Ethnographers take a risk whenever they select a case for study. We immerse ourselves among people in the hope of yielding significant findings, yet none of us can predict the outcome of our research. The commitment of time, energy, and professional status is enormous, but ultimately we cannot tell ahead of time the exact dynamics in play or the manner of their operation. It reminds me of the "mystery bag" game we played as children. Each of us would reach into a large sack without knowing what was inside and try to guess the contents based on the touch of our hands. Ethnographic sites are mystery bags; researchers have some sense that there is indeed "something" to be found but cannot entirely be sure what it is until a much greater degree of access, observation, and interpretation is achieved.In the case of Oasis Christian Center (Marti 2010), I was certain there were important racial dynamics in this diverse congregation, but the nature of those dynamics could not be ascertained on my initial visits. If the particular demographics of attendees, their storied backgrounds, and the peculiar aspects of their social and economic circumstances fail to conform to an "ideal scenario" of "ultimate" diversity, we might find ourselves disappointed. This appears to be one of the most important aspects of Richard Pitt's critique. In idealizing a type of case study that he believes is most pressing, Pitt desires a different "ideal" case for analysis, a church with black leadership and a clear black dominance that successfully integrates whites into the congregation. While Pitt presents an alternative research question-What can we learn about white integration into black-dominant congregations?-the question is simply not appropriate for my study of Oasis.