| Summary: | Bethany Theological Seminary Multiculturalism in Relation to the Theology and Practice of the Church of the Brethren: An Exploration A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Bethany Theological Seminary For the Degree of Master of Arts By Dennis J. R. Webb Richmond, Indiana May 2011 ii Copyright © 2011 by Dennis Webb All Rights Reserved iii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 Methodology 5 Contextual History 5 Scope 6 Chapter ONE TERMS AND HISTORY IN RELATION TO MULTICULTURALISM 7 Definition of Terms 7 Multiculturalism 7 Race 13 Racism 14 Race and Racism in the United States 15 Ethnicity 17 Reflection on Sociological Terms 17 History of Brethren Multicultural Terms: 1950s to the Present 18 The Civil Rights Era 25 Brethren Voices from the Civil Rights Era 26 Dr. King and Chicago First Church 29 TWO THE 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE PAPER AND BRETHREN SERVICE 30 The 2007 Denominational Annual Conference Recommendation on Multiculturalism 30 Paper: ―Separate No More‖ 30 Mandate Expectations 31 Intercultural Competence 32 Multicultural Congregation 34 Brethren Service in Relation to Multiculturalism 35 Brethren Service and African-Americans 37 Brethren Service and Navajo American Indians 38 Reflections on the Multicultural Mandate 39 THREE BRETHREN THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE 43 Embedded and Deliberative Theology 43 Brethren Theology 44 Brethren Theology as Unique: Praxis Trumps Statements 45 Brethren Theological Dilemma 46 iv Brethren Theologians on Multiculturalism 48 Reflection on Brethren Theologians 57 FOUR DOES BRETHREN THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE FACILITATE MULTICULTURALISM? 59 Places of Facilitation 59 Places of Non-facilitation 62 CONCLUSION 69 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS 72 APPENDIX B MULTICULTURAL TIMELINE: EVOLUTION OF CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN DENOMINATIONAL WORK AROUND MULTICULTURALISM, 1950s (CIVIL RIGHTS) TO PRESENT 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 5 Introduction This research will focus on multiculturalism within the denominational context of the Church of the Brethren. Brethren theology will be the landscape and multiculturalism will be the lens through which it is viewed. The research will seek to examine the theology and practice of the Church of the Brethren in relation to its ability to facilitate multiculturalism. The purpose of this research is to uncover both challenges and opportunities for multiculturalism in light of the denomination‘s 2007 Annual Conference paper which recommended that multiculturalism become a denomination-wide practice. The research will also seek to provide some assesment on specific aspects of the 2007 Annual Conference paper on multiculturalism in relation to possibilities for implementation. Methodology The methodology I am using for this thesis is a detailed examination of both Brethren theology and practice as well as multiculturalism. An examination will be made of leading research in the field of multiculturalism, which includes some exploration of the field of culture studies. The research will summarize the thoughts of leading Brethren researchers, sociologists, anthropologists, and theologians, as well as some Annual Conference statements which were influential in shaping Brethren theology and practice. It is also necessary to highlight relevant aspects of the 2007 Annual Conference mandate. Contextual History For almost its entire 300 year history, the Chuch of the Brethren has been predmoninantly an ethnically Caucasian denomination. It is typically white, rural, and family-oriented. While this historical reality may not be a problem, the theology and practice Webb 6 that accompanies it may be an issue in relation to its ability to fully engage persons from other ethnic groups. This thesis intends to test this theology and practice in order to ascertain the denominations‘s openness to facilitating multiculturalism. Scope The scope of study will be limited to the period between the civil rights movement which began in the 1950s to the present. This starting point is chosen specifically because it reflected an intentional effort to achieve racial, and by extention, cultural integration in the United States. While the early history of the denomination is important, it will not be explored in this thesis; comprehensive studies have already been done in this regard by other Brethren researchers.1 This research will not address the overseas mission efforts made by the denomination to plant congregations in other countries; J. Kenneth Krieder has already writen comprehensively on this issue.2 Brief reference will, however, be made to Brethren missionaries who spearheaded the Lybrook mission because of its implication for multiculturalism within the Church of the Brethren.3 Since the term ―multiculturalism‖ is only one of the words currently used to describe plurality in terms of cultures, this research will conduct a brief exploration of other relevant terms, including: intercultural; cross-cultural; race; ethnicity; ethnic diversity; racism; and racial identity. I will then use the terms that best describe the context of the Church of the Brethren in relation to the mandate to become a multicultural denomination. 1 See comprehensive works by Donald F. Durnbaugh, 1974; Carl F. Bowman, 1995; Donald F. Durnbaugh, 1997; Jonathan Shively, 2005. 2J. Kenneth Kreider, A Cup of Cold Water, The Story of Brethren Service (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 2001). 3The Lybrook Mission to the Navajo American Indians was a continental USA mission, spearheaded by Brethren workers who had just returned from extensive missionary work in China. 7 Chapter One Terms and History in Relation to Multiculturalism Definition of Terms The general literature on multiculturalism, like any social movement, has evolved over time. Terms that may have been used at the beginning of the movement have now been changed or dropped altogether, because new reflection has occasioned the need for new terminology. A clarification of these terms is indispensable to the argument of this exploration. It must be mentioned that such terms evolve out of the academic discipline of cultural studies, sociology, and general social analytic theories, of which the current researcher is not a student. This paper will attempt to explore the various terms used in the literature on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism Diane M. Hoffman understands multiculturalism simply as the co-existence of multiple cultures within the same place and time.1 According to Peter Adler, multiculturalism suggests a human being whose identifications and loyalties transcend the boundaries of nationalism and whose commitments are pinned to a larger vision of the global community.2 Fumitaka Matsuoka advances a view of multiculturalism which posits that there is no objective standard by which one culture can be judged superior to another, thus enshrining the principle of equality.3 Reflecting on multiculturalism from a Chinese perspective, Gou- 1 Diane M. Hoffman, ―Multiculturalism and Intercultural Understanding: An Anthropological Perspective on Enhancing Education Potentials for the 21st Century‖ (paper presented at the World Civic Forum, Seoul, Korea, May 5-8, 2009). 2 Peter Adler, ―Beyond Cultural Identity: Reflections on Multiculturalism‖ in Intercultural Communication ed. Larry Samovar and Richard Porter, (Wadsworth Publishing Company 1976), 362-378. 3 Fumitaka Matsuoka, The Color of Faith (Cleveland, OH: United Church Press, 1998), 48. Webb 8 Ming Chen and Ran An indicate that globalization increases the multiethnic nature of society, and the demand for ethnic groups to learn to adjust to one another‘s counterpart and identity is increasing.4 For the purpose of this study, Eric Law‘s understanding of multiculturalism will be preferable. In Law‘s view, ―A multicultural community…is not a melting pot, but a dynamic process in which the various cultural groups maintain their identities while engaging in constructive dialogue with each other.