I'm glad you mentioned being a member of a Non-denomination church.

I remember watching a program, it may have been Bobby Jones' talk show. Anyway, the panelist mentioned the various denominations and how there are those who have established the "Non-denomination" church. His question was "isn't that a denomination also?"

I thought it was a good question, because I never looked at it like that. I just thought that a group of people chose to worship other than the traditional or non-traditional ways. In a sense, it is a different group, choosing to worship with their own principles, doctrines, etc.

I know this really isn't the subject of the thread, but when I read your response, that question popped into my head.

Carry on...

I do agree with the Education part. Some of the ministers out there were hanging in front of the corner store on Monday, on Wednesday, they are in school, then Thursday, they are ordained and Sunday they open their church on Cook Street. I know, because one colleague did it basically like that and he couldn't preach to my pet ant (if I had one).

Re: Adam, Where are you? (long response)
 

Some of the biased (my bias) reasons I have heard that more men don't go to church:

1. Hypocritical: the usually "male" Pastor says one thing, but is doing quite another. Men generally see things more in "black and white" than women, and they're not very tolerante to see a guy teach "don't fornicate" "don't covet" and then see this is the main guy doing the coveting and fornicating! Other guys are not pleased by the "appearance" of petty backbiting from the men-hungry women that seem to populate some churches. These guys just want to worship and go home--they don’t want to try and “get at” some gal, they don’t want to see short skirts, back-less shirts and other club para some women like to wear to church (you know the gals who booty-hop on sat. and are wailing in the pews on sunday :eek:)

2. Over reliance on "preaching, " not teaching: Generally, men are more likely than women to want to know the "nuts and bolts" of a situation. When you have a minister that is not willing to be challenged, to touch seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, to address misconceptions and empower the congregation, it is a turn-off for many men.

3. Intolerance: I notice this in relationships and other areas: women are generally less likely to carry past baggage with them. I run into men who've had bad experiences in their childhood church, and rather than find a church that fits their adult needs, they label all churches with the same broad stroke and vow to never enter the church's doors again. Women, I guess, we're used to being long-suffering, because we either stay with the church, warts and all, or we find something that's a better fit.

4. Church traditions and infrastructure do not cater to both genders equally: Men do not want to sit in a three-hour church service on a Sunday (for that matter, neither do I). For the black church, Sunday service was a social outlet traditionally--the only time we were able to get together and "TK." While it's still a large part of our lives, it doesn't not dominate our social infrastructure any longer. With both parents working, with our lives squeezed tighter and tighter into the weekends, it becomes difficult to devote in some churches an entire Sunday to the actual service. Men (and women) would rather spend the better part of Sunday doing a “fun” social activity.

5. Emotional context: For most people, their relationship with God is a very personal thing. Attending church requires that you trust your brothers and sisters in God, to sometimes wear your heart on your sleeve, to potentially show emotion and weakness. I think this is hard for men to do. I know men who believe and worship God, but prefer to do so in the privacy of their own homes/lives. They believe that some people in the church will hold their weakness “a’gin’ ‘em” at a later date.

5. Gender equality: When looking for a new church home, I only considered churches that encouraged "women in the pulpit." It is clear that the Bible is certainly written from a patriarchal context, but I don't think that's enough to encourage men to come to church (because many are not “taught” about the Bible in their church anyway). The men currently in the black church should be leading the charge to get "their brothers" to come to church, but often times these guys already in the church "appear" to be ego-maniacal, power-hungry, hypocritical, or hen-pecked (or a bit too much sugar in the tank) and none of these "appearances" are going to get guys distrustful of church for all the reasons (and more) above to start attending.

Standards
 

I have found that one reason that I keep going to church is that it is a spiritual release for me. I think Black men in general have a problem going to church because they are raised in that Black vs. White context. With men it is either yes or no. Right or wrong. So when we backslide(as all people do) men tend to think of it as part of life and do not like the feeling of being judged in church by a pastor that has done the same if not more wrong. Going to church must be ritutal for young black men at an early age. I also think it comes down to how your parents enforce values on you. And in this society boys and girls are taught 2 different set of values. The values that women are taught fall more in line with what the church teaches so logically they will feel more at home.

