Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Re: .0
    
    I can go either way on this one.
    
    Language can be a factor.  Customs and expectations can be a factor.
    "High church" versus "informality" in worship may be a factor.  Existing
    friendships and family ties may be factors.  And, let's face it,
    appearances and prestige may be factors.
    
    I am currently considering membership in a local church where there
    exists richness of ethnicity.  Nevertheless, I am in the minority.
    Not only am I the only one there who is in a wheelchair, I'll be the
    only heterosexual I know there who is a member. 8+}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 181.1 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Nevertheless, I am in the minority.
>     Not only am I the only one there who is in a wheelchair, I'll be the
>     only heterosexual I know there who is a member. 8+}
  
        It sounds as if you are part of that same larger minority
        that the rest of the congregation also belongs to -- the "not
        normals."

        I suspect that any "not normal" can identify, to some extent,
        with any other "not normal."

        Bob

    
    	Bob,
    		If I didn't know better I would say that was a slam.

    The church I attended in Brooklyn (NYC) was almost all white when
    we first moved to that area. Gradually the population changed. By
    the time I moved up here to New Hampshire the church was mostly
    non white. A lot of blacks. Some from the south, some from the
    islands. The church hosted a service for Haitians. They had their
    own pastor and language. It was sort of a church with in a church.
    There were also a large number of people of other ethnic groups. 
    People from the Indian sub continent, Asians of various groups.
    And on and on.

    Honestly I never noticed. One day my father, the pastor of that church
    during the whole 20 years I attended there, pointed out how the
    membership had changed. It was a shock as I'd not really noticed the
    colors and accents were different. The change was too natural. Of
    course what I had noticed was that many of the surrounding churches
    had fewer people then they used to while we had more. I did then and
    still do think that was largely because we continued to preach the
    same Gospel while the others depended on "social things" to attract
    people. While our church was always involved in the community we never
    lost focus on the true purpose of the Church. The spiritual feeding of
    the body of Christ.

    I guess the point is that ethnic churches serve a purpose when a group
    comes to an area where they haven't been before all at the same time.
    But if a neighborhood develops gradually and naturally churches can
    and perhaps should reflect the diversity of the neighborhood and the
    local body of Christ. My own father was raised in an ethnic church
    (services were in Norwegian) in Brooklyn and it served his parents
    well. And he still enjoys attending serviced in Norwegian but the
    churches he's pastored have all been polyglot and reflected a wide
    range of ethnic groups.

    Interesting side note. When my father left that Brooklyn church the
    conference picked his replacement based largely on race. Ie a black
    pastor for a black church. The ones most bothered by this were black.
    And for cultural reasons. Those bothered by this were raised in the
    West Indies in black churches with white pastors. These were Anglican
    churches where it was considered prestigious to "import" your pastor
    from England which pretty much meant you got a "white'. "Importing"
    a pastor from the country of the church's origin is pretty common
    in all sorts of ethnic churches even if that's the only tie people
    really have with that country BTW.

    			Alfred