‖5 A true multicultural community will seek to maintain a balance of power, communication, and authenticity among the different cultural groups, in which no one group in this process will dominate, nor will any be made disadvantaged.6 This understanding of multiculturalism is preferred because of the intrinsic assumption that it is always in process. Since culture is basically a way of life, when multiple ways of life come together in the context of a faith community there is bound to be tension, stress, accommodation, resistance, re-evaluation, redefining, and a general re-examination of the basis of communal life. This is the ongoing dynamism in the process. My research seeks an answer to this question: Does Brethren theology and practice facilitate multiculturalism? In order to answer this question, some aspects of my research had to be done in the area of cultural studies, which provides a foundation for multiculturalism. Chris Barker is perhaps the most notable researcher in the areas of cultural studies. Barker holds the view that current movements in cultural studies are predicated fundamentally on 4 Guo-Ming Chen and Ran An, ―A Chinese Model for Intercultural Leadership,‖ in The Sage Handbook for Intercultural Competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. 2009), 197. 5 Eric H. F. Law, The Bush was Blazing But Not Consumed: Developing a Multicultural Community Through Dialogue and Literature (St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1996), x. 6 Ibid. Webb 9 language.7 For example, in Barker‘s view, ―culture‖ is a complicated and contested word, because the concept does not represent an entity in an independent, objective world.8 In other words, culture subjectively lends itself to multiple representations and interpretations. Asking about ―Inuit culture‖ would require not only holding the scholarly Western definition of culture suspect, but would also require some exploration of culture‘s meaning in the eyes of the Inuit people. It may mean vastly different things for the scholar and the Inuit. Another aspect of this language issue is situated in a personal experience I had twelve years ago when I came to the United States for the second time. I came to pursue a summer unit of Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) in the summer of 1998. The supervisor was a Catholic Caucasian woman who had done years of CPE supervising. At the midpoint of the unit when she was writing my mid-term evaluation, she asked me to read the draft to see if I concurred with her assessment of my progress. I did, with one exception: She referred to me in the evaluation as a ―native‖ from Jamaica. As a Jamaican, that word has some very negative and pejorative connotations. My experiential history and cultural understanding of ―native‖ immediately associated it with images of half-sane, Stone Age, imbecilic people. None of these characteristics described me. I told her that I did not like the designation and would prefer to be deemed a citizen of Jamaica. With some reluctance, she yielded to my request. For her, in relation to me, ―native‖ was normative; for me, in relation to her, ―native‖ was an insult. For both of us, the issue was culture. Culture is conveyed by language, among other things, and the meanings associated with it. 7 Chris Barker, The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies (London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2004), 44. 8 Ibid. Webb 10 It is this inherent elasticity in language that this research acknowledges. One dictionary dramatized this reality by offering twelve meanings for the word, ―language.‖9 Language can be seen in one sense as ascription, or assigning some quality or character to a person or thing.10 This understanding has to do with sense-making and meaning-making; it is an attempt to make sense of reality. In the context of my research on multiculturalism in relation to Brethren theology and practice, words such as ethnic, race, and multiculturalism are all used in an effort to make sense of realities that are at best multifaceted and at worst complicated. The words ethnic and ethnicity are a fitting example, and according to Barker, they remain contested terms.11 For example, white Anglo-Saxons frequently use the concept of ethnicity to refer to other people, usually with a different pigmentation, so Asians, Africans, Hispanics, and African Americans are ethnic groups but English, white Anglo-Saxon American, and Australian are not.12 This instance is a case of one group naming the other in the process and effort toward self-definition. Barker further argued: The notions of ethnicity sideline the question of power and racism when it is used to suggest, as in some discussions of multiculturalism, that a social formation operates through plurality and equality rather than through hierarchical groups. Consequently, some writers prefer the concept of ‗racialization‘ not because it corresponds to any biological or cultural absolutes, but because it connotes, and refers investigation to, issues of power.13 9 Dictionary.com, LLC, ―Language,‖ Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language [accessed August 18, 2010]. 10 Ibid. 11 Barker, 63. 12Barker, 63. 13Barker, 63. Webb 11 Barker links group dominance and the concept of ethnicity, and the latter carries within it racist connotations. Ethnicity hides the issue of power, while racialization acknowledges it. Ethnicity therefore has both sociological and biological implications. George Yancey is arguably one of the foremost researchers in the area of multiculturalism within the context of the church. In the opening chapter of one of his most recent books, One Body, One Spirit: Principles of Multicultural Churches, he chronicles the reason behind his choice of the term multi-racial to describe congregations; I consider this to be an example of fluid language use in culture studies. Yancey, an African American, advances historical, sociological, theological, and practical reasoning for using ―multiracial‖ over ―multicultural‖ and ―multiethnic.‖ He sees racial distinctions as creating the most problems in our society, and hence sees the term multiracial as the most fitting to address this issue.14 In his book, The Color of Faith, Fumitaka Matsuoka gathers similar words but with a slightly different nuance. In Matsuoka‘s view, in the context of North America, people are differentiated and estranged from one another by ―ethnicity, race. or culture.‖15 Here Fumitaka gives equal weight to the words ethnicity, race, and culture, as opposed to Yancey seeing one, race, as preeminent in differentiation. Matsuoka is of Japanese descent. Both Yancey and Matsouka point to a common challenge: language as a moving target. Persons unfamiliar with cultural studies, in my view, would tend to ask which of the two views is more accurate. In terms of scholarship, the answer would be both. Terms such as multicultural, multiracial, race, multiethnic, culture, and ethnicity all seek to name the same reality: human similarities, differences, and values. Various researchers ascribe 14George Yancey, One Body One Spirit, Principles of Multiracial Churches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2003), 17. 15Matsuoka, 5 Webb 12 different weights to each, which contributes to confusion in defining and explaining them. Matsouka himself admits this tension stating that the very definition of race is becoming increasingly problematic.16 In other words, ―culture,‖ like both Yancey‘s and Matsouka‘s use of terms, is also a moving language target. In relation to this exploration, credible academic research cannot be done on wholesale language intangibles. Although as a researcher I must be present to French Philosopher Jacques Derrida‘s deconstruction of language, which says that meaning can never be fixed,17 I must also be present to Socrates‘ perpetual pursuit of the ―what-is-it‖ question, or the desire for certainty. By this I mean that the terms I use need to have some clear definition, enabling the reader to make necessary and conclusive distinctions among terms and concepts. Multiculturalism, along with all of the language and terms in this research, must be clearly defined and accurately explained. When I use terms such as discrimination, civil rights, and race, the reader needs to have a clear sense of what they mean. To this end, I have developed a generalized understanding in the form of a glossary that will serve this goal. The glossary found as Appendix A will serve as a language compass to guide this exploration. I find it therefore fitting to end this brief reflection on language with a quote from Barker: Language is important to an understanding of culture for two central and related reasons: firstly, language is the privileged medium in which cultural meanings are formed and consummated; and second, language is the primary means and medium through which we form knowledge about ourselves and the social world. Language forms the network by which we classify the world and make it meaningful, that is, cultural.18 16Matsouka, 40. 