Reformed Blacks of America's Blog » Why Whites Ought Not Attend Black Conferences: A Misappropriation of Racial Diversity by Blacks

14/08: Why Whites Ought Not Attend Black Conferences: A Misappropriation of Racial Diversity by Blacks

Category: General

Maximizing Ethnically Diverse Relationships

From my experiences in attending evangelical conferences, there has always been a problem of diversification on many levels, including race relations. But before dealing with how Whites should relate to Blacks, particularly in a conference setting, we need to address the fundamental question/assumption that underlies any racial/ethnic diversity discussion: what is the nature and role of (ethnically diverse) human relationships?

First, it is important to discuss briefly what ethnic diversity is not. It is not a predominate representation of one racial/ethnic group among another ethnicity. Second, ethnic diversity is not evidenced in merely the acknowledgment of the presence of various ethnicities, but rather ethnic diversity is the acknowledgment of the unique value of various ethnicities. Third, ethnic diversity is not the recapturing of every ethnicity under one roof, but the recognition and maximization of their unique purpose and gift under any roof.

A proper view of the body of Christ as it relates to human relationships will yield a better understanding of ethnic diversity. Human relationships viewed in light of a proper view of the body of Christ will allow every ethnic group to maximize their potential in making specific contributions for the entire body while also maintaining their own distinctiveness. Therefore, the purpose of ethnic diverse relationships must also lead to the maximization of ethnic particularity. Human relationships cannot flourish and mutual submission cannot fully occur, unless both parties are aware of the value and ways in which they are increasing in worth. In other words, a human relating properly to another in maximizing their worth is at the heart of human redemption or progression. Therefore, where there is not continued actualization and maximization, there cannot be healthy human interaction and relationships among different ethnic groups.

We can see this clearly in how two friends interact with one another. They do not relate to each other to bring about a common good as an ethereal project, but rather to gain from the unique strengths and experiences of the other person as a means of bringing about an intra-relational common good. To put it another way, a common good comes through the unique contribution(s) of the other person. Let me illustrate with a simple example. If my friend, John, is more patient than me, then I not only learn how to be patient from his unique contribution of patience to my life, but I also come to understand another deep facet of patience through a life different than that of my own. As a result, John�s particular gift of patience to me did not only reshape my idea of what patience is, but also reshaped my entire life and how I understand God�s forbearance afresh.

Mutual Submission in Socio-Theological Context

With all that in mind, we can now talk about more ways in which humans relate. Mutual submission is a subset of human relationships in and outside of the church. So I want to focus on a certain context that reveals our true humanity through mutual submission. Mutual submission occurs based on genuine desires to realize the creative contributions and unique worth of another human being made in God�s image. Human relationships that inhibit the flourishing of particular ethnic groups in their God-given distinctiveness are unhealthy, not Christ-centered and harmful. For it squashes the opportunity for any mutual sharing and learning as humans with particular divine identities.

Therefore, why should Whites submit to Black Reformed folks (as it is sometimes argued by some Blacks) when they (Whites) have already been submitting to other Whites with the same theological ideology as most Black Reformed people? In other words, if most Black Reformed folks are saying the same thing or parroting what White Reformed folks are already teaching and writing, then why should White Reformed believers submit to Black Reformed folks?

Whites submitting to Black leadership should on a significant level entail submitting to original and creative contributions of Blacks to everyone's life and ministry. If Black (Reformed) folks do not have any unique contribution to make to the theological enterprise as opposed to just adding a little bit of �Black spice� (usually through �Black� worship) on top of a "dull" dish of white theology/praxis, then I would not want to submit to Black leadership either, if I were a White person.

More concretely, if Black Reformed folks are going to have conferences with no essential difference or uniqueness compared to their White peers by dealing with the same tired ole� issues as them, then what is actually at these conference for White people to submit or learn? Not only do we regurgitate these same tired ole' issues that hardly correspond to the distinct lives of Black folks, but we also attempt to bind the consciences of Whites in the process.

