A Response to Professor Glaude's:"The Black Church is Dead"

This is my response to the article by Professor Glaude (See  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eddie-glaude-jr-phd/the-black-church-is-dead_b_473815.html) :

Not since Joseph Washington, Jr.’s 1964  text, Black Religion: The Negro and Christianity in the United States,  have I encountered such a misreading of the Black religious experience.  There are five critical points in this conversation as I understand it:  First, as a scholar I would assume that Professor Glaude took account of  three basics factors when he wrote his article:  1) In what publication  will it appear? 2) Who is my target audience(s)?  3) What are the  essential points that I am attempting to communicate?  As such, who is  Glaude reaching via The Huffington Post?       Who is his target  audience and how would they understand his points? Many well meaning  white liberals have not the intellectual background to dissect Professor  Glaude’s article with historical and sociological precision. Hence, the  very title sends a message that is dangerous! We must be  careful about how those outside of the Black experience hear and read  about a culture that is a fetish for them in the first place (just ask  Dr. Jeremiah Wright). Is this a serious effort for a dialogue with the  community at issue or a dance to advance the profile of another elite  cultural critic? Indeed, I am curious about the telos of the article.  Was its aim to advance a dialogue in love with the community at issue or  was its telos simply to provide fame for The Huffington Post’s new  religion section. I pray it was the former, for the latter world be just  another abuse of the Black church for the advancement of corporate  interests.

Second, where does he get the data to back up this  claim: “But the idea of this venerable institution as central to black  life and as a  repository for the social and moral conscience of the  nation has all but  disappeared.”  Did it come from years of in-depth  investigation?  Did he take a survey?  Did he visit anyone of our  churches?  As a scholar there should be some data to back up his claim.   Maybe it is his experience in the Black church.  Has the church of his  childhood or his current congregation stopped its efforts to feed the  poor or visit the imprisoned or sick?  If not from his personal  experience, does he know how many people Black churches around the  country feed on a daily basis?  How many lights are cut back on by  church funds? How many probation letters we write?  How many city  council or school board meetings Black pastors attend in advocacy?  Advocacy is often most effective in its local manifestations.

Third,  Glaude writes: “Or, we are invited to a Financial Empowerment  Conference, Megafest, or some such  gathering. Rare are those occasions  when black churches mobilize in  public and together to call attention  to the pressing issues of our day.  We see organization and protests  against same-sex marriage and abortion; even billboards in Atlanta to  make the anti-abortion case. But where are the press conferences and  impassioned efforts around black children living in poverty, and  commercials and organizing around jobs and healthcare reform?  Bishop  Charles E. Blake Sr., the presiding bishop of the Church of God in  Christ, appears to be a lonely voice in the wilderness when he announced  COGIC's support of healthcare reform with the public option.”  This  statement is so silly I don’t know where to begin!

First, Jakes  (Megafest) does not accept the label of a Black church. Second, Jakes  does not represent the average Black congregation! Basic statistical  research on the membership and financial profile of the average Black  church would have informed Glaude of such.  Surely a scholar of his  brilliance would have known this before printing such. Third, he lifted  up Bishop Blake as a shining example of the path that the church should  take. Yet, he does not recognize that the “Grand Ole Church” and its  leaders are not ordaining women and preaches against “homosexuality”  (while the gay musician plays the Hammond in the background).  As such,  as a scholar his article fails to acknowledge the differences many  churches of color make between “social issues” and issues of “personal  morality”. It is not as simple as a black and white judgment. For every  Jones and Ike, I could point to a Francis James Grimké, Henry Highland  Garnett, etc. This is not to say that Glaude is totally wrong.  I  acknowledge that he has some bits of chocolate mixed in with his manure.  Again, my concern is audience. Last, I would go back to his use of  pronouns. Who is the “we” he is referring to? Is he including himself in  the Black church tradition, and if so, in what capacity?

Fourth,  Glaude misses the local because of his view of the celebrity. There  have been marches planned by ministers of color who are protesting the  proposed layoffs of S.F. school teachers. There were protests and  rallies last year in Oakland over the killings of black youth. There  have been countless conversations with city officials around issues of  funding and education.  There was the march to the Federal Reserve by  Black church ministers led by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Dr. Amos Brown  against the foreclosure crisis. These are just a few examples in one  area. Glaude would not know this because of his view from Princeton.  If  you are not invited to Tavis’ panel you are clearly not important.   Glaude misses that the media chooses what stories to make sexy.

It  must also be kept in mind that it is a political act to feed the hungry  and advocate for the sick in one’s congregation in the midst of poor  urban medical options! I am saddened that the very people attempting to  feed the masses, bury the dead and fight for the oppressed on a daily  basis are never asked to speak to their own reality. Instead, we are  pushed to the background for celebrity scholarship with no daily  interaction with the existential realities of poverty, abuse and  structural injustice.  

Last, I would urge my colleagues to make a  distinction between the modern manifestation of Black cultural  criticism of the church (much of which exhibits a clear negative bias)  and theology. Theology is the church’s self-critique as to its success  or failure in living the mandate of God to be a prophetic witness. One  is to engage in the act with fidelity to its guiding principles of love,  justice and community. I believe that the post-modern academy has  dispensed with the notion of “objective scholarship”. Professor Glaude’s analysis lacked any phenomenological integrity. We are still at a point  in this nation where race and capital are still the twins of the  American ethos.  I think this would be a horrible time to be  reductionist about the institutions that in their imperfection, fought  for people like Professor Glaude to occupy his Chair at Princeton.  I  say this with deep love and respect for a scholar of great note.

==

Rev. Dante Quick is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophical and Systematic  Theology at the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), with a focus on  African-American Studies at the University of Cal., Berkeley. His  studies are focused on the theology of Howard Thurman and the political  philosophy of Ralph Bunche en route to an African-American political  theology.  He is the first Howard Washington Thurman Teaching Fellow at  the American Baptist Seminary of the West.

Click here to visit "QUICK" THOUGHTS, Rev. Dante Quick's Blog