Is the Black Church Dead?

Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude, Jr. (pictured above) is coming under heavy fire for his recent article proclaiming that the Black Church is dead.

It's easy to see why Glaude makes this pronouncement. As blacks struggle with educational, economic and health care disparities into the 21st century, the response from the church has not been incredibly strong. As Glaude points out:

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.

The question becomes: what will be the role of prophetic black churches on the national stage under these conditions? Any church as an institution ought to call us to be our best selves -- not to be slaves to doctrine or mere puppets for profit. Within its walls, our faith should be renewed and refreshed. We should be open to experiencing God's revelation anew. But too often we are told that all has been said and done. Revelation is closed to us and we should only approximate the voices of old.

Instead, Glaude says, the Black Church is more apt to stage "a Financial Empowerment Conference, Megafest, or some such gathering."

Since the article came out, Glaude has been called "elitist" and roundly criticized.

According to an article in the New York Times:

"I am sick and tired," went an e-mail message from the Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith Sr., pastor emeritus of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland, Calif., "of black academics who are paid by rich, powerful ivy league schools, who have access to the microphone and the ear of the press pontificating about the health of black churches." The e-mail message continued, "None of these second- or third-generation black academics talk to us in the trenches. They are too elitist to talk to us."

Others, though, said Glaude's criticism should be the start of a healthy debate and could be seen as a challenge.

"Eddie Glaude is doing the black church a service," Professor James H. Cone of Union Theological Seminary in New York told the New York Times. "By saying it's dead, he's challenging the black church to show it's alive. But the black church, like any institution, does not like criticism from outside the family. It wants to be prophetic against society, but it does not want intellectuals to be prophetic against it."

Glaude's question is a good one not only for the Black Church but for several religious organizations. It seems that too often the only space for the philosophy of the church is when it comes to issues such as abortion or homosexuality. Even then, those issues are used for one political purpose or another.

For a country where a majority of people say they believe in God, religious dialogue is missing from issues such as health care reform. However, this issue is not new. Even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. faced opposition when he decided to address racial segregation, discrimination and the war in Vietnam.

Instead of dismissing Glaude, the debate should begin. What do you think?