Preacher Pays Whites to Attend Mostly Black Church

[Rooster_Ties]

A preacher in Shreveport, La., says he's

willing to pay whites to attend services at his

predominantly black Baptist church.

(ABCNEWS.COM)

Paid Parishioners

Preacher to Pay Whites to Attend His Predominantly Black Church

S H R E V E P O R T, La., Aug. 1 -- Bishop Fred Caldwell says Jesus never intended for his Shreveport, La., church to be exclusively black, so he plans on paying whites to come to mass.

"There's a need for diversity in the body of Christ and especially on Sunday morning, we need to look like the kingdom of God. I don't think at this point we're there."

Caldwell says he will pay whites $5 per hour to attend Sunday services at Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church and $10 an hour for the Thursday service.

"People get paid to go a lot of places, we might as well at church," Caldwell said.

Caldwell said the idea to encourage whites to attend his church in exchange for money came to him while he was looking out at his parishioners during his Sunday sermon.

He says the predominantly black community at Greenwood Acres is largely supportive of his unconventional attempt to expand the diversity of the congregation.

"We have a few that are not agreeing with it, don't necessarily see the vision. As they stick around they'll probably see the vision," Caldwell said. "We need to reach all people."

Since news of his plan got out, the calls started coming in from people interested in finding out more.

Caldwell says some of the calls were from people who didn't want the money, but were just happy to be invited.

Caldwell says he expects those who come for the payoff to return for the word of God and not a five-spot in the future.

"When they get here, they will hear the word of God, which brings faith because faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God," Caldwell said. "It will get the audience I believe that really needs to hear the gospel and they will go out and in turn, tell others," he said

The white visitors who want to be paid will have to register when they attend Greenwood Acres. Caldwell says he will pay them from his pocket and enlist the help of the congregation if needed.

The preacher says he plans to put out more chairs in his church this Sunday.

==========

Another good quote, from another version of the story...

The chairman of the religion department of the local college, Professor Peter Huff, says Mr Caldwell has identified a serious problem.

"He's hit on the problem.  All of the best motives have not been able to overcome the racial divide," he says. "Just showing people that racism conflicts with the gospel seems not to be enough."

And another quote, from yet another version of the story, from the same local professor...

Evangelization strategies in many churches often have “bordered on bribery,” said professor Peter Huff, the chairman of the religion department at Centenary College in Shreveport.  He agreed with Caldwell in saying that joint activities between white and black churches rarely work out in the long run.

And leave it to all the national media outlets to leave out one important detail...

"It's a special offer for August only, in the name of diversity and the good Lord himself."

Which I found on-line, in a version of the story from the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia.

==========

Bishop Fred Caldwell is offering to pay

white people to attend his church in

Shreveport, Louisiana. Criss Williams is

one of the few white members.

Bishop: I'll pay white people to attend my church

Friday, August 1, 2003 Posted: 12:04 PM EDT (1604 GMT)

(CNN) -- Bishop Fred Caldwell of the Greenwood Acres Full Gospel Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana, has a pretty radical idea to diversify the largely black congregation of his church.

This month, Caldwell is going to pay white people to attend his sermons. It's five bucks for a Sunday service, 10 for a Thursday service. And the idea is already stirring up controversy.

CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien spoke with Bishop Caldwell from Shreveport on Friday morning. Joining him was one of the few white members of the church, Criss Williams.

O'BRIEN: Bishop Caldwell, let's begin with you. How is the attendance right now in the church, overall, black people and white people?

CALDWELL: Well, attendance overall at Greenwood Acres Full Gospel is great. We have very few white members, but overall it's a super great church.

O'BRIEN: How many white people are in your church?

CALDWELL: In attendance on a regular basis maybe about five or six.

O'BRIEN: Five or six people; and you have a couple thousand members, right?

CALDWELL: Well, five or six white people. Basically, predominantly 99.9 percent are black or African-American congregation. Only about five or six white people on a continuing basis.

O'BRIEN: So it sounds like you've got great numbers in the church as it is. It's obviously not a filling the seats kind of thing. Why would you want to pay white people to come into the church?

