Eric Redmond, whom I have mentioned before, gets some good press on the front page of the Washington Post.
You can read the whole article here. I have excerpted parts of the Post article, along with a couple of other articles, and made some comments therein.
The Post explained:
Faced with a crisis of aging and departing members, the nation's largest non-Catholic Christian bodies -- Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- are reaching out to minorities in ways they never have before.Yet, while local churches often remain predominately black or white, the outreach does result in a more diverse national organization.
I don’t disagree with the thesis of the introduction. I think many denominations are facing a decline and are reaching out aggressively to non-Anglos, though I am not sure the decline is the motivation. At least in the case of the SBC, “language,” “ethnic,” and “black” ministry dates back decades to when the SBC was growing rapidly. Most denominations have been focusing on increasing diversity for decades.
However, the increase of diversity is important when discussing decline, growth, etc. If you were to remove the ethnic and African American growth from the SBC totals, the denomination would have been in numerical decline for several years. (I think we are in decline already, but churches report inflated numbers and report a category that is a mystery to me, "non-resident members.")
More from the article:
But of all the denominations seeking to diversify, many agree that the Southern Baptist Convention -- an association of about 40,000 congregations that make up the nation's largest Protestant denomination -- has the farthest to travel.
Having just completed a church planting study of all major denominations for Leadership Network, I can tell you that is an overstatement. There are some VERY white denominations out there (and other monocultural denominations that are not white). My denomination has some some of the worst history, but if diversity is measured by the number of churches (and that is the standard the article uses), we have made more progress than most. For that matter, I would say that most denominations in our study found their plants to be much more ethnically and racially diverse than their denominations as a whole.
But, any way you slice it, my denomination has a bad racial history. As one pastor told me, "At Birmingham, we were the ones holding the hoses." But, progress has been made.
Now, before you tell me that I am just parroting the party line, that is not my style. As many Southern Baptists can tell you, I try to tell the truth even when it hurts (the Dallas Morning News says I am, "one of the more plainspoken SBC figures on the challenges the denomination faces in what many are calling a post-denominational age." (For example, see our analysis of young leaders here.)
So, I am always willing to tell the truth as I see it (and I have learned that telling the truth can be controversial). But, on the racial diversity issue, we have made, and continue to make, some real progress. We have a growing diversity in our convention, though we do have real systemic racial issues and some racists still in our midst. The difference is that now we have adopted a faith statement that actually says, "In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism” (BFM 2000).
Now, the challenge is to make that less of a statement and more of a practice.
Speaking of statements, here is a list of all the SBC resolutions on race.
The article continued:
Southern Baptists are starting churches in black communities and, while they insist they don't recruit from predominantly black denominations, the outreach strategy includes welcoming black preachers from those bodies and offering them multi-day "boot camps" -- intensive teaching in starting Southern Baptist churches.
I have taught dozens of these "boot camps" and they are really just basic training for church planters-- where Anglo, African American, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, and all other church planters get their training. The article makes it sound a bit contrived with the "while they insist" they don't recruit, they still offer "boot camps." Maybe I am reading too much into it... but that seems a little smarmy.
More from the article:
"I wish it was all just spiritual, but some of it is pragmatic as well," said the Rev. Frank S. Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Our highest growth is coming in ethnic congregations, so it's very important for the growth of our convention . . . If we're going to reach our nation, we're going to need to reach ethnic groups."
Frank Page hits it on the head (at least in the second part of his quote). This is one of the reasons that the North American Mission Board created the North American People Groups Project and its site www.peoplegroups.info.
NAMB is aggressively focused on people group ministry.
So What is the SBC Ethnic Situation?
I wrote an article a few years ago with a racial double entendre in the title, "Guess Who Is Coming to Potluck." I thought it was quite clever at the time, but I don't think many people picked up on the racial overtone in the title (see the Wikipedia article on the movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner). I hate it when I am trying to be clever and it does not work!
