Small groups are about creating a sense of family where that's absent. In the fragmented and transient world we're in, white people especially feel disconnected from an extended family, and small groups can fill that void.

Other ethnicities may have a greater sense of kinship along extended family lines.

As a church staffer, I just want to say that I TOTALLY agree that the push and structure of small groups is all about efficiency.

We can't deal with 200 people's personal lives. Ok, we'll lets divide those people up into groups of 10 and have a leader for each group. That's efficiency.

I'm not saying that it is bad or evil or spiritually dead, it just emphasizes efficiency.

This isn't just a white thing, as I see it in many Asian-American churches too. The commonality I've found is that many of us who've lived as 1st and beyond generation American-born children tend to follow the western ethos of living out our personal lives the way we want, individually. Even in marriage, the concept of becoming one with one's spouse is misunderstood and the value of individuality is still stressed very much.

Other ethnicies, including Asian communities, may not feel the need for SGs b/c of a shared struggle and need of each other b/c of the challenges that immigrants face. The concept of individuality and doing one's own thing is overruled by the common good for family and the neighborhood.

Doesn't mean SGs are not needed, as believers need to be in close fellowship with each other. Problem is, the emphasis on SGs are about community and not about discipleship a lot of times. If community is the attraction, then for a person who comes from the latter BG, then he/she gets it all the time. Discipleship, not so much.

I am not sure it is purely about ethnicity. I think it is about class as well poor urban folk who have lived in the city long enough don't warm up quickly to small groups either... I would be interested to know if the revoloving door whites are yuppy-ish...becasue among non-yuppy urban whites in our ministry it is more similar to the ethnics.

I'd make tghis amendment. Small groups are for white people who are in cultures of non-connection. My wife's family lives in the mountainous Eastern Kentucky area which has a slower pace of life and is family-centric. It's much like non-white cultures in Mexico and overseas. They have no real felt need for small groups because they have connection and care already. However, I think they would benefit from them on a discipleship level.

I believe you would find the same thing in other rural cultures.

This is my first time to this site but I will say this is interesting. Small groups are different for everyone and for some they might not necessarily be "small groups" but still considered small groupish. I will say if you do the small group small enough, like 4-5 people then it can be very efficient for any ethnicity.

First - what kind of white people are we talking about? Lifelong New Yorkers? Displaced Appalachians? Old money families from the Deep South? First generation Russian immigrants? I agree that cultural backgrounds affect the way groups of people approach church, but if we're going to pay attention to cultural backgrounds, skin color is a pretty poor way of doing it.

Second - I remember when small groups were a "new and innovative" method, and I'm only 33! Are small groups the "white way," or did small group ministry ideas spread mainly through predominantly white church networks?

I cannot get away of how offensive this article is. Why is it "white" people and everyone else is "African," "Asian-American," "Latino," and so on. Nowadays in our politically correct world all ethancities are described with terms that reflect history and culture, except one. The white man.

Mike H. highlighted the absurditity of this term in his post. It is generic, bland and is so inclusive that you cannot possibly know anything about your subject, unless you are willing to accept the broadest of terms possible. Of course, in the article, it is used to describe those people who romanticize "multi-ethnic" church, but then just don't get it, when its not like they like it. A crude interpertation, but fairly accurate. Caucasian doesn't fit the bill either, because it is a definition based on skin color and can include middle eastern people, those of India and more.

Man, do we need to get past this color thing. It is most frustrating.

Eric, an "Anglo-American"

I'm with you Eric, it's as though being white is non-ethnic. The problem is that as a white person we are pretty far removed from our ethnic heritage but it still abounds all around us. Much of what we consider "American" comes from our European ancestry. Take Christmas trees or even eating saurkraut and pork on New Years Day. I always wondered why my mom made it each year and when I finally asked she didn't even know. Then I researched it I found out that it is a tradition amongst the Pennsylvania Dutch (German). Made sense now as since some of my ancestors were Pennsylvania Dutch.

