Case Brief: a Church for All People

1

Rasbury

Wes Rasbury

Case Brief: A Church for All People

BIBM 603.01

Dr. Brady Bryce

November 4, 2013

Church, today, can take on the form of many different meanings. To one, it could mean a group of thirty people who all live in a rural setting. To another, it could mean a larger group of people, around three hundred or so, with members living in or around a major city. To still another, it could mean an even larger group, somewhere in the thousands, with members in rural, urban, and suburban settings. The fact is that there are many different churches today, and that these churches are all, in fact, different. Some are smaller, while others are larger. Some are made up people who share similar ethnicity, occupation, and life experience, while others have a more diverse and broad range of members. Yes, it is possible to create and sustain a church that is homogeneous in its members. However, along with the growth of diversity in America, many of the churches in America have also become more diverse, or at least come into contact with more diverse crowds. I believe this diversity should be embraced and welcomed in our churches, and that it is possible to maintain unity within the church despite this diversity.

Due to many different causes, America has absolutely seen a rise in diversity. Dating back to before the Civil War, the slave trade industry brought Africans to the United States, changing the face and population of America from solely European and Native American. In the 1900’s, the rise of immigration to the United States again changed what the nation knew as its inhabitants. Even today, with immigration still going strong, the white/Caucasian ethnicity, which held the place of the majority for many years, (arguably since the founding of the colonies), is becoming the minority ethnic group. Thus, the population of America has become more and more diverse over the past 300 years.

This idea of the growing diversity in America has been pointed to over and over again, and it is fairly evident if one is involved in any sort of group or organization. However, Loren L. Johns also points to this in an article that he wrote over both unity and diversity in the canon. Johns says, “The dictionary exposes its defensive posture with regard to diversity in the following comment: “‘If Scripture is viewed for what it claims to be, reasonable explanations for diversity can usually be provided.’ In other words, diversity is a problem for which Christians must account.”[1] Thus, the diversity that has grown in America in the past couple hundred years is so apparent and so prevalent that Johns argues that Christians must account for and consider it.

Yet, although this diversity is so prevalent and apparent, I have witnessed and heard of some churches that seem to either completely ignore it or fight it. Some of these churches want to remain homogeneous, and want to keep the church the way that it is. Some, on the other hand, do not intentionally fight this diversity that inevitably encroaches upon or comes into contact with their church, but they also do not push for outreach or evangelistic opportunities. Instead, these churches seem content with the members they already have, and can unintentionally come across ascliquish. These churches seem to set their focus on their own members and the spiritual formation and growth of these members. This can be good and definitely has its own place, but they often fail to focus on those who are not a part of the church. These churches are often still good at welcoming their guests, but only welcome those who have already found the building and entered into it.

Not only do these churches seem not to focus outside of their own four walls and on their own members, but these churches also tend to want to keep their church the way that it is. The members in these churches have become very close, (because they are being focused on), and although fellowship, community, and growing relationships are all great things, these congregation’s close knit relationships with one another can be very intimidating to anyone who wants to join that community. So again, these congregations and churches are unintentionally keeping this diversity from becoming part of their community.

However, some churches are not only unintentionally keeping this diversity out of their contexts, but they are refusing this diversity intentionally and outright. In some ways, I can understand their discouraging of this diversity in their church. When communities become more diverse and involve people from many different cultures, things can become quite difficult. For instance, if a church that is mostly homogenous has somewhat of a standard pattern for their worship, and then the congregation becomes more diverse and adds members from other cultures to it who are used to worshipping in a completely different way, the congregation is in a tricky situation. This seems to be the case for the church described in the case study, which has the slogan of “A Church for All People.”

Nevertheless, the problem still remains that different groups of people from different cultures, nations, traditions, etc. have now come together, and the church as a whole is stopped in its tracks and must decide how to move forward. Should they continue to worship the way they have always worshipped? Or should they try to include and incorporate the worship of the newer members into their standard of worship? Or, should it completely reject their old style of worship and trade it out for the worship style of these newer members?Thus, diversity can definitely create difficulty.

