U.S. Churches: Homogenous since the revolution? 26 March, 2010
Posted by Zack in Uncategorized.trackback
I thought the class and ethnic homogeneity of the American church was a recent development — mid 20th century or something. But according to Gordon Wood in Empire of Liberty, American churches became homogenous when they became democratic in the wake of the revolution.
Before the revolution, the class hierarchies of the community were reproduced inside the church. After the revolution, the ‘middling sort’ of people (the lower/middle class) asserted their equality in a radical cultural revolution that changed everything from the way people dressed (the origin of the dull gray suit) to the way people addressed each other (everyone became a ‘mister’). That happen in all social settings. For example: students went wild on college campuses, burning buildings, mocking their professors, even beating their college presidents when necessary! (Parallels to the Chinese Cultural Revolution.)
But it also happened in church. The lower and middle ‘sorts’ (they didn’t say ‘classes’ yet) pointed to the New Testament’s egalitarianism (Don’t give those good seats to the rich guys!) and demanded equality in spiritual fellowship.
Guess what the rich folk did? They left and formed their own congregations, or became Universalists, or stayed in their old congregations when all the middling sorts left for the new evangelical Methodist, Baptist and other 2nd Great Awakening churches.
The NT paints a picture of congregations that were both egalitarian AND mixed class…doesn’t it? The Catholic Church has always included mixed classes as long as the geography of the parish has. In the reformation, congregations were mixed, but probably not so egalitarian. Is it worth hoping that the American church in the 21st century is a place where people can, to use Shane’s phrase, “fall in love across class lines?”
This is something that I’m wrestling with. The hardest part is figuring out how I, an engineer and pretty well off, find common ground with someone who is not well off and hasn’t finished a high school education? And this isn’t a hypothetical question. I do interact with these people, but the relationship is that I’m the teacher and they’re the student.
I think part of the secret is discovering how the upper class NEEDS the lower class. Not only do the outcasts and the poor have something to offer but it’s something of necessity. It will probably be very humbling for the church.
Adam: Do you truly think that having been trained as an engineer (4-6 yrs of college classes), and having more cash, designates your relationships with others (who haven’t those two things) to be teacher/student? Those two things do not make you wiser or deeper, a better parent or friend, or obtain you a stronger spiritual relationship with God. In fact, a case can be made that those two things can make it more difficult to have the latter qualities. There are some things that others don’t know because of these two things. There is money that you can give that others can’t. Maybe, just maybe, if your education was excellent, you can offer them ways to think that will be helpful. Otherwise, I am supposing it is because you don’t listen to what these others have to offer that you think it is largely a teacher/student affair. Not always, everywhere, but generally.
Patricia, how do you find common ground with people not like you? Do you regularly interact with people who make 10x your income or 1/10th your income?
Humans tend to gather around people who are like themselves. Which is why Zack’s post is relevant. The church is homogeneous. We have white churches and black churches and rich churches and poor churches and any other kind of church in between. These churches don’t blend either. I am a white, well educated, wealthy person and honestly my church is a white, well educated, wealthy church.
I think it’s the actual differences that make it difficult to cross boundaries and the burden should be carried by both sides. To break homogeneity the poor should be responsible for the rich and the rich responsible for the poor, otherwise we are not equal. I see neither happening.