Small groups have beeen around for a couple of centuries, as the ministry of Wesley demonstrates. Their purpose was not for connection, but for accountability. Many Christians in Africa have realized this and the practice of accountability has revitalized Churches. Small groups based on "connecting" become cliqueish as they become ruled by the rules of human friendship; they are not capable of being adopted across different cultures. But groups meeting for the sake of Christian encouragement and the confession of sin can be successfully formed in different cultures. Groups where true Christian fellowship rules instead of human friendship thrive and produce disciples. As these groups are where sin can be confessed, these groups should be seperate for men and women, as this would make confession easier.

Dave P. I am not sure that the problem is that we are far removed from our ethnic heritage, but that our ethnic heritage is one that is not looked upon highly in this day and age. In other words, could it be that what is "white" is not necessarily a culture or history that deserves a place in this world? And it could be argued that the "african-american" is far removed from his or her ethnic heritage as well. We simply cannot call anyone an "American" without some qualification because that would be, well...unAmerican.

Looking at the long history that the terms: white, black, red, yellow and so on have had in this country, it is a travesty that so many still use these terms. And to use it more often than not in regard to One ethnic group is worse.

P.S. I lived in Central Pennsylvania for 6 years and fell in love with Pork & Saurkraut with mashed potatos as a New Year Feast. We have now lived in Florida for the past 6 years and have my family over every New Years Day for Pork & Saurkraut. The tradition continues....

Eric L., an Anglo-American

White men are still the definers of our culture and pretty much run everything, from business to the Church to government and everything in between.

(Even our black President is finding he can't do anything without those two white male institutions, Congress and the Senate.)

That is why every other group then defines itself in terms of its particular non-whiteness, its particular differences from the mainstream power.

These differences are disappearing so quickly, though. When I was a kid, mixed-race marriages were absolutely shocking and rare. Now dating someone of another race is becoming commonplace.

Soon we'll all be like Tiger Woods and not know what to answer on census forms.

Too bad that this issue has been framed largely in terms of race or ethnicity when it's really much more about cultures, even micro-cultures, as other commenters have alluded to. A diverse church is going to be multicultural and so practices will need to be contextualized for various cultures, or for one culture but not another. Hence the potential for misunderstandings.

One question that arises is whether small groups are a valid method of contextualization to suburban, middle class American culture, or an unnecessary accommodation of that cultural structure, which seems to actively discourage the kind of community we're called to in Scripture? I don't have the answer, but do think the question is worth considering.

I appreciate this article, but I don't think it is a white thing, as much as whites are more into manufacturing than the rest. I'm a white guy (pastor), and frankly, hate your typical small group from a church...you CAN'T manufacture community! However, we do have small groups at the church I'm at, but we like to look at those more as spring boards for people who will later launch out and actually begin to be intentional in the natural community they are already apart from...just my thoughts

Whether we like it or not, in the US, race and culture go together. So when the article says white people, I do think about culture as well. In spite of this, I still think the article title is poorly chosen.

One thing the article highlights but no one mentions is the power issue. Group of probably privileged people come to a church with romantic notions assuming that their way is the right way. Once they are not able to realize their ideas, they leave.

I have attended multiethnic churches over the last 25+ years and the issue they highlight has a lot of truth to it. I even went through a phase where I stopped inviting my white Christian friends because I felt that their romanticized ideas were tiresome.

As some have stated, we must be careful in the 21st century not to lump all white people together all the time. BUT, and this is a big but, I do believe there is a collective white culture out there that attempts to define white people and their tastes. I just dont believe all white people belong to it...but it is still there.

I wish they would have said more about the type of white person that stays. That would have given some great insight.

I think the interview and the author's conclusions are pretty on target, if you accept his very exclusive definition of "white," meaning the white suburbanite or yuppy whose family has been American for generations... and all those (whatever ethnicity) that are like them.

