The Church - A Diverse Body 3
February 21, 2008
In this last issue in this little series on church diversity I want to ask: “What would a diverse church look like?”
I’ve often said that I believe a church should be a reflection of its community. That would mean that our church here would consist of somewhere around 12% Native American, 4% African American, 2% Hispanic and the rest Anglo. While I think, as a general rule, that is a good goal to shoot for, I also believe other factors should weigh into how we view the diversity of a local congregation. For instance, Native Americans are the largest minority population in the state of Oklahoma (though they will soon be second to Hispanics) and the largest minority population in Sapulpa and Creek County. However, Native Americans are typically quite resistant to the gospel in our state. A very small percentage of the Native American population consider themselves Christian. While we do not take the gospel with us with statistical charts in hand, it wouldn’t not be unusual to find that Native American membership in our church is below 12% - though we have Native Americans in our church. Hispanics, on the other hand, are generally open to the gospel in our state, yet we have no Hispanics in our church.
However, the two groups it seems most unlikely to worship together are Anglos and African Americans. Of course, there is a lot of history there. But the gospel has the power to overcome even history. I believe whites and blacks both have work to do in this area. But as I think about diversity in the local church there is another factor that comes to my mind. Though I’ve heard (recently, and from some white pastors, generally in the Southern US) that African Americans like to worship together for cultural reasons - a particular style of worship - I’m not sure that’s the main reason, if it is a reason at all.
When I was graduating from high school we had our baccalaureate service at a local church. The church was predominantly (if not exclusively) Anglo. My high school was much more diverse. About 50% of my high school’s population was white. Around 40-45% was African American and the other 5-10% was Hispanic and Vietnamese. Our baccalaureate was preached by a history teacher who was also a bi-vocational Southern Baptist pastor, a Louisiana boy in his 50s who pastored a small white congregation in just south Oklahoma City. I was asked to either read some Scripture or pray - I don’t remember which (yes, it was a long time ago). I don’t remember for sure, but I’m fairly certain that there were no black students who were asked to have a part in the program (again, I could be mistaken). But I do know this. There were quite a few black families present and their being around a bunch of us stuffy white folk did not inhibit them one little bit. They were totally unaffected by the “style” of the service and felt quite at home interjecting their own “style” into that baccalaureate service. And I remember that as they’d shout “Amen, brother….preach it!” Brother Carpenter would roll up on his tip toes and get a little more excited himself.
I say all of this to say that I don’t think the experience of African Americans or other minority groups worshiping separately from whites has much to do with style. Rather, I think it is something much deeper than that and something that we need to grasp if we hope to have diverse churches.
In a culture where you exist as a minority in nearly every sphere of life, where do you go to be the majority? Where do you go and immediately feel like you not only belong, but that you have a say in what happens? It is rare in the workplace. It is even rare in government. It is rare at school. But it is common in church. Try going to a foreign country and spending some time there. Go to the Middle East where Americans are not favorably looked upon and where laws are not favorable to our American sensibilities. Would you want some place, even one place, outside of your own home where you could be the “majority” or at least a group where you could be an equal with everyone else? Where your say and your perspective were valued equally with those of the others who were there?
I believe this may be why African Americans most often worship together. Because it is one place, a public gathering, where they are not in the minority, where their say carries equal weight with the others who are there. If we hope to have racially diverse congregations then we must stress that in Christ there is nether Jew nor Greek, black nor white nor brown nor yellow nor red, rich nor poor, but that everyone within the church is on equal footing and that every racial, cultural and economic perspective is valued and considered.
