Are Churches Still Racially Segregated Today? (What Has Changed Since the 1960s)

[OLD SARGE]

Better to have no music than to split a church over it. Listen your favorite genre on the way in and then come in to worship in the Word. Not a reason to split. We could go back to Gregorian chants. We already have some songs that were Christian rock in the 70s like There Is A Redeemer written by a Pentecostal. The one you hate today will be in the Baptist Hymnal in 20 years. Some old hymns contain doctrinal error or encourage false images like Mansion Over The Hilltop making people think we are going to get a building like Tara. So sing what you like at home to maintain unity to accomplish the main mission of the Church. We are spoiled children. Amazing Grace was once CCM and was bashed because of the African tune. Now, it is the Global Anthem of the Body.

Are All The Godly Songwriter's Dead?

Are All The Godly Songwriters Dead?

Do you like good music? Do you know what it is?

sermoncentral.com

Give me chapter and verse that says anything about the method in giving. Maybe no checks, only cash. That is another carnal issue created by man. Give and let God sort out the method issue at the BEMA. If you split over that, you are carnal.

Actually, we do not need age groups. Indeed, that is buying into what the Communists use to indoctrinate children to revel in their peer groups rather than look to the older generation for wisdom. The one room school house helped build the greatest generation because the older learned to care for the younger and the younger looked up to the older. Sunday School as started by Roger Raikes in England was literally school that met on Sunday so that the kids that had to work during the week could learn the 3 Rs. It was not a discipleship program. A devotion was given, but the primary purpose was to tutor and prevent illiteracy and other ignorance. We brought it over here and messed it up. As men are to be the primary teachers of children in the ways of God our SS teachers should be males or husband and wife teams with the man giving the training and the wife giving nurture to the kids. Since the Fed has lowered adulthood to 18 once a child hits 18 they should be promoted to the adult classes. Yes, they are in their teens, but they are adults and that can and has created problems. If a lad impregnates his 17 year old girl friend at camp or during a lock down the church could be held liable for allowing the situation that ended in statutory rape. Civil suits as well as criminal charges could be made. One church allowed a pregnant teen to stay in the youth group and there was a rash of teen pregnancies possibly influenced by that pregnant teen.

If you want a junior church, fine, but we need to either dump Sunday School or do a complete revamp. If parents want their kids in the main service that was how it had always been until we messed up Sunday School.

 

[OLD SARGE]

Better to have no music than to split a church over it. Listen your favorite genre on the way in and then come in to worship in the Word. Not a reason to split. We could go back to Gregorian chants. We already have some songs that were Christian rock in the 70s like There Is A Redeemer written by a Pentecostal. The one you hate today will be in the Baptist Hymnal in 20 years. Some old hymns contain doctrinal error or encourage false images like Mansion Over The Hilltop making people think we are going to get a building like Tara. So sing what you like at home to maintain unity to accomplish the main mission of the Church. We are spoiled children. Amazing Grace was once CCM and was bashed because of the African tune. Now, it is the Global Anthem of the Body.

Are All The Godly Songwriter's Dead?

Are All The Godly Songwriters Dead?

Do you like good music? Do you know what it is?

sermoncentral.com

Give me chapter and verse that says anything about the method in giving. Maybe no checks, only cash. That is another carnal issue created by man. Give and let God sort out the method issue at the BEMA. If you split over that, you are carnal.

Actually, we do not need age groups. Indeed, that is buying into what the Communists use to indoctrinate children to revel in their peer groups rather than look to the older generation for wisdom. The one room school house helped build the greatest generation because the older learned to care for the younger and the younger looked up to the older. Sunday School as started by Roger Raikes in England was literally school that met on Sunday so that the kids that had to work during the week could learn the 3 Rs. It was not a discipleship program. A devotion was given, but the primary purpose was to tutor and prevent illiteracy and other ignorance. We brought it over here and messed it up. As men are to be the primary teachers of children in the ways of God our SS teachers should be males or husband and wife teams with the man giving the training and the wife giving nurture to the kids. Since the Fed has lowered adulthood to 18 once a child hits 18 they should be promoted to the adult classes. Yes, they are in their teens, but they are adults and that can and has created problems. If a lad impregnates his 17 year old girl friend at camp or during a lock down the church could be held liable for allowing the situation that ended in statutory rape. Civil suits as well as criminal charges could be made. One church allowed a pregnant teen to stay in the youth group and there was a rash of teen pregnancies possibly influenced by that pregnant teen.

If you want a junior church, fine, but we need to either dump Sunday School or do a complete revamp. If parents want their kids in the main service that was how it had always been until we messed up Sunday School.

 

[Van]

Are you saying that we should erase any copy of the movies or not let them have the parts anymore?