I also agree that "small groups," at least as most church leaders conceive of them, are unnecessary for people who experience community more organically, or for people (like me) who resent the efficiency aspect. They're certainly not the magic bullet that they're touted as these days. That said, there is a level upon which every Christian ought to be involved in small groups. If it's family, and it meets the biblical criteria of Christian koinoia, then that's fine. But we need committed, intimate, accountable, supportive relationships, even if its "twos and threes."

It's truly sad to hear institutionalized leaders talk about small groups. Efficiency? A white thing? Feeling connected? This is all so disconnected from God's Word. No such thing as a Biblical basis for small groups?
Heb. 10:24,25 Let's consider how we can spur one another...not forsake...encourage one another.
Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another...
One another life is an obedience thing to God's instructions.

Are there ANY instructions for lining up in pews for one-way communication? Oh, I forgot, "preach the Word..." = a hired expert must lecture the Word. Institutionalized faith is sold out to crowd oriented one-way communication driven by hired experts. Ordinary saints are just dumb sheep. You want a doctor to heal you not just any old layman. Small groups is just a methodology to "try" and see "if it works". It gets corrupted easily so we don't want to devote too much to it. Let's leave it on the back burner as an optional ministry.

Every culture has a corrupt human nature. Every culture likes to compartmentalize faith to one hour a week at a ceremony in a holy building. Other "faiths" do that. Every culture struggles with spiritual laziness and outsourcing faith responsibilities to hired gurus. We'll give them credit for tighter family life and front porch chatting.

God's Word is clearly asking for more than this kind of faith.

Small groups are artificial communities for people who don't know how to have friendships in real life anymore. It's totally white suburban spiritual technology, and further separation from the real world.

I certainly agree with what you are saying Tim~Your expressions written are with profound wisdom and excellent perceptions. While we assume daily the saddened affect that our mental models in church leadership are gravely depreciating-and rather the pondering of hook up on small groups, when the vast majority have already exited--perhaps stare down the 'items that work' meaning connection is not threatened~therefore, we'll witnessed and experience immediate involvements rather. The most important item is learning to face the facts-the truth-start too gain the knowledge that there are serious issues needing to be addressed, and by ignoring them we only promote more issues which is sad~therefore YOU GO OUT and SEE and witness and share what exactly works for others--happy or sad. Transforming or at tips of it is what God blesses...

hey...what ever happened to that Rahab womens comments? It amazes me because now that they are deleted our editors are doing many wrie ups of her shared connentations...weird, as well pathetic.

PF

Interesting discussion. Back in the seventies we were in a Catholic Church - one of the few European American families. We were in a small group for discipleship with our closest friends who were all Mexican Americans.

My husband and I did not have family living close - most of the others in the group did, but their families were not walking with the Lord.

Our priest attended one week, the group was lay led, and told us no one needed to go to confession because we were doing Biblical confession in the group.

another quick thought - am I wrong or was Juan Carlos Ortiz one of the leaders of the small group/cell church movement in the 60's and 70's. I believe he began this while still serving as a pastor in South America. I remember he being a strong influence on the discipleship movement which included cell churches.

What about Cho's church in South Korea - isn't it known for it's small groups?

If these two examples are true then it may not be just about "White" people. There might be something deeper to think about.

1. "Small group" is not primarily a white way to do church. Churches of other ethnicities have implemented small group ministry. Not all "white" churches use this model. Efficiency is determined from group to group. Genuine community is solely dependent upon the desire of the individual group, church leadership, and the framework that the body has been given to engage in this community. Some small groups may lack authenticity initially, but as they seek God, this comes in time, if they want it to...if that makes sense??

2. Non-white groups do not always connect more easily. Referring specifically of African-American culture, this is often a problem due to cultural norms that often silently separate and divide within ethnic groups. Instead of culture division is based upon class, neighborhood etc, just like any other culture. Very often connectedness is based upon simply "being black", and that doesn't equate to genuineness. It's just the common denominator that our society has set up as the norm...match pigmentation like good boys and girls. You make it work, because you should be able to, but isn't it funny when race can be a reason to not get along it usually is the reason? Booo!