17Chris Barker, Cultural Studies (London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2008), 18. 18Ibid, 107. Webb 13 Race There is general agreement among many sociologists that race is a fairly new phenomenon.19 Race is directly related to European expansionism, which saw Europeans seeking to find ways to order their subjugated peoples to fit their expansionist purposes. According to Fumitaka Matsuoka, ―By the 1700s, scientific efforts mounted in Western Europe to place the exploited peoples into natural schemes that fit with their subordinate positions.‖20 The sociological result of this process was a systemic classification of persons largely on the basis of biological appearance, or white, brown, black, and yellow. The socio-economic result was tragic: White became symbolic of power and control; white exploitation, subjugation, and denigration of all other races became legitimized; and white supremacy was born. Race became a social construct crafted to legitimize the domination of one group over another. Michael Omi and Howard Winant define race as a concept that signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to different types of human bodies.21 Both Yancey and Matsouka see race as the single most significant obstacle to the development of multiculturalism, and by extension, multicultural congregations in the United States. Americans are alienated from one another in a climate of racial chasm.22 The United States‘ legislative progress made in race relations over the past few decades still does not 19 See Winthrop 1968; Omni and Winant 1994; and Matsuoka 1998. 20 Matsuoka, 33. 21 Michael Omni and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s (New York, NY: Routledge, 1994), 55. 22 Matsuoka, 1. Webb 14 address the fundamental issue of race relations.23 Skin color represents a history of racial oppression and disenfranchisement that cannot be ignored.24 Churches have mirrored the flaws of U. S. society, rooted in the historical inequalities of longstanding cultural and racial stereotypes.25 It is only by first acknowledging the ignominy of racial history in the United States that is it possible to begin to understand why the Unites States‘ racially and ethnically disadvantaged people have confronted intense and violent bigotry.26 Additionally, it explains why minorities have had to struggle to preserve their racial identities and institutions, and why the history of race is fraught with tension, rivalry, and conflict.27 Racism Fumitaka Matsuoka defines racism as a system that promotes domination of the vulnerable by the privileged in the economic, social, cultural, and intellectual spheres.28 Matsuoka further opines that racial idolatry is the attitude or cultural ideology that lies behind the racist structures and systems that imply ―systemic and self-conscious efforts to make race or color a qualification for membership in a civil community, which was created by a particular group of people.‖29 In the view of Omni and Winant, a change in the understanding of racism from the civil rights era to the present has been noted. During the civil rights movement, emphasis was placed on the structural dimensions of racism, which then allowed 23 Matsouka, 8. 24 Yancey, 24. 25 Matsuoka, 7. 26 Ibid., 17. 27 Ibid., 34. 28Ibid., 3. 29 Ibid., 30. Webb 15 it to focus on the intransigence that racial injustice and inequality continued to exhibit even after discrimination had supposedly been outlawed.30 With the civil rights movement now gone, a strict definition of racism calls for some redefining. In their view, a racial project can be defined as racist if, and only if, it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race.31 In this view, racism is left with some fluidity since structures change and discourses are subject to re-articulation.32 Race and Racism in the United States The United States has confronted each racially-defined minority group with a unique form of despotism and degradation. The examples are familiar: Native Americans faced genocide; blacks were subjected to racial slavery; Mexicans were invaded; and Asians faced exclusion.33 The entire model of comparing and evaluating the success of ethnic groups in achieving higher status or being incorporated into the majority society is limited by an unwillingness to consider whether there might be any special circumstances that racial minorities encounter in the United States.34 Healthy and coequal relationships between Asian Americans and the culturally dominant Americans, for example, still wait for healing of the wounds caused by the internment experience and other historical injuries.35 Native Americans have been historically robbed of their land by a variety of means.36 30 Omni and Winant, 70. 31 Ibid., 71. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., 1. 34 Ibid., 22. 35Matsuoka, 13. 36Yancey, 25. Webb 16 One of the responses made to the issue of race has been to advance the assumption of color-blindness as a foundation for racial equality. The underlying assumption is that America is a land of opportunity, which is interpreted to mean that the opportunity being sought is insignificant and even unrelated to the race of the person or group seeking the opportunity. As related to this issue, further assumption is made that ―one nation under God‖ intrinsically solves the racial issue for the church; it does not. For racial minorities, the notion of color-blindness becomes a barrier to racial justice because it denies the reality of racism,37 and by extension a sense of brotherhood or sisterhood. Color blindness perpetuates domination by the majority ethnic group.38 The theological implication is a state of estrangement, or separation, isolation, and sometimes exclusion. Nowhere else is this more visible than in Sunday morning worship services where congregants are generally ethnically isolated. In a general sense, the almost complete absence of multiculturalism in US religious organizations could be traced to two realities: estrangement and mistrust.39 People do not willingly worship with others whom they do not trust; they do not trust each other because they do not know each other. Jonathan Shively posits that all are welcomed at the Brethren communion table.40 In my view, however, Shively does not fully engage the separate racial realities that participants might bring to the table. The society-wide refusal to acknowledge the existing deep estrangement among a variety of groups, either self-defined or historically 37 Yancy, 24. 38 Matsouka 18. 39 Matsuoka, 34. 40 Jonathan Shively, ―Anabaptist and Pietist Foundations for Urban Leadership, 1995 – 2005‖ [DMin dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2005], 152. Webb 17 imposed, is perhaps the most significant reason for the rise in racial essentialism and the desperate desire to provide an alternative expression of communal life.41 Ethnicity According to George Yancey, ethnicity refers to groups that have cultural distinctions.42 Ethnicity is contrasted with race, when the latter is used to denote groups that are perceived to be physically different from each other. In a sense, race tends to refer to biology, while ethnicity tends to refer to culture. Yancey adds that when we talk about those with contrasting ethnicities, we are looking at the distinction between Germans and Swedish, Japanese and Chinese, and Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.43 With regard to the last group, I have been made aware through casual conversations about significant cultural differences between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. (It is not wise to confuse the two, even in casual conversation!) In this regard, I have come to a greater appreciation of the term ―Hispanic.