Friday, May 02, 2008
Black Churches?
I may be missing something conspicuously obvious but in the aftermath of the Rev. Wright controversy, a lot of media attention has honed in on the so-called "black churches" in America. Here's the question that has been dogging me ever since: Why are they called "black" churches? Of course, the easy answer is that most of the attendees are black. Fair enough I suppose. But I suggest that this issue is more than a matter of nomenclature. Are there any "white churches," "Latino churches," "Asian churches" in America referred to simply as such, in the collective sense? Indeed, there are religious communities whose ethnic composition, based on locality, is predominantly one of these races, but the church (as far as I know) is not defined solely by that feature. To be fair, Wright's church is more precisely called the United Church of Christ but he seems to prefer the "black church" taxonomy when speaking in reference to the entire black Christian community. Further, one of the primordial and defining marks of the Christian body is that it is catholic, katholicos, which is to say universal, open to the Jew, the Greek and the rest of us. So, when I hear the endless blathering about the "Black churches" on the part of Wright and his ilk, I demur. As I see it, this appellation has more to do with the inability (or unwillingness) on the part of some African Americans like Wright to move beyond the race issue. Unable to extricate themselves, Wright and his pugnacious flock are hopelessly stuck in racial quicksand. They have seen to it that the entire ambit of their reality is dictated and determined by questions of race and so it's not at all surprising that religion itself is beholden to and defined by the paradigm of race. It's a mirthful irony when a Christian community ascribes itself an exclusive denomination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment