I had a conversation with someone the other day at “the Vine” about diversity and seeking diversity. At “the Vine,” we’re in the process of planting/reviving 2 missional communities and I argued that one of these contexts – Hyde Park – had to be the most diverse place in the Midwest. She said no, that a different place – Waukegan – was. We were working with two different concepts of diversity.
The actual demographics of each place can be debated. But I argued numerically that Hyde Park was more diverse because its inhabitants included a wide range of ethnicities (white people are probably in the minority here), a wide range of economic classes (from wealthy to poor across all ethnic spectrums), and a wide range in levels of education (from the intellectual elites of Univ. of Chicago to the under educated poor of the Chicago public schools system). I said as far multiple kinds of diversity, Hyde Park had to be the most diverse place in the Midwest.
My friend said Waukegan is more diverse than Hyde Parke. What she meant when was that Waukegan is a place which is more “not us.” We are middle class suburban (majority) white people with the comforts of education, stable families, homes and jobs. Waukegan is more on the “margins,” people who are struggling for all those things. When I said Hyde Park is more diverse, I was referring to the makeup internal to that community, and its broad differences within one community. When my friend said Waukegan was more diverse, she was saying Waukegan was more “other” than us: diversity as a function of a relation external to us.
As we plant communities what are the opportunities and pitfalls of each? Which diversity should we seek to plant in? Diversity a.) or Diversity b.)? What different things should we consider in terms of God’s redemptive purposes in each? Which diversity should we seek as the most appropriate context for a church like ours to seek to inhabit?
I think these are important questions. There are opportunities and pitfalls in both. I offer a comment in relation to both kinds of diversity.
In the case of Waukegan, there is an opportunity to go to the margins and minister the gospel. Given the ubiquitous poverty, this represents “the deserted places of the empire.” These are the folk God has called us to be mindful of. There is the great readiness here, fertile soil here. “Blessed are the poor, the open handed, the ready to receive, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Just as important, here is where we can learn the Kingdom, for God is at work here in unusual and different ways than we are used to. Yet there are dangers. How do we go here and not be people of privilege? Coming with the answers? Coming with our value systems we learned in the suburbs? How do we enter with proper humility? Most importantly, we must resist the temptation that we know, can predict, what redemption will look like here we inhabit these places for the Kingdom. There is a temptation it will look like our pleasant lives back in the prosperous suburbs. This is the false promise of “the American dream”.
In the case of Hyde Park, we have opportunities here as well. We have the opportunity of calling this community into the diversity of the Kingdom, the community of reconciliation and renewal that God is bringing thru Christ. The ones who are wealthy will learn from the poor and vice versa. The ones who are educated will learn from those not and vice versa. The various ethnicities will learn to love and care and understand and learn from each other. Yet we must be careful here not to allow a manufactured diversity to take shape where somehow we all look the same. We cannot appeal to some preconceived notion of what such a diversity might look like in this context. We cannot assume what our music will be, what wealth will mean. We must avoid the mistake (and this is true of many communities) that those who are successful in economy must somehow be minimized, what their success in the world might mean here (I’ve learned this from the Afro-American church communities). They surely must model how to live differently with wealth but they also must teach us how to live in the economy for witness. There is a danger of a manufactured pre-determined flattened diversity that is often shaped by the bland vision of American democracy. God wants to create something anew here through His life of forgiveness, reconciliation and renewal.
I have noticed (a times) a manufactured diversity in large churches in majority white suburban wealthy communities. Here people of different ethnicities and social backgrounds are hired to be visible and lead from up front. Is this a good thing? Sometimes this can work for some good. Sometimes, I’m afraid it is manufactured and is niot the diversity we seek. Kingdom diversity is a culture of renewal worked out on the ground in real relationships. I tend to discourage such attempts at manufacturing diversity. What about you? Is this a temptation where you minister? In what ways do you see manufactured pre-determined diversity taking shape in Christianity? Are you against the ‘token hires’ to promote diversity? How can we avoid the tendency to do manufactured pre-determined diversity? Do we need to?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
In our journey we chose the "Waukegan" equivalent, going in with the awareness of the very dangers you pointed out. Thankfully we had a number of mature local Christians who mentored us into the community. Most significantly this meant spending 4-5 years just being in the community as guests who are unfamiliar and "at the mercy" of the locals. This is not to say we did nothing, but it was an intentional withholding, allowing the DNA of the community to begin to shape us (without losing our DNA in the process either). 8 years in, we can now truly claim "membership" to the community.
How do we go here and not be people of privilege? On some levels, you cannot avoid it, at least not fully. It requires the daily discipline of divestment- the Cross, really. It also requires that we learn the ability to discernment between what is unmerited privilege & what is not, as we risk going to the opposite extreme in this well intentioned discipline.