3. Small groups deal with efficiency theoretically, but look at it this way...just because I put 10 guys together and make them meet regularly it doesn't mean that they make up a winning basketball team. They have to know their common purpose, be willing to work towards a goal. They have to play together, practice, deal with confrontation, etc. Small groups are a great idea and they work best under good leadership, the common cause of Christ and a group of folks no matter what color who are willing to have honest conversations with people whom they don't really know in order to allow God's grace to unveil a beautiful work that unbelievers might see it and glorify the King!
natasha-a pecan colored black chick and that's all I am to you until you know me...

What’s the big picture idea behind “small groups”?

Relationships grow in many ways. Deeper relationships grow where the # of people interacting is smaller.

This direct correlation is evident in scripture and life. Jesus’ life and the early church are good examples in scripture. Current life examples include: you & Jesus, your marriage, your family, your "best friends", your small group :o).

I have seen this correlation play out in various cultures represented in my church over the last 20 years. I’ve also saw it in the relationships I saw form in the four countries I grew up in. My experience was that this was consistent across cultures.

It is important to remember, however, that Small Groups are not some special "magical" construct but simply a set of relationships that manifest themselves in a way that tend to allow for relational depth and growth.

I would say that being a "Small Group Church" is just a way of taking a complex relational concept and making it simple to explain and to manifest in a practical way.

Everyone needs deeper relationships to grow. Regardless of your cultural background, this applies. Small Groups are simply a great way to help do this.

Thanks for generating a great discussion!

I wonder if these folks aren't neglecting a call to minister to the white people who are coming through their church but don't have the benefit of front porch relationships and close knit families? One of the things which is really hard to do in a multi-ethnic church is not to allow it to become a "white church that people of other races attend" or a "black church that white people go to". If we are to do multi-ethnic churches well, people of all races need to be pushed and encouraged to get out of their comfort zones. And sometimes it really will come down to "this may not be just what you think you need, but there are others here who do need it and we're all in this together." A couple of years ago I was involved in a multi-ethnic church and one of the things we were trying to do was start dinner groups. We had white families and singles coming out our ears signing up. But African Americans wouldn't sign up. When we dug down we found that the idea of sharing a meal with someone of another race wasn't appealing to a lot of african americans. Fear of being served food they found unappealing was surprisingly common. By getting a few african american leaders to talk to other african americans and chide them, pointing out that if we don't do things that we find uncomfortable, we'll never make this thing work, we were able to get more involvement and make it work. Anyway, my point is that the ethnic way isn't always the right way and the white way isn't always wrong. By favoring one over the other rather than pushing everyone to be deliberate and move outside their comfort zones, no one is helping anything, IMO.

I have to agree with Carlos Ruiz: white people value efficiency sometimes to the exclusion of other things like warmth and kindness....this may sound harsh but it's been my experience in the military,in college [for the most part] and in other aspects of my life [with a few notable exceptions.]They are excellent organizers and executives when in positions of authority...but as far as "organic" friendship built on mutual exchange of ideas and a platonic love for ones brother, sister etc--I just don't see it. I am referring mainly to Anglo-Saxon or Scots-Irish when I say "white". I am a tall light skinned Hispanic/German...but try as I might ...I can never really lighten up around them.

Rebecca, my church did something similar to yours as well. We called it 'Radical Hospitality' and the idea was to have people over to your house for dinner that you normally dont connect with. It was a success, not because we got everyone to do it, but because it sparked something in the relationships at church.

Although it is hard to get all groups involved, the common thread I saw was class. The main folks who did not get involved tended to be of a certain class (no disrespect intended) regardless of race.

What we learned is some groups easily congragate around food while some groups easily congregate around other things...like watching sports on TV.

I believe discipleship happens best in community, not in isolation. This is the point of small groups.

I suppose you could say that family gatherings are an organic alternative to your typical "small group," but I find it disingenuous to come to a family gathering with the intention of hosting a bible study, for example.

