persecution, etc.), but both communities have experienced God in very deep ways in the context of great suffering. I talk about the contrast between the theology of celebration and theology of suffering in chapter seven. I think both communities have experienced the theology of suffering, and we have embraced an ecclesiology that reflects that suffering.
How do ethnic minorities begin a conversation amongst themselves about reaching out to other racial and ethnic groups?
I feel that dialogue across the races and ethnic groups is an absolutely necessary element of the Next Evangelicalism. Part of freeing the church from Western cultural captivity is the ability to move beyond a conversation that puts Western cultural values at the center or considers Western expressions of faith as normative. One of the ways we can facilitate this dialogue is by having a stronger sense of identity for every ethnic group. For example, it may be difficult for African Americans to relate to Asian Americans if Asian Americans are simply parroting the values of majority culture. Part of engaging in an authentically cross-cultural dialogue is the ability to define one’s own identity in the context of others. In other words, we need to know who we are if we are to truly talk to one another and move the conversation further along.
As I wrote the book, I realized that my style of writing might surprise some who had a particular assumption about the Asian American community. I felt that it was necessary to assert a strong identity that would provide a strong voice in the dialogue about what the next evangelicalism could look like. I hope that my book offers an encouragement to many non-white voices to assert a strong identity and voice in the dialogue — an identity that God delights in rather than seeks to wipe out.
You offer a blistering critique of the emerging church movement, suggesting that it is overhyped and lacks diversity. Is diversity possible in the “emerging” or “emergent” churches”? It seems as if Christians involved in that movement are extremely cultural bound, even more so than “mainstream” evangelical Christianity?
Yes, there is always hope. Any organization can change and adapt if they desire, and if they are willing to pay the price. There is also the importance of self-awareness. I think when there is a new thing that comes up, its advocates should exercise enough self-reflection to say, “We’re saying some really exciting things, but what are the unintended negative consequences of what we are saying? What are our blind spots and the areas that we need to grow in?”
What challenges or exhortations would you issue to the young “justice and reconciliation” minded folks, particularly those that are part of the “emergent” or “new monastic” crowds?
I think it is critical that we are willing to hear the stories and receive input from various points of view. I think even a new thing like emergent or new monastics can get stuck in a vacuum and not recognize that there are divergent voices that can contribute to the dialogue. I would encourage any new movements to consider and hear from disparate — and even oppositional — voices.
If you were a mentor to one of these young “justice and reconciliation” Christians and they asked for specific, clear advice on what type of church to attend and how to engage “the Next Evangelicalism,” what would you say?
First of all, I would encourage them to broaden their reading list. I would begin with works of fiction. I find that works of fiction tend to communicate the best insight about a culture. There’s a variety of novels that I’d recommend: Chinua Achebe’s No Longer at Ease; Chang Rae Lee’s Native Speaker; Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake; Khalid Hosseini’s The Kite Runner; Mario Vargas Llosa’s The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta. There also are a number of nonfiction works that provide insight into different cultures: Eldin Villafane’s The Liberating Spirit; One Church, Many Tribes by Richard Twiss; Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria by Beverly Daniel Tatum; Yellow by Frank Wu.
I would look for places of interaction across cultures. Many of us may find these opportunities at our place of work or in our neighborhood — it’s probably our church and Christian world that is more likely to be segregated. I would encourage the building and deepening of healthy cross-cultural relationships in your current context. My recommendation has been to seek out mentors or spiritual leaders from a different ethnic/cultural background. There will be different contexts (single-ethnic churches that are of a different ethnic background from you, or multi-ethnic churches with a diverse staff) where you may be able to find cross-cultural mentors. These relationships should not be forced, but it really needs to have the foundation of a genuine relationship and commitment. In other words, there are no quick solutions, and it’ll take time to build the relationships and connections that will broaden your world.
It seems that often the conversation is how white churches can become more diverse, which can come off as an expression of white dominance or perpetuate the phenomenon of “white guilt” as a motivator. Would you suggest that some white and minority churches serving in the same neighborhood merge rather than having white churches glibly trying to be diverse?
The idea of a “merger” is a lofty concept that is very difficult to pull off. It is very hard to pull off the equality of power, or even an understanding of how power dynamics work, in the different cultural contexts required for a successful merger.
