Pure Church

African-American history month began as "Negro History Week" in 1926. Woodson settled on the second week in February because it fell between the birthdays of what he considered the two greatest Americans, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. From the start, there was a recognition that Black history was inseparably tied to American history.

In 1921, Woodson published a study entitled The History of the Negro Church (electronic version here). He outlined and explored the subject as follows:

CONTENTS

I. --Early Missionaries and the Negro . . . . . 1
II. --The Dawn of the New Day . . . . . 23
III.-- Pioneer Negro Preachers . . . . . 40
IV. --The Independent Church Movement . . . . . 71
V.-- Early Development . . . . . 100
VI. --The Schism and the Subsequent Situation . . . . . 123
VII. --Religious Instruction Revived . . . . . 148
VIII. --Preachers of Versatile Genius . . . . . 167
IX.-- The Civil War and the Church . . . . . 185
X. -- Religious Education as a Preparation . . . . . 202
XI. --The Call of Politics . . . . 220
XII.-- The Conservative and Progressive . . . . . 247
XIII. --The Negro Church Socialized . . . . . 266
XIV. --The Recent Growth of the Negro Church . . . . . 286
XV. --The Negro Church of To-day . . . . . 300

Many African-American scholars took considered interest in the Black church, and found there tremendous resources for interpreting the African-American experience. Indeed, doomed is any attempt to understand the history and the ways of African Americans without understanding the predominantly Black church.

Off and on during the month of February, I hope to post some reflections on the history of the African-American church and the prospects for her future. These are reflections on God's glorious providence among a people within a people within in a people. For to discuss African-American Christianity is to focus on a Christian people belonging to the wider Christian family, and to reflect on a citizenry amongst a wider American commonwealth. The immersion and the emergence of African Americans in and from both milieus complicates and enriches the story of African Americans, Christians, and America. It's good for us to pause and reflect on the mysterious ways of God among His people. Thank you, Carter G. Woodson, for calling us to pause and reflect. May the Lord guide and make fruitful our meditations on His wondrous works of providence.

Can I just say that we went from proud to be an American, to feeling totally out of touch with some aspects of youth culture, to aghast at the state of the church. We were tossed to and fro as we watched what we believe to be a historic moment--an African American presidential candidate winning in an almost entirely white state--and as we watched the unregenerate world laughingly celebrate all kinds of debauchery as entertainment--and as we listened to a "pastor" announce his plans to create 500 satellite churches across America! We were exhausted by the time we went to bed.

As is the case with many cultural issues, advocates line up on both sides of the issue. Those who are for the typical Christmas celebrations replete with the big jolly fella and his companions, generally offer the following reasons:

1. "There is nothing wrong with Santa Claus. It's harmless."
2. "Children need myth and story like this to exercise or develop their imaginations."
3. "Children should have fun during the season. They should have something to look forward to."
4. "It's part of our tradition (whether family tradition, cultural tradition, etc.)."

Well, for the almost ten years we have been parents, my wife and I have been on the opposing side of this question. We have endured through years of pressure from our parents--the children's grandparents--to "let them have a Christmas," meaning a tree, Santa Claus, many gifts and the like. Sometimes it was personal--"You had a Christmas! Why can't the baby have a Christmas?" And other times it was solidly defiant. "Well, I don't care what you say. I'm gonna give that baby a Christmas."

Nevertheless, we weathered the grandparent wrath and we have managed to have quiet, reflective Christmas celebrations without ol' Saint Nick. And here is why I think Christmas without Santa is a better way to go for Christians.

1. Imagination. The argument that children need the myths of Christmas in order to fuel their imagination has generally baffled me on two counts. First, they don't seem to need the aid of Father Christmas any other time of the year. Their imaginations are active as they play with dolls, dig in the dirt, imagine themselves to be kings of the realm. For 11 months of the year, the imagination organ works just fine. So, it's curious to me that they should need an aid in the 12th month. But second, and more important, the argument from imagination seems to me to be an admission that Christian parents may have lost the ability to stand in awe of the most wondrous events in all of history. And if the parents have lost that awe, it's little wonder that they don't expect their children to stand amazed at the coming of Christ. I mean Christmas is the time we celebrate the Infinite Creator God, sending His Eternal Son down from eternity into space and time. God entered His creation, indeed, took nine months residence in the womb of a virgin. One fully God and fully man was born, clothed in the likeness of sinful man, lived a perfect life in obedience to the Father, died a scandalous death in love for sinners, and rose from the grave in glory! Imagine that. This is what our children's minds should be fired with. And it's all true! In the end, there is nothing as inspiring as the truth about Jesus!