One of the members of the regional leadership team in Western Europe for our missions board made the comment that if society increasingly values diversity is the church making a mistake in valuing homogeneity/sameness? I think that question becomes more pointed in light of the Scriptural perspective of diversity in worship and the local body of believers. This is why James urges the churches of the dispersion not to value the rich over the poor. It is why the apostle Paul didn’t tell the Roman believers to start new churches - one composed of pork eaters and another composed of pork abstainers, or that he didn’t tell the Corinthians to separate into different local fellowships - one consisting of those who eat meat offered to idols and another consisting of those who don’t. Instead, he presents them with the reconciling nature of the gospel and shows them how to be a diverse people who worship together, not looking down on one another or judging one another.
It should also be noted that many of the churches Paul dealt with were what we would likely consider immature - especially Corinth. But rather than accommodating their immaturity, he called them to unity - to start living out the implications of the gospel - right away. We do not grow into Christ likeness by accommodating all of our immature behaviors. We challenge them. Of course, we do so graciously, working through the difficulties that come from that. We don’t judge and condemn, but we spur one another on to love and good deeds. Given the great potential for the gospel witness that lies in front of us in regard to this subject, I believe this is something we should not wait on to happen over decades. Let the church lead. Let the gospel prevail.
By the way, let me encourage you to head over to David Rogers’ blog Love Each Stone. He has written a good bit on the church as well and when I read David I find myself saying, “Yes. I absolutely agree.” I would link to specific posts, but there’s so much good stuff there I’d encourage you just to browse around and read what strikes your fancy. You won’t go wrong. By the way, David has spent the last 18 years as a missionary in Spain.
Paul,
Excellent thoughts! I just got through reading all 3 parts. It looks like our reflections are taking us on similar paths here lately. I think the issues you are discussing here are priority issues for the Body of Christ, issues that we cannot afford to ignore, if we are to be faithful to the call of true discipleship.
As missionaries, I believe it is far too easy for us to get enamoured with the pragmatic dividends of the Homogeneous Unit Principle, and put the biblical emphasis of unity on the back-burner.
Once again, I believe the questions you are addressing here should be, and hopefully will be, on the forefront of the agenda for the church, and the world mission enterprise in the years ahead.
BTW, I’m going to write a short blurb, linking to your posts, over at Love Each Stone.
Thanks, David. I’ve been keeping up with your thoughts on this as well and I was more than a little tempted to only do one short post pointing everyone to just go read what you’ve written on the church. I still think they should do so, and I probably ought to edit this post and include links to your blog.
You have helped me a great deal in working through my thoughts here. Thank you.
Paul,
Thanks again for this series of posts. I agree completely with your call for unity and diversity in the church (at every level).
I’m sure that we can train/disciple/encourage/equip members of our churches to share their faith across cultural and subcultural lines. I’m sure that we can promote diversity in worship. That’s all with believers.
But it seems to me that the attitudes and prejudices among the greater community also come into play. My people group here in Western Europe is deeply prejudiced against Arabs and South Americans. Churches are being planted among those people groups, but the indigenous peoples will have nothing to do with them.
Also, the different peoples here hold radically different worldviews. What are we to do when the appropriate method of communication with one group is unintelligible and/or offensive to another?
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against diversity here. I’m just curious about your thoughts. These really are questions we wrestle with on a regular basis.
stepchild,
To answer your questions I think I may need a little clarification. I think you are saying that we can work toward diversity within the church, but that the bigger problem is outside the church. When you mention the indigenous people who do not like Arabs and South Americans, are those indigenous people believers or unbelievers you are referring to?
And when you say “what are we to do when the appropriate method of communication with one group is unintelligible and/or offensive to another?” you are talking about the “we” of the missionaries, or of the indigenous believers, or both?
If you can clarify those questions for me I think I can better respond (and more briefly).
Paul,
Sorry to be vague in my comment. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. It seems that you understood what I meant.
I do indeed believe that we (as Christians) can and should be working toward unity and the diversity that comes with it. It seems to me that the “problem,” is the unbelieving people in the communities where we minister.
When I ask, “What are we to do?” I suppose I was thinking of any believers who are working toward the unity we’re talking about. (To answer your question: both national believers and missionaries).