‖ Additionally, my readings from Fumitaka Matsuoka have alerted me to the need to be very careful not to confuse Chinese with Japanese. Their cultural histories and traditions are often at opposite poles, littered with a litany of pain and deep-seated hostility. Reflection on Sociological Terms This research has found enormous value in clarifying these terms. Each term not only has a color, in the sense of nuance, but also an historical trajectory. This has led Yancey to abandon the use of some terms in favor of others. He is now of the view that the terms 41 Matsuoka 14 42Yancey,16 43Yancey, 16 Webb 18 multiethnic and multiracial, rather than multicultural, are more appropriate.44 His preference is for the term multiracial, with the argument that historically, racial distinctions create the most barriers and consequently the church needs to commit itself to resolving racial alienation.45 While I understand the historical and sociological underpinnings of Yancey‘s choice of multiracial over multicultural, I contend that race is inseparable from culture; there cannot be one without the other. I am also aware that Yancey brings his own ethnicity to the research as an African American. Every scholarly or academic artist finds it difficult to preclude his or her own self-portrait from the canvas. I do this research as a Brethren pastor living in the United States, but also as an immigrant from Jamaica. Both theologically and personally, culture is more significant for me than race. Additionally, my own seven years of experience as the pastor of one of the few multicultural congregations within the Church of the Brethren causes me to prefer the term multicultural over multi-racial. In this research, culture will often be indistinguishable from race; my preferred term will therefore be multiculturalism. At those times when sections of the research is better suited to using the terms multiethnic or multiracial, it shall be assumed that these terms are still under the umbrella of multiculturalism. History of Brethren Multicultural Terms: 1950s to the Present The beginning period of this research is located during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The movement was essentially about ending racial discrimination and instituting racial equality for African Americans, though not exclusively. An examination of 44 Yancey, 17. 45 Ibid. Webb 19 the General Brotherhood Board (GBB) minutes of the Church of the Brethren as well as Annual Conference statements and resolutions during this period reveals an established relationship between the denomination and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).46 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the famed leader of this umbrella organization. This relationship will be my first area of exploration with respect to multicultural language. The term ‗‖racial integration‖ was one of the earliest found in this research. One 1954 Church of the Brethren GBB resolution used it as part of its title: ―Statement on Racial Integration.‖47 Dr. King specifically, and the civil rights movement generally, had used this as the standard term to describe the movement. The 1954 statement went on to use typical civil rights language in stating, ―Our (denomination‘s) goal must be no less than an integrated public school and church, and integrated community.‖48 The term ―integrated communities‖ was also used in the GBB minutes of 1960 in the resolution on nonviolence. Also detailed in these minutes were terms such as ―religious minority groups,‖ ―different racial and cultural groups,‖ and ―cultural and religious minority groups.‖49 The terms ―negro‖ and ―persons of other minority groups‖ were used in the GBB of 1957 minutes in a statement on resettlement.50 The denomination‘s earliest terms surrounding multiculturalism were wedded to those used in the civil rights movement. The Church of the Brethren had no language of their own to address these issues of racial integration. Additionally, its strong peace stance placed 46 Minutes of the Church of The Brethren Annual Conference, Report on Race-Social Justice, 1968. 47 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren General Brotherhood Board, 1954. 48 Ibid. 49 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren General Brotherhood Board, 1960. 50 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren General Brotherhood Board, 1957. Webb 20 it squarely in line with the nonviolent efforts of the civil rights movement. In the absence of its own terminologies, the denomination readily borrowed the terminologies of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. A new term began to emerge surrounding multiculturalism in the Church of the Brethren in the later part of the 1960‘s, which gained traction into the 1970s and 1980s; the term was ―urban ministries.‖ Historically, the denomination has been white and rural. This sociological reality was jolted to the forefront during the civil rights movement. The denomination recognized that the majority of its ethnic minority churches and members were to be found in urban areas. In 1966, two urban ministry queries were passed on the Annual Conference floor and approved for study by the GBB.51 Two years later at the 1968 Annual Conference, action was taken to support the work of these urban congregations.52 A concomitant resolution was passed the following year to study the recruitment and training of ―minority groups‖ for the denomination, which included Negro, Latin American, American Indian, and other minority groups.53 Urban ministry, as a new expression of multiculturalism within the denomination, was born. It is of interest to note that as the urban ministries developed in the 1970s and 1980s, the denomination began to delineate specific ethnic groups present within it. Note, for example, was taken of a new term, ―Hispanic congregations,‖ being planted in Florida as well as the emergence of the term ―African-American‖ replacing the term ―negro.‖54 It is also 51 Minutes of the Church of The Brethren Annual Conference, 1966. 52 Minutes, Annual Conference, 1968. 53 Minutes of the Church of The Brethren Annual Conference, 1969. 54 Donald F. Durnbaugh and Dale V. Ulrich, eds., and Carl D. Bowman, contributing ed., ―African-American,‖ Brethren Encyclopedia, Vol. IV (Ambler, PA: Brethren Encyclopedia, Inc., 2005), 2256-2257. Webb 21 of interest to note that in the addendum to the 1969 approved query on Minority Recruitment and Training, the phrase ―Spanish speaking‖ was changed to ―Latin American‖ before the query was approved.55 This was an indication of the emerging specific ethnic classification and categorization that would become part of the new denominational language surrounding multiculturalism though the 1970s and 1980s. This also signaled the beginning of the denomination developing its own language for dealing with multiculturalism, albeit some to be borrowed from the general multicultural movement that emerged in the 1970s. One point of interest is the contrast between the 1957 Annual Conference report on a query accepted the previous year to study ministerial recruitment56 and an almost identical query passed at the 1969 Annual Conference. The 1957 query generated a very extensive study of the issue of ministerial recruitment. Glaringly absent from the study committee‘s report was any mention of recruitment of ―minority pastors.‖ Fast-forward twelve years to the 1969 query, and the phrase ―recruitment of minority pastors‖ was the essence of the query. This general expansion of the pastoral recruitment to minorities would then increase with some intensity under the auspices of Urban Ministries. A case in point was an African American pastor who was brought in with the help of the Urban Ministries Office to stem the declining white membership of a congregation in Washington DC. He was reported to have ―made a very successful transition from a small struggling white congregation, to a thriving 55Minutes, Annual Conference, 1969. 