In the article, I explained a few things about the increasing diversity of the denomination. I wrote:
Word Tabernacle Baptist Church is excited about being part of the Southern Baptist family. Pastor Gailliard explains, "We're glad to be a part because of the Kingdom mindset of the Convention .... The connection with the Convention is so solid because of the theology and the cooperation we found there."This church is like most of the new congregations reporting on the Annual Church Profile for the first time — it is primarily made up of non-Anglos; it is aggressively reaching out to its community; and it is excited about being a part of the Southern Baptist Convention family of churches.
Note that the majority of new SBC churches were not predominantly Anglo.
The over 48,000 SBC churches and missions tend to look different from the 1,600+ new congregations which appeared on the ACP list in 2002 (the most recent year that full statistics are available). The new congregations tend to be more ethnically diverse and more effective in outreach, but they still work together with other Southern Baptists to reach the world.Ethnicity. New Southern Baptist churches are much more ethnically diverse than the larger pool of existing churches. Today, more and more Southern Baptists speak other languages, worship using other cultural forms, and fellowship over different foods. As our churches become more diverse, we look more like heaven with men and women from every tongue tribe and nation (Revelation 7:9).
The chart compares the existing churches (which is better than most expect) to the new churches (which is remarkable). Click on this link to get the original article which gives a better view of the graph.

Now, we have a very long way to go. For example, one very influential SBC leader has indicated that the reason revival tarries is because all these immigrants out there have not become good Americans so they can hear the gospel. Sigh.
But, things are changing.
More on Eric
Eric and I recently contributed to a 9 Marks forum on race. You can read it here.
My contribution to the forum was focused on if race really mattered:
Race matters.I planted my first church among the urban poor in Buffalo. Having been raised in a racially isolated community near New York City, I never thought much about race—but in Buffalo we had little choice. We were forced to address issues of race because our community was a multicultural milieu. It forced us to read the Scriptures with more awareness of race—and an acknowledgement of its challenges.
We found that race matters in scripture. Even though few Anglo churches seem to notice, Scripture frequently demonstrates God’s concern for race and ethnicity.
Luke illustrates the coming of the Spirit with diverse expressions of tongues (Acts 2), even identifying the languages being spoken. And a glimpse of eternity in Revelation shows that men and women from every tongue, tribe, and nation make up the choir of eternal praise (Rev. 7:9). If the writers of Scripture take notice of ethnicity, so should we.
Scripture not only identifies race and ethnicity, but John hints at prejudice concerning Jesus in John 1:46, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Furthermore, Jesus intentionally offends ethnic and racial sensibilities with both the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10). Why go to so much trouble to emphasize their ethnicity if it does not matter?
Yet the same Spirit that inspired the Scripture to identify race also provides the strength to overcome its challenges. Both our worship and our witness are made more perfect when we model gospel-centered diversity.
At the cross, there is "no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female." Yet at the throne there are men and women from "every tongue, tribe, and nation." We would do well to remember both.
Eric was much more articulate and is worth reading in its entirety here. Eric explained:
There is a race problem in the American church, if for no other reason than the fact that there is a race problem in America, and the evangelical church’s progress on race has, historically, mirrored America’s progress on race. The great gulf that exists between the gatherings of Whites and African Americans on Sunday morning, often reflecting the great gulf that exists between white exurbia and African American suburbia or cityscape, exemplifies the mirroring of the culture by the church.My white brothers of the faith often miss the race problem. I don’t feel that this is due to overt racism on the part of many. Instead, it’s because my white brothers must work at seeing life though the eyes of an African or Hispanic or Asian or Native American—all of whom are naturally and daily race-conscious. This is inevitable when you are:
-the only minority in the board room or on the faculty,-the one being profiled by security cameras or stereotyped as a class below white cultural and class standards,
-the potential victim of discrimination by mortgage lenders and human resource hiring specialists,
-a parent concerned about his/her child being mistreated as the only minority in a classroom or at a teen camp—even a Christian teen camp.
