Faith and segregation

[Farm Boy]

Hey if we're throwing anecdotes around....

I'll see your 'open to the public' congregations and raise you a 'compel the public to join' congregation.

A while back my wife worked at the local Head Start. Head Start has lots and lots of parent-teacher days where the parents come in and learn how their kids are doing and what needs to be improved. The parking lot at Head Start on these days would become seriously overcrowded. There is a church next door and the Head Start staff asked if they could use their parking lot during parent-teacher days. It made sense as these events typically were not during church events so the parking lot was unused.

The church responded they would only allow the staff of Head Start and the impoverished parents of children at Head Start to use the parking lot if all of the staff at Head Start became members of their church and attended service - including the Muslim Head Start staff members.

But what your or my anecdotes has to do with the topic is beyond me.

Well, certainly not all churches are created equal. Tim solicited opinions. I explained what mine is by showing you my experience. In my experience the churches help hold the patchwork of small towns that make up our local school district together. Nobody else runs food donations. Nobody else runs school supply donations(backpacks got devoured this year). Nobody else is running a pre-school where it can be commuted to for working moms and dads who already have to commute when you live out here. They don't have the luxury of giving a crap if you moved out from Chicago, or from the Caribbean, or Africa, or Asia. The older white people who kinda sorta seemed to care about that sort of stuff are mostly dead or housebound and the only guy coming to see them to pray with them is South Korean, so I'd guess they've figured out how to deal with it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Surely the point is that ENFORCED segregation is a bad thing, but that people simply choosing to self-segregate is not. Therefore there's nothing inherently wrong with a "black church" or a "white church", it's only a problem if they're explicitly prohibiting certain people to enter. Of course, that leaves a large grey area where it isn't explicit but is still essentially enforced in some way, but that's another matter.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Surely the point is that ENFORCED segregation is a bad thing, but that people simply choosing to self-segregate is not. Therefore there's nothing inherently wrong with a "black church" or a "white church", it's only a problem if they're explicitly prohibiting certain people to enter. Of course, that leaves a large grey area where it isn't explicit but is still essentially enforced in some way, but that's another matter.

I'm not trying to suggest that people self segregating is a bad thing...well, I don't think that was the point. I'm more interested in why churches appear to be among the last bastions of that self segregation, and whether there is some "essential enforcement" playing a role in it.

Farm Boy...I get it, and I appreciate your perspective. Certainly there are situations where the entire conversation really doesn't apply. If there is one church in however many miles that one church is no doubt going to be exactly as diverse as the local population.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are about 6. One Methodist, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, one Catholic, and two of the evangelical/bible-in-the-name variety. I might be missing one, I can't remember. But yes, they all take everybody as they find them. None of them are going to be stupid enough to ostracize or be unwelcoming to the white couple with one white and four black kids or anything like that. It's just not in the options.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There are about 6. One Methodist, one Presbyterian, one Baptist, one Catholic, and two of the evangelical/bible-in-the-name variety. I might be missing one, I can't remember. But yes, they all take everybody as they find them. None of them are going to be stupid enough to ostracize or be unwelcoming to the white couple with one white and four black kids or anything like that. It's just not in the options.

Yeah well I grew up in the south and you could drive into many a small town and find 5 churches, all baptist and all of them stuck to 'their own kind'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah well I grew up in the south and you could drive into many a small town and find 5 churches, all baptist and all of them stuck to 'their own kind'.

Seculars do too, so what's up? Some people do suck and the faith they follow or lack thereof seems to be mostly divorced from said suckage. You really don't need to prove to me that people suck simply because the churches around me don't give a rat's ass what you look like or what you come from. Your experience is valid, yo.

 

[BvBPL]

Churches often serve as communal centers for minority populations. This is certainly the case for many Vietnamese churches in my area.

I've never felt unwelcome at a religious service.* Going to the religious services of my friends has never been a problem, everyone has been very happy to have me despite me being white in a black or Asian church and despite being Catholic in the church of another faith.