56Minutes, General Brotherhood Board, 1957. Webb 22 Black congregation.‖57 There was an instance in the early 1970s when the Church of the Brethren seemed to have become highly sensitive not only to the language of multiculturalism in relation to other ethnic groups, but also in relation to itself. This was clearly evident in the passing of the 1972 Annual Conference paper on ―The Theological and Socio-economic Dimensions of the Fund for the Americas in the United States.‖ Item 2 of this report is replete with this sensitivity: Brethren as part of the white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority want to avoid the image of a white evangelizer to/with minority groups who assume that we have a vantage point and perspective on the Christian faith and church, would be a clear indication of superiority and racism. Though this may be the assumption of some, we need to oppose it strongly.58 Here the denomination was clearly seeking to be language-sensitive as well as motive- sensitive in the midst of a major initiative aimed at assistance to minority groups. In the 1980s, the term ―intercultural‖ emerged. It was included in a 1982 Annual Conference statement addressing the concern of ―Undocumented Persons and Refugees in the United States.‖ The denomination was urged to ―build international and intercultural understanding through learning with and about immigrants and refugees and their homelands.‖59 The term intercultural was to remain dormant in the denominational vocabulary until it resurfaced in the late 1990s, when the Urban Ministries Office was removed from the denominational structure. 57 ―Urban Ministries,‖ Brethren Encyclopedia, 2257 – 2258. 58 ―The Theological and Socio-Economic Dimensions of the Fund for the Americas in the United States,‖ Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 1972. 59 ―Undocumented Persons and Refugees in the United States,‖ Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 1982. Webb 23 Another term that also surfaced in denominational language in the 1980s was ―ethnic churches.‖60 This was to distinguish the non-white from the predominantly white congregations. Later in 1994, in the Annual Conference paper which explored ministry to the Native Americans, a contrasting term emerged, first used in the early 1970s, as a nomenclature for the white congregations: ―Anglo church.‖ Here the presenting question was the extent to which the primarily ―Anglo church‖ was willing to enter into mutual faith sharing with Christians of Native American heritage.61 This is perhaps one instance in which the denomination tacitly admitted to actually being two churches within one denomination. It would not be until the Annual Conference of 2007 that an intentional effort would be made to address this dual church reality. Out of the Urban Ministries emerged another new term, ―caucus.‖ No records were found to show when these caucuses begun. The Brethren online news service, Newsline, carried the following in May 1997, a reference to this issue of black caucus: Annual Conference booklets will be available in early June. One change not noted in the booklet is the "Black Brethren and Friends" luncheon from July 5 to July 4.62 The presence of the term ―Black caucus‖ assumed that it was used concurrently with the term ―Black-American,‖ since the later term appeared in a major denominational statement in 1990 entitled, ―Brethren and Black Americans.‖63 There is evidence of several of these 60Minutes of the Church of the Brethren General Board, 1984. The name changed from General Brotherhood Board to General Board in 1968. 61Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 1994. 62Church of The Brethren News Services, ―CoB Newsline,‖ Worldwide Faith News Archives, entry posted May 8, 1997, http://www.wfn.org/1997/05/msg00063.html [accessed August 18, 2010]. 63Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 1990. Webb 24 caucuses as seen from a fairly recent internal report from the Church of the Brethren Intercultural Ministries: But the Redesign of the General Board - discontinued the a)―Urban/Ethnic‖ ministry, b) ―Black Brethren and Friends‖, c) the ―Hispanic Caucus,‖ and d) a group for Korean pastors. This was a significant change from previous policy of having each ethnic and urban ministries caucus working separately eliminating duplication of effort and competing events at the same time, especially at Annual Conference.64 This report shows at least three ethnic (non-white) groups in existence at least up to 1997. By the 1990s, the denomination had moved to clearly defining, affirming, and legitimizing these diverse ethnic groups as normative. Another significant term arose out of the late 1997 redesign of the General Board. The elimination of the Urban Ministry staff position was tantamount to removing the leadership that was given to the respective caucuses. At the 1998 Annual Conference, leaders from the diverse urban congregations gathered to rebuild and the ―Cross-Cultural Ministries Team‖ (CCMT) was born.65 The term ―cross cultural‖ was then used as the overarching term for all the ethnic groups. That year also marked the beginning of annual gatherings for the CCMT. The research now turns to some details of the 2007 Annual Conference paper on multiculturalism as it relates to terms used. This query was actually the combination of two queries with current denominational language on the issue of multiculturalism. One query used the phrase ―Multi-Ethnic Church,‖ while the other used the term ―Cross-Cultural Ministries.‖ In responding to these queries, the report explored the subtle differences between 64 Church of the Brethren Intercultural Ministries, ―Summary History the Cross Cultural Ministry 1997 – 2008,‖ April 2008. 65 ―Urban Ministries,‖ Brethren Encyclopedia, 2257-2258. Webb 25 the terms ―cross-cultural,‖ ―multicultural,‖ and ―intercultural.‖66 The committee came to the following decision on terminology stating, ―We selected the word ‗intercultural.‘ By the very definition for the prefix ‗inter,‘ the word signifies mutuality - a weaving together of cultures.‖67 By this time in the evolution of the CCMT, and prior to this 2007 paper, its name had been changed to ―Cross Cultural Consultation and Celebration Advisory team.‖ Arising from this 2007 change of terminology, the decision was taken to again change its name to ―Intercultural Ministries.‖ Consequently, the ―Intercultural Ministries Report‖ was the title of a report given by Ruben Deoleo at the 2010 Annual Conference. Deoleo was hired as Congregational Life Team Member for Area 2 in 2007, with responsibility for the Cross-Cultural Ministries in the Church of the Brethren. This survey has uncovered a variety of multicultural terms used by the denomination during the period under review. Some were borrowed, some were developed, and some seem to have evolved as the denominational structure evolved. The terms themselves are a clear indication that the Church of the Brethren has been grappling with multiculturalism from the 1960s to the present. There is every reason to believe that the present Intercultural Ministries and the current attendant staff position may lead to more changes in the foreseeable future. The Civil Rights Era The research begins with the civil rights era essentially because this was the greatest effort ever made in continental United States for achieving racial integration. ―We hold these truths to be self-evident,‖ the Declaration of Independence reminds us, ―that all men are 66 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 2007. 67 Ibid. Webb 26 created equal, and that they are endowed by God with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.