As far as I can tell, if White folks are already submitting to the teaching of Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc and Black leaders are basically teaching what these men and others are writing, then what sense does it make for White folks to submit to Black leadership of this particular nature? (By the way, what does Whites submitting to Black leadership have to do with Shenequa or Tyrone who long to hear and receive redemption with fresh theological categories and trajectories that explain and address their real core concerns, which are normally excluded from Western European theological formulations and conversations? But I have said a little bit about that before.) Therefore, as Black Reformed folks, we ought not be surprised (or whine about) the fact that White people are not attending our conferences or reading our printed materials (e.g., books) if we are not actually saying anything that is significantly different and reflective of our own God-given experiences and creativity as Black men and women.

Are we to ask or expect Whites to submit to us simply because we are Black (without also acknowledging the intrinsic God-given value of Black existence)? Or if a race/ethnic distinction is not a valid (theological) category, then on what basis should Whites submit to Blacks in particular? Now I understand that some Blacks view Whites not attending their conferences as a lack of respect. But are Blacks respected simply because Whites now attend their conferences? I certainly hope not!

Moreover, many Black folks want to argue that they should be invited to speak at White conferences on the biblical grounds of racial/ethnic diversity, but they then turn around and deny race/ethnicity as a meaningful Christian distinction. It is almost like saying, �We are not really �Black� (in ascribing any meaning to that racial category); we are just Christians. But you should invite us anyway because we are �Black.� � In other words, if Blacks want to deny their racial identity as a significant theological anthropological category, then on what other basis should Whites invite those of a different race/ethnicity to speak at their conferences?

Why should T4G, Ligonier, or Desiring God, for instance, invite Black (Reformed) speakers if the Black speakers are just going to parrot what Whites have already been saying? For example, why should Ligonier invite a Black speaker to talk about the holiness of God when they already have R.C. Sproul teaching about God�s holiness better than most folks out there? I would suggest that White people ought not submit to us merely because we are Black (especially if some want to argue race/ethnicity is not all that important and want to get rid of racial categories for the doctrine of colorblindness instead), but rather because Black imago dei humans are divine gifts to the church, history, other ethnic groups and all of creation. This is so because we all (i.e. every ethnic group) need one another, even in how we particularly understand God, the world and ourselves. What is the benefit of my arm acting like my leg when I already have two legs? To put it another way, what is the ecclesial benefit to the whole if Blacks are thinking and functioning like a leg when the one body already has two legs?

Co-Founder Xavier Pickett

Comments

frank wrote:

brother xavier real provocative discussion. I hear you,but you never gave an example of an african thought to reformed theology that brings something different to the mix. recommend so african american writers.

14/08 15:24:49

Shondell wrote:

Well done, Xavier. I too would like to see us move to a place where we did not measure our worth against the backdrop of white theologians and dominant reformed society by simply "blackening" their text.

15/08 00:07:43

RBAFounderX wrote:

Frank,

There are plenty of examples more/less explicit in our (Michael and I) writings. Also you should click on the hyperlinks (above) in the article for starters and check out the archives. Be sure to read the comments too because that would be helpful.

As far as Black writers/thinkers, I really don't know where to start because there are so many. Here are a few in no particular order: Cornel West, John McWhorter, Carl Ellis, Michael Dyson, W.E.B Dubios, Fredrick Douglas, Toni Morrison, James Cone, Allan Boesak, C. Eric Lincoln, Gayraud Wilmore, Bruce Fields, Kelly Brown Douglas, Thomas Sowell.

15/08 11:36:43

Ranal wrote:

Great insights and shit. We're tired of being compared to whites and told if we're not just like them we're not doing theology right.

15/08 11:42:13

sharonofnorristown wrote:

This is a very thought-provoking article.
But Xavier, are all of the writers you just listed Reformed? I am indeed surprised to hear so - not because I doubt, but because I am unacquainted with their writings. It would be good to have some articles about black reformed writers - review them, tell us how to get their books, show us how their thought is scriptural. Of the list, I have only heard of Carl Ellis and I benefited from his one book that I read. Also Anthony Carter's book.