However, despite the possibility of difficulty that diversity can create, I still believe that we are called, as Christians, to strive to be surrounded by and a part of diverse communities. In fact, Stevens and Collins would agree with that and even take it one step closer when they say, “the body [the church] is one because of the diversity and not in spite of it.”[2] Thus, diversity may create difficulties, but it can also create unity.

This idea of unity in the church is seen throughout the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. It is seen in the examples of the churches throughout each, and even is what holds the two testaments together. The New Testament draws upon, alludes to, and fulfills the Old Testament. Unity has kept the faithful children of God together for many, many years.

What is even more, though, is the idea of unity in the face of diversity. Immediately I think of the example and picture of the church that we see in Acts 2. This church is a combination of many different people, and this church seems to be the example of church that we are to strive to. This church met together daily, shared meals, partook of communion, devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles, sold their land and gave away their money, praised God, and showed God’s goodness to all everyone they encountered. The New International Version, in Acts 2:44 tells us “all the believers were together and had everything in common.”[3] The Common English Bible, although it is phrased a little differently, gets to the same point and even makes it slightly stronger when it says,“all the believers were united and shared everything.”[4] Thus, it is clear that unity is an idea, if not a call, for the church to consider and always strive to.

This unity within the church also helps to define the church itself, and helps to model for others what the role of the church is. If the church can truly be a place where a diverse group of people can come together and at the same time be fully unified, what more of a church could one want? The role of the church is to be a community of believers. Granted, there is often much more involved in a church or a church assembly than simply that they are a community of believers. However, in as basic and boiled-down terms as I can think to imagine, the church is simply put a community of believers.

Now, this idea of a community is what truly points at what I have tried to stress throughout my paper so far. The church is, (or at least should be), a place where people from different places, and even who are in different places, can come together and fit in. This community should, as in the example of Acts 2, have “everything in common” and should be able to share everything- both material and non-material. This community should be a place where both members and non-members alike can come and feel welcomed. This community should strive for both diversity and unity.

In the case study, Ansa questions the role of church and asks “What is the church for if not to be with you when you are grieving?” Ansa has a really great point here and I believe that there is truth in her question. The church should absolutely be a place that surrounds one of their members who is grieving or struggling. In the example of Acts 2, the 1st century church shared everything they owned. Some of the members, (presumably more wealthy than some of the others), sold their land and their possessions, and then “distribute the proceeds to everyone who needed them.”[5] Although this example is of the selling distributing of material possessions, this holds implications for what church should look like or practice today. Churches should share with one another, and in the case of Ansa and “A Church of All People,” the church should definitely surround her and share in her grieving process.

Nancy J. Duff points to this idea by quoting a poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox which says, “Laugh and the world laughs with you./ Weep and you weep alone./ This sad, old earth must borrow its mirth/ But has troubles enough of its own.”[6] Then she follows immediately after this poem with the sentence, “Unfortunately, weeping alone is often the plight of those who grieve.”[7]The church should be the solution to this common occurrence in that it should surround those who are grieving so that they do not have to walk through the grieving process alone.

On the other hand, though, it appears through reading of the case study that there is somewhat of a disconnect between the diversity and the unity within this specific church. In particular, although this church is composed of so many different people from so many different cultures, it seems as if these cultures have not learned enough about each other to operate well. There are a couple different examples that point to this ignorance of the other cultures represented in this diverse church. The most prevalent for this case study is that Ansa is upset because members of the church did not share in her grieving process, but instead invited her to end her grieving, (in her mind, prematurely), by focusing on other things- a very American approach. Another example, however, is the frustration between the professional, independent women and the flirty, macho Latin American men. Still another example of misunderstanding or ignorance of the other cultures is the tension caused over the hymns such as “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Thus, it is very clear that the members of the church do not know enough about each other and each other’s cultures in order to be truly united. When “communication is the currency of power,” as Cosgrove and Hatfield put it, it is of utmost importance that all of the members of the church are communicating with one another and learning about each other.[8]