‖ The history of discrimination, oppression, and denigration of non-whites was ample evidence that the reality of this declaration was not true for America‘s minorities, especially African Americans. Religious institutions were participants in this lie as well.68 The civil rights movement was principally to call the nation to right this wrong. Although Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the only advocate and martyr for the cause of civil rights, he was the most famous leader of the movement, advocating for racial equality and an end to discrimination and oppression against blacks and other minorities. The multicultural movement is one of the legitimate children of the civil rights movement; unfortunately, so is tokenism. A part of this study aims to assess whether Brethren theology and practice was impacted by the civil rights movement, which would then translate into racial integration or multiculturalism within the denomination. The focus is on the theology and practice of the denomination as a catalyst or hindrance to this process of multiculturalism. Brethren Voices From the Civil Rights Era One of the foremost Brethren voices from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was Ralph Smeltzer. Smeltzer sought to create lines of interracial communication in Selma, Alabama, where Dr. Martin Luther King was also active. Smeltzer was a Church of the Brethren layperson with a passion for social justice. He long believed that the peace churches 68Matsuoka, 7. Webb 27 could help the south by contributing to reconciliation between the races.69 His work was largely as a mediator. Smeltzer succeeded in temporarily securing interracial peace in Selma by improving communication between blacks and whites. His work in Selma and the civil rights movement generally was so significant that the 1965 General Brotherhood Board Resolution honoring his efforts was both an acknowledgement and an affirmation of his outstanding reconciliation/mediation work: We note with gratitude that our own church has responded in some measure of concern and creativity to a healing ministry of reconciliation in the Civil rights struggle. We commend those who have spoken and acted courageously and creatively. We commend and encourage the work of mediation and reconciliation which have been carried on by a few of our brethren in crucial tension areas.70 What was significant about this resolution on Smeltzer‘s work was its deafening silence on any movement toward integration within the Church of the Brethren: The phrase ―a few of our Brethren‖ in the commendation said it all. One conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this is that Brethren saw integration as a social issue devoid of implication with regard to practice. There are no records of detailing massive involvement of Brethren congregations getting involved in the movement. Brethren Volunteer Service workers were active, but not Brethren congregations. Even Smeltzer himself was conscious of this distancing position the Brethren took toward the whole integration movement. He noted that Brethren were effective at mixing religious and personal ethics but when they encountered political and economic structures, they ineffectively applied the church‘s social ethics.71 This was another way of saying that Brethren practice gave primacy to the church being more 69 Stephen L Longenecker, Selma’s Peacemaker: Ralph Smeltzer and the Civil Rights Movement (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press 1987), 31. 70 Ibid., 191. 71 Ibid., 12. Webb 28 comfortable with social action than genuine integration. Smeltzer‘s work, valuable as it was, tacitly kept a safe distance from the issue of the absence of real integration in the Church of the Brethren. The 1960s saw the Church of the Brethren wrestling with this issue of integration within the denomination. Jessie H. Zeigler, critiquing race relations within the Church of the Brethren noted the following: It is claimed, on the basis of some rather careful studies, that some of the local congregations have more the nature of a social club than of a true spiritual fellowship. Even the worship forms tend to reflect the socioeconomic stratification and then it is claimed that there are real racial differences in worship preferences, which make integration of races in worship impracticable.72 Zeigler clearly saw the intrinsic tentacles of resistance to integration within the church of the Brethren. The impression given was that Brethren were very comfortable in remaining as they were, even while the national integration movement was making significant progress. Evidence of this was made clear by this further observation from Zeigler: The report of Division III pointed to the fact that the composition of very few of our churches is mixed, either racially or in the economic levels from which membership is drawn. Even among the few that have mixed memberships a careful examination will make clear that often these churches are really single group churches with only token representatives from other than the dominant racial or economic group.73 This observation seeks to raise the matter of possible tokenism present in the denomination as it related to congregations and racial minorities. 72 Jessie H. Ziegler, ―Christian Unity and Cultural Process,‖ Brethren Life and Thought 3, no. 2 (Spring 1958): 22. 73 Ibid. Webb 29 Another Brethren voice from the civil rights era was that of Merle Crouse, who wrote about Brethren and the integration movement. Reflecting on the ministry of the denomination and non-whites he wrote: Today the Church of the Brethren in a few local areas is approaching the integration issue in a manner consistent with the mood of progressive Protestantism and the government. In the nation-wide brotherhood, however, the whole matter of race relations and social integration seems to be taken quite casually. Many have consciences that are irritated by it; a growing number are beginning to think about it; a few are doing something.74 Concerning integration in Crouse‘s view, there seemed to be a diarrhea of irritation and contemplation, but a constipation of action. He went on to list a paltry number of churches, including Lower Miami church in Southern Ohio, York Center church in Illinois, and Highland Avenue Church of the Brethren in Elgin, Illinois, that were actively engaged in some form of integration initiative.75 Dr. King and Chicago First Church Probably the most direct engagement of the civil rights movement by a Brethren congregation was Chicago First Church of the Brethren in Chicago, Illinois. In the general civil rights literature, very little is said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taking up temporary residence with his family in Chicago to further the cause in that city. One of the bases of Dr. King‘s operation was actually located in Chicago First Church of the Brethren. Further exploration will need to be done to see whether the Church of the Brethren received any inspiration toward integration from the presence of Dr. King locating a part of his Chicago civil rights operation at Chicago First Church for a six-month period in 1965. 74 Merle Crouse, ―Integration of the Church of the Brethren,‖ Brethren Life and Thought 4 (1959): 47. 75 Ibid., 49. 30 Chapter Two The 2007 Denominational Annual Conference Paper and Brethren Service At the 2007 Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren in Cleveland, Ohio a paper was passed that recommended multiculturalism become a common practice within the denomination.1 This paper was actually the culmination of two queries that were sent to the Annual Conference three years earlier. The first query was entitled, ―The Need for Cross-Cultural Ministers,‖ based in Matthew 28 and Revelation 7:9.2 This query focused on identifying and naming the barriers that existed in the Church of the Brethren that were preventing the biblical vision of Revelation 7:9 from being realized in the denomination. The very same year, a racially mixed congregation in Miami, Florida sent a similar query to Annual Conference through their Atlantic Southeast district. This query was entitled, ―Becoming a Multi-Ethnic church.