No matter which way you slice it, you are erasing them from the picture. The solution is to let the actors who made their living acting in the movie have their moment, same as you let any other actor have theirs. Are you trying to tell me that we are racist against white people because of the way the wife was portrayed in Green Acres or how about Jerry Lewis? The three stooges? The Marx brothers? Abbot and Costello? It certainly is shameful how we treated those white races too. How about reparations for them too!!

On second thought, you’re right. This really is a dumb idea and we should stop wearing our feelings on our sleeves. Our past generations knew how to laugh at themselves and make a living trying to get people to laugh at them too. It’s about time we grew up. How old are we anyway?

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

 

[Ben1445]

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

There is a lot of work that those actors were paid to do. They were not enslaved and forced to do those jobs. It was their dream and to ascribe someone’s American dream to enslavement is an insult to the work they put into their lives and careers. Did they have difficulties? Sure. Every person does. But to say that nobody can overcome the difficulties without recognizing them is ridiculous. I don’t have to know how everyone for the past 1,000 years might have thought to figure out what has value today and make a living. If you want to solve the problem, stop inserting it into every facet of life. Only deal with it when it is a problem, not when you think it was a problem 100 years ago. 100 years ago, it wasn’t nearly as much a problem as it is today. Today we are trying to relive the problems other people have already solved. It is foolish to allow yourself to be ruled by the feelings of others.

 

[JesusFan]

YES, IN MY COUNTRY INDIA. So many churches are running on caste, groups, tribes.. very sad to see this. I saw practically this face in churches. Religions are also with the ranks. Big religion, small religion.. Cast system made people divisions of groups.. People and preacher are blinded with religious and caste groups ,.. I think they are not born again christians..

Interesting about India is we all assume it to be a Hindu only nation, yet are there not also millions of Muslims there?

 

[Van]

There is a lot of work that those actors were paid to do. They were not enslaved and forced to do those jobs. It was their dream and to ascribe someone’s American dream to enslavement is an insult to the work they put into their lives and careers. Did they have difficulties? Sure. Every person does. But to say that nobody can overcome the difficulties without recognizing them is ridiculous. I don’t have to know how everyone for the past 1,000 years might have thought to figure out what has value today and make a living. If you want to solve the problem, stop inserting it into every facet of life. Only deal with it when it is a problem, not when you think it was a problem 100 years ago. 100 years ago, it wasn’t nearly as much a problem as it is today. Today we are trying to relive the problems other people have already solved. It is foolish to allow yourself to be ruled by the feelings of others.

If you are saying we today do not need to address current problems that are the legacy of the past, I disagree. If you think I was addressing the choice of portrayals by non-white actors in the past, you have missed the message.

 

[Ben1445]

If you are saying we today do not need to address current problems that are the legacy of the past, I disagree. If you think I was addressing the choice of portrayals by non-white actors in the past, you have missed the message.

I don’t think the things you itemized as a legacy of systemic racism are accurately included in that idea.

 

[Natha]

Interesting about India is we all assume it to be a Hindu only nation, yet are there not also millions of Muslims there?

India is with more than 1500 millions people.. near 80% Hindus (idol worshipers), 17% Muslims, 2.4% is Christians (including Catholics)..
In every religion there is the caste system.. Even they are accepted Christ, they are not fully born again people. So they are still divided by caste in churches too.. prosperity gospel and false gospel is encouraging the people to keep cast system and all..

 

[JesusFan]

India is with more than 1500 millions people.. near 80% Hindus (idol worshipers), 17% Muslims, 2.4% is Christians (including Catholics)..
In every religion there is the caste system.. Even they are accepted Christ, they are not fully born again people. So they are still divided by caste in churches too.. prosperity gospel and false gospel is encouraging the people to keep cast system and all..

When biblical Christianly is taught and lived though, caste system will get torn down

 

[Van]

I don’t think the things you itemized as a legacy of systemic racism are accurately included in that idea.

Please contribute some meat, as posting "taint so" may enable ignorance. I believe the legacy of our past fuels our racial divide of today. Ever hear a democrat say "they want to put you back in chains" or "they want to impose Jim Crow 2.0? Ever see protesters destroy police cars or buildings because they think of the police as the arm of suppressors, not protectors? On the other hand, familiarity produces unity, as I have worked with people over time, and soon they become just "Joe" or Ed" and their differing appearance does not even register in my mind.

 

[Ben1445]

Please contribute some meat, as posting "taint so" may enable ignorance. I believe the legacy of our past fuels our racial divide of today. Ever hear a democrat say "they want to put you back in chains" or "they want to impose Jim Crow 2.0? Ever see protesters destroy police cars or buildings because they think of the police as the arm of suppressors, not protectors? On the other hand, familiarity produces unity, as I have worked with people over time, and soon they become just "Joe" or Ed" and their differing appearance does not even register in my mind.