The church in this case study definitely needs to create some form of learning and conversation between and among the different cultures represented in it. These could take on the form of a series of classes taught by members from each different, respective culture, or they could be less formal conversation between all the members. Regardless of the form that they take, though, it seems that learning about each other in the church, and truly addressing the issues at hand through calm conversations would be the best next step to take. The push for these conversations or classes should come from the pastor, Bruce Derr, though, because not only is he the pastor in the sense that he is the leader, but he is also the pastor in the sense that he knows and cares for each and every member of the church. Thus, Bruce should strive to set up some form of discussion among the different members from different cultures, talking about each of their cultures as well as about the tensions that are already present. If both sides were able to fully hear each other out, these tensions could definitely be resolved. Again, I believe the over-arching theme here is, or should be, unity, and the establishment of both these classes or conversations about each culture as well as the conversations addressing the pressing issues would help to preserve unity in this church.

As for Bruce’s role in trying to minister to Ansa, I believe his first approach should be to validate her in her grieving process. She has lost three different family members recently and feels alienated and that no one else in the church understands. In fact, she even feels hurt by some of the members because of their response to her and her grieving. Because of all of this, Bruce needs to be there for Ansa, to validate her and her grieving process- however long that may take her, and to comfort her. It may be helpful to explain to her why the other members responded the way that they did, but he should do so in a way that is matter-of-fact and unbiased in anyway as to avoid alienating Ansa even further. Hopefully through walking alongside of Ansa through this and through the push of informational classes and reconciling conversations, Ansa will see that the church is, in fact supposed to surround you when you are grieving, and that they are making strides to reconcile with her.

Besides these suggestions, I would also offer that Bruce should continue to push for shared responsibilities and leadership among members from different cultures. Granted, this approach can create difficulties of problems sometimes. William Dyrness points to this in his essay: “cultural factors are critical because they are the most intimate and personal factors that determine the leadership situation.”[9] However, the idea of leadership being spread across the different cultures represented in one’s congregation simply makes sense. If a very diverse church that desires to be “a church for all people” has a committee, and if the members on this committee are supposed to be a representation from the congregation as a whole, does it not make sense for this committee to be composed of members from each, (or at least most), of the different cultures represented in that church?

In fact, this idea of sharing the leadership among and between the different cultures is one that many authors have recognized and suggested as helpful. In his breakdown of what makes for a successful, unified church, Louis H. Gunneman ends with the idea of “an openness to new life- ‘sharing decision-making’ for the sake of the mission.”[10] George Yancey also points to this idea when he says, “successful multiracial churches share certain characteristics, including racially diverse leadership, inclusive worship and adaptability.”[11] Sawchuck and Heuser also argue for this idea:

The leader of a multi-racial community must have a desire for abundant life. In practical terms, to have life, and have it more abundantly, means that those who hold the reigns of power in a given institution must learn to share the overflowing sources of power, submitting their own ego and agenda to God’s intended future.[12]

Thus, Bruce should continue to encourage the involvement of many or each of the different cultures represented in the church on the different committees, leadership groups, and planning teams.

The church presented in this case study has a fairly unique, yet very diverse, and therefore, awesome makeup. It is a church that truly is diverse in its population, and wants to be a church where any and all feel welcomed. However, the members do not completely understand each other and may even be ignorant to one another and each other’s culture. Thus, Bruce should continue to lead and guide the church in embracing the diversity that they do have while also striving for unity in all things. This unity can be maintained through sessions of learning about one another’s culture and through conversations addressing the issues that have caused tensions so far. Bruce can also help to maintain this unity by reaching out to Ansa and trying to walk alongside of her. This church has an awesome opportunity to be a church that unified even though they are diverse, and I believe that they can absolutely attain this goal if they are able to work through their issues and continue to involve each of the different members and cultures.