If small groups are ONLY a place for relationships, I can see why certain (predominantly white) cultures would value them more. But I think small groups ought to be about our spiritual life, not just our social life.

As Bonhoffer observes in "Life Together," true Christian community is community that is based SOLELY around our common identity under Christ.

I would challenge these leaders to consider whether they (and perhaps their white congregants) have an impoverished view of small groups.

The point about ethnic cultures being organically connected to extended families and neighborhoods is well-taken but if those individuals are not part of their church then they still do not have community with their church. That's the purpose of small groups within the church. And I agree with some of your other writers that it is a little offensive to keep focusing on race. I'm Hispanic and I'm so sick and tired of thinking this way. I'm just a Christian and an American. It's just so dumb and pointless to keep boxing each other up based on their color, sex, or culture. Didn't Paul say there is now longer male nor female, Greek nor Jew? Aren't we all one body? I attend a small group so that I can build relationships with people in my church because those people don't live on my street or in my apartment complex. I still have relationships with my neighbors, too, and my family. I interact with and serve those who cross my path just like Jesus did. Of course the only way to make this work is to live with enough simplicity to have room for people to come in and out of our lives. But it can be done if we really want it.

As one who has grown up and is now a minister in the black church, yet exposed to many other forms of ministry, I have to answer the question simply: YES. In my experience, the small group model seems to be a more "white/suburban" thing. It has been adopted by those ethnic groups who have been more recently impacted by mainstream evangelical influence (Asians, Latinos). But Blacks, I think, are a little more unique in that our Christian interaction with whites in America has a more complex and detached relationship than other ethnic groups. We were able to develop our own distinctiveness and norms that have come to define us.

The problem with the black church now is that besides some remaining strains of tradition and cultural pride, the old natural ties that bound us together are just no longer there. Blacks no longer have the same level togetherness and shared focus since the great gains of civil rights have released us from that forced dependency. That void left behind has yet to be filled, and the response in many mid-small sized churches has been to either do nothing or take a “buffet” approach trying to be a little bit of everything. Young ministers like myself are trying to establish small group-type fellowships and it is a hard sell for a people who have been somewhat disconnected relationally the last 20 years or so but are still attached to the hyper emotional worship experiences (which I love!) and “us against them” mentality in our cultural views (which I don’t love). You’d be surprised how many proposals for ministry are labeled “too white” or for rich/mega churches only.

I do not think this is indicative of white people so much as it is a commentary on our American Society where individualize reigns supreme. We need to schedule time with other people if we are every going to find time for fellowship.

I believe, however, that small groups are a great way to form intimate relationships with people. The problem that I see is that they become homogenized groups of people all the same age and station in life. This creates community that is very cookie-cutter in form and function.

While I've not read through all the responses, here are my observations:

1. How you analyze the situation depends on HOW you define small groups, WHY you are doing small groups, and WHAT the resulting small group structure and practices looks like.

2. The interviewees define their reasoning from sociological perspectives, and thus comes up with their conclusions driven by sociological observations.

3. I find the conclusions highly unsatisfying because there is no appeal to Scripture for small groups. Therefore the model they see is in part, sociologically and pragmatically driven. Not surprisingly then, their models and observations to relevance VARIES with different cultural or people groups. That's WHERE they began with their understanding and models.

4. I'm Chinese and grew up in Asia. I serve in various Asian countries and the USA. Given Biblical understanding and execution of small group, I find that minorities or whites find small groups relevant for transformation into Christ's image. Yes, there are sociological issues such as disintegrated social structures from factors such as the industrial revolution or modern public educational paradigms. However, these are not the fundamental rational for small groups. They do not define how we do small groups. Scripture does.

