Are mainline, predominantly white church partnerships with the newer churches, who are mainly "people-of-color", about good neighborliness or about kinship?

With changing demographics in many US cities and first ring suburbs/cities, more and more churches are experiencing declining numbers.  Many longtime residents of the main cities are moving further and further away to smaller cities.  Newer residents are moving into main cities, either from out-of-state or international locations.  Churches are often in a quandary about our own resources, programs and usual growth-projections.  Now city and first ring churches are doing “decline-projections” and are having to make plans to downsize.  Others are trying to do outreach in the hope of drawing neighborhood residents to their churches, but this has seldom proved successful.  One of the most important factors in this lack of success has been our churches’ inability to attract and retain so-called “people-of-color” and/or people who do not go to the traditional mainline churches.

Most churches have identified this reality.  Some churches have chosen to tailor their outreach to meet the socio-economic needs of low-income residents, but this does not often lead to more people coming to church.  Some churches have accepted that this IS the new reality and that our numbers will not go up because of the new demographics.  However, many of these churches still desire to connect with the neighborhood, so they continue to offer some social services or partner with other neighbor churches or institutions to engage the neighborhood. 

While our established churches are responding to these changing demographics, there are many newer and smaller Christian churches being formed by the newer residents.  These newer, churches are often non-denominational or not part of mainline denominations.  They are often knocking on the doors of established churches looking for worship space.  These are faithful Christians, who want to preserve and practice their faith in their new cities.  Most often these new churches do not share a liturgical style or doctrines that the established churches adhere to, but they ARE Christians.

To our credit, many mainline/traditional churches have opened our doors to house the newer congregations.  Some Lutheran churches share their space with up to three other worshipping communities.  Hope Lutheran Church in South Minneapolis, has graciously opened its doors to a Latino congregation, Gethsemani Iglesia Cristiana, led by Pastor Pedro Martinez.  Since February this year, they have been housed at Hope on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.  Hope has embraced this new congregation as a partner, rather than simply as a tenant.  They are exploring ways to engage each other.  This summer some of Gethsemani’s children joined Hope's VBS program.  A few of Hope's members have attended parts of Gethsemani’s worship services.  Getsemani will worship with Hope on two Sundays this Fall.  Both congregations are exploring ways to do joint outreach in the neighborhood. 

There remains one question, however, for all of us mainline churches who are engaging the newer churches.  Are we reaching out as good neighbors or are we reaching out as brothers and sisters?  Is it an effort at good neighborliness or kinship?  The Christian position is one of kinship.  All Christians, who confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and identify with the Triune God of the Bible, are our brothers and sisters.  When we begin to approach our new partners as such, the dynamics change.  There is no longer “us and them”, no longer suspicion and mistrust, no longer treating our new partners as “those people”.  I long for the day when all God’s people would refer to each other as “our people”.  Will it be in our lifetime?  The answer lies with us in the Church today!

Do we need new systems or can we put new wine in old wine skins?

I had an hour long conversation with my 15 year old daughter about socio-politico-economic systems!  She made me think, "How is it that a 15 year old gets it and so many people do not?"


The gist of the conversation on the economy was our looking at the economic system, outsourcing, capitalism, communism, socialism, free-enterprise, and all that good stuff.  The socio-political discussion was about race and systems that are in place in society that protect the rich, the powerful and the dominant race.


So if the socio-politico-economic systems in the USA were first set in place to keep the White settlers in power, and to subjugate the Native Americans and later, other so-called "persons-of-color" (Black, Brown and all other colors but White), then are all the amendments to bylaws and constitutions, enough to really change the equation?  After emancipation and the gains of the civil rights movement and other progressive social movements, were the tweaks to laws really change the game?


In the humble opinion of my daughter, Sharai and I, there has not been enough fundamental change to ensure true equality and justice for all.  Is it enough to have it in the constitution or public declarations?  We think not.


Is it time to look at each piece of legislation at every level of our political and economic systems to assess them on whose interest they were written for and how they be out of step with our newer declarations of equality and justice?  What do we do with seventy five year old city plans that had designated certain sections of a city to be future "Negro slums" (sic), after a city more recently declared its intention to act with equity and justice towards all persons, regardless of color or ethnicity?  How should those racist plans be undone in an affirmative way?  We cannot just declare all things as equal, as if there was no intentional oppression and harm done.  How do we first undo the effects of the bad policies, before we declare that the playing fields are all even?


After confession comes repentance, often restitution and then - only then - comes reconciliation.  Should we be  expecting that old systems must pass away and (behold) all must become new?  We cannot put new wine into old wine skins?  Where do we start to do these assessments of systems and structures?  For example, we cannot address systemic racism by trying to change hearts and minds.  Although that is necessary, don't we have to change systems?  And what does change mean?  Certainly not just tweaking, or we will get a tweaked solution, with no real fundamental change and maintaining a more hidden unjust system.