In addition, unless one works very hard to do so, my white brothers cannot feel what it is like to live in a society dominated by another ethnic culture (in a society in which ethnic distinctions matter greatly) and to adjust to the dominant culture’s preferences, norms, and mores daily—from the time one leaves home in the morning until returning home in the evening. This can even be the case at one’s church, fraternal organization or civic group. This practical ignorance of the minority experience lends itself to omissions of thought—i.e., "insensitivity"—on issues of race.
He takes a not-so-subtle swipe at a new book edited by a friend of mine, Danny Akin. You should get the book, it is good... but Eric points out:
A recently published systematic theology—A Theology for the Church (B&H, 2007)—provides the contemporary pastor and layman with a solid work that has the potential to become a standard seminary classroom or personal pastoral reference text for years to come. In this collaborative effort, each chapter on a specific doctrine has three great features: (i) a brief look at the history of the specified doctrine, (ii) a selective summary of Baptist teaching on the doctrine, and (iii) a consideration of the practical implications and outworking of the doctrine in the life of the church.However, in Theology there is not one mention of racism, racial-reconciliation, injustice, slavery, or genocide. (I am aware that the topics included may seem imbalanced since the work is a collaborative effort, drawing from the expertise of several men.) By omitting such discussions in a tome of this type—one that is compiled by some of the most well-known conservative Baptist scholars in this generation—we have, by de facto, said that issues related to "race" are not for theological discussions, or at least not a discussion at the level of Openness Theology, Intelligent Design, and the extent of the Atonement. If this text begins to serve our seminaries in a manner similar to Erickson's and Grudem's systematics, many of our younger men and women will study theology without a critical reference work on race. Apparently, that discussion is left for the African Americans, Hispanics, and Liberation Theologians. This unintentional omission in Theology allows for an unintentional omission in the theology coming from our pulpits...
Moreover, if "race" is not important enough for the theologians to discuss, it will not be important enough for those who actually believe in (conservative) theology to consider it as part of their theology.
Eric blogs here.
Here are a few questions to ponder / discuss regarding denominations and racism:
-What can denominations do to build bridges across the racial divide? What about churches?
-What are the systemic racial issues that need to be addressed in my, your, and other denominations and churches?
-How should other churches respond when they hear of active or passive racism in churches in their denomination?
Feel free to weigh in on your comments below.
By the way, February is Black History Month.
Comments (10)
Ed, what I really hate is when I'm trying to be clever and my girls call me a nerd!!
To some of the issues that you raise:
1) In the deeper south areas -- one of which I have pastored -- there remains a paradigm (in various degrees of intensity) that SBC churches are for "whites."
In Mississippi, for instance, the Baptist Board determined to plant African American churches following the Civil War ("War of Northern Aggression" depending on your context [grin]) -- the official policy was for SBC churches and associations to help African Americans organize their own churches. You see, before the War, African Americans (who were slaves) were actually members of the SBC churches. FBC Clinton, MS had a membership of 283 in 1860, and 113 of those members were African Americans. Following the War and during Reconstruction, very few African Americans remained in the SBC churches (there were only 139 reported African Americans in Mississippi Baptist churches in 1874), so the Mississippi Baptist Board determined to help organize African American churches. In 1876, Anglo and African American evangelists were employed by the Mississippi Baptist Board and the Home Mission Board of the SBC to work within the African American population toward this end. Interestingly, I have found no evidence that the churches established were SBC churches.
What developed over time was this mindset that the SBC churches were for the "whites." This is the mindset that many SBC churches in Mississippi have overcome, some are working to overcome, and some have proposed that the mindset should NOT be overcome. Of course, such struggles are not excusive to Mississippi.
To overcome the mindset that SBC churches are for "whites," I believe we must demonstrate clearly what Eph 2:1-22. We also must be patiently courageous as we correct an aberrant theological position.
