The church is one of the most segregated parts of society. Sunday morning, blacks go to their churches, whites to theirs, Koreans to theirs, etc. etc. Their is some mixing, but very little. It would be nice to look back at the early church and see that race was not an issue, but even there, from the very outset of the church, racial divides were at the forefront.
In Acts 6, the widows of the Hebraic Jews (those from Israel, probably mostly from Jerusalem) were getting more food than the widows of the Grecian Jews (those from outside Israel). Many of these Grecian Jews likely travelled long distances to come to the festival of Pentecost, but ended up staying once confronted with the reality of the gospel. Therefore, there were many needs among them, especially among their widows. Regardless, they were being overlooked, and preference was being given to the local, natural born, true Hebraic Jews.
It is not shocking that there was racial tension. There always has been and always will be.
What I want to focus on is the response. What did they do about it?
First of all, what do we usually do about it?
Many of our churches do not represent the demographics of the communities we are attempting to serve. Many minorities are being overlooked. This is nothing new.
But, what do we do about it?
Do we ignore them?
Do we try to get them to come to us using good media techniques?
Do we start a program and invite them to come?
What did the early church do?
The apostles had the community put forward the people they wanted in those places of leadership.
But who were they? Were they Hebraic Jews or Grecian Jews?
Scholars say that based on all the information available, it is probable that ALL 7 were Grecian Jews! In other words, the majority group gave ALL leadership in this controversial task to leaders representing the minority group. WOW! One of them, as explicitly stated in Acts 6:5, wasn't even born a Jew at all, but converted to Judaism in Antioch, a non-Israeli city!
I wonder how many Christian leaders, in considering how to reach their community would consider this?
Just think about the possibilities listed above... Every one contains a "WE" and a "THEM." What are WE going to do with THEM?
Isn't this really the key to the whole thing. WE have a certain ethnic, culture, economic identity, and it is very difficult to let in outsiders. WE have a way of singing, a way of preaching, a way of just being, and THEY are different.
I find it exciting and challenging that the first "church staff" chosen was for the express interest of representing and empowering the overlooked minorities. Rather than sticking with the normal WE vs. THEM, they said through their actions that this thing won't be solved until WE and THEM become US.
I recently visited a church of about 300 people where the head pastor has a goal of 50% non-anglos participating as elders, staff, and community group leaders by 2013. Right now they're at 20%, 16%, and 8% respectively in each of those categories. Going to that church, you sense the awkwardness, but beautiful intentionality of a church fighting to represent and love its community. With songs in Spanish, Hispanic people on the microphone, sermon translations available in Spanish and Swahili, the church is seeing racial and ethnic unity happen - and word is getting out in the city. In talking to the head pastor, it is a difficult road, but well worth it.
The world is watching to see if Christians will live any differently than the rest of the culture. Acts 6 gives us something to shoot for: overcoming division through intentional minority leadership representation.
It will be interesting to see how this church developes.
ReplyDelete