Good stuff, Paul (as usual).
During the last few months, this has been the subject of much thinking for me and many conversations. Ever since I moved to L.A., I’ve been a minority. My sons were in elementary through high school classes with only 4 or 5 other Anglos, and are grateful because of it. The two churches I’ve been part of here were/are predominantly Hispanic. I am part of a three-man elder team with a brother of Mexican descent and a brother of El Salvadoran descent. I know God is sovereign over my ethnicity, family, and birthplace. But to be honest, there is a part of me that wishes my upbringing wasn’t so vanilla, if you get my drift. I wish the church I was part of growing up was taking the lead in this, as you say Paul.
I just really, really wonder if most of us grasp what is being said in Eph 2:11-18 (I don’t think I fully get it). You brought it up in part 2. I’m not accusing anyone of rejecting it, I just don’t know if we really get it. V11 says, “at one time you were Gentiles in the flesh…” (HCSB). Were! What are we now? One new race; one new humanity (v15). The division/distinction is fleshly, “made by hands.” Is the apostle Paul saying we need to leave behind our man-made, pre-conversion mindset that emphasizes ethnic, social, or cultural–and other–differences and separation? I’d say yes, exactly that. Could not a correlation be made between the hostility and division of Jew and Gentile then, and Arab and Israeli today, for example? But Christ really did destroy that wall of separation, and there were Jews and Gentiles in the NT who became the best of friends. And how ’bout a little more widespread application of Gal 2:14 today?
Throughout the pages of the NT are scattered a number of references to the radical diversity in these first century churches–but I don’t think they touted their diversity; I think they celebrated their oneness and unity. I think repenting of our ethnocentricity should be a lot more prevalent than I see examples of today. Local churches on earth should look more like those gathered around the throne in heaven–from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. Local churches are communities of the Kingdom. I am repeatedly challenging our congregation to keep breaking out of our cultural and social fences, and yet we still have so far to go.
So, thanks for writing these posts (and sorry this comment is so long).
stepchild,
I’m not sure there’s a lot we can do with those outside the church who’s perspective is prejudiced against those unlike them, but I think there is a lot we can do for them. The greatest thing I believe we can do is to live reconciled lives with one another in spite of our differences.
A while back (I don’t remember where) I read about a study where college students were asked, “Of all Jesus’ teachings, which one is least likely to be an authentic teaching of his?” Most believed that Jesus said things like “turn the other cheek,” “go the extra mile,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and so forth. The one teaching of Jesus they simply couldn’t believe was authentic was, “love your enemies.” We simply can’t conceive of that happening. I’ve had my share of ghastly looks when I’ve suggested that our response to terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and members of Al Queda is to love them. We don’t love people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers killing innocent civilians. We hate them and want them dead.
At the SBC in Greensboro two years ago the greatest applause during the whole week was for Condi Rice when she said that we would find our enemies and put an end to them. It seems that even Southern Baptist Christians don’t believe Jesus meant what he said.
But I wonder what might happen here in America if blacks and whites truly learned what it means to love one another. I don’t mean tolerate one another. I don’t mean be at relative peace with one another. I mean really love one another. Lay down your life for your friend kind of love for one another. But if we, in the church, could learn to do that - and do it publicly - what sort of witness might that be in an unbelieving world?
I remember you saying that people there will say something like, “we tried Christianity before and it didn’t work for us.” But I wonder if that might change if they saw believers in your part of the world loving Arabs and South Americans as well as their fellow countrymen. Perhaps they would see a living example that the Christianity you are offering is somehow different from the sort they typically think of.
You know, typing all of this out it just sounds so ludicrous. It sounds like pie in the sky and so unrealistic. But I also believe it is exactly what Jesus calls us to in the gospel and I believe it can be done. It will be hard work, yes. But impossible? No. And when the world sees it I believe, like Dallas Willard has said, that we won’t be able to keep people out of our churches. We won’t have to go to them because they’ll be coming to us asking how that kind of thing can happen for them, their lives and in their strained relationships.
