The ‘Black Church’ Phrase

Published: May 14, 2010

In May of 2008, I picked up a copy of a well-known local newspaper and was rather shocked, but overcome with excitement to see the front page headline read: “Morehouse (College) Valedictorian Stands Out; He's White!” Morehouse College, the only all-male historically black institution of higher learning in the United States, made history that year by announcing that the valedictorian of the graduating class of 2008, was a 22-year old white male from Kansas City, Missouri.

Don't Miss

Now before I go any further, allow me to pause here just for a second, and take a deep breath. For what you are about to read now may in fact be the hardest thing I have ever had to write. I pray it serves as just one small verse in the anthem God seems to be birthing within the hearts of many within my generation who are as in love with the local church as I am.

What began as a badge of honor has now become (in my opinion) one of the largest hindrances for growth and our ability to impact today's emerging culture and society. There is little doubt in my mind that during the height of slavery and Jim Crow, it was not only wise, but in many instances, a matter of law for Sunday morning to be the most segregated hour in America.

The civic and religious discrimination that African-Americans faced particularly during the 1800's, provided the necessary backdrop for many to be led, and at times, forced to create and provide new outlets of worship that spoke specifically to the needs and concerns of African-Americans.

No one can argue that the ‘black church’ was at the very core of what helped shape the cultural landscape of this country: The civil rights movement.

Who can possibly deny its influence? America is in many respects, what the ‘black church’ helped influenced it to be. And now that I've got all that out the way...

News flash: This is 2010.
I repeat; the year is 2010.

Now before you assume I am saying that racism and discrimination is now over, that is not at all what I'm saying. I do not, like so many of my peers, believe we are living in a post-racial America now that our country has elected it first African-American president. Issues of race are here to stay.

What I am saying is that the scope of the church, specifically the ‘black church,’ must begin to change. For many, it has. Yet for a large majority, it has not.

I have tossed this question around in my head for now over a year or two. Haven't exactly settled on the answer yet, although I think I'm pretty close. Maybe you can help me. It's one of those which-came-first (the chicken or the egg) type of questions. Here it is:

What comes first?
The ‘local’ church or the ‘black’ church?

I realize that may be a loaded question, but I'm curious how in this day and age, when so many of what we call ‘black churches’ are no longer only located in urban or predominately African-American neighborhoods, but also in suburban and relatively multi-cultural communities...

…how is that we can still (with a clear conscience) label our churches as ‘black?’

For the record: I too, am a proud graduate of an historically black college. Yet one of the things I admire most is that it was just that: an ‘historically’ black college. Yes, the college was ‘historically’ founded exclusively for African-Americans. But my education, although some job recruiters would love to think so, was not framed by color alone.

It was framed by mission.

Had my education simply been framed by color, I would not have been able to compete in a world that color still may influence, but no longer dominates. My fear with the continuous usage of the phrase ‘the black church,’ is that it often haphazardly places a label on mission, and not solely on the predominate ethnic makeup of one's congregation. Which leaves this question to consider:

So what do you do when the ethnic makeup changes?

Are you still a ‘black church’ when Hispanic believers and non- believers choose to attend? Are you still a ‘black church’ when Caucasian or Asian believers and non-believers attend? How is that we can allow color predominance to dictate what the mission and focus of the local church should be?

I might be a little crazy in saying this, but I think these labels are now killing the heart of what the ‘black church’ actually once represented:

Compassion.
Change.
Resistance.
And most importantly...
Movement.

I think in many respects, the success we achieved during the civil rights era of the 1950's and ‘60’s has caused an entire new generation of leaders to misinterpret what the church was all about. We must understand that for many of us now, we eat from vineyards we did not plant. And because we did not work for what we are eating, many of us have ceased from working at all.

Our buildings are magnificent, but our scope of care has not grown to touch the lives of those who do not look like us. I am convinced that there is a major difference between pride and self-segregation. And many of us are beginning to be anchored in the latter.

Although this shift will take some time and a whole lot of effort, we must come to an agreement that what began with us, must no longer (only) be about us. We can no longer afford to call or describe our places of worship as a ‘black church.’

That is one phrase (I believe) we must get rid of, and we must do so immediately. For if we don’t, we will give birth yet again to a generation of believers who have no problem acknowledging their MOTHER, but continue to have no authentic and substantial relationship with their FATHER.

“In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name…” – Matthew 6:9

Our roots must extend further than Mother Africa. For beyond that land, lies a kingdom established by a Father who loves us, and sent His Son to die for us all.