Jerryl Payne writes: >To sublimate a culture for the sake of what you perceive as unity seems >antithetical to the very message of inclusion that you preach.  I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures.  > The body as a whole must be unified. The question is, shall we be a >melting pot, boiling ourselves down to one "legitimate" expression, or >shall we be more like a stew, maintaining the textural integrity of the >expressed diversity while upholding the unity of thought?   It released >all churches from the use of the Latin Mass (unity) to allow them to >speak to the people in the common language (diversity).   In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one congregation in each major city.  So there was one unified church.  Now in each city, there were people of different cultures.  Naturally, they formed something of a stew, with different members having different heritages.  Nevertheless, they were ONE body.  They met together, sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups in places such as the temple courts.  Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a common language associated with that region.  For instance, in Rome, Latin was spoken.  In the United States today, English is spoken.  So it would make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common language and not necessarily Latin.  Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common language.  In the first century church, there were probably many people in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the message for people of foreign ethnic groups.  Today, however, you don't see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called Pentacostal churches.  We do have a modern day equivalent though -- bi-lingual speakers.  Now in the unified church of which I am a member - sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their native tongue.  Neat idea, huh?  Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays, so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish- speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their native language.  In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals.  So someone who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those meetings.  As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep friendships among their church relationships with people of many various nationalities.    >Has the purpose of the church been thwarted by this action?  The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of Latin?  Indeed not!  See my second paragraph in response to the second clipping of your article.  However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted.  I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping.  >Rather I believe it has been enhanced, for Paul exhorts us to become as >one of them that we might reach them. Thus, if a person or group of >people feel more comfortable "among their own", shall we not give them a >place where they can feel comfortable [with their heritage] and still >l[ove God?] {[my guess - Aaron]}  You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't.  Yet you have largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships outside your nationality (and your denomination).  We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their heritage.  However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples.  >This is the approach of some of the groups that you cite.   It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going about things in the wrong way.  And names like the African Methodist Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before.  I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite.  I know that it's hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to make it happen.  However, what might be a smaller step towards unity, would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name.  Then perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church".  >With regard to inclusivity, I note tht your .sig emits from MIT. As you >know, the 'tute is religiously and culturally diversified, and not >everyone who comes there is immediately comfortable with English, much >less American culture. What shall be the conduct of the campus churches >then:  shall there be one church, for the sake of unity? Or shall the >organizations like KCF be useful in helping students new to America make >the transition in culture, language, and thought?  There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful in helping students new to America make the transition in culture, language, and thought.  We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to solve problems.  The whole denominational mindset only causes more problems, sadly.    >In the AME church, we retain African cutlure at the root of our >expression, but we are by no means exclusive. Since you live in >Cambridge, I invite you to visit the local assembly there:  Thank you for the invitation.  That shows me that you indeed have the heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural heritage.  Thank you also for responding to my post.  I know (all too well) how they can be very time-consuming.  The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions, but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same time.  My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish (speaking) Zone.  I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples.  I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because of my understanding of Biblical Christianity.  However, I am certainly willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with my normal worship.  Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like.  You can meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at 9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day. My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and for the rest of the summer.  Our service normally last from 10AM to noon, but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year).    >Let us always strive to reach all with the gospel by any means necessary. >As we move from milk to meat, the petty things of the world that >temporally separate us will dissolve away, and we shall stand with our >naked realizations that God has shed His grace on all of us, His >delightful creation.  Definitely!  Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and women after God's own heart.