That is why people who destroy property and break laws should be arrested. It keeps the playing field level. It is not racism, it’s personal responsibility.
I don’t have to declare racism in the past to virtue signal in the present. Your virtue signaling is including some people’s work into racism that was never meant to be racism. It was meant to be comedy. But if you want to have feelings of guilt every time you watch a movie that has someone who is not white, you go right ahead. It is illogical, but I don’t have to live with your California ideology. You keep it.
If people are ever going to get beyond racism, they are going to have to stop magnifying it. The more air time you give it, the more popular it becomes. You won’t cure it, you’ll continue to establish it. But you can buy into the narrative that recognizing it is a good thing. Please don’t propagate the narrative. It is motion in the wrong direction.

 

[Van]

Hi Ben1445, there is no point in continuing. You seem to think you support "taint so" by claiming my view is virtue signalling.

If you believe in systemic racism, would you sit with your own people, or with those that knowingly or unknowingly look down on your? If we look at movies from the 1930's and 40's we usually see a brief supposedly comic relief bit with a superstitious black, who rolls his eyes, and is afraid of his shadow. Even pretty good movies, like Pride of the Yankees, are marred with such sequences. No need to mention Charlie Chan!

We will not overcome our legacy without overt action, in light of those whose life and political party are based on promoting reverse discrimination.

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

 

[Ben1445]

Hi Ben1445, there is no point in continuing. You seem to think you support "taint so" by claiming my view is virtue signalling.

If you believe in systemic racism, would you sit with your own people, or with those that knowingly or unknowingly look down on your? If we look at movies from the 1930's and 40's we usually see a brief supposedly comic relief bit with a superstitious black, who rolls his eyes, and is afraid of his shadow. Even pretty good movies, like Pride of the Yankees, are marred with such sequences. No need to mention Charlie Chan!

We will not overcome our legacy without overt action, in light of those whose life and political party are based on promoting reverse discrimination.

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

Like I said, you may continue to see ghosts wherever you like. Don’t push them on everyone else.
You are not adding anything with your ‘‘tis so” answers.
If I see racism in the present, I will address it where it is helpful. (Yelling at the news on tv does nothing.)
I’m not going to sit around with my focus in the wrong place moping about the history books.
History (taught) is recognition enough to keep us from repeating the past.
Guilt tripping is enough to make us repeat the past.
If you feel like you have to have the last word, go ahead. It won’t make you right.
You appear to be fostering the reverse discrimination.

 

[Van]

Like I said, you may continue to see ghosts wherever you like. Don’t push them on everyone else.
You are not adding anything with your ‘‘tis so” answers.
If I see racism in the present, I will address it where it is helpful. (Yelling at the news on tv does nothing.)
I’m not going to sit around with my focus in the wrong place moping about the history books.
History (taught) is recognition enough to keep us from repeating the past.
Guilt tripping is enough to make us repeat the past.
If you feel like you have to have the last word, go ahead. It won’t make you right.
You appear to be fostering the reverse discrimination.

Folks, this post addresses me and not to topic. Nuff said

If you believe in systemic racism, would you sit with your own people, or with those that knowingly or unknowingly look down on your? If we look at movies from the 1930's and 40's we usually see a brief supposedly comic relief bit with a superstitious black, who rolls his eyes, and is afraid of his shadow. Even pretty good movies, like Pride of the Yankees, are marred with such sequences. No need to mention Charlie Chan!

We will not overcome our legacy without overt action, in light of those whose life and political party are based on promoting reverse discrimination.

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

 

[Ben1445]

Folks, this post addresses me and not to topic. Nuff said

If you believe in systemic racism, would you sit with your own people, or with those that knowingly or unknowingly look down on your? If we look at movies from the 1930's and 40's we usually see a brief supposedly comic relief bit with a superstitious black, who rolls his eyes, and is afraid of his shadow. Even pretty good movies, like Pride of the Yankees, are marred with such sequences. No need to mention Charlie Chan!

We will not overcome our legacy without overt action, in light of those whose life and political party are based on promoting reverse discrimination.

We (Americans) certainly have not erased Enslavement from our history, nor its legacy of division and strife. Only a member of the "cancel culture" would seek to "erase" the racist depictions in our old movies, rather we need to recognize the legacy of Enslavement when we see it, not only in old movies, but in our currant culture. Reverse discrimination does not diminish the legacy, it actually fosters it.