Do you have an article on just what attributes the black theologian has to offer, or isn't it that precise?
I want to learn.

PS to Ranal - wow, I didn't see any shit in the article. I'll have to look again.

15/08 13:30:45

Andrae McGary (Soul Brother No. ????) wrote:

X,

Great job as always. The future of our race rests in your hands....

One question: in regard to your understanding of the development of theology/praxis distinctive to our people; is this solely a black enterprise? Is it possible whites (or any other people group for that matter) can play very instrumental or minor roles in the helping, prodding, and formulation of such theological pieces? If so, wouldn't this mandate a place for them at our conferences?

15/08 14:35:42

RBAFounderX wrote:

Shondell,

Right on! � �Blackening� their text� huh? You just might be giving some of us too much credit. If the truth be told, many Black Reformed folks run away from any �blackening� since they alternatively prefer a �whitening/white� text under the auspices of universal biblical interpretation.

15/08 22:22:12

RBAFounderX wrote:

Sharon,

All of the writers I listed are not reformed. It is actually to our advantage that they are not because of the unique insights and contributions they provide from being outside of a traditional reformed view. So I would strongly recommend you reading and interacting with their work.

I don�t have an article that lists attributes that a Black theologian has to offer. However, there are many articles (including the hyperlinks above to previous articles) that in fact *demonstrate* what a Black Reformed theologian ought to be doing as I see things; and to that degree our articles could be considered a list of attributes of sorts, though far from being comprehensive. Also I believe the chapter, �What can black theology teach the evangelical church� in Bruce Field�s book, Introducing Black Theology, is a good starting point and attributes for a Black theologian to possess. I hope that�s helpful.

15/08 22:25:03

RBAFounderX wrote:

Yo SoulBrutha Andrae,

I don�t necessarily mind the future of our race being in my hands, just as long as there are countless others to fix my mistakes.

Re: your questions � It will not solely be a black enterprise, if I understand you correctly because Blacks do not live outside of historical and cultural contexts. From a methodological standpoint, Whites are more than welcome to join provided that they do not try to take over and dominate the conversation to point where Blacks are again following their agendas/interests. But of course, at the end of the day, I believe that we, as Blacks have to formulate our own theology from sources that are not primarily White.

15/08 22:40:08

Adam Thomason wrote:

My name is Adam Thomason and I am the vision caster for "Red Revolution" (theredrevolution.com). You say some interesting things. But I challenge you with this, Your are correct it is not about submitting to different ethinic leadership for the sake of submitting. But biblically speaking Christ has manifested himself glorius in different cultures and ethnicities. How an African American sees holiness from a Christocentric perspective is different from a caucasian and a hispanic, so on and so forth. God has not called us to deny our ethnicites but he has called us to make Christ supreme and allow cultures and ethnic backgrounds to become a secondary element (emphasis secondary and not non existent). See his call to Peter in Acts 10. See Paul calling Peter out for not acting in accordance with the gospel in Galatians 2:14. Peter then writing "you know what Paul is right" Christianity is its own race see 1Peter 2:9 "But you are a chosen Race...". In Christendom today we still live like Peter did when he sinned against the Lord in getting up from the table in Galatia from eating with Gentiles. Because we put our cultures ahead of Christ. The civil war that occured in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis was not between those who did not profess Christ. But it was "christians" killing other "christians" why because they put their tribes, which we do in America, we just have different names for them, they put their tribes ahead of Christ. So just like this war we end murdering each other through seperatism, cultural preferences, economical distinction, classism etc. We dont need to submit and invite for the sake of. But we do need to realize that Christ glory does not stop with our culture and ethnicities but it starts with Christ lens and everything else palys second fiddle and if it is culturally excepted in Christianity but biblically sinful we must deny that part of our culture. All or our existing culture and ethnicity is not sinful but to exalt it over Christ is. This is the sin of Christendom and America in we live it out daily just because its excepted in our culture. Christ said in Mark 3:33 "who are my mother and brother and sister?" Those who do the will of the father. Oh what the world would look like if the church actually lived with that reality.