I think there needs to be a clear understanding of the reality of power distribution before engaging in talks about a merger. One of the most ignored aspects of any discussion on multi-ethnicity is the aspect of power. Those who have the power are oftentimes the ones who are unwilling to discuss the issue of power and dominance. Part of white privilege means the capacity and ability to not talk about the issue of power and the wielding of that power. I think one of the great things that a majority culture church can do in preparing for multi-ethnicity and diversity is to become more aware of white privilege. Instead of taking the lead and trying to fix the problem and create diversity, it might be better to be in a place of listening and preparation — particularly in the practice of yielding power.
1.) How do predominately white organizations (Christian colleges and seminaries, Christian magazines, etc.) become multicultural without somehow developing the sense that they — white Christianity — are the impetus for multiculturalism?
2.) How willing do you think evangelical seminaries are to embrace both contemporary and historical ethnic minority theologians and scholars? Will these theologians be in the primary fold of essential theologians, or will it be a tag on (i.e. solely having a course on African American theology rather than adding these theologians to the basic theology courses)?
Great questions. Again, the main issue is the issue of power. Are white institutions willing to yield decision-making power, theology-shaping power, curriculum-shaping power, culture-shaping power to non-whites? Will predominantly white organizations be willing to share power — and initially that will require a yielding of power — with non-whites? Any discussion about diversity will need to engage in a discussion about power. Otherwise, we reduce our efforts to tokenism.
For more information about Soong-Chan Rah and The Next Evangelicalism, visit his website: www.profrah.com. Special thanks to Joshua Canada, Joel Hamernick, and Ariah Fine for their questions to Professor Rah.
What led you to leave Boston for Chicago?
Soong-Chan Rah: Leaving Boston was a very difficult decision. One of the most difficult decisions in my life and it was certainly the most difficult decision that we faced as a family. We had a great community in Cambridge, and our family has always been committed to incarnational and local expressions of ministry. The church in Cambridge was a church that I planted, and it still holds a very special place in my heart. Aside from my family, I think planting the church is the best thing I’ve been able to on earth so far. I also had deep and meaningful relationships with peers and mentors throughout the city who were some of the most formative mentors in ministry.
A few years ago, I was offered the opportunity to join the faculty at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. It meant a significant change: moving from the East Coast to the Midwest, shifting from being a local church pastor to a seminary professor. I was beginning to sense God’s calling into a ministry that connected the academy to the local church. Being on the faculty of my denominational seminary would strengthen my ability to integrate my academic interests and study with my experience and heart for the local church. While it was an extremely difficult decision, I felt that the church was at a place where a new lead pastor would be a good opportunity and that God was calling our family to be part of a new venture at North Park Seminary.
What church do you currently attend?
Our family has always believed in neighborhood churches. I really don’t like the idea of driving a great distance to attend church (bad for the environment and bad for the family). We attend Immanuel Covenant Church on the north side of Chicago, about three blocks from our home (which is about three blocks from the seminary where I teach). Our home, my place of work, our kids’ school, and our church are all in the 60625 zip code of Chicago, which is one of the most diverse zip codes in the United States. We were told that our kids’ school has over 50 languages and over 70 different nationalities.
Our church reflects that diversity. The church at one point had been a Swedish immigrant congregation. Less than a decade ago, the church was overwhelmingly white. Now it’s home to 15 different first generation immigrant groups — including Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, etc. There is no clear majority at the church. Furthermore, we have a joint worship with a Filipino congregation adding to the diversity. There is great diversity in the church and that creates many challenges. But we have loved the community at this church and appreciate the genuine effort by the church to reflect the diversity of our neighborhood.
Are you still a Boston sports fan, or have you transitioned over to Chicago teams? If so, Cubs or White Sox?
I’m very loyal to my sports teams. I grew up in the inner-city of Baltimore, so I’ve been an Orioles fan since I was about 8 years old and haven’t changed my loyalties in over 30 years. I still follow the Orioles via fan websites and online games. While I was in Boston, I developed an affinity for the Red Sox (especially since they gave me a free clergy pass to the regular season games). I’m thoroughly convinced that it was the prayers of the clergy members who received free tickets to Red Sox games that led to Boston’s breaking of the curse and their winning two World Series championships. In contrast, when we moved to Chicago, I wrote to the Cubs asking if they had a clergy-pass program. They replied that they didn’t. So it’s a 100 years and counting for the Cubs.