Blessings,
Mo

I have two observations concerning SGs.
First most people are comfortable only when they are with folks that are pretty much the same as they are socially etc. That is just human nature and has nothing to do with race specifically.
Second I live in rural NC where family is the paramont social structure. We live in close proximity to one another, we work together, and we worship together. Most of the families at our church are white, we have had several colored families visit and although they were welcomed and attended the SS classs I teach and participated better than some of the regular members, they only come when their church (primiarly colored)dosen't have a service for some reason. Although they felt welcome they were'nt confortable.
Possibly the attempt to force blend all races should be left to personal choice.

I agree with Mo... and I have led an Asian Bible study for a few years (although I am not Asian). The main issue is not skin color, but scripture. Acts 2 gives a great example, and so did the ministry of Jesus (small groups, large groups).

Throughout history, many if not all of the great movements of God have been accompanied by some form of connectedness among God's people (groups). From Acts 2, to the dynamic growth of the Friends Church in the 17th Century, to the explosion of believers in Korea in the 20th Century... the large growth was often accompanied by small groups. In these kinds of examples, skin color and culture are not determining factors.

We have found that "minorities" have responded quite well to our small group outreach. Candidly, we are caught off guard vis a vis that the small group model does not seem to appeal to minorities. It is possible, in our estimation, that the structure, purpose, intent, and agenda for our effecitve small groups ministry for minorities are key factors.

Thank you to jjoe and Chaplin Mike for highlighting my frustrations so eloquently.

This dialogue does show that it seems we still see church as "something" that needs to be attractive so that people will want to come. So we seek to offer "ministries" that will make people feel welcomed and hopefully encourage spiritual growth. We are still, nearly decade into the 21st century--and two decades+- removed from the church growth/marketing movement--trying to answer the felt need of those we wish to come to our churches. What is that felt need? It is best framed, "What are you going to do for me so that I will want to stay?"

Take music for instance. It has gotta be good and "culturally" relevant for people to "enjoy it" or "connect with the Father". The word culturally has a fully loaded double meaning, in that we need to engage people of the 21st century(no organs please...) as well as to particular cultures(hispanic, african-american and anglo-american have different tastes). So how do we aim to please everyone?

Not to go any farther off the trail of this discussion, I guess alot of what I see in these posts(but not all) is that even the "multi-ethic" churches are still self serving the American way-to the exclusion of others who "just don't get it"

Eric Lewis,

Appreciate your sentiments.

However, I'll say that RELEVANCE is not something coined by men, but by God. Reading scripture, it is obvious that God is always RELEVANT - not just that he states things on His terms, but that He does it according to the need of the moment.

The question is not whether we should be relevant, but HOW we seek to be relevant. Just because a significant portion of the Church seeks relevance by sociologically driven priorities, it does not mean that the concept of RELEVANCE is irrelevant. Misapplication of relevance is no knock on relevance, but the WAY we think about relevance. We must always seek to be RELEVANT - but be driven Biblically in our understanding of HOW to be relevant.

It's unfortunate when that we take a great truth arising from the life breathing Creator, and then misapply it.

Blessings,
Mo

Weighing in here a bit late against some of the "white man" defensiveness comments.

So all of a sudden you feel like an oppressed minority? Welcome welcome. Now maybe you understnad. There's a reason for the push / back against caucasian forms of doing church, a reason why we are driven at times to be the "angry asian man" or the "angry black man" or whatever.

Offended by this article? Get a grip. minorities have been "offended" for ages now while the white Christian stood haplessly by, complicit.

Hi folks!

I was recently at a gathering of pastors in Victoria, BC (just a "small group" of us) to hear Pastor Johnson Samuel from Mumbai. His church has grown through the last decade to a size of 86,000. Guess how? Through their 7,800 house groups meeting in 860 worship centres around that great city. It was a remarkable and hopeful experience to hear Pastor Samuel tell the story. Do I need to point out that Pastor Samuel is not white? I think I have some evidence here that supports this conclusion to your original question (Are small groups primarily a "white" way to do church?): No.

Cheers!

Mark (just another Canadian's two bits, eh!)

Mo:
Nice thoughts. "However, these are not the fundamental rational for small groups. They do not define how we do small groups. Scripture does."

