The Diversity Culture
I recently joined a group of selected bloggers that receive early copies of books in exchange for writing reviews of them. The first book I chose is called The Diversity Culture: Creating Conversations of Faith with Buddhist Baristas, Agnostic Students, Aging Hippies, Political Activists, and Everyone in Between. Written by Matthew Raley, the pastor of Orland Evangelical Free Church in northern California, the title of the book alone grabbed my attention.
The premise is fairly simple: he weaves the narrative of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-26) as an example of how to engage those who are different than yourself in conversations about Truth. I thought this was one of the real strengths of the book. His writing in these parts has the ability to bring the story to life, and I agree that it is an amazing example of the point he is trying to make.
Raley also sets up two stereotypes and contrasts them: a woman at Cafe Siddhartha (the birth name of the Buddha) and a Baptist at Cafe Siddhartha. This is one area where he lost me. I’ve never been one for stereotypes, and I felt like he lost momentum every time he would reference these two make-believe people throughout the book.
The book does have some interesting and articulate parts, but overall, it failed to fully engage me. I never got lost in a chapter (in a good way). In fact, it often felt like I was pushing through a section just to see what was next. In addition, he did something that I’ve grown to loathe with so many Christian writers today: taking pot-shots at megachurches. For example, he states that “the reality is that the growth of megachurches is the result of many evangelicals making the same choices, adopting a religious lifestyle that matches American consumerism. The responsibility for megachurch superficiality is broadly shared.” It sounds like he is arguing that growth = superficiality. That isn’t Biblical, or accurate. Anyone can make a straw-man church and then tear it down. His description of megachurches hasn’t been what I’ve seen at Central or a handful of local megachurches in Arizona.
Despite this, here are a few quotes that stood out to me and developed his point well:
“We interpret people as stock characters, as members of groups. Jesus interpreted the woman at the well using a story about her as an individual.”
“People wear and carry objects that feed stories about who they are, how they see themselves, and what their agendas are. Sometimes the mixed signals are calculated and even defensive, but in other cases they simply reflect the bearer’s experiences–and evangelicals can have trouble discerning which.”
“…we can see how John pits individuals against their groups. Whether the characters are Jesus’ disciples or his enemies, the crowbar that pries them away from their worldly loyalty is their knowledge of Scripture. The pattern is consistent throughout John’s gospel…”
“We cannot break the power of groupthink by opposing it with more groupthink. We need to restore one of our oldest appeals: Sola scriptura. The signature of biblical Christianity has always been freedom of thought.”
“Once an individual is thinking for himself, he is ready to meet Jesus.”
This is the personal blog of Jeremy Jernigan. Husband, father, teaching pastor, and student of truth.
It sounds like he treats megachurches as stock characters, rather than seeking out the story of each individual megachurch. Perhaps Raley should read his own book.
.-= Richard´s last blog… Don’t take more than you can carry… =-.
Richard – that is a brilliant insight… (and I literally laughed out loud)
I wonder why Jesus waited until no one else was around to speak with the woman. I know I could never be so bold and knowledgable about a “stranger” to confront them so. I have enough hesitation to confront someone I know well. And we do need to realize that some attend a large church to hide from real service.
.-= Greg M´s last blog… Reminders From The Past =-.
Touche’ Richard!!!
I get frustrated as well regarding the overall negative sterotype authors cast on megachurches. How can you clump them all together when so many are unique and different? I often think it warrants a conversation with these authors (maybe Mattew Raley would be open to it?) about why they view megachurches as they do and to share about Central and other churches that don’t fit under their umbrella.
Thanks for sharing this review, Jeremy…you saved me some money because I actually had it on my amazon wish list. But I wonder if his novel “Fallen” would be a more engaging read? Peeps gave it great reviews on amazon.
.-= Romi´s last blog… Way to go Volkswagen!! =-.
I think there’s actually a fair amount of truth in his mega-church critique but I’d agree with you in the sense that, in this statement, he paints with too broad of a brush. I think it’s easy to level a generalized critique of mega churches without recognizing the really powerful, redemptive work being done in large churches. Just because one might have a critique for an institutional condition of any given church, it should be communicated with a recognition of great work still being done. I’ve heard folks who work at mega churches belittle small communities ad nauseum for lack of “growth” (i.e. the number of people coming through the door) with the same tone deafness as this author shows. While on the subject, is the growth of a church community only indicated in how large a community is? I think it would serve Christians well to do away with the assumption that “growth” and “more people” are synonymous.
Zach – I think Raley’s problem across the board is that he relies far too much on stereotypes. Sure, there are superficial churches. But I don’t see a correlation with size and superficiality. There are small churches and large churches that are healthy, and there are small churches and large churches that are not.
Certainly growth isn’t limited only to more people, but that is clearly a measuring tool as we see in the book of Acts with the early Church. We also need to measure how we are doing at making disciples, which is far more difficult to do. My point is that the size of your church is not an indicator by itself of whether you are superficial or not. I’m sick of the generalization of megachurches being the bane of all church. I would argue that some of the most vibrant and culture-changing churches are those that would be classified as megachurches but it certainly isn’t limited to them.
“My point is that the size of your church is not an indicator by itself of whether you are superficial or not.”
Right, I totally agree with you on that point but I don’t agree that there isn’t a correlation between the two. I think larger churches (or any other kind of group) are much more likely to be relationally more superficial on the whole. This doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the leadership of the group and it doesn’t mean that there aren’t very meaningful relationships and connections being made. But in general, larger groups can’t help but foster more connections between people that are less deep. Hopefully that makes sense.
For instance, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it wouldn’t be unheard of for someone to attend your church for a year before you even knew their name or had a conversation with them. In a much smaller community, that we be much less likely. It’s not to say that one community is ultimately healthier than the other but that one fosters a stronger relational depth than the other and the kind of relationships you foster in a community will very likely bear signs of the overall ethic that guides the group.
But I agree with you 100% that when we talk about church strategies in the abstract, we often lose sight of the powerful stories and the redemptive work done is churches big and small. There is probably a way that the author could have made the same critique in a more thoughtful and graceful way that maybe would have led you to engage the critique rather than dismiss it.
Someone once pointed out that in a small church of about 100 members, you probably will get to know most, if not al, of them. However, in a large church of thousands of people, you will probably get to know, oh let’s say, about 100 of them. That makes small groups and different kinds of gatherings so much more important. I agree there are people willing to serve in both large and small congregations. I have a friend in California who used to lament at the lack of size of his church he pastored. My brother merely pointed out that this was the flock that God had given him to minister to. We tend to try to out Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit when it comes to quickening someone else’s heart for service and commmitment. I agree that making disciples is most important and often times, tough. One challenege in both large and small churches is what goes on between baptism and the back door. Do we have that covered?
.-= Greg M´s last blog… Reminders From The Past =-.