‖ The question that this query raised was, What action must we take, in our lives, in our congregations, in our districts, in our denomination, and globally, to bring us into conformity with the biblical vision of a church from every nation, tribe, people and language, united in worship before the throne of God. How are we to become the church John saw in revelation 7:9?3 Annual Conference felt that since the two queries were very similar, they should be combined and dealt with as a one. A study committee was named to examine both and report back to Annual Conference the following year. 1 Asha Solanki, ―Separate No More‖ (paper presented at the 221st Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, June 30-July 4, 2007), 227- 264. 2 Ibid., 225. 3 Ibid., 224. Webb 31 It took three years for the study committee to complete its work. Their final recommendation to the 2007 Annual Conference was entitled ―Separate No More.‖ The introduction to the study outlined its main recommendation: After much prayer, study, research and deliberation, our committee concluded that one essential part of the answer to that (multicultural) question is for us (the denomination) to become SEPARATE NO MORE. We accomplish this by moving deliberately and moving toward becoming much more intentionally intercultural then we currently are.4 The following were additional reasons given for the general recommendation for denomination-wide recommendation: • the realistic accommodation of the national demographic shift to a multi-ethnic population; • the survival, revival, and growth in accommodating changing demographics for some local churches that might otherwise shrink or die; • the value of embracing the spiritual giftedness of all ethnic and racial groups; • the witness of many individuals in intercultural churches is that being members of such a church is life-enriching and transforming; • the intercultural church provides a model for healing racial and ethnic divides in society by demonstrating how to communicate and love one another across these ―boundaries‖; • the transformation of society from Sunday morning segregation and compartmentalization of God‘s people can be a time where we as Christians reach out in reconciliation. Mandate Expectations This 2007 Annual Conference multicultural recommendation clearly has many expectations and outcomes for the Brethren denomination as a whole. Two of the most 4 Ibid, 243. Webb 32 significant of these expectations relate to intercultural competence and multicultural congregations. Both outcomes need some clarification and elaboration as a means of making a direct link between the 2007 statement and its intended and desired outcomes for the Brethren denomination. Intercultural Competence This research makes the assumption that there is a direct correlation between theology and intercultural competence. In its most basic understanding, theology is essentially ―talk about God‖5 in the sense of our understanding of God in relation to ourselves and others; ―others‖ here are inclusive of ethnic groups that are dissimilar to one‘s own. Theology is expected to provide some foundation for this understanding of our relation to the other. Further, to remain in sustained, life-giving, mutually beneficial relationship with culturally dissimilar others assumes a certain level of competence in understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of the other. This necessitates a level of intercultural competence. Spitzberg and Changnon define intercultural competence as the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent effective, cognitive, and behavioral orientation toward the world.6 Significant to this definition is not just the issue of interaction, but also the management of the interaction: It is not an automatic process. Mere casual conversation, loose affiliation, intermittent contact, and surface interaction are all excluded. To be interculturally competent in this understanding places one in a management position, 5Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke, How to Think Theologically (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), 7. 6Brian H. Spitzburg and Gabrielle Changnon, ―Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence,‖ in The Sage Handbook for Intercultural Competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009), 7. Webb 33 managing the intricacies, nuances, and differences in the uniqueness of the ongoing interaction with the dissimilar other. It requires an ongoing process. A byproduct of this process is intimacy: an engagement and a getting-to-know the other. The walls of race and ethnicity can then be broken down. This intimacy, of necessity, will not only impact one‘s theology, but also shape it or even change it altogether. It is for this reason that Spitzburg and Changnon went further to posit that ―these [intercultural] orientations will most commonly be reflected in such normative categories as race, ethnicity, tribe, region and religion.‖7 Richard W. Brislin and Tomoko Yoshida, using the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI, Kelly and Meyers 1992), shared four basic skills that one ought to have in order to be interculturally competent.8 First, one must have emotional resilience, the ability to maintain a positive emotional state regardless of the many obstacles faced in the intercultural relating process. This also includes the ability to handle large amounts of stress, ambiguity, and strong emotions and to maintain a general positive outlook on life. Secondly, flexibility and openness are characterized by accepting others‘ way of doing things, lack of rigidity, and an ethnorelative perspective. Persons with these skills and qualities are able to adapt to many different cultures because they do not believe in or feel compelled to stick to one particular truth. Thirdly, perceptual acuity refers to the degree of sensitivity individuals have in terms of verbal and nonverbal messages. An example of this would be the understanding that many Asians refrain from looking non-Asians eye to eye as a mark of respect, and that eyeballing the other would be a clear sign of disrespect. Fourth, personal autonomy has to do with the extent to which individuals feel comfortable with their own identities. When people cross 7 Ibid. 8 Richard W. Brislin and Tomoko Yoshida, Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction, Communicating Effectively in Multicultural Contexts (London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd., 1994), 89-91. Webb 34 cultural boundaries, many of their values and beliefs are challenged. People can no longer rely on their own culture to reaffirm their self worth, but must instead have an independent sense of identity that they can maintain regardless of the culture in which they find themselves. From this brief exploration of what really is involved in intercultural competence, one can clearly see that is not just work, but hard work. This is the direct challenge to the denomination as it grapples with the implicit expectation of the multicultural recommendation. There is no short-cut to being interculturally competent. One has to wonder if this is partially the reason for the alarming statistic by Emerson that ninety-two percent of all United States religious congregations are mono-ethnic in nature.9 It might very well be more convenient, less stressful, and theologically and culturally safer to simply engage ministry with one‘s own kind. At least in such cases, one‘s theology receives the luxury of (a false sense of) peace. Multicultural Congregation It is clear that even over sixty years after this insightful statement made by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. indicating that eleven o‘clock on a Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week, is still rings true for America. Yancey, using Emerson‘s statistics on church membership ethnicity, posits that the homogeneous nature of these religious organizations is in contrast to the racial diversity of our larger society.10 Church of the Brethren congregations are not excluded from this statistical reality. 9Michael O. Emerson, People of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the United States, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 104. 