With this in mind, I would like to suggest the thesis that churches do not necessarily segregate themselves or are unwelcoming to others, but rather that specific populations tend towards specific churches because those populations feel specific churches offer more of interest to the population than other houses of worship. Thus it is not segregation, but rather an inclination to attend worship at places that serve not only spiritual, but also worldly needs inline with those of the congregation. Not merely services like food banks and the like, but also communities that feel comfortable to one.

*With an exception that is not pertinent.

 

[chijohnaok]

With this in mind, I would like to suggest the thesis that churches do not necessarily segregate themselves or are unwelcoming to others, but rather that specific populations tend towards specific churches because those populations feel specific churches offer more of interest to the population than other houses of worship. Thus it is not segregation, but rather an inclination to attend worship at places that serve not only spiritual, but also worldly needs inline with those of the congregation. Not merely services like food banks and the like, but also communities that feel comfortable to one.

*With an exception that is not pertinent.

I would agree with your thesis.

Might you find exceptions to that--of course, because you will always find exceptions.

But in general, I think that your thesis would describe the overwhelming majority of churches in the United States.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

With this in mind, I would like to suggest the thesis that churches do not necessarily segregate themselves or are unwelcoming to others, but rather that specific populations tend towards specific churches because those populations feel specific churches offer more of interest to the population than other houses of worship. Thus it is not segregation, but rather an inclination to attend worship at places that serve not only spiritual, but also worldly needs inline with those of the congregation. Not merely services like food banks and the like, but also communities that feel comfortable to one.

Now we are headed in the direction of interest to me. Is that "feel comfortable to one," in itself, something one would be well served to grapple with? Would "we" be better off if more of us "ones" were choosing to grapple with it?

I too had attended a variety of worship centers, often as a guest and sometimes as an obviously lone explorer, and never been made unwelcome. Despite that experience when I walked into my church for the first time there was certainly some discomfort, and not limited to me.

From that I conclude that the answers are both yes. Being not just a visitor but a member of my church has given me a tremendous opportunity for growth personally and spiritually. As for society, sitting at my dinner table in a restaurant while three tables away a black family dines is not really producing any great impact on racial divisions. A place of worship is a place of interaction. Interaction breaks down barriers.

 

[BvBPL]

There's a lot of Vietnamese immigrants in my area so consider their case.

The family moves to America and uproots themselves from everything they know. They are in a strange, new world. They do not speak the language well (or perhaps at all). They feel alone and alien.

However, they can go to one of the numerous Vietnamese churches in my area and receive a service in a language with which they are familiar. They can meet other Vietnamese-Americans who are more likely to understand the problems that the new immigrants face in their new home. They can socialize with people with whom they are comfortable.

For them, the homogeneity of the church isn't a problem; rather it is an asset. A more heterogeneous church would be less able to meet their social needs because of language and cultural barriers. In fact by coming together with other Vietnamese-Americans who are more established, going to a Vietnamese church likely eases integration into broader American culture by introducing the recent immigrants to people who have adapted to American society while maintaining their Vietnamese cultural identity.

I think to say that homogeneity in places of worship is segregation, with the negative implications that word entails, ignores the positive benefits offered by having a safe haven of similar individuals in an otherwise alien landscape. The immigrant is already going to interact with people who are decidedly American just by being in America.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a lot of Vietnamese immigrants in my area so consider their case.

The family moves to America and uproots themselves from everything they know. They are in a strange, new world. They do not speak the language well (or perhaps at all). They feel alone and alien.

However, they can go to one of the numerous Vietnamese churches in my area and receive a service in a language with which they are familiar. They can meet other Vietnamese-Americans who are more likely to understand the problems that the new immigrants face in their new home. They can socialize with people with whom they are comfortable.

For them, the homogeneity of the church isn't a problem; rather it is an asset. A more heterogeneous church would be less able to meet their social needs because of language and cultural barriers. In fact by coming together with other Vietnamese-Americans who are more established, going to a Vietnamese church likely eases integration into broader American culture by introducing the recent immigrants to people who have adapted to American society while maintaining their Vietnamese cultural identity.