16/08 12:08:30

RBAFounderX wrote:

Adam,

Thanks for responding, but let me also offer a challenge of my own in hopes of further clarification and dialog, if interested.

---
You said, "See Paul calling Peter out for not acting in accordance with the gospel in Galatians 2:14. Peter then writing "you know what Paul is right" Christianity is its own race see 1Peter 2:9 "But you are a chosen Race...".

It seems like to me you are mixing ("race") categories in the passages you cited. If �Christianity is its own race,� then what "race" is that exactly? What does this "Christianity race" look like in the real world? Can one easily point it out of a line up of races like being able to easily distinguish a Black man from a Korean man?

----
You said, "The civil war that occured in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis was not between those who did not profess Christ. But it was "christians" killing other "christians" why because they put their tribes, which we do in America, we just have different names for them, they put their tribes ahead of Christ."

There is so much that could be said about the Rwandan genocide. But what I did find interesting about your account of the situation is one important detail you omitted. You talked about different tribes, even Christians killing one another "because they put their tribes...ahead of Christ," but you did not mention who "they" were who actually created these tribal distinctions based upon a normative European corporeal aesthetic. Let me put it plainly. Rwandans were carved up by Whites, specifically Belgian colonialists, according to physical features that were more/less European and those Rwandans who were more European in their appearance were granted a higher status in society.

So this is a world of a difference from what I was saying or implying in my article. White folks are largely responsible for the horrible history in Rwanda and it was not because Rwandans were so fixated on their race/ethnicity for its own sake or something. If anything, this historical example of White exaltation, exploitation and dominance among others teaches us *NOT* how people of color put their race/ethnicity/tribe 'ahead of Christ', but rather how many Whites have made their own cultures (many times through imperialistic activities) 'ahead of Christ' and thus, making themselves superior to everyone else in every way.

---
You said, "God has not called us to deny our ethnicites but he has called us to make Christ supreme and allow cultures and ethnic backgrounds to become a secondary element (emphasis secondary and not non existent)...We dont need to submit and invite for the sake of. But we do need to realize that Christ glory does not stop with our culture and ethnicities but it starts with Christ lens and everything else palys second fiddle..."

This seems to substantiate an �ethnicless� or colorless Christian identity, which will (and has) lead most to talk about what it means to be Christian in Gnostic-like categories, which has become mainstream today for Christians, Reformed or not. So given what you've just said, what is a Christian identity with race/ethnicity as 'secondary element/fiddle'? In other words, what does a real live Christian whose racial/ethnic identity is a "secondary element/fiddle" as you claim look like in everyday life?

---
You said, "...and if it is culturally excepted in Christianity but biblically sinful we must deny that part of our culture."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. It seems as though you are talking as if "Christianity" is an abstract idea or concept that we all (every race/ethnic group) collapse into while being lifted to a "Christian universe" that is outside of any historical, cultural, economic and sociological context.

---
You said, "All or our existing culture and ethnicity is not sinful but to exalt it over Christ is."

We need to think about this issue a little bit more carefully and not make the same status quo assumptions when it comes to race/culture/ethnicity as Christians. Since I'm concerned about exalting Christ, I have 2 questions: (1) what does it mean to �exalt� one�s culture over Christ and (2) where did I "exalt" my culture/ethnicity over Christ?

Also if you are suggesting that due attention and emphasis to blackness is to "exalt" a particular race/ethnicity/culture over Christ, then you have unnecessarily assumed that particular races/ethnicities/cultures are antithetical by its very nature to Christ, which is fundamentally unbiblical. For Jesus was a Jew and to talk about Jesus in any meaningful sense and not deal with his Jewishness is to not talk about the real biblical Jesus and correlatively, not to properly understand who I am in terms of my identity like Jesus.

***CONTINUED BELOW***

16/08 17:41:41

RBAFounderX wrote:

...continued...

You said, "But biblically speaking Christ has manifested himself glorious in different cultures and ethnicities. How an African American sees holiness from a Christocentric perspective is different from a caucasian and a hispanic, so on and so forth."