CALDWELL: Because this area basically is polarized and we need to mix it up. And so $5 is good fishing bait.

O'BRIEN: Criss, did you get paid $5 when you came to the church and do you think it's going to work?

WILLIAMS: No, I didn't get paid, not monetarily. I've received spiritual blessings ... that benefit my life in much more valuable ways to me. I think that it will work. They will come. I think that a lot of secular organizations and businesses already use incentives and promotions to draw people in to hear what they have to offer. Once they're there, then it's up to them to determine whether or not they want to receive what's offered.

And I think it's no different from that. In that light, God made everything. He made money. And for a bishop to utilize that resource to draw people to the kingdom of God is a wonderful thing.

O'BRIEN: Bishop Caldwell, we don't have a ton of time, but I've got two quick questions for you.

First, why is Thursday more valuable than Sunday?

CALDWELL: Well, Thursday is more valuable than Sunday simply because people are working and it might take a little bit more extra effort. And then on top of that, they'll probably get paid, $10 an hour is not bad. It's probably better than maybe McDonald's or Burger Kings would pay.

O'BRIEN: Finally, you've heard the criticisms, right? I mean at the top of the story here we played some tape. And there are some people who say truly there are a lot of people in your area who could use that money or you could take it and help out poor people who really need it, not paying off white people to come to church.

How do you answer that?

CALDWELL: I answer that, Judas Iscariot said the same thing to Jesus, that money should be taken and given to the poor. That argument is always out there. The people that are saying it I doubt very seriously if they're taking their weekly paycheck and giving it to the poor. So let's just cut to the chase. America needs to come together and the kingdom of God especially needs to look like the kingdom of God on Sunday morning and that's what we're striving to do.

Edited August 3, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[jazzbo]

Wow, getting paid to go to Church. . . I'd be a millionaire by twenty if that had been in place fifty years ago!

I grew up in an integrated church, my dad the white preacher and a predominantly black church (and neighborhood.) Sure wasn't Baptist though. They'd have to pay me a lot. . . .

Edited August 3, 2003 by jazzbo

[DrJ]

The intention seems earnest and good here, but honestly this just sounds plain silly, another great example of why people from other parts of the world look at the U.S. these days and just shake their heads. Any white person who goes to a "black" (whatever that means) church because they're being paid (rather than just because they're interested) is probably not committed enough to de-polarizing race relations to make the effort anything more than...well, a light news piece.

[Rooster_Ties]

Well, I think I'm beginning to like this bishop's idea more and more -- the more I read about it. It seems like a genuine effort to reach across the racial divide, albeit through some rather unconventional means.

I had my doubts at first, reading only the first article from ABC and also another one from AP. But then when I saw that it was an offer only good for the month of August -- so we're talking only four Sunday's here -- I thought this was kind of a cool idea to say to whites "Hey, you're really welcome here, and we're not kidding".

At the very least, it certainly is a creative idea, and I gotta give some props for that!!

Edited August 3, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[AfricaBrass]

I think it's a great idea. I don't believe people would take money to attend his church, but for him to make that offer is a real gesture of goodwill. My guess is that he'll get a lot of visiters who don't take the money. If I lived in that area, I'd visit his church just because I knew that I was welcome there. I have a great deal of respect for the Bishop reaching out to other races. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people who avoid people because of fear, and this kind of act is the kind of thing that brings people together.

:rsmile:

[DrJ]

Guess I'm just cynical, but offering money cheapens the deal for me. Smacks of a publicity ploy (and on that end, it's working).

As far as improving racial relations within a community, it's simply not going to be effective. The people who go are going to be people who are already "converts" or close to it - people who are already committed to eliminating the racial divide. As AfricaBrass appropriately points out, those people don't NEED money. A simple invitation would have done.

By contrast, the folks that really need to be reached aren't going to go, whether you give them $5 or $500. You can't "change" people until they are ready to change themselves.

[Swinging Swede]

How do they decide whether someone is black or white? Where do they draw the line?