2) I think that we have the opportunity to build bridges to African American communities and churches. This demands, in my view, a truly incarnational approach. We must demonstrate a long-term commitment to the people in those communities and a partnership with them for the kingdom. I think planting churches is vitally important (one that we're working on right now in our area), but we must be careful not to fall into the paradigm that the "white" church is planting a "black" church. We're working through this challenge.
3) Finally, I believe that our approach to staffing in the SBC (and the local church) must reflect the desire for community among the ethnically diverse. When we are committed to join in partnership with individuals among different racial groups for the kingdom, we will staff accordingly. It's not just the "white" church seeking to "help out" the "black" church. We are fully partners in advancing the kingdom as we move on mission together.
Just some random thoughts during my Monday afternoon nap :).
Eric
Posted by Eric Thomas | February 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 16:51
Ed, what do you make of Metzger's recent book (with John Perkins writing the afterward)? His thesis is that the homogeneous principle of church growth is part of the problem as it propagates the already ingrained racial and economic segregation of the church. In other words, it perpetuates the status quo.
What do you make of the works of Emerson, Yancey and DeYmaz advocating intentionality and multi-ethnic congregations?
Posted by Reid | February 18, 2008 7:48 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 19:48
Very helpful, Eric.
Reid, I have not read Emerson but have read the others and will respond tomorrow.
In the meantime, feel free to let me know what you think about some of my comments above...
Thanks,
Ed
Posted by Ed Stetzer | February 19, 2008 12:40 AM
Posted on February 19, 2008 00:40
Ed,
Church people don't talk about black or green. You've done both this week. Shame! :)
Posted by Michael | February 19, 2008 12:21 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 12:21
Reid,
Tell me about Emerson… have not read that book.
On to your comments, I think Consuming Jesus is an important book. I like think Perkins brings an important element to the book as well… but I am not willing to say that the Homogenous Unit Principle (as properly understood) is racist. I think it is an observation about how lost people act: they prefer to come to Christ without crossing racial, social, and economic barriers. That is true.
Around the world, the Pokot are converted in Pokot churches, not as much in Maasai churches. In American, Hispanics are more likely to come to Christ in Hispanic churches.
Now, as Christians, we must move beyond those barriers. And, I don't think we have (much).
I think Yancy does a good job with his research. I like him and his passion. DeYmaz is more of an advocate, and the church needs to hear what he says.
But, lost people act like lost people and they tend to stay within racial, social, and economic barriers.
We should not act like lost people, but like Christ followers.
Posted by Ed Stetzer | February 19, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 13:08
Ed said: Now, as Christians, we must move beyond those barriers
But why is that seen as a barrier? Why can't we just see that as reality and do our best to equip the Pokot and Hispanic churches to reach the people who naturally gravitate to these churches?
Posted by Larry | February 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 14:51
Larry, I'm not the host, but I'd like to give my take on the "why", although I know Ed has more understanding on this and will necessarily have to correct some of my errant thinking :).
I believe Ed rightly notes the differences between the way a lost person acts and the way a saved person should act. There is a biblical model of unity that moves us beyond racial, ethnic, social boundaries as the people of God (and I don't think that's just in heaven when we get there). If Paul's message to Ephesus meant anything, it meant that believers were no longer divided by "Jewish" and "Gentile." Christ shattered the wall of separation between them, creating one new man by His shed blood (Eph 2:14-18). Paul saw this as the theological demand for unity as believers in Christ in the local church of Ephesus (as Christ has made us, we should live in it).
Yet, in reaching those who are not redeemed, we understand that there is no "new man." The social, racial, etc. distinctions remain, and we seek to reach them through the distinctions they have embraced. These distinctions actually become avenues for mission. And that's the significance of the HUP. After all, Jesus became a man to reach humans :). He even went and ate and drank (don't know what) at a party where booze was served in order to call sinners to repentance (Matt 5:27-32). And certainly the HUP is reflected in some manner in Paul's testimony about his ministry (1 Cor 9:19-23).