"Small groups" is the sociological term for institutional church forms seeking something more relational than pulpit and pew. Scripture talks in terms of "one another". Of course this is a small group. You can't do this in a crowd. The significance lies not just in the size of the group, but more importantly in the depth, transparency, and mutuality of the communication. Another key factor is in the preparation for the communication in advance of the meeting. Off the cuff habits are shallow.

Community is certainly a biblical principle. The idea of a small group of people doing life together is common throughout the Scriptures. Consider Jesus and the 12 disciples - they were certainly a small group of sorts!

Harvey Carey, an African American pastor in Detroit, Michigan has taught on this very topic. He suggests that small groups tend to look different in churches of color than in primarily white contexts. In the African American church, groups that gather around common affinities (such as the choir) often function as small groups living in community together. They might not be called "small groups" but they serve the same function.

As a white female pastor - I must say I find it deeply disconcerting that whites are still troubled by conversations around race. The reality of the 21st century church is that whites have experienced significant privilege and advantages based on the oppression of people of color. This is a part of our heritage and identity and it is important that we not forget, but rather respond with humble spirits, repenting of our contributions, and seeking reconciliation with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm calling B.S. on this.

First, I don't agree this is a racially-motivated comment. This is pure political cheap-shotting at its worst; there's no better way these days, among certain groups, to villify others methods than to characterize those methods as "white." It's a red herring, plain and simple.

Second, small groups - also known as "cell groups" and "house churches" in other areas of the globe (ever heard of those?) - are on-fire in places like Latin America, Asia, and, yes, even Africa. I personally know Brazilians near the mouth of the Amazon who literally travel miles on foot and by boat multiple times per week just to attend their cell group.

Third, since when is it more "efficient" to stick one or two teachers in a room with 10 or 20 people? That's just plain old shameless spin-doctoring. The true slave to Modern efficiency is one dynamic preacher standing in front of 1000 or 2000 at a time. Better yet, transmit their digitized image into a half dozen other sanctuaries. Best of all: transmit their image into a million homes. 1 to a million...now THAT's an efficient ratio!

Wayne,

Thanks, for highlighting my point, once again, so brilliantly.

Nope, I don't feel oppressed. Never said it! Never felt it! And never have oppressed anyone either. I live in a diverse neighborhood and am friends with my nieghbors. Have been in their homes and they have been in mine. From the hispanic families that walk their children down the street, to the young African-American guys walking by, I always acknowledge their presence by being kind to them and having conversations with them if the opportunity arises. I don't "happlessly stand by." I am also known as the guy who gives stuff away. One really cool thing happened is that one kid came up and asked if we(my wife and I) were Christians because we continually give stuff away to others in our neighborhood. That was cool...

Your generalization that by being "white" I am complicit in the wrongs of the past, is a reflection of the same mindset that says, "all black men are thieves," or "all mexicans are drunks," or "small groups are a white thing."

The only generalization that I feel is worth repeating is, "All generalizations suck!"

And my point in all this, is that I truly hope the answer to past oppression is not merely to marginalize or oppress one group because of their skin color or the mistakes of their ancestors. The church must have a better answer than that. At least I hope it does.

Eric, an Anglo-american

Mae,

I agree with you that "whites" should not be troubled about conversations on race. However, nothing can be accomplished when the one group who is at "fault" is pushed away from the table and relegated to, "now you know how it feels."(not your quote, but someone else's) That is so counter productive.

My point is why refer to others as "white," or "black?" I agree I should never forget, as to commit the same atrocities. But am I complicit in the oppression based on the color of my skin? I am not. I am complicit where I fail, not where my ancestors failed. Are all muslims "extremeist"(and therefore bad), just because one guy shoots up a bunch of american soldiers? I say, "no."

Trust me when I say that I am different from some of my extended family. And for that I am thankful!

Eric Lewis, an Anglo-american

Hello
This is very good post about white people and church.Its very interesting conversation which you have given.Thank you for sharing this with us.