[connoisseur series500]

I think it's a great idea. I don't believe people would take money to attend his church, but for him to make that offer is a real gesture of goodwill. My guess is that he'll get a lot of visiters who don't take the money. If I lived in that area, I'd visit his church just because I knew that I was welcome there. I have a great deal of respect for the Bishop reaching out to other races. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people who avoid people because of fear, and this kind of act is the kind of thing that brings people together.

:rsmile:

Glad AB is back and writing sensible posts as usual.

Agree all the way.

I don't think people will accept the money and they will simply feel welcome in the church.

It will help bring people together.

[AfricaBrass]

Thanks Connoisseur!

I understand DrJ's points and agree with them.

It is a great publicity stunt. The bishop is getting more publicity than a simple invitation would have garnered.

It's just nice to see something that brings people together.

:rsmile:

[minew]

How do they decide whether someone is black or white? Where do they draw the line?

They ask Dan Gould.

[Jazzmoose]

DrJ, I agree that it's a publicity stunt, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I'm sure there are people out there who assumed they wouldn't be welcome at an African-American church and will hear this and decide to give it a try. (I agree with the rest of you that it's unlikely anyone will take the money.)

[connoisseur series500]

How do they decide whether someone is black or white? Where do they draw the line?

They ask Dan Gould.

You mean Johnny, don't you?

[Rooster_Ties]

Glad to see you back AB, post when you can!!!

If I lived in his community (anywhere within an hour's drive) - I'm sure I'd be one of the white people who would accept the Bishop's invitation, at least for a service or two, and there's no way I'd accept the $5.

Sure it's a publicity stunt, but not all publicity stunts are bad. In fact, I think there's some chance that this could cause some more discussion - perhaps in other churches (both white and black), in other cities - about race. Sure, not LOTS of churches, but lets say just 20 churches in various cities across the country attempt to do something similar - or different - to specifically invite people of other races to their own 'monochromatic' church. Well, then that's 20 more churches doing something like that, than might have otherwise.

[Dan Gould]

How do they decide whether someone is black or white? Where do they draw the line?

They ask Dan Gould.

You mean Johnny, don't you?

This would be correct, as Johnny believes he has special powers to discern the racial background of people, and he doesn't even need to see them.

[DrJ]

Swinging Swede has hit on the $10,000 question as far as I'm concerned. This type of thinking exhibited by this undoubtedly well-intentioned preacher, beyond the concerns I mentioned above, plays into stereotyping rather than breaking down barriers and calling into question how much one's self-identified external color enters into social, religious, and other choices and behaviors. Place of birth and being raised, early social experiences, parenting, education, socioeconomics, and many other factors play into life choices and behaviors far more than self-identified race does (yes, it's a factor, but not nearly as large a factor as tabloids and the popular press would have people believe). Lon's experiences illustrate that nicely. It's just that in the U.S. everyone has bought into the party line about color being seemingly the MAJOR determinant of seemingly everything.

This issue of self-identified race as a very weak variable in determining a variety of outcomes and behaviors comes up in some well-intentioned but ultimately misguided medical "research" too lately, that purports to disclose differences in drug responses between "black" and "white" patients without defining that beyond self-identification (which may be useful from a social science standpoint for sure but don't say a whole hell of a lot about varying response to drug metabolism based on genetics!). The differences in "black" and "white" are so small (and sometimes nonexistant) that when they do exist, they are most likely representative of statistical chance. A slippery slope built on pseudo-science, one which could end up with ridiculous conclusions such as "black people shouldn't take drug X, which has been shown to reduce mortality from disease Y, because it won't work" when in fact that is not the case for many people who self-identify as black. The "conclusions" of this research merely serves to institutionalize racism in medicine...as does a well-meaning preacher saying "gee, we need more white people from our community in this church."

How about simply, we need more PEOPLE from our community in this church?

Edited August 4, 2003 by DrJ

[Rooster_Ties]

I agree with most of what you've said, DrJ -- and yet, I also think the Bishop's idea is an interesting one, and one that appears likely to bring a small but measurable amount of increased diversity to his church -- even if only for the month of August. First, let me say that I don't suddenly think every mostly 'monochromatic' church should suddenly start literally paying people from other racial background to attend their church.