10George Yancey, ―Intercultural Competence in Religious Organizations, Neither Jew nor Gentile,‖ in The Sage Handbook for Intercultural Competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009), 374. Webb 35 In the face of this alarming statistic, it is necessary to define what we mean by a multicultural congregation. Yancey defines a multicultural congregation as a multiracial church in which no one racial group makes up more than eighty percent of the attendees of at least one of the major worship services.11 Yancey uses this ratio because there is sociological evidence that such churches differ from mono-racial congregations.12 The evident challenge for the Church of the Brethren comes from two angles. First, the majority of Brethren congregations are in rural areas where the ethnicity is generally white. Second, these white congregations may tend to see themselves as having no need to engage multiculturalism simply by virtue of geography. We will return to the implication of this issue later in the research. The research will now focus on Brethren Service as one of the major outreach initiatives of the denomination, to ascertain its implication for the multicultural mandate and multiculturalism in the Brethren denomination generally. Brethren Service in Relation to Multiculturalism In order to understand the underpinnings of Brethren Service and its interplay with multiculturalism, it is necessary to uncover its origin in the Church of the Brethren. Donald F. Durnbaugh locates this origin in the work of the Brethren Service Committee (BSC) of the late 1930s. It began as a response to several world crises related to war. The origins of the BSC programs lie in the Special Neutral Relief Board of 1938-1939 that sought to deal with several crisis-aid to those suffering from the Spanish Civil war, those suffering in the Sino-Japanese war, and refugees fleeing Nazi Germany … Soon, burgeoning relief needs impelled the creation of a new committee to integrate Brethren efforts. Members of the General Mission Board and Board of Christian Education came together in 1939 to form the Peace and relief Commission of the Church of the Brethren, the 11 Ibid., 15. 12 Ibid. Webb 36 executive committee of which was to be called the Brethren Service Committee. 13 Durnbaugh went on to note that ―the primary function of the BSC was foreseen as personal rehabilitation and social construction.‖14 Four fields of service were identified: 1. To arrest and eliminate, in so far as possible, those forces in society which contribute to the disintegration of personality, character and social stability. 2. To relieve human distress and suffering around the world, without regard to race, creed or nationality 3. To represent the church in the area of creative citizenship and Christian testimony on issues of national and international significance 4. To develop, organize and apply the spiritual and financial resources of the church to the above areas of service.15 Essentially, therefore, Brethren service had its origins in a kind of ―helping hand‖ milieu. The guiding principle seemed to have been, ―We‘ve come to help you.‖ There is a sense in which this helping effort can be one-sided in that the one who is being helped either has little to offer or is not expected to reciprocate in any way. Central to symbolically dramatizing service in the Church of the Brethren is the Love Feast. Vernard Eller shares that the centrality of Brethren Love Feast with the accompanying feet washing, exemplified by Jesus, provides the Biblical foundation for Brethren service efforts generally.16 ―Service to others has always been an important Brethren principle.‖17 Here again, the Love Feast can become the theological engine driving a kind of service that could be one-sided. While there is the dramatized mutual washing of feet in the worship, the 13 Donald F. Durnbaugh, Fruit of the Vine (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1997), 477. 14 Ibid., 478. 15 Ibid. 16 Donald F. Durnbaugh, ed., The Church of the Brethren Past and Present (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1971), 47. 17 J. Kenneth Kreider, A Cup of Cold Water, The Story of Brethren Service (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 2001), 425. Webb 37 outward acts of service, ministry, which arise from it could be in the form of, ―We will serve them, but still remain a little detached from them.‖ In other words, there is the possibility that the theology and practice of the Love Feast does not translate into mutual service where Brethren become the recipients of service from others. Brethren Service and African-Americans The underpinning of Brethren Service does have clear implications for race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism generally within the Brethren denomination. To begin, the 1957 denomination‘s response to migrant African-Americans fleeing the segregated south is instructive. It is noted that ―the initiative was firstly an admission that the denomination had done little to assist the Negroes of America,‖18 but intended to redress this by a program of resettlement into Brethren Communities. Secondly, the statement made it clear that the resettlement was to be ―like the resettlement program of refugees and displaced persons.‖19 The Brethren Service Commission will work out with the church, educational and other agencies the selection of persons to be resettled. It will implement this program through its social action program and its regular budget.20 The African-Americans were seen as a budgeted line item or a project to aid, as opposed to a people to invite into community. Although the 1969 Annual Conference approved a study commission to recruit, train, and place ―Negroes‖ in the pastoral ministry of the denomination, twenty-two years later the 1991 Annual Conference statement regarding African-American pastoral leadership was very telling. It reads, ―There is no comprehensive plan for recruiting and nurturing black leadership in the Church of the Brethren, and no staff 18 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren General Brotherhood Board, November 1957, 32. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. Webb 38 assigned to those activities.‖21 Sixteen years later, the 2007 Annual Conference recommendation on denomination-wide multiculturalism was yet another effort to address the issue. One wonders if the foundation of Brethren Service were as geared toward engaged inclusion as opposed to mere assistance, if there would have been a more significant presence and active participation of African Americans throughout the denomination. Brethren Service and Navajo American Indians This ―assistance-driven‖ foundation of Brethren Service was also evident in the Brethren denomination‘s engagement of the Navajo Indians. Responding to increasing concerns of Brethren in the districts that included Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, where many Native American Indians lived, the General Brotherhood Board agreed to begin work among these Native Americans in 1952.22 It is of interest to note that the persons asked to spearhead the project, Ernest L. and Olivia D. Ikenberry, had just completed 29 years of missionary work in China.23 They accepted the appointment to establish a Church of the Brethren mission point in Lybrook, New Mexico.24 This observation concerning the initial leadership of the Lybrook mission is significant insofar as it gives potential clues that would guide the philosophy of the project and the engagement of the American Indians. It is not unreasonable to assume that these Anglo Brethren workers who served Chinese missionaries took a foreign missions approach to the project where the emphasis was assistance as opposed to invitation into Brethren 21 Minutes of the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, 1991. 22 Kreider, 425. 23 Ibid., 426. 24 Ibid. Webb 39 community. Forty-four years after the mission had begun, the 1994 Annual Conference gave clear indication of the impact of the work. The presenting question was telling: ―To what extent is the primarily ‗Anglo‘ Church of the Brethren willing to enter into mutual faith sharing with Christians of Native American heritage?‖25 From this statement, the impression is given that after
|
|---|