Where the HUP fails, however (in my opinion), is holding too tightly to the individual distinctions in such a way that the local family of faith fails to reflect the unity Christ provides among races, rich / poor, Democrat / Republican --- wait... didn't mean that...
Lots of words... sorry! Going back under my rock now. BTW, thanks for allowing me to comment on this.
Eric
Posted by Eric Thomas | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 18:36
Eric, Ed has been correcting my errant thinking for about 13 years. It's just something you get used to.
I have many, many questions on this subject but I'll save LifeWay bandwidth and only ask a couple.
I totally agree with you on the unity of believers. As a matter of fact, I'm all for it. That's not the question at all.
It's just that where Ed sees a barrier I see an opportunity for the support of ethnic or cultural missions/churches as part of that unity. To reach beyond the borders of my church and culture in a way that has a better chance of reaching the lost of these two groups than my church would alone.
Lots of believers (and I'm pretty sure some current members) would find the worship at my church not to their liking. Not expressive enough for some and too expressive for others. That doesn't mean we don't have unity in Christ.
It seems that in outreach to the different people groups overseas we always try to enlist nationals/locals to train and be the leaders. The reasons seem obvious to me.
But if we do the same here at home it's somehow not acceptable.
At my church while we are over 99% Anglo, we have folks of just about every political persuasion and conservative/moderate/liberal theology that you could possibly imagine. But we are united in supporting the proclamation of the gospel to the world and show it in our giving and our going.
The next question is: "how far"?
The easy answer will be "to the ends of the earth".
But that's enough rambling for today. We'll save that question for another day.
Posted by Larry | February 19, 2008 8:34 PM
Posted on February 19, 2008 20:34
Next question
Define "diversity".
Go ahead. I dare you.
Posted by Larry | February 20, 2008 1:25 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 13:25
Guys, Consuming Jesus takes the HUP to task for I think some good reasons. Race in America is not just an issue of sinful individual choices, but it is connected with larger issues of economics and justice. It is an issue of social structures as well as "reaching people." The book Divided by Faith shows that white and black evangelicals see this issue differently - one sees race as an individual heart matter, others relate much more to social and systemic justice.
For instance, white folk can use the HUP to comfortably continue to propagate unjust structures and the status quo of racial segregation by economics, preference, power, real estate/neighborhoods etc.
Not sure if any are familiar with John Perkin's work on Relocation, Reconciliation and Redistribution...his contention is that we need to cross these tribal boundaries to work towards justice as well as evangelism. I think we will be divided by our views of race and the gospel unless a more holistic approach is taken.
Also, I "get" that lost people think and make distinctions like lost people, but the coming generations might just see something different when the racial and economic barriers are actually lived DIFFERENTLY in the church. The HUP may pragmatically give us quicker results but I think there is huge evangelical potential in intentionality to carve a Kingdom culture together with people from diverse backgrounds.
This of course brings very difficult questions and practical issues.
- What kind of music do we play?
- How do we preach to such ecclectic audiences?
- How should leadership be structured and empowered?
- Can we even do it? Or are we stuck by the social boundaries which have been around for generations?
- Or the question I am posing here - will we even try?
I think it is time to ask - Is the HUP worth what it continues to empower in certain North American contexts? Could it be that if the church reflected in worship and at dinner tables an actual community reflective of Eph 2 that it might just have a powerful influence upon a watching world? Also, Pentecostals are already crossing these boundaries carving out a certain culture...usually pretty wild and upbeat :)
Personally, I have to try - to bring passion/emotions and thought/exposition together in my preaching as well as find a path forward in this racialized, tribalized story taking place outside of Eden.
I pray that the visible church in America might look like the in breaking Kingdom. I am persuaded that God wants me to try - and I might die on that hill.
Posted by Reid | February 29, 2008 11:56 AM
Posted on February 29, 2008 11:56