Sphinxpoet

If the majority of the members are women, it only makes sense to reach out to those members. It's hard to plan events and put together social groups in the hopes that it will attract others because in this process, you can lose the one that you already have.

And, a lot of the time, even if you do plan the events with men in mind, some of them still won't come because of all of the other reasons that you have listed.

I can see validity in some of the points made on this thread in regards to Black men and the Black Church. But, my question is, if you have all of these problems with the Black Church, why not just find another church, with members of any race, where these problems are not prevalent and where you feel comfortable? The problems with the Black Church should not keep away from all churches. This is not directed at anyone in particular.

Dr. Jeremiah Wright
 

Although I missed him on the program, it is wonderful to hear so many kind things about my pastor. He is a theological genius and very on point on issues concerning the African-American Church.

I always say, "If you don't want to hear the truth, then you don't want to hear Rev. Wright!"

I believe you can catch his sermons on the Trinity United Church of Christ broadcasts on the Hallmark Channel or local cable channels.

www.tucc.org.

You straight Classy Lady,

Thats a good point in considering a church... race. But then again, you have to comfortable with the overal atmospere of the church. And there are men who just aren't comfortable going to church period. The problem with finding a church where 'these problems are not prevalent' is that no such church exists on earth IMHO.

However, in order for change to come in the church MEN and WOMEN have to want to change the church. Not just talk about it, BUT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN CHANGING IT. That means that MEN need to start going on a more regular basis (myself included). That's a big step, but once that is taken, I believe that eventually everything else will fall in line.

Unfortunately I missed the first forum, which seems to be drawing the most commentary, but caught most of the second one.

One of the more interesting exchanges was between Carlton Pearson and Jamal Harrison Bryant. The conversation was about Condaleza (sp?) Rice and Colin Powell and the impending War in Iraq. Pearson believes that we should embrace them and not speak negatively of the im public (i.e. "air our dirty laundry") because they have access that have never been given to AA before. He was also quite critical of most of the "established" black leader's reaction to Kirbyjon Caldwell and his relationship to Bush. By the time Bryant and Rev Al got through with him he was spitting nails. He even got into a tit for tat with the audience saying "Who's on this forum, me or you? Shut up!" While I did not agree with most of his comments, I would like to see more diversity in the comments that come from us. We sometimes treat "conservative like it is a 4 letter word.

The group spent a lot of time discussing politics/the war, etc., but disappointed me when they did not address what I felt was a serious theological issues. The Rev. Johnnie (sp?) Coleman, a female pastor from Chicago, gave this rambling monolouge about her "prosperity" ministry and how we did not have to be poor or sick and that if you "work the principles" in the Bible you could be prosperous too. No one ministry on the podium spoke up against this. I think this "name it and claim it", health and wealth theology is one of the most damaging today and could not believe no one said anything to her.

Like someone else said, I'm looking for solutions as well. IF we all agree on the problem, what are we going to do to solve it?

Great Responses
 

I must say that the responses have been most thought provoaking.

one one two- I applaud your willingness to admit that the only way the church can be more appealing to black men is if more black men went back to church. One thing that I think black men miss, especially those of us who are are truly sincere in our spiritual growth, is that the church is a social institution with a divine mandate. This means that we are the church!!! The church will only be a reflection of those who choose to be in the church. With all of the valid complaints against it, the church will only get better if those of us who are sincere are willing to put work in to ensure that church remain true to its devine mandate, to be the "salt of the earth" so to speak, forever representing the conscience of Christ to an unconscience world.

Eclipse- you are correct to note the problematic "name it claim it" theology being expoused by Rev. Colemon. I think the issue was addressed pretty well earlier in the first panel, when people like Bishop Noel Jones, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, and Dr. James Cone stressed the need for a thinking church to awaken in the 21st century. They stressed a need for the black church to adapt a more socially liberating hermeneutic in its theology. Also, Dr. Cone talked about the church needing to be more critical of what it called success, and to be more people centered and less self centered. Rev. Colemon's rant in the 2nd panel seemed almost assinine in light of the pleas in the first panel for people to demand more out of our pastors intellectually. I think she did more to discredit herself than anything with that rant about prosperity.

