Continuing the Riverside Church Conversation


Last week I posted a couple of times concerning the resignation of Brad Braxton as Pastor of the famed Riverside Church. I had begun the conversation with insights from Randy Balmer about the pitfalls of ministry -- and how that played out in this situation. The comments picked up and ran with questions about the size of the package -- originally stated to be at $600,000, but later noted to be a still larger $460, 000, of which $250,000 is salary. I will confess, without stating what I make, that this is considerably more than I make as pastor of a much smaller congregation -- though I don't do too badly.

But the question that needs to be raised is this -- Is the focus on the money a smokescreen for other issues -- at least within the Riverside community, and maybe beyond?

I find interesting a conversation between Progressive Christan leader Peter Laarman (Progressive Christians Uniting) and Religion Professor Jonathan Walton (UC Riverside) that has been edited and published at Religion Dispatches (the source of the earlier commentary by Randy Balmer). It is a most interesting conversation that touches on several issues that have emerged.

One issue is Braxton's supposed "fundamentalism," which apparently means that he may have been too focused on Scripture. This raises the question of what does it mean to have "biblical preaching" in liberal contexts?

But another, perhaps more troubling issue, is race. Over the last decade Riverside Church has moved from predominantly white (though multi-cultural), with euro-centric worship and music, to one that is now 60% African American. The dialogue here hints that this change of demographics fits the demographics of the neighborhood. There appears to be a concern among some that Riverside might be on the verge of becoming a "Black Church." That may be making some among the white members, and perhaps some among black members, uncomfortable.

Consider this comment by Laarman (who is white):

Back to the Braxton debacle: my guess is that a great many white liberals and some of the more siditty Black parishioners share the "too Black" apprehension. I just don't know enough about Dr. Braxton in relation to Dr. Forbes to know the extent to which this long-felt apprehension was ratcheted up upon Dr. Braxton's arrival--or even upon the announcement of his call. What I really want to know is why more white people can't be proud to be part of a West Harlem church that has a brilliant and scholarly Black senior minister and that worships in the Black Church tradition while still honoring all the strands of its rich history.

That should be Riverside's trajectory at this point, but it appears there is still strong resistance. I can't help thinking that at least some of the resistance is related to the [William Sloane] Coffin legacy: Bill Coffin possessed a magical aura for the white Riversiders. He was High WASP but ultra-radical, exceedingly literate but also folksy, fully identified with civil rights but not nearly as directly involved as (Episcopal Bishop) Paul Moore in contesting New York City's very own apartheid. I think the shade of Coffin still plays a role here.

As for the money thing: yes, absolutely. Wealthy white liberals who know full well what elite professionals are paid in general--and also what elite Black professionals in Manhattan are paid--really choked on the compensation package. And their feelings about "highway robbery" no doubt looped back to reinforce their "too Black" fears.

Walton responds with this comment:

I recently read a wonderful new book by a sociologist that unpacks this particular problem, Korie Edwards’ The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches. After studying interracial churches across the country her work reveals that interracial churches are successful to the degree that preferences and perceived cultural mores of white members are privileged over those typically associated with persons of color. As long as white members are made to feel comfortable racial harmony is maintained.
To give some context, isn't true that many white voters embraced Barack Obama, in part, because he played down race. He made whites feel comfortable with his candidacy.

And, with this there is the issue of how money is perceived in white and black communities -- and how this is playing out as a racial/ethic issue.

This is an interesting conversation, because it highlights the difficulties that liberal and progressive Christians have had in bridging racial/ethnic divides. We make ourselves feel comfortable by declaring ourselves anti-racist churches, but we find it uncomfortable to include/embrace the music and perceptions of non-white communities.

I encourage a close look at the conversation between Laarman and Walton, as the foundation for further conversation.



Comments

Anonymous said…
I can't help but laugh at the line "he may have been too focused on Scripture". It my ears it sounds like someone saying.. I like church, but they keep bringing up Jesus. What do we focus on if we don't focus on scripture, ourselves? That could quickly spin into a self centered church that creates its own religion. It doesn't surprise me then that this church suddenly gets upset as non whites come in or the teaching changes. In fact, as I think about your post.. while this church promotes as liberal and progressive.. its actually extremely conservative in that it does not welcome any change in teaching or members.. and it seems its willing to pay to stay that way. Almost seems the definition of conservative.

Chuck

Popular Posts