Well…so much for the short answer, eh?
Did I leave any of your questions hanging? Let me know if I have.
Steve,
I love it that your church is in so many ways farther along in these things than most. Thanks for your leadership in setting the example. Sometime I’d love to hear about the challenges and victories you’ve experienced in this area.
Paul, I’ve been reading this series with great interest, and you’ve hit some great points about the need for unity.
stepchild, I was able to witness some of the same things you are struggling with during my time in eastern Europe. The people group that we focused our attention on were hard to reach mainly because they were expected to deny their heritage and become something they were not in order to become part of the existing church. I was so thankful for the handful of pastors who indeed did not expect a change in the culture of new Christ followers in order for them to be a legitimate part of the church.
I believe that worldwide this issue requires the church to stop assimilating the prejudices of the world and begin adapting herself to the Christ who is her Lord. Again, as Paul points out, we have little control over the attitudes of the world at large. Instead, we are responsible first for our own actions (that they may be like Jesus), and then for how we teach, mentor, and disciple the church into becoming more like Him as well.
Blessings.
Benj,
Thanks for the context.
stepchild,
In light of Benji’s comment I just want to clarify that my view is not that in coming together people have to give up who they are to be assimilated into the Borg, so to speak. I think people should still be able to be who they are with all of their cultural distinctiveness while a part of a worshiping community that is diverse. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 did not tell those people to conform themselves to the larger group. He simply told them to quit looking down on each other because of their differences. But he never told them that their differences were wrong. IOW, a black family who chooses to worship in a predominantly white church should not feel the need to “act white,” or as we say in our context here - become an oreo (black on the outside, white on the inside - in order to fit in.
Part of the issue is a melting pot vs. tossed salad mentality. The melting pot terminology suggests the loss of who we are.
What has been most helpful for me, practically speaking, is simply getting out of the isolation of my own ethnic group. Things that I never realized were cultural and ethnic styles and preferences (and alienating or even offensive to others) have been exposed. Part of the apostle Paul’s instruction to not look down on others is simply learning that that my styles and preferences are not better than someone else’s, and thus, other styles and preferences are tossed into the salad of worshiping and living. The full beauty and glory of the “image of God” got segregated at Babel. My life is richer ever since I realized part of the effect of the gospel is the restoration of what was lost at Babel (as seen in Acts 2, Eph 2, and Rev 5, for example; what is begun in Acts 2 culminates in Rev 5).
Yet beyond issues of style and preference, there are in EVERY culture, sinful values and practices. Those must be identified and repented of. We all have cultural blindspots that others can help us identify.
Benjamin,
Yeah, you said it much better than I did. Thanks.
Paul,
I think your last comment makes your perspective a lot clearer to me. I often hear that we ought not respect culture (meaning that we should require people to look like/act like us).
You’re right though, our churches and ministries ought to welcome those who are different from us. I agree with you that this sort of diversity isn’t just something that would be nice- it should be a vital part of any Christian community.
I appreciate your reflections on the church and how it can best reflect unity-diversity. I do, however, want to push back a little regarding the homogeneous unit principle (HUP). I believe you are right that Scripture unequivocally calls us to visible, tangible expressions of unity. Unity that has been rarely seen in the church. At the same time, we acknowledge that the differences between cultures around the world are deep. I have seen many attempts at multi-cultural expressions of the church allow one culture to dominate or all of the cultures blend into blandness. I believe that our most heartfelt expressions of worship and belief must be in our heart language and culture.
This is not to say that HUP should be applied as the sole prescriptive methodology for starting churches, but that perhaps there are other ways to express the unity of the church without drowning out each culture’s indigenousness and potential to continue proclaim the good news within that culture. I think it is a healthy struggle for the church to wrestle honestly with our diversity and unity.