Coming with the answers? We are constantly reminding ourselves of the quote by Lilla Watson, an Australian Aborigine, who responded to social workers coming to her community by saying: "If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together". Like the previous question, it is also about recognize that we do not come with ALL the answers, but we do come with something to offer. However, the emphasis was for us to be the "student".
Coming with our value systems we learned in the suburbs? Interestingly, it is in the very act of coming (properly) that we are liberated from that which is flawed in our value systems. While very difficult and costly, the greatest gift my community ever gave me was a context in which my privileged value systems were thoroughly dismantled. It is this point that excites me the most- that we go to these communities because we need them as much (and perhaps more) than they need us. Above all, we both/all need God.
How do we enter with proper humility? So much can be said on this, but one thing that comes to mind is actively and intentionally living with the assumption and expectation that God is at work apart from us. That we are coming into what He is already doing with and among the community in ways that they are better equipped to participate in- not to our exclusion, but in such a way that recognizes our need for submission to their particular authority. Then, in time, we can bring that which we have to offer in a meaningful way.
That being said, it still is not easy. The racial diversity of our neighbourhood is still something that our community doesn't reflect well. However, it takes time. Further, the diversity of mental health (which I strongly suggest needs to be added to this lists above) is something we are learning to navigate well.
Thanks David. Great post, as always.
Jamie,
whew … that was some fine reflecting and writing … Lilla Watson – awesome. Thanks for coming on to the blog and adding much to this post.
peace bro … hope to meet along the way.
DF
PART 2.
If we recognize these inherent differences even within a seemingly “homogenous” group, how can we get through them in a constructive way? That’s one of the questions I’ve been asking for over a decade, especially as it relates to validating the abilities and possibilities of next-gen leaders, and mentoring them through opportunities that let them become the bridges that only they can be to our futures. In my quest with this question, I’ve landed on three primary principles.
The first comes from my friend Brent Toderash (formerly unknown as Brother Maynard), with his missional maxim of, “Live your faith, share your life.” I’ve reflected on that a lot the past few years, and feel it is core to living an integrated lifestyle of beliefs and practice, of faith that works, of meaningful and constructive relationships.
The second comes from my friend Eric Bergquist. I consider Eric to be one of the most “successful” missional servants I know. He worked for 12 years in the highly diverse Lower Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco, as director of the Page Street Center. What I learn about being missional from his life is, “Everyone has something to give, and everyone has something to receive.” He demonstrates consistently that kind of humility which welcomes reciprocity amidst diversity.
The third comes from another friend (and I won’t reveal at the moment who she is, as I will be posting a missional profile about her soon and want the reveal to be a surprise for readers). For a decade, I have observed her networking within and across cultures. I’ve seen her surround herself with women and men, younger and older, innovative entrepreneur types and formal administrative types – all kinds of people who are different from herself, but with a similar passion for missional impact. I’ve listened to her actively value the input of each participant in an enterprise. Although she hasn’t said this herself, I see her life as messaging this: “The kingdom has always been meant to be about constellations, not about celebrity stars.” It is that kind of diverse group of lights, shining in a dark place, which best guides us through our midnight moments … but it takes a cluster of stars each contributing what they have to offer, and seeing that together they have far more than a blinding single sun could provide. She brings people’s redemptive contributions to light, and offers them a valued place in a Kingdom constellation, not as some planet in orbit around her little kingdom.
I have far to go myself in embracing diversity, and still battle with my own set of prejudices and issues of contempt. But I think my course was set long ago to at least attempt this journey. I’ll end with four lines from a much longer performance poem that I wrote to celebrate the inauguration of the David and Faith Kim School of Intercultural Studies at Golden Gate Seminary in 1997. The poem is entitled, “Embrace the World,” and these lines encapsulate the most important thing I think I’ve learned on my own journey, and it’s about God’s redemptive purposes behind our experiences of diversity:
[…] These very differences which spur us to war,
God meant for bridge-building from opposite shores
To span Living Waters as our meeting place,
So through Christ, let us joyfully embrace God’s world. […]
Wishing you well on your upcoming endeavors …
Great thoughts from Dave, Jaimie and Brad (though I'm not going to try to compete with Brad for word count!)
I'll take the lay-in and say that we shouldn't pre-determine the kind of diversity we're open to! Both kinds of diversity are part of the Kingdom diversity God calls his church to…each community may reflect more of one or the other.
The language my church uses is "becoming a community that can authentically welcome the whole city." So our goal is beyond aesthetic diversity (what I think you mean by manufactured diversity), and has as much to do with understanding ourselves and repenting of our racist/sexist/classist ways as a community.