2. Having Fun. A fair number of parents have, almost in panic, expressed concern that should there be no Santa Claus their children would not have fun at Christmas. And children, they say, need to have fun at Christmas. Generally, the "fun" in mind is the passing pleasure of visiting crowded malls, waiting in long lines to sit on Santa's knees, waiting days and weeks until Christmas morn, and gleefully opening gifts. Only to be bored with it all within a couple days, sometimes hours, after waking to the festival of paper shredding. No doubt Christmas is fun. Even as parents, we get great delight from seeing our children's faces as they rummage through the boxes and gifts. But the implication here is that Christmas without the trappings, Christmas exclusively focused on the birth of the Savior, is boring. The argument implies that there is no anticipation associated with awaiting the celebration of Jesus' incarnation.

But that's surely false where children are instructed in the true meaning of the celebration. My wife and I once had the painful experience of preparing our daughters for "Jesus' birthday." My oldest girl, about four at the time, was greatly looking forward to it. The year before we'd had a small neighborhood gathering for the children where we read the Christmas story, baked a cake, discussed the gospel in celebration of Jesus' birth. She'd had great fun and looked forward to it the following year. The year came around and we decided to spend it with a grandparent, replete with the customary trappings and focus. The day came. So, too, did family and visitors. Presents were opened. Parades paraded. A great dinner eaten. Children played and adults talked. The day came and went. The following morning our daughter asked, "So, when do we celebrate Jesus' birthday? What day is Christmas this year?" The look of deep disappointment--a look that communicated she felt robbed and ashamed--washed over her face as we told her in our most sympathetic voices, "Sweetie, yesterday was Christmas." For our daughter, the day had no fun equal to that of focusing on the Savior and celebrating His birth and mission to save sinners. That was our goal, and we'd abandon it. We felt like wearing bags with "World's Last Spiritual Christian Parents" written on them. Christmas is fun--great fun in the truth--when our children are taught its meaning.

3. "There's nothing wrong with Santa Claus, etc. It's part of our tradition." Sometimes I hear this and think, "My, you doth protest too much." There's a palpable admission in the strenuous way this defense is offered. When I've had this conversation with folks who've taken this defense, it sometimes seems they are troubled by what is perhaps missing in their celebration, but they're perhaps seeking to comfort themselves. And the statement is sometimes more about the parent's desires than it is about the needs of children.

But is there anything "wrong" with a Santa-inspired Christmas? There are possibly three things wrong. When we lived in the Washington, D.C. area, there was a lawsuit over Christmas/holiday decorations filed against a local city council. The filers of the suit specifically targeted the town's use of Santa Claus in the city parade and in other decorations as religious symbolism that violated church and state. The folks filing the suit won. What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong with that picture is that the non-Christians in the suit, and probably many others, thought Santa Claus was somehow connected with the Christian faith. Christ Jesus and the Christian gospel were shrouded in mythology. What may be wrong with Christian participation in holiday myth is that the Truth is lost beneath pagan ideas or light clichés. It's hard to know "He's the reason for the season" if the folks who purportedly follow Him don't publicly and joyously celebrate Him during the season. So, the first possible wrong is that we may miss gospel opportunities with our neighbors and friends.

The second possible wrong is we may indeed be cultural syncretists, blending our faith in the Lord with the celebration of myth and the material festivals of our day. We may raise children who come to find both Santa Claus and Jesus Christ incredulous. For after all, children "grow up." And if "growing up" involves the putting away of childish things, and we've somehow lumped Christ in with childish things, then it's not surprising that some become "too grown up" or "too intelligent" or "too scientific" to really consider the Lord of glory. Turning the hearts of our children to a myth when the glorious Lord is available to them may be to eventually turn their hearts to worldliness in its 1,000 flavors. That's what is wrong with good ol' St. Nick.

A third thing that may be wrong, in many ways associated with the issue above. Is it right and what effects might we expect from raising our children to participate long-term in a lie? I've been calling Santa Claus a "myth." But the other word we could use is "lie" or "deception." We sometimes put this in the "little white lie" category, the harmless tall tale. But, it seems to me that there people are sometimes so commitment to this "myth" or "lie" that it's anything but the little white variety. And though children may grow up beyond such fibs (though not without first experiencing the mild trauma and pain of finding out he is not real), what do we teach them about the nature of truth, commitment to and pursuit of it, and ethical behavior with Santa Claus? Is the not so subtle message, "It's okay to believe a lie when it favors or advantages you in some way." Or, "It's okay to tell a lie if we think it will make someone happy." If our children grow up and apply that reasoning to dating, the workplace, marriages, or most any other area of life the results will be painful and sometimes disastrous. If we do the Santa Claus thing with our children, do we take the time to "back fill" their understanding of the nature of truth and morality? Do we honestly think our children at four, five, etc. are able to comprehend moral nuance? Any parent who has told their child to do one thing, only later to be called on the carpet by that child's black-and-white observation of the parent's own failure in that area, knows that nuance is not something children do well. The thing is black or white, true or false. And that should be used to parenting advantage when it comes to raising our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

Our children have grown up to have a wonderful, imagination-engaging, fun Christmas without Santa Claus. And scores of children whose parents make Santa Claus a part of their Christmas celebration have also grown up to have wonderful memories of Christmas and to serve the Lord faithfully. And there are tons of children in both camps that have not had great celebrations.

