THE QUEST FOR A CHURCH WHICH LOOKS LIKE AMERICA

In the October issue of THE LUTHERAN magazine, Pastor Peter Marty bemoans the fact that the various races in America segregate themselves into the parishes of their choice every Sunday morning.  Martin Luther King made this observation in the 1960's and little has changed since.

The ELCA made it a goal to have more diversity within its membership; but after all these years it has little to show for it.  As in their want, either implicitly or directly, Marty and the ELCA leadership blame the average Lutheran in the pews.  The theory is the Lutheran in the pews is not "welcoming" or accepting.

This is probably true to a degree; maybe largely true.  But is this the major reason?  I have my doubts.

Human nature is that "birds of a feather…".  People do tend to gather with people like themselves.  This is a tough nut to crack--a nut most are not willing to crack for themselves just because the idealists in main-line Churches see diversity as the model they see for the Church.

Marty remarks:  "This tendency to segment into like types stands in sharp contrast to the ethnic diversity that helped make the first-century Christian church so robust. Early Christian leaders managed to form communities that cut across rigid class and ethnic lines, making Christ their chief common denominator."

Marty likes to believe this; but is this in fact historical?  Scripture indicates that the very early Church had congregations had both rich and poor, master and slave.  But how long did that last after the time of the Apostles?  In all likelihood, not long.  Christians in the very least segregated themselves according to doctrine.  And most congregations did not exist in multi-ethnic communities to begin with.  All of us romanticize what the early Church was like.  Nevertheless, the early Church was very disorganized and drew from their local communities.  There is very little to believe that yesterdays Christians were any different from what we are.

The odd thing today is that Churches which advertize themselves as "inclusive" actually have very little diversity within their own congregations.  This contrasts with many denominations Lutherans tend to look down their noses.

Years ago I attended a Jimmy Swaggart crusade in Indianapolis.  (How I got there is a long story for another time.  I should mention that this was before the sex scandals with befell the Swaggart ministry)  One of the things I observed was that without even trying the crowd which gathered itself there was more multi-ethnic and multi-racial than I had ever seen in any mainline worship service. 

Current data also reveals that the Catholic Church in the United States is far more diverse than any other American denomination.  On any given Sunday, a rich man, poor man, black, white, and Hispanic will all stand in the same line to receive the Host.  What does the Catholic Church have to teach us?

I don't know what the answer is.  I strongly suspect that we are not offering what many "non- Caucasians" are seeking.  By my lights, many of those we wish to take into our folds are Biblical literalists at heart.  The "narrative" style in our sermons which is so popular among our clergy is at best confusing and in spite of intention is hardly "relational" to the very people we are trying to reach.  In terms of the "progressive" theology common among us, theologically (and politically) we have little use for people much different from ourselves.

Again, I don't know what the answer is.  I am not even sure we should give a damn what color Lutherans (or Americans for that matter) will be in the future  One thing is for sure.  What we are doing now isn't working.