I don’t believe in systemic racism. Slavery was abolished and human traffickers still have to hide their crimes. Discrimination by race religion etc. is against the law and therefore not systemic. You no longer have a valid premise.
This is a concise statement of everything I said before that you felt was a personal attack. The rest is because I can’t stand it.
Yes, I called out your personal race discrimination peddling. I’m tired of hearing about it. If you feel like reparations need to be made, make them and keep your socialism to yourself. I don’t feel the necessity to change the past or relive the past or whatever mysterious action you feel is necessary. Do you have a solution for the problem you think we have, share it. Otherwise, you are pushing people like me away from the discussion and not helping your self righteous cause that I am not convinced is really a problem.
But you will inevitably post the same thing again because you have nothing solid to add to the conversation.

If you feel like you have to have the last word, go ahead.

Yes, I changed my mind. I’m not ready to let it go yet.

 

[Van]

I don’t believe in systemic racism. Slavery was abolished and human traffickers still have to hide their crimes. Discrimination by race religion etc. is against the law and therefore not systemic. You no longer have a valid premise.
This is a concise statement of everything I said before that you felt was a personal attack. The rest is because I can’t stand it.
Yes, I called out your personal race discrimination peddling. I’m tired of hearing about it. If you feel like reparations need to be made, make them and keep your socialism to yourself. I don’t feel the necessity to change the past or relive the past or whatever mysterious action you feel is necessary. Do you have a solution for the problem you think we have, share it. Otherwise, you are pushing people like me away from the discussion and not helping your self righteous cause that I am not convinced is really a problem.
But you will inevitably post the same thing again because you have nothing solid to add to the conversation.


Yes, I changed my mind. I’m not ready to let it go yet.

Thanks for actually stating your position. I disagree, but without candor the chance for improved understanding of God's word is not very big.

The issue is not that you do not believe American culture is systemically racist, the issue is the impact that view has on those who believe the claim is true. When you see rioters burning police cars, do you rule out that they, at least some of them, do believe the claim that American culture is systemically racist. Certainly dozens of Democrats, many of them Black, have made the claim. Could not some who heard believe?

I do not know why professing Christians, who purport to seek truth use against the person argumentation. When a poster uses the well known logical fallacy to bolster their posts, our only conclusion is they are deceivers, not messagers of truth.

 

[Ben1445]

Thanks for actually stating your position. I disagree, but without candor the chance for improved understanding of God's word is not very big.

What?

The issue is not that you do not believe American culture is systemically racist, the issue is the impact that view has on those who believe the claim is true.

So I have to believe what is not true to satisfy a bunch of juveniles ( who might even be senior citizens) because if I believe something contrary to them they will riot?

You keep “attacking me” for not stating my point. (Don’t worry, you haven’t hurt my feelings yet.) I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

When you see rioters burning police cars, do you rule out that they, at least some of them, do believe the claim that American culture is systemically racist.

So what? It doesn’t begin to justify what they are doing. It should not be a consideration.
If you want to end systemic racism, it needs to be taken out of the system. They should stop teaching communism in the school system. The media should stop pushing it in their system.

Certainly dozens of Democrats, many of them Black, have made the claim.

That was a racist thing to say. What does melatonin have to do with the moral functioning of the brain? Maybe it’s just you who is systemically racist?

Could not some who heard believe?

So if they heard on tv that the country is systemically racist, it’s okay to riot?

I do not know why professing Christians, who purport to seek truth use against the person argumentation. When a poster uses the well known logical fallacy to bolster their posts, our only conclusion is they are deceivers, not messagers of truth.

So you seem to be the deceiver propagating the well known logical fallacy that the country is systemically racist. You mentioned “a poster.” This was directed at me instead of the subject. At least hold your own standards.
You are defending yourself. Stop defending yourself and start defending your ideas. You will have an easier time being slow to be offended.


You yell at everyone for attacking you but you don’t actually listen to what they are saying. You make statements and we know that they come from you. Your name is above your statements.
When we address you, it is because you said something. If you want an official debate, go to Oxford or host it yourself. This is a forum not a debate.
It’s nothing personal.

 

[JonC]

I can't read the full article, but my guess would be that some churches are segregated and some are not. I think this because cultures and communities are different and people tend to gather around what is familiar (NOT because of racism, but I think this could be the case with some as well).

So my answer is the OP is basically unanswerable. If we say "yes" or "no" we have to exclude too many congregations from the grouo "churches" as a whole.


So I will answer for my church - No, we are not segregated.

 

[JonC]

I'm just curious - (I have not been in a High School lunch room in years) but do students of the same race tend to sit together at lunch? Are there any public school teachers here that could answer that question?

From what I have seen, and from what I have been told (my wife works in a public high school) they tend to divide into groups but not based on race. Friends tend to sit together. At one table the ethnic group is diverse, but they seem to have the same interests (sports, music, video games, etc).

 

[Salty]

Thanks Jon -
Actually when I was in HS - of about 1500+ students -about 99% of the school was Caucasian.
The only division we had was that 9 &10 graders ate in lunch room I and the Juniors & Seniors ate in Lunch Room II.