I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine.

When I say "very nervous," I mean very nervous. It strikes at the "in-betweenness" of being African-American and "evangelical," "Christian," "conservative" and a host of other labels one might apply. It strikes at a certain inescapable identification with a real history with real triumphs and valleys. Both the triumphs and the valleys are real, and so those who've climbed the peaks and tumbled through the lows are reacquainted with both exhilaration and "the agony of defeat."

And let's face it, "the agony of defeat" is real agony. I've not fought against sin until the point of blood, but I tell ya, when I look at those who have gone before me in the fight (physical, psychological, economic and not just academic) I tend to think they've come closer than anyone else to such striving. So, perhaps I'm nervous because this decision not only conjures that history and striving but it may signal a new era... one in which I'll have to ante up and kick in like a man... and strive. Or more frightening still, an era where mine will be "the little brown girl" whose application reads in red letters "DENIED" because of the color of her skin.

None of us have come so far as to safely conclude that racial or ethnic discrimination lies well behind us... or rather, doesn't lurk in us. That makes me very nervous. Simply put, man is too depraved for anyone to rejoice over this decision as though we may safely assume its application and the reality that follows will without striving be an unparalleled success. Some of us may get what we want and find that leanness has entered our own soul and the soul of the country. So, again, I'm made nervous.

And I think in this decision a tremendous challenge is laid before the Church. As has frequently been said, the church is too often a thermometer rather than a thermostat, measuring and reflecting the temperature of society rather than regulating and setting it. I wonder how the church is reacting to this news? Are my Christian brethren who favor the decision rejoicing inside the halls of the church? Are my Christian brethren who oppose this decision planning their counter-insurgence inside the Sunday school rooms of the church? Are the indifferent aware that this has anything to do with the church?

If it's true that the church often mirrors the wider culture, what can the church expect to see in itself following this decision and the attitudes, actions, policies and implications that result from it?

Might there be more segregation? Will "whites only" and now "blacks only" and "Asians only" signs be posted over the doors of churches?

Might there be more room for "preferring our own" that makes tolerable and even desirable the continued, further, or more entrenched ethnic separation in Christianity?

What of a church's desire to pursue ethnic diversity in its membership and staffing? Will that come to be seen by well-meaning but perhaps more cultural than biblical members as a "bad" thing, impermissible by the rules of society?

How will this affect cooperation between churches? Is there more balkanization to come, as certain ethnic churches construe their missions in more ethnically singular ways?

On June 5, 1910, Dr. Francis J. Grimke delivered a sermon called "Christianity and Race Prejudice." It's a clear, categorical denouncement of the coexistence of race prejudice and Christianity. In it, he makes this observation:

I don't know how accurate Grimke's words are for churches today. I suspect that it applies in still too many cases, though much (oh, praise God, so much!) has changed. And yet, I'm nervous because there is something too "the more things change, the more they stay the same" about the recent decision and the state of the church.

I love the church. I love the royal priesthood that Christ bought with His own blood. I love that new humanity comprised of every nation, language, etc. I love that she displays to the heavens the manifold wisdom of God. I love that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, etc.

And, so, I'm made nervous for the Bride of Christ who appears to me too easily satisfied with the world's notion of ethnic progress and and the world's ethnic social rules. I'm nervous for her because already among many of my dearest brethren in Christ there is a palpable fatigue when it comes to these issues. I am nervous we'll take the easy road, the wide path, rather than the narrow and high road leading to the heavenly city and the increasing experience of it in this life. I'm nervous that too many of us will continue to mistake the easy familiarity of shared cultural background with the "natural" way things are meant to be rather than long for the supernatural way things are in Christ.

I'm not afraid... for Christ is victorious in all things, and His church will meet Him spotless with all the righteousness of His perfect sacrifice and life. Yet, this may signal (or be a reminder) to the body of Christ that our witness in this area is needed more than ever. We need to live out the accomplishment and victory of Christ in this area so that the power and hope and righteousness of the Gospel would be seen more clearly by all.

What we need now are not public celebrations or demonstrations originating with the church and Christians, but a public living out of the Gospel across the boundaries of ethnicity, gender and class in such a way as to make our unity in Christ undeniable and attractive. It's a good time to inspect our hearts and our churches.

Will the rule of the U.S. Supreme Court be overturned by the rule of Christ in His Church?

How, now, will we really live?