The exchange about Condi Rice and Colin Powell to me was the highlight of the 2nd panel. Especially when the pastor from Detroit stands up and says "What is wrong with you!!!!!" to Rev Pearson. I think he had a valid point, it is not enough to be numbered in the power structure when you are not representative of the best interests of our people. Cornel West notes in his book Prophesy Deliverance that we need to be weary of our "political mainstreamness", seeing as though the "stream" is owned by people who have as their normative value white supremacy. Condi Rice and Colin Powell are in good with Bush not because they are calling for an overhaul of the American political system, but because they are "acceptable" and proove that "acceptable" black folks can "make it" in this society (kinda what Rev. Pearson was saying). This is problematic because these "acceptable" folks don't seem to be responsive to the needs of the masses of "unacceptable" black folks. So what should the church be saying about this? I think the answer is in the statement "What is wrong with you???!!!!":D :D :D

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Good discussion

The Black Curch has issues, but there is nothing "wrong" per se with the Black Church (whatever that is).

Issues:

Role of the Pastor/Minister/Preacher
Too many preachers are uneducated and have a limited scope of knowledge and frame of reference. I an appalled by the nimber of followers many of these unlearned people have. Many preach an unsound doctrine and develop a huge following based on a cult of personality.

Too often a pimp and a preacher are indistinguisable. Thousand dollar suits, Bentleys, a cadre of women on call (ushers, choirmembers, pastor's aids), rings, jewelry. I'm sorry, the more material wealth you flaunt, the less I believe in your ministry

The "it'll be alright, wait on the Lord, suffer like a saint philosophy". Men don't particularly follow this style. Its not proactive, it doesn't take charge, no does it stimulate the intellect. Men like control or at least the appearance of control. Why serve a God that wants us to suffer? If I'm going to give up my will, should I not be rewarded with a lessening of my suffering? I can suffer without religion.

Men experience God differently. All the shouting, raising the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, foaming at the mouth, running the aisles etc will not be experience by men until their intellect is stimulated first. Men don't fear an eternity in Hell, at least, not without an intellectual understanding of how he relates in God's universe. Many preachers are just satisfied with getting shouts of "amen" and "hallelujah" from the synchophants around them to give the congregation meat for daily living rather than pablum for two hours.

Fortunately, there are many bible believing, bible teaching churches whose pastors minister a sound biblical doctrine, unswayed by liberal theology and driven by $$ signs and Holy Ghost Charlatans preaching a drive by, drive through false happiness.

BTW, in the first panel, the two biggest phonies up there were Bishop Paul Morton and Michael Dyson (a phony convicts himself with his own words). Ignore his flowery loquaciousness and his passionate speaking style and what he basically said was that the Bible was meaningless and his intellect supercedes the Word and therefore he could interpret God's word to fit his personal philosophy. How can you serve Jesus when you behave as a Pharisee. I would love to see him debate Cone or Jeremiah Wright.

Why didn't Sis. Vashti answer her question rather than telling us about sexual practices in S. Africa.?

For those that have four hours to spare, the program is available on the C-SPAN website to watch over your computer (if you have RealPlayer, which can be downloaded for free). I am not sure yet, but I think that you can download it to your computer and watch at your convenience.

Michael Eric Dyson
 

Interesting you call into question the notion of liberal theology and point to Dyson as an example of why not to study it. I first encountered the notion of liberal theology when I read some of Dr. King's papers from Crozier seminary. On the surface, liberal theology sounds almost blasphemous in some instances, but if you are truly serious about seeking Truth, then you have to at least consider some of its claims. Dyson is a feminist theologian, in other words, he's sees the Biblical text as a patriarchal document, as he states it is "male centered," and has a "male focused world view". What this means is that the Truth of God may not be represented in passages that seemingly demean the equality and humanity of women. This based on the premise that God is just, and that any unequal treatment of any human being by other human beings is not condoned in the logic of Godly justice. Question for you, Doggeystle 82, What do you propose as the alternative to liberal theology in seeking the truth about God and what the Bible teaches? A conservative reading of the scriptures, a "God said it, that settles it" mentality? Reading the Bible as if it were written in our time, our language, our culture, and our space? This is just not responsible reading of the text, because times have changed, though the Truth of God's love has not. So to truly seek this truth, we must seek to understand how the Truth of the Bible speaks to us today, and not rest in the patriarchal musings of ancient civilizations, which were not of God.

