Faith in Action

Kevin A. Slayton, Sr. is a lobbyist with the Slayton Group, LLC and is pursuing a Master of Divinity degree at Howard University in Washington, DC. He currently resides in Baltimore, MD.

The Gospel and Black Culture: A Past Perspective Still Relevant

The modern concept of the “mega church” in African American faith communities is raising many interesting questions about authentic discipleship today. Urban ministries in Baltimore are developing influential ministries never before introduced into the fabric of church life, while creating a visibility deserving of federal scrutiny. But is the influence being used to change the lives and communities in which these churches exist or are they perpetuating a gospel damaging to the Kingdom of God. What is the cultural phenomenon of the “Mega-church” and the impact it has on the spreading of the Gospel to a community in need?

In most urban cities across the country exist three or more churches that fit the “mega church” model, Baltimore is not different. Most are defined by huge million dollar facilities with extravagant facades, large memberships and multiple worship services. Another staple of the mega-church is cloaked in the persona of its leadership. The mega-church pastor tends to be very theatrical, charismatic, flamboyant and verbose in his/her presentation. Granted those are the characteristics that will initially attract most parishioners in the first place, in addition to amazing music ministries. The rosters of many of these churches exceed five and six thousand active members. Ironically, many of them are located in communities where the average income is far below the median. The visual dichotomy presents a very interesting contrast between the pastor and parishioner, as well as, the temple and the average homes in the community. Despite the stark differences new members continue to flock to these congregations seeking some form of renewal and hope.

To further expound on this point I will enlist the aid of Biblical scriptures. In particular, I would point to the book of Acts. In chapter 3 of this book is told an interesting story of two disciples, John and Peter, heading to the temple in order to participate in public prayer. Upon their arrival at the temple the two encounter a broken, poor and hurting man sitting outside of the gates of the temple. Of particular interest is that the temple is called “Beautiful”. How interesting, a broken man and a beautiful temple. The text goes on to explain that the man ask John and Peter for money. They inform the man that, they are just like him, and have no material wealth to give to him. Instead the men offer to share with him the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Upon receiving the Gospel the man is healed and the people immediately recognize and link his healing to the Temple. They recognize him as the man who sat outside of the Temple awaiting restoration. So I raise the question, is the work of those in the Christian community more effective when performed beyond the walls of the “Beautiful” temples or when confined to the worship experience inside the temple?

I would like to assert that the Gospel is the “Good News” proclaimed about Jesus Christ, which is lived out in the flesh. It is God’s superlative expression of love and power revealed through grace and truth. Christians are universally instructed to go forth and preach the Gospel. In a culture that is driven by capital greed and material measurements of success, can ideals such as truth and grace find a home in the modern day mega-church. Can the hurting people identify with the witness displayed by the membership of these large congregations in there communities or are the masses unphased by the promise of transformation through simple participation in acts of worship.

Where is the visible transformation of the communities in which many of these churches exist and why are they consumed by violence, poverty, abandonment, and lowered expectations? Have the Johns and Peters of the modern day mega-church turned a blind eye to the basic needs of the people in the communities. Is the average professed Christian worshiper content with a 3 hour theological approach to living a Christian life? Again, it is very difficult to overlook the discrepancies between the message of the temple and the realities of the people living in the shadow of the temple. In today’s church, if a homeless person, indigent in their appearance were to breach the gates of the temple and enter the church would they be welcomed? I very seriously doubt that they would be met with open arms. Oddly this is the right place for broken people, yet the majority of congregants make every effort themselves to appear well and healed. Any lack in appearance could signal some defiled fall from God’s grace, which is taboo, considering the misdirected interpretation is that those whom are truly walking with the Lord are “prosperous”. Thus, I would argue, the rise in prosperity preaching by many of these churches. All too often many of these members forget that “we are all sinners, saved by grace”. But in such an environment it becomes easy to take God’s grace for granted.

The late Deitrich Bonhoeffer was a prominent theologian, most noted for actively resisting the racist actions of the Nazi regime in the 1950’s, wrote a book entitled The Cost of Discipleship. In his book, Bonhoeffer, coins a phrase that I believe bests depicts the ailment of the modern day Christian church: CHEAP GRACE. Amazingly, almost fifty years ago Bonhoeffer observed this weak link in the Christian community. Bonhoeffer is compelled to address the lack of true discipleship among followers of Jesus Christ in their everyday lives. He writes, “The Christian life comes to mean nothing more than living in the world and as the world, in being no different from the world, in fact, in being prohibited from being different from the world for the sake of grace”.

Several of my colleagues believe Bonhoeffer’s theological analysis of the Christian lifestyle is directed at the individual Christian; however, I disagree. I am convinced that Bonhoeffer directs this scathing indictment at the Christian church. He proclaims in the first chapter of his book that “Cheap Grace is the deadly enemy of our Church.” Today more than ever the process by which one engages the church is wrought with blind neglect of Christ’s suffering and redemptive power through salvation. In most churches the “doors of the church are opened” and persons are invited to “join the church”, not necessarily to join their hearts and lives to Christ. This, I believe, is the first step towards a practice of cheap grace. Particularly, in the African American community it is very common to encounter persons who highlight the successes and accolades of the churches they attend. They revel in the ability to rattle off the growing number of new members, the material accoutrements of the pastor and the list of notable names affiliated with the congregation. It is rare that they share the Gospel of Jesus that the church is based on. Rarely do they share the countless accomplishments of the Jesus they serve. Neither do they point out the changes in their personal lives that can be attributed to the grace and mercy of God. This false since of affiliation enables members to participate in a faith divorced from discipleship. And based on such a premise it seems quite normal rhetoric for new recruitment.