A quote from the Belhar confession (written out of the Apartheid context in the 1980s) is helpful for me:
"We believe
- that unity is both a gift and an obligation for the Church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God's Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continuallly be built up to attain [Eph. 4:1-16].
- that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe; that separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which Christ has already conquered."
Some additional thoughts on diversity.
In my understanding of the nature of ministry and the important role that cross-cultural relationships play – it is probably far more important than we realize for us to embrace diversity and get outside a homogenous cultural group mindset. Every culture has things that don’t match up with Scripture. And if the biblical antidote is not yet on our corporate cultural radar, then we need outsider views and voices who can speak to our situation. That is … we need outsiders if our actual desire is to become more Christlike and fill in any gaps in having a comprehensively biblical set of values, beliefs, and behaviors – and to file off any anti-biblical or hyper-biblical excesses.
If we are the outsiders, then we, too, can have a redemptive purpose in drawing “social others” closer to Christ in ways that aren’t yet on their radar. I guess that’s more the Waukegan idea you talked about, Dr. Dave. There’s merit to it, but also dangers. Perhaps part of the whole missionary principle of the “homogenous unit principle” was to protect vulnerable social groups from outsiders who would otherwise take over and control the local expression of church. So, I appreciate what you’ve shared, Jamie, about going in as guests to learn from the culture, adjust your DNA to fit better, and to root into that place.
In 20 years in Marin, and seeing at least 10 attempted church plants of various kinds here, the ones that survive more than 18 months typically are those implanted by leaders who listen, who are willing to stay here the rest of their life, who think in terms of plowing and sowing and watering instead of just reaping. They see themselves as engaged in the classic first-generation missionary task in reaching a previously unreached people group. Their redemptive purpose lies in the long-term, not in the short-run.
Also, your point, Matt, about “aesthetic diversity” hit home as maybe a potential problem more with the Hyde Park or other wealthy suburb situations. I think it’s important to reflect the actual diversity of our community, but there may be reason for “importing” diversity … as long as it’s genuine inclusion and not merely “cosmetic coolness,” as might term it from my experiences here in Marin where next-gen and creative Christians were temporary add-ons to pump up a church’s “cool factor.” I have to wonder if there will always be a tension in diversity, just as we in the U.S. have wrestled with socially and politically since the 1960s and ’70s in affirmative action to redress past injustice versus quotas, and relational reconciliation versus numeric representation.
Provocative issues … thanks for addressing them!
P.S. Re: word count. Matt, I’ve continually found it takes long to write short, and I didn’t have enough time to condense things last night. However, it is frightening how much can pour out during one of those bouts of insomnia!
[...] has posted some though-provoking thoughts and questions about intentionally diverse churches: “The Diversity We Seek: The Danger of Manufactured Pre-Determined Diversity.” Please take a few minutes to read the entire thing; in this post I’ll interact with just a [...]
I blogged a few observations and questions raised for my by this post: http://davidswanson.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/how-...
Thanks.
David, et al
This really resonated with me: "There is a danger of a manufactured pre-determined flattened diversity that is often shaped by the bland vision of American democracy. God wants to create something anew here through His life of forgiveness, reconciliation and renewal."
Among the mostly mainline church communities I have worked with this has been a thorny issue, because their social imagination is mostly seized by the vanities of our national politics and the sanitized visions offered in corporate boardrooms. Difference and the crossing of social boundaries can mean so much more, as the questions your community is raising about HP and Waukegan make evident. Check out Ross Douthat at the NYT who did a really interesting look at the consequence of ignoring diversity within white and rural America. The fact that you have identified a multiple kinds of diversities in your midst, I believe, raises the stakes for Christian engagement across social boundaries rather than lowering them. We are left with few excuses not to cross our social margins, however they are configured.
On the other hand, its worth noting, even if your congregation isn't being called to tackle this directly, that some forms of difference unnerve us societally more than others, and I believe those are ones Christ calls us to pay particular attention to.
Yes in Christ we are new creatures, but I had brown eyes before I went into the baptismal waters and I still have them after. Jesus looked like many things post-res, but thanks to Thomas we know he was still a crucified man. And so, even as congregations on the cusp of the new creation, we are still party to old historical legacies which place particular burdens upon us as Americans and Westerners more generally. Differences of ethnicity and class will always be apart of the American imprimatur, but we don't have to be held captive to how some define those categories. We just need to take ownership of our legacy and identity even in small ways. Doing so would put Christian witness in this polarized, amnesia stricken society in sharper relief.
[...] The Danger of Manufactured Pre-Determined Diversity [...]