I am not saying explain away the Bible in a sea of post modern mumbo jumbo, but I am saying that truth does not have to come in the language of King James, but in the love of God and the sincere workings of those who do "diligently seek Him".

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Bro. Blackwatch

As for your statement of amending God's word to fit todays times and morals,

God says in Hebrews 13:8 " Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I John 4:1 for people like Michael Dyson who wants to change the Word to fit his(carnal) philosophy, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, wheter they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world".

Colossians 2:8 "beware lest anyone cheat you through Philosophy and empty DECEIT, according to the tradition of MAN, following the basic principles of the WORLD, and not according to CHRIST.

As for this so called patriarchy (a false buzzword used to stir up feminists and male apologists), thus saieth the Lord in Galatians 3:28..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,, male or female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus"

For those who would corrupt the world of God , thinking that they know better than what God has written, to pursue political and socialist agendas rather than God's agenda, Romans 1:22-23 "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man".

All of that is to say that any doctrine that is man first (prosperity, feminism, changing passages, wording, sex) or is set to please or appease man's carnal sensibilities, is false doctrine, and thosee that preach/teach those doctrines are charlatans and apostates. The silvery tongue is seductive and a deceiver and we are very susceptible(sp) to doctrines that either make us feel better or appeal to our personal life/political philosophy. But many of those doctrines are not sound Biblically. If your intellect or that of Michael Dyson's is greater that that of the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Apostles and saints, then more power to you.

There is an intellectual way to discern scripture, but it is heresy to supercede Scripture intellectually. That is the way of the Saduccees, Gnostics, and Epicureans (I believe)

Trouble
 

I know I probably will get screamed on but what is the deal with people speaking in tongues. It seems prevalent in our Black Churches but my point is this. It clearly states in the Bible that when the Disciples of Christ were touched by the Holy Spirit it descended upon them and he disciples were able to go out to the street and people from all countries heard them profess God in the TOUNGE of their native land. The true ability to speak in tongues is the ability to have everyone understand you. I am sorry but nowadays people speaking in tongues do not sound like anyone can understand them. Am I misinterpreting what tongues are supposed to be? Help a brother out!

Sphinxpoet

You are on point, especially with that last statement. Many of the doctrines used in "the church" is MAN'S interpretation/ opinion.

I remember a couple of years ago, there was a thread where you could interview someone no longer with us. My response was Jesus/God. I want to know DIRECTLY what was meant when XYZ was said.

the GC theologian-Reiki !!!!!!
 

I couldn't have said it better myself. God bless you!!!:D

Good point here also. Consider this, Is Truth relative, or our grasp or understanding of it? We are human, fallable, and subject to time, space, culture, history, environment, etc. that all characterize our understanding or interpretation of scripture. Our humaness also gives us "finiteness"-that means we cannot comprehend everything that God is -"infiniteness". So our grasp at Truth has to be checked, not by absoluteness, or the final word of objective truth, because we cannot achieve that, but in the way that our understandings of Truth help us in the ongoing process of human self definition and human self determination. Cornell West put it best in his book Prophesy Deliverance :
"Jesus Christ is literally the Truth, the Truth which cannot be intellectually reified but rather existentially appropriated by finite human beings with urgent needs and pressing problems"

In other words, we can only grasp at all the Truth Christ is, because of our falleness. Our gauge for the effectiveness of our "strivings" or "grasps" has to be if those things we read and interepret from scripture serve a positive purpose in making us better human beings, made "in the image of God"(cf. Genesis 1:24). In this sense, a critical understanding of not only scripture, but human nature, politics, history, and art and how they affect our interpretation of scripture are all important as to ordering our lives for Christ.


Blackwatch!!!!!!