New recruits to the faith primarily come by way of the church. Initially a call to follow Jesus, as stated above, is wrapped in an offertory proposal to unite with a particular place of worship. In the absence of a clearly delineated call for Christian discipleship one is aligned with the traditions associated with the initiation rituals of the church. Bonhoeffer takes great stride to make us aware that our separation from the suffering of Jesus and the Cross is tantamount to self-righteous sanctification. In describing this point he paints the picture of a man who agrees to follow Christ, but with some stipulation. Bonhoeffer writes, “The disciple places himself at the Master’s disposal, but at the same time retains the right to dictate his own terms”. I agree that popular Christian culture facilitates a half hearted acceptance of the call to follow. This presentation of the Gospel makes it possible for people to attach themselves to the church, while delaying their personal encounter with Jesus Christ until some things are worked out in their lives. This type of call acceptance is dangerous. For the Bible clearly states that no one knows the day or the hour that Jesus will return.

This also suggest that there is something unclear in the call to follow Jesus that comes from the modern day pulpit. Might I offer that one way to avoid misleading the people is to refrain from using the terms that are vague in there appeal. Such terms as “try Jesus” come to mind. No doubt this term has proven preaching power in the black church. The preacher/prophet today can smoothly transition from his primary subject matter into an alter call that is hermeneutically tantalizing to the sinner by casually asking, “try Jesus”. For the lost sinner looking for ritualistic healing and external renewal without the sincere commitment to follow Jesus this offer is fitting. Perhaps at some point in their lives the drunkard was asked to try one drink, the drug addict was asked to try one “hit”. The insinuation behind the call implies that there is no obligation. More detrimental is the implication that God’s grace is contingent. This is counter to the desires that the church should have for the lost. The church should present an opportunity that has the promise of a clad tight “no escape clause”. By replacing the word “try” and substituting the word “trust” the minister can change the expectation placed on Jesus’ promise for the sinner. By asking the sinner to trust Jesus brings the Cross alive in the frailty of humanity. Through trusting, faith becomes possible for the obedient believer. Bonhoeffer seems to agree with my assertion in that he proposes that “Only the obedient believe.”

So why is the Mega-church model so popular among many in the African American faith community? In order to get a better understanding we should examine the cultural realities of those that would become members. The Godfather of Soul, James Brown, said, “you’ve got to give the people what they want” and I believe that a great number of pastors have set out to do just that.

In 1995, Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute of Religion Research noted that many of the first “mega churches” were birthed out of a “shopping mall” concept. Thumma explains that the pastors of these churches wanted to know what the people were looking for in a church. They would then create ministries that addressed those concerns. He also argues in his article that “Mega-churches offer these persons a history, a narrative tradition, and programs to which they can commit”. This is highly problematic considering that most of the members are able to avoid any request for service in such a large environment. Membership in a mega-church makes it easy to simply, park, praise, contribute (financially) and go home. Pastors and leaders who would use this method set the stage for the casual exit of the Truth that is essential in delivering the Gospel. And this, in my opinion, is the greatest flaw associated with delivering a Gospel that caters to the congregation. Here we see a shift in the power to direct the message of the Gospel from the pastor over to the membership. Regarding this issue Thumma says of potential members, “they are more likely to shop around for a congregation that “has what they want” and “feels comfortable”. This may shed more light on why the “mega-church” model is so popular, because those who attend are able to live comfortably in their sins.

The church must begin to rethink its approach to spreading the gospel. In doing so, it would be well advised to follow the model that Jesus Christ set for us. When communities are sinking fast into hopelessness it is incumbent upon the church to speak to the needs of the people and not necessarily their wants. Professor Obery Hendricks, Jr. gives a glowing description of Jesus’ ministry that should serve as a blue print for the church in sharing the Gospel to a people in need. Hendricks says, “Jesus treated the people and their needs as Holy by healing their bodies, their souls, and their psyches. He even took pains to specifically preach to them that the poor and the hungry among them are blessed in God’s sight and that they and their needs are Holy before God. Most of all, Jesus reminded his people of what they too often seemed to forget, that the best way to serve God and to relate to one another was through love.

Bonhoeffer once again reminds us of the connection between the cross and suffering. His message to us is that we must be prepared to step out of our comfort zone for the sake of spreading the Gospel. But we should also allow his reminder to connect us to the plight of those suffering among us. In a letter from the German prison where he died, Bonhoeffer left amazing instruction as to how Christians can better serve the suffering people in our midst. “We are not Christ, but if we want to be Christians, we must have some share in Christ’s “large-heartedness” by showing a real sympathy that springs from the liberating and redeeming love of Christ for all who suffer. The Christian is called to sympathy and action, not in the first place by his own sufferings, but by the sufferings of his brethren, for whose sake Christ suffered.”

Although the African American church appears to be expanding its reach due, in large part, to the rise in this phenomenon, the disproportionate representation in other areas of importance would suggest that the work is far from done. The gap between people of color regarding, education, poverty, foreclosures, murders and unplanned births are threatening the future of the race. Meanwhile the “mega-church” has seized the misfortune as an opportunity to benefit from governmental set asides under the newly established faith based initiatives. In a culture that is dominated by its politics we must be very careful not to blur the lines between the Gospel and cheap grace. If not, we run the risk of creating a church that resembles the political structure of society, where by the leaders “real constituent” is not the voter, rather it’s the political donor. And those in the communities in need of the Gospel take a back seat to the desires and influence of the paying membership.

In conclusion, I agree with Bonhoeffer that the church should spread the Gospel out of a sincere desire to fulfill the true meaning of discipleship. But I’m afraid that under the “mega-church” model the cost of discipleship will continue to rise, while the Gospel of Jesus Christ will continue to suffer from a problem of cheap grace.