I think what the Bishop is trying to do was make a bold statement, that people who look different then him are 'very' welcome at his church. So much so, that he is personally willing to make a small payment to those 'different looking people' who actually will attend his church (in August). And, let's not forget that it appears that a majority of the 'white' people (however they're defined) are not even accepting the payments. (I think I heard this on CNN this morning, or at least they implied as much.)

I think where some people are getting caught up in this whole issue (the whole idea of 'paying people to go to church') is that they forget that for the most part, it appears that the payments being offered are really much less important than the statement that is made by reaching out to a race other than what the vast majority of the church is made up of.

As a statement -- in effect saying "we really want to have some different kinds of folks join us in worship", and they want to create a little publicity by putting a really rather tiny amount of money behind it -- as a statement, it does a rather good job of pointing out the sincerity of the offer of welcome.

Yeah, the literal idea of paying people to go to church -- and only paying 'white' people (what ever that is defined as) -- is pretty weird on the face of it. I think it's helpful, though, to look beyond the literal offer, and see what's behind it.

[DrJ]

Well, I hear what you're saying, and there is truth to it for sure. But fundamentally, I think we will probably have to continue to disagree regarding the balance of harm/good entailed by this type of offer. That's cool, though, there is certainly room for diversity of opinion just as there is room for people of all ethnicities/backgrounds! B)

[Rooster_Ties]

Then I think it might be fair to say we agree more than we disagree (you and I, DrJ), at least on the important part of this issue - which (I think) is the part about reaching out to a racial group different than one's own.

I think the "getting paid $5 to go to church" thing is just a publicity stunt (and a pretty creative one at that), and the fact that they might actually pay a few people here and there, is really far less important than the gesture being made in the name of fostering more interaction between people of different races.

Actually, it was just that -- the "reaching across the racial divide" thing -- that made me start this thread in the first place. Yeah, $5 to go to church (but only if you're white) is really weird, and probably 'wrong' on a number of levels. But since the offer is only for one month only, and the monetary amounts are relatively small - I can overlook much of the 'weirdness' of the 'getting paid' part.

Would this whole thing be any easier to take, if the Bishop had offered to donate the same amounts of money to a charity of the white person's choosing??? This would remove the "direct payment for going to church" aspect of the offer, and still be a gesture that might say something similar (about "welcome"-ness) to the target audience the Bishop is trying to reach??

Then again, if the Bishop had done this (the "donation to a charity" suggestion I just made), then would it have gotten nearly the press coverage it's gotten?? And would we even be talking about it now??

For that reason, I think the "publicity stunt" aspect of the gesture -- the outrageous notion of paying anyone to go to church -- is nearly justified.

[DrJ]

No, I actually think we disagree more than we agree - not to quibble, but fundamentally, I believe what this guy is trying to do will lead to far more harm than good - helping to entrench racial divides and in particular playing into a false "black/white" racial dichotomy that not only is misleading (since racial "purity" is mostly a thing of the past) but also ignores a huge segment of the population in the U.S. that doesn't self identify with EITHER of these categories. Black/Asian relations, for example, are often highly contentious (witness the violence against Korean business owners in the LA riots post Rodney King), yet this black/white polarization approach completely ignores that history (and others, such as Black/Hispanic conflict) and says, basically, "the race problem in the U.S. is black/white."

By contrast, you seem to believe the opposite, that he's doing more good than harm.

Don't know who's "right" or "wrong" but that is a pretty fundamental and major difference of opinion, so I don't think it's accurate to say we agree more than we disagree. Again, though, that's cool with me that we disagree, but it has to be acknowledged for what it is, a root diffference.

The issue undergoing debate here was not the importance of race relations - which we both appear to agree is an important one - but whether what boils down basically to a publicity stunt is going to do sh*t in helping to deal with it on a meaningful level. The alternative (charity donation) you propose would bother me just as much as his proposed plan - it's unnecessary and cheapens the whole issue and dialogue as far as I'm concerned.

