The Theological Ruminator
I think you're misstating the problem. We don't "theme our culture toward a certain racial demographic." It just so happens that the most obvious cultural divides happen to also be racial. Generally, whites don't get together and decide "How can we have a white culture" or "How can we reach the white culture." They focus on groups that just happen to be primarily one color.
I know you know this--I just think you stated it rather badly. You make the divide appear to be a racial decision when it is a cultural one. Equating race and culture is a different argument.
I don't know what this contributes to the topic, but didn't Thomas Sowell say that the one who walks into a room and counts the number of minorities is the true racist?
Still, one way to begin would be for people who want to affect change to consciously make it a point to choose to attend a church of a "different color."
What you said is what I intended to say. I didn't mean that churches intentionally theme their churches a certain way. They do theme things a certain way but I believe in most cases it is "sub-conscious." However, I don't know that this makes them any less culpable in the long run.
On the Sowell quote, I say "yes and no." I think if I walk into a restaurant in the deep south and notice only white faces, my decision to walk out is not "racist" in the sense of prejudice but is informed by the "racism" that is present.
By the way, my point here isn't that racism is the problem in most churches. Sure it's present in some churches/individuals, but I think that's mostly the exception. The point is that there is a cultural divide in churches that results in a racial divide.
The question I'm asking is "is that a problem?"
here's my guess: Many churches really strive to be culturally relevant and theme their church that way. The teaching, worship, atmosphere and music are all built around this desire to be culturally relevant. And i guess it works, but it only becomes relevant to one specific culture.
I think Brian's dead-on here. I'd like to comment more on Sowell, but that's way far afield from what you want, so I'll try to try to show restraint 
I use to think your question was a major issue and problem. Now, not so much, though for obvious reasons I'm much more sensitized now to the issue of race. I do have tremendous respect for the people who try to bridge it, though, like your old youth pastor, because I think it takes a great amount of dedication and energy to bring cultures together in one place and to get them to work together. I have no doubt he'd tell you the road is extremely hard and I'd bet each church in their movement has to struggle to not have a dominant cultural identity. I'm on a campus of about 13,000 people and despite all of the talk of diversity, what is very obvious is that blacks primarily hang out with blacks, Asians with Asians (and then according to subset, like Koreans with Koreans), etc. We want to be with people like us! Should we as Christians do better? Probably. Is it a serious issue? I have my doubts.
My posts are too long.
I think it also reveals the fact that focusing so much on cultural relevance ends up with its own set of problems. Something might be getting lost in that attempt.
Not too long. Good thoughts. I agree with Brian and Roy in origin. I also agree with you, Roy, in your assessment of churches like DeYmaz's that it is a huge effort to try to do anything beyond being monocultural.
Thus, the problem is exposed. Of course we agree that a church of diverse people living as the body of Christ is the "ideal." However, is the MASSIVE effort required to get there really worth it? I guess my question is more along the lines of is this a "should" issue or an optional one? I mean should churches either do or not do this or is it just an individual church preference thing?
Brain - I think that you bring out a good argument against cultural "inclusiveness." Is the attempt at solving the problem creating a bigger problem?
Well, actually John Mark, I was making an argument against this general movement and desire in churches to make their services "relevant" to contemporary culture - with rockin music, hip pastors/preaching, edgy themes and the like. I was suggesting that doing so pidgeon-holes you to a specific fad of pop culture.
But for what it's worth, you're right - It's also an argument against marketing your church to a bunch of cultures.
I don't think that's what people want. People want something that's different, set apart, etc. Christ is culturally applicable enough. We don't need to fancy him up as if he's some 21st century rock star.
Brian - I think I know what you are getting at. In one sense I have to agree. I'm certainly no fan of presenting Christ as a 21st century rock star. And I think a critique of church "fads" is long overdue. Also I agree that people want something "different" and "set apart" though I suspect we might disagree on what that might look like in practice.
The problem is that I'm really not sure that you can escape/transcend culture in any significant sense. Like a language, culture is something that all people "speak" in some way. This is true for any church - including the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church in practice has its own strong cultural ties and baggage.
(Though certainly not "faddish"!)
I guess I don't think that a church has a choice on culture. We all choose a culture in the way we express our faith. The question is, what culture do I choose and what is my basis for that choice?
Well, I wasn't meaning to get into a Orthodoxy is great debate. The point I was trying to make is that I grew up with churches trying to be cool and it never works. Even if they get something that resembles being hip, they're really only being hip to kinda one specific subgroup of society.
I'm not saying churches should be acultural. Like you said, that's pretty impossible - since we all speak a language and wear clothes and have our own colloquialisms. But I think that choosing and striving to be a specific culture and trying to be really cool in the name of relevance might be a bad idea and tends to exclude or turn off.
Then again, I'm speaking from my own perspective and my own experiences. I also can't deny that protestant churches are gaining new members. But then again so are orthodox and episcopal churches. And then again - Buddhism and other non-christian spiritual movements are gaining doing quite well for themselves -- and they are radically different from modern secular life.
Brian, some people must want that or it would not be so popular, don't you think? Whether that makes it right or not is, of course, a different question.
Anyway, I think some people/churches are called to this type of ministry. For others, it's just not going to happen. Even the cultural expressions of worship are going to be so different as to make things too uncomfortable. To force people to worship outside of their cultural norm would be anti-contextualization, don't you think? I can't worship in a fundamentalist Baptist church. I just can't. Should I? I don't think so.
Now, as far as race goes, we will likely force ourselves into a more diverse situation as Matthew gets older but the cross-cultural aspect concerns me because we will be "different" and, I've got to admit, that make me uncomfortable.
So, in case it's lost in the wordiness, optional for some and essential for others, I think.
Did you ever notice I seem to lock up if you give me an either/or?
Good thoughts, guys. Your perspectives are very helpful. I just won a book at a lecture I attended called "Church Marketing 101." So as soon as I read some of that I think we'll be coming back to areas of this topic a bunch.
One section that stuck out to me was one on "branding" (i.e. Nike).
Commenting by HaloScan