I think to say that homogeneity in places of worship is segregation, with the negative implications that word entails, ignores the positive benefits offered by having a safe haven of similar individuals in an otherwise alien landscape. The immigrant is already going to interact with people who are decidedly American just by being in America.

Agreed, and perhaps there was a better word to use than "segregated" though I can't think of any that would have been accurate enough to get the information across.

We are talking about different cases though. Yes, the recently arrived immigrant is going to interact with people outside the culture group. I assume that they won't find stores that meet all their needs where they can find a checkout marked "Vietnamese spoken here." There is going to be assimilation and a place of worship providing some buffer to ease the impact is surely a good thing.

On the other hand, there is another guy who goes to my church who is the same age as me. We both grew up here. We shop at the same stores, drive on the same streets, eat in the same places...truth is we run into each other all the time. We never saw each other or spoke a word to each other until the day I walked into his church.

How long does the buffer that eases assimilation last, before it becomes an insulator that maintains barriers?

 

[tetley]

Not to condone segregation or make excuses for it, but people want their lives to be simple; especially at home. Integration is not simple, and many people regard their church as their home. We are talking of people who gripe at their music leader and threaten to leave if they change the number of times they sing a verse. Or people who "reserve" their spot in the pew every Sunday (there is no written sign on the pew, but...). Now try integrating black people who feel discriminated against by cops with off-duty white cops going to church. Not to say that isn't a very GOOD thing--it is--but can you imagine how tough that is? I don't want to go home to face tough things--I go home to get away from it all.

Like I said, it's not to justify it. It's to try and explain the underpinnings.

 

[Borachio]

Strange, though, that the underlying Christian message is one of universal good-will and fellowship, don't you think?

 

[Hygro]

The market wasn't rewarding racist choices, segregated restaurants enjoyed a monopoly because they didn't have to compete with integrated businesses under Jim Crow. If both are allowed to compete without interference from government and its pseudo-militias like the KKK or any other criminal enterprise then the racist will lose.

"The market" rewards whatever people want. If people are racist, the market will reward racism. The government interfered by banning private businesses from segregating.

 

[Berzerker]

Just out of curiosity, were you alive at the time we are discussing?

Yes, and in California...

The banking system was created by the Knights Templar, not the government.

As in, say, opting not to lend to black communities.

The Knights Templar didn't decide who gets to be a bank, and yes, its your money, you get to decide where to invest it.

"The market" rewards whatever people want. If people are racist, the market will reward racism. The government interfered by banning private businesses from segregating.

The government interfered by banning integrated businesses and then interfered again by banning segregated businesses - the two were not allowed to compete under or after Jim Crow. Most (all?) people harbor racist sentiments because its built into us via evolution, but most people are not racists.

 

[classical_hero]

Strange, though, that the underlying Christian message is one of universal good-will and fellowship, don't you think?

Exactly and yet many "Christians" were the biggest supporters of segregation. I use the quotes because they aren't being Christian since they aren't following what the Bible says.

 

[jackelgull]

Exactly and yet many "Christians" were the biggest supporters of segregation. I use the quotes because they aren't being Christian since they aren't following what the Bible says.

Who is and isn't a real Christian isn't something you get to decide, though.

 

[timtofly]

Who is and isn't a real Christian isn't something you get to decide, though.

Who people associate with, is a judgment call. Some people are closed minded. It really as nothing to do with knowing the spiritual state of another person, but how people interact with other people.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The bible commands Christians not to associate with anyone who identifies as a Christian brother but continues to live lives of sin, but should not stop associating with those who act the same way without the hypocrisy of claiming a Christian faith. (1 Corinthians 5)

We are definitely called to judge other Christians by their fruits.


Christians are called upon not to be respecters of persons. We are not to discriminate based on race, rank, or wealth. The church is supposed to be welcoming to all, although separate ministries may be needed for those who speak different languages.

 

[Borachio]

Who is and isn't a real Christian isn't something you get to decide, though.

Well, I suppose that has to be true.

What surprises me, though, is how readily people claim that they are Christians themselves.

I mean, I could understand them saying that they are trying to be Christians.

Still, as you imply, who knows? Maybe they really are Christians. Despite owning slaves... and treating other people badly.