And again, why is this guy focusing exclusively on white people? What about people of Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, etc descent? And how do we define these categories anyway on a social, every day basis (relating to Swinging Swede's excellent point)? Do they matter? Are we going to start counting the number of light-skinned blacks in the pews, and in which category? It's all just silly in the extreme. In my view, he should simply make an effort to reach out to ALL the people in his community - regardless of self-identified race - with invitations and events that cut across racial and other divides.

So far more harm than good for me in this effort - can't be any clearer than that, and point made I'll move on! B)

Edited August 5, 2003 by DrJ

[Noj]

This scenario is more of an affirmation of the supposed racial divide than an effective attempt at diversity.

I used to be involved at a church called Unity that was very diverse. The people that attend Unity Churches have values that transcend anything racist.

In my experience people tend to make friends with people most like themselves--specific tastes, interests--things they can relate to. Most of my friends are the same dudes I've played basketball against for most of my life, and the others are ones I've snowboarded with for most of my life. I come to these jazz boards to read people chat about something I am specifically interested in.

Perhaps these church-goers can find enough in common in their interest in Christianity to form real bonds beyond the knowledge that the white dude is there for a $5 fee (better be more than $5 in the donation tray!).

[jazzypaul]

Dr. J,

I think you might be missing a valid point in all of your way too P.C. objections to this whole thing: maybe it's a largely black/white community. If I'm this guy, and I don't see too many (if any) asians, arabs or hispanics in my community, why am I going to extend an offer to them? People are dissecting this way too much. This is my take on it...

Head of church sees large community, healthy church community and wants to bring more whites into his church to worship. This is healthy on numerous levels.

1) No matter what, it brings people together. Let's face it, whites are going to show up because they're being welcomed. Very few people will go out of their way for $5, especially if they're not comfortable in the situation. So, if they're showing up, they were more than likely thinking about attending a church, or the publicity behind the stunt got them thinking about it.

2) Even if someone does take the money, it gets them in the door. This guy is doing this because he wants people to hear his message. If they're in the church, they'll hear it. They might not listen to it, but they'll hear it.

3) Curious whites who might be uneasy going into a black neighborhood for once get a chance to see the black community for what it is. A community of black people. Not a community of thugs, rapists and drug dealers. If this gamble pays off, we could see a huge boost in race relations in a place, almost 50 years after the start of the civil rights movement, that still needs help in this regard.

Quit trying to break this down with all sorts of doomsday what ifs, and have some faith in humankind for once. All of this liberal think the worst of everything so the government can create another program crap has got to go. I wish this guy the best.

[DrJ]

jazzypaul said:

if they're showing up, they were more than likely thinking about attending a church.

Exactly my point, my good man. Thus, the whole effort is an embarrassing and insulting waste of time. The latter part of your assertion, which says that the publicity stunt somehow convinced some white person to attend a black church all of a sudden one day, is the part that seems to me a huge leap of faith (pardon the pun). I don't buy it.

Your other points are also all highly speculative. For example, we simply don't know about the racial makeup of this community. However, we do know there are very few communities left in the U.S. that are simply black/white. And those that are simply black/white certainly won't be staying that way for much longer given current demographic trends in the U.S. (something I'm very familiar with from grant-writing).

You may somehow find my views "PC," but frankly I find that to be an uncalled-for value judgement about my views that I think is out of line in what was up until now a dispassionate, intelligent discussion. As only one example of your ludicrous jumping to conclusions about my beliefs and political orientation - who ever said "the government should create some new program" to bring white and black people together? Uh....not me, dude. Glasses might be in order, or perhaps anti-psychotics - those words are nowhere to be found in ANYTHING I posted. If you knew even the FIRST thing about me, you'd know I view that type of thing as largely nonesense, just as I do what this well-meaning but ultimately wrongheaded preacher is doing.

So, while I would never have said it in these terms without being baited, since you played the "let's make this a personal attack" card first: I in turn find your viewpoints naive, uninformed, and unnecessarily blunt...just as this preacher's strategies are. You're also the cynic, my friend - thinking such bullshit, arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic approaches will solve deep-seated problems this country hasn't been able to satisfactorily deal with for literally centuries. Talk about putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound...

Thanks for the fascinating dialogue. I'll be moving on now.

Edited August 5, 2003 by DrJ