As we began to share in our previous post, Redeemer was moving in a promising direction. We had new leadership and new members. The national church heard about our mission outreach and requested information. Report on Swahili Ministry.

We were stunned to run into trouble with our regional body. They had an image of our congregation that didn’t include multicultural ministry.

In their mind, we were on a timetable for closure. They were waiting for the right moment. And then we grew! Five-fold! But they couldn’t shift gears!

We had attempted to share our successes. They responded to nothing: not phone calls, not letters, not emails. They were waiting for us to die.

At last, a synod staff person shared, “It doesn’t matter what you do, the bishop intends to close your church.”

Months passed and our church continued to grow. At last, a meeting with our bishop was arranged. We took the ministry plan we had worked on for many months. It included our membership list, budget, and stewardship report and a thorough analysis of our current and planned ministry.

We also brought a resolution to call a pastor who had agreed to serve us for five years under the payment terms we offered.

Early in the meeting it became clear that the bishop’s view of our ministry was that we were very few in number and had come up with phantom new members as a way to block closure. She asked everyone to share how long they had belonged to Redeemer. She was visibly surprised when the answers began: “Ten years,” “Seven Years” “Nine Years,” etc.

The tone of the meeting changed. But the image of our church as being ripe for closure was difficult to shake. She asked for our membership list, which we happened to have with us. There were about 70 names on the list. She scanned the list and said, “A lot of these names look African.” She added, “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer . . . we can put them anywhere.” The old ideas kept creeping back.

We were offended at the attempt to divide our membership along racial lines, but we directed the discussion toward our strengths. At last, the bishop relaxed and things started to go in a positive direction. She told us we could work with synod’s mission director. She asked for a bit more information, including our mailing list, and we agreed to supply it. Our members left this meeting in song, confident that progress had been made.

But four months passed with no communication. We felt in limbo. Then we received a letter in the mail declaring us closed.

That was almost four years ago. The issue has been in the courts for three years.

The point of our story is that Multicultural Ministry, while a stated goal of the Church, is not something the Church knows much about. Preconceived notions about our ministry overruled reality.

We found that church leaders can follow a separate but equal mindset — people of other cultures meet at a separate time apart from the rest of the church, with their own leaders and their own budget — perhaps even their own government.

Our ministry didn’t happen that way and it threw the regional body for a loop!

Multicultural Ministry is bound to require flexibility and open-mindedness. You must make allowances. Other people do things differently and if you think people of other cultures are going to flock to your doors and automatically become cookie-cutter Christians  . . . well, you may be in for a surprise!

We’ll talk about the many positives that we experienced and that we believe await congregations willing to exercise creativity and patience in multicultural outreach. But we thought it honest to share up front that the our experience, while overall positive, was not without trials.

We hope you will share your experiences. If you’d like to share a story or guest blog, leave a comment below.