What you've said at the beginning (in the immediate above quotation) seems to contradict every thing else you've said afterwards. Because if what you say is true about Christ manifesting himself gloriously in different cultures and ethnicities, then you have already made and re-enforced my point. So why would we ever consider a (any) manifestation of Christ's glory in different cultures and ethnicities as something that is a "secondary element"? Is there such a thing as a lower or "secondary element" of the glory of Christ?

16/08 17:42:07

Oliver Fischer wrote:

Sorry to say, but I think that this desire for ethnic diversity is unbiblical. In the Body of Christ there is no more Jew, nor Greek, slave nor free, but CHRIST is all and in all. We seem to forget that at the cross, we were crucified with Christ, and that it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us (Gal 2:20).

What race are we then? We are a chosen race. Note, we are no longer the old creation but a new creation. In fact the bible says that the church is the ONE NEW MAN. Forget about skin colour. Forget about ethnic background. We are Christians because we are children of God. We are God's race. We are His kind.

The problem with the Body of Christ is Division in 3 particular ways -
1. Doctrine and practice.
2. Ethnicity and social background.
3. Personal taste.

These are all because of our fallen natural desires. In the Body of Christ, there is no room for you. There is no room for me. There is room only for Christ.

The New Jerusalem, which is the ultimate consummation and manifestation of God's complete salvation in man, you see a city, prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband. This city is the church glorified. The city is transparent gold like clear glass. That means that the nature of the church is God. There is no room for the natural man with His preferences.

Our goal in the Christian life is to fully express God in our humanity. We are not here to express a very good self. We are not here to express our culture. We are not here to express our philosophy. We are not here to express our concepts, or opinions. There is no room for it.

The producing of Body of Christ is through the grain of wheat falling into the earth to die, and bringing fourth many grains. To be grounded together into many grains, and to be blended together with the oil of the spirit and baked as a loaf, a glorious meal offering for the Lord's satisfaction.

We are no longer individual grains, we are being blended into a corporate organic entity.

I used to be proud to be Swiss. But I can tell you, I don't care about it anymore. My passport, and your passport is a heavenly passport with the Triune God as the all inclusive good land for our inheritance. The Swiss culture is not the proper material for the building up of the Body of Christ.

There are many intellectuals on this site, but the building up of the Body of Christ is not an intellectual exercise, it comes through the denial of the self and the exercise of the human spirit joined with the Spirit of God.

May the Lord purge out all the differences among us so that He may gain His Bride.

18/08 09:36:04

Patrick S. wrote:

You said, "Why should TG4, Ligonier, or Desiring God, for instance, invite Black (Reformed) speakers if the Black speakers are just going to parrot what Whites have already been saying? For example, why should Ligonier invite a Black speaker to talk about the holiness of God when they already have R.C. Sproul teaching about God�s holiness better than most folks out there? I would suggest that White people ought not submit to us merely because we are Black (especially if some want to argue race/ethnicity is not all that important and want to get rid of racial categories for the doctrine of colorblindness instead), but rather because Black imago dei humans are divine gifts to the church, history, other ethnic groups and all of creation. This is so because we all (i.e. every ethnic group) need one another, even in how we understand God, ourselves and the world. What is the benefit of my arm acting like my leg when I already have two legs? To put it another way, what is the ecclesial benefit to the whole if Blacks are thinking and functioning like a leg when the one body already has two legs?"

I find your allusion here to 1 Cor. 12 a rather curious application. Paul was speaking about a local church in Corinth, a local church made of a diversity of people (jews and greeks). But you seem to be advocating segregated churches and ethno-centric doctrinal development, which runs completely antithetical to what Paul was saying a local congregation should be like. The idea of different parts contributing to the whole involves ministry within the local church. I think you are right that different ethnic groups can provide some helpful perspectives and reveal each other's cultural blind spots, but that is suppose to be happening in a local body, applying the transcendant gospel truths in their local situation, which cannot happen if you think ethnic groups need to stick to themselves and form their own ethnic-centered theology. I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Perhaps I'm niave, but it seems to me that Paul and Peter envisioned multi-colored local churches as the ideal in the diverse Roman world they lived in.

