To the editors:
I am writing in reference to your article titled "Superchurch" that appeared in the August 7 issue of the Reader. On page 16 I found the end of the first paragraph quite disturbing. You wrote, and I quote, "They're a slice of middle-class suburbia: husbands and wives with small children and toddlers, tanned middle-agers, graying but still vibrant senior citizens, yuppies, swinging singles, even some unaccompanied teenagers." Well that part was fine, but the disturbing part came when you wrote, and I quote, "But few Asians and practically no blacks or Hispanics. And certainly no raggedy types--no homeless, no drifters, and no psychos, for God's sake."
Well, first of all I don't see what point you were trying to make by stating that there were hardly no blacks, etc. I did, however, get the feeling that you felt that the fact that there were no blacks, Asians, etc, was definitely a good thing. Why? Because you decided to put the fact that there were no homeless, no drifters, and no psychos there either in the same paragraph. If I am interpreting this in the wrong way please forgive me. If I am interpreting this correctly, then you are one racist journalist!
Robert McClory replies:
I don't understand how pointing out who was and who wasn't in evidence at the Willow Creek church service constitutes approval or condemnation. By virtue of where it is and the style of worship conducted, the church is obviously trying to attract relatively affluent, white northwest-area suburbanites who feel uprooted religiously and perhaps geographically. I don't see how such observations of fact make me "racist" or "secular."