18/08 11:40:52

Oliver Fischer wrote:

Amen Patrick, I couldn't have said it better myself.

19/08 01:54:31

David Smith wrote:

X, you said you was going to lay it down and you did...

Keep putin in work...

19/08 23:51:38

RBAFounderX wrote:

Oliver,

You've basically just repeated what Adam above said. I've already addressed and answered your concerns. So if you would like an answer to your comment, I would recommend you deal with what I've said to Adam.

Secondly, you should read my comments in my "More Chocolate..." article and others where I've dealt with your objections: http://www.reformedblacksof...

Thirdly, I do have one question: Since we ought to forget skin color and ethnic background, and whatever other particularity you want to get rid of, then should we forget about the fact that Jesus was a Jew (and not of any other people/ethnic group)?

20/08 16:05:34

RBAFounderX wrote:

Patrick,

An "ethnic-centered theology" as you put it, is already formed. What theology is not conditioned and shaped by those (particular ethnic groups/persons) who formed it?

Where in my article do I seem to be (1) "advocating segregated churches" and (2) "think ethnic groups need to stick to themselves"?

20/08 16:14:35

Patrick S. wrote:

You said "An "ethnic-centered theology" as you put it, is already formed. What theology is not conditioned and shaped by those (particular ethnic groups/persons) who formed it? "
True theology is done in the trenches by pastors applying the word to their congregation. It's an undisputed fact that in church history the best theologians were first and foremost pastors. In a congregation of mixed ethnicity, a pastor must not only communicate the Word to Shenequa but to Steve and Jose and Shu Ping. Whose ethnic framework is going to govern that ministry? How are those members to better minister to each other unless they better learn each others needs and perspectives? How is a pastor to preach and minister to such a congregation if he is not to attend conferences where he can better learn the cultural distinctions of those sheep under his care? Eventually there is going to be a melding of cultural understanding in that congregation because not only are they going to learn about each others cultural distinctives initinally, but they are going to develop a common congregational understanding of theology in their midst as they growth together. It will not be "white" or "black" or "hispanic" or "korean" but instead an assimulation of all put together.

You said "Where in my article do I seem to be (1) "advocating segregated churches" and (2) "think ethnic groups need to stick to themselves"? "
If they should not attend each other's conferences then why in the world should they attend each other's churches or even try to to express the Chritian unity in a multi-ethnic church? You keep advocating the need for a distinctively black reformed theology, but what will you do in a church patterned after the NT which is mixed in ethnicity? In such a ministry you need a theology which transcends all those cultures yet ministers to each one distinctively, all at the same time. This seems to me to be the pattern of the early church.

Sure I can learn alot about the holiness of God by R.C. Sproul, but I would love to hear what a Black preacher has to say about it too, especially in how it applies to his cultural situation. It not only enlightens me to the needs and thoughts of my black brothers but also edifies me as well in expanding my "white" preconceptions about the holiness of God, exposing my own needs which I would never discover otherwise, and further enablng me to think outside my cultural box and grow beyond my "white" theology. Like I said before, I hope I am simply misunderstanding you. I just don't see how a multi-ethnic church could function with the black/white paradigm you seem to be advocating here.

20/08 20:30:22

RBAFounderX wrote:

Patrick,

You are missing my point. Again, see my comments to Adam and Oliver above. I would rather not rehearse what I've already said.

I am NOT talking about churches, but conferences.

You are also assuming a lot about what I am saying, including the racial/ethnic scene of many early churches in the NT and afterwards.

24/08 16:22:19

14/08: Why Whites Ought Not Attend Black Conferences: A Misappropriation of Racial Diversity by Blacks

Comments

frank wrote:

Shondell wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Ranal wrote:

sharonofnorristown wrote:

Andrae McGary (Soul Brother No. ????) wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Adam Thomason wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Oliver Fischer wrote:

Patrick S. wrote:

Oliver Fischer wrote:

David Smith wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Patrick S. wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar