Martin Luther King Jr. said that 11:00 on Sunday morning is “the most segregated hour in America.” Not much has changed since King made that statement. But is this a bad thing? As America has grown more diverse, and not just racially, the church has responded by creating congregations to appeal to specific subcultures. We see not only black congregations and white congregations, but also boomer and postmodern, contemporary and classical, liturgical and spontaneous.
Some of this has been spurred by research that indicates homogeneous congregations grow more rapidly by appealing to a definable target audience. But even there, no congregation is completely homogenized; differences of opinion will show up in even the most niched congregations. Working through differences is usually what leads to maturity. The question remains—how diverse should we strive to be?
We asked three church leaders to explore the model presented in the New Testament and compare it to their own experience.
Craig Keener is a white minister in a predominantly African American congregation.
Larry Osborne pastors North Coast Church—a ministry that pioneered the use of “video venues” to create multiple congregations distinguished by worship style within a single church.
Mark Driscoll is pastor of Mars Hill Church, a community birthed from a postmodern context now wrestling with issues of diversity as it matures.
Biblical diversity is worth sacrificing for
Craig Keener If God called first-century believers to surmount an ethnic barrier that he himself established in salvation history—the barrier between Jew and Gentile—how much more does he summon us to surmount all other barriers of our own making? Overcoming the Jewish-Gentile barrier is one of the dominant themes in the New Testament, and it provides a model for us today for overcoming every other barrier dividing God’s people.
It begins with Jesus. He focused his mission on Israel, but welcomed both Samaritans and Gentiles. While Jesus ate with tax-gatherers and sinners, not all his followers wanted to eat with Gentiles! The Book of Acts emphasizes how the Spirit equips Jesus’ followers to cross these cultural barriers. The Jerusalem church’s biggest struggles involved not Christology or eschatology, but how to embrace fellowship with Gentile believers.
Paul spends the last quarter of Acts in Roman custody because he refuses to compromise the message of God’s love for Gentiles. He was charged with profaning the Temple by admitting an Ephesian Gentile. From custody he tells Ephesian Christians that God has shattered the Temple’s ethnic barrier (Eph. 2:14) and established a new temple of all peoples by the Spirit (Eph. 2:19-22).
Likewise, Paul writes to an ethnically divided church in Rome and emphasizes that Jews and Gentiles must come to God on the same terms, through Christ. He also turns to the practical questions of not despising each other’s customs regarding foods and holy days (Rom. 14). In Galatians Paul challenges a segregated lunch counter. And in Revelation, we see a vision of the future that brings all peoples together.
Ethnic reconciliation is central to the Christian message: if we are reconciled to God, we must be reconciled to one another. Given this emphasis, we dare not use data about “homogeneous” churches’ rapid growth to ignore biblical invitations to diversity.
How can diversity be implemented on a congregational level? Obviously not the same way in ethnically homogeneous areas (like rural Iowa) as in multiethnic urban neighborhoods.
The demands are clearer where members of an older white church commute into a neighborhood that is now largely populated by minorities. For a church in a white suburb, however, challenging injustices (like redlining) that keep their suburb homogeneously white, might need to be a prior step to integration.
When dominant-culture churches do pursue integration, they must allow the diverse cultures they have welcomed a voice in shaping a truly multicultural church. The early church recognized the value of allowing Jewish and Gentile Christians to retain their distinctive cultures (Acts 21:20-25; Rom. 14), so dominant cultures must be mindful to not swallow up minority ones. We should also intentionally partner with and listen to churches of other cultures.
But I believe the most effective way to integrate congregations requires sacrifice. For many years I have seen churches welcoming visitors of other races, but have been disappointed by the few Christians actually crossing barriers. Instead of simply inviting others to join our churches, more white Christians should be ready to take the initiative, relocate, join minority churches, and serve under their indigenous leadership.
In 1987, during the deepest crisis of my life, African American Christians embraced me, a white Christian. I discovered that their church knew how to deal with pain better than the white churches of which I’d been a part. In time I was ordained in a black Baptist church in North Carolina, taught in an African American seminary, and lived for a number of years in a neighborhood segregated only by my presence. Today, my seminary is half African American, and I am an associate minister at a 5,000-member black church.
Integration is not going to become reality without intention and sacrifice.
Mark Driscoll’s response: The sacrificial attitude Craig calls for is in direct opposition to the consumer attitude many people have toward the church. He recognizes that believers are to, as Paul says, reflect the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:1-11). This means sacrificing our own desires, and putting the preferences and needs of others first.
I also appreciate Craig’s warning that dominant-cultures not swallow up minority ones. Here Paul’s wisdom from Romans 14 is most helpful. We need to respect the differences that exist among us, but it is the responsibility of those mature in Christ to be flexible and accommodating toward others. It is the combination of sacrifice and accommodation that allows diversity to flourish.
Larry Osborne’s response: I have no beef with those who decry an older white congregation commuting into a changing neighborhood rather than handing over leadership to those who now live there. Such an island of ethnic or cultural homogeneity is the antithesis of the Body of Christ, and does nothing to show the world that we are his disciples.
However, diversity is too often seen through just one lens—racial diversity. Many churches trumpeted as models of diversity are racially diverse but culturally homogeneous. They share a passion for urban values, a university mindset, or a bias for social activism. But those who don’t share those same passions are not only excluded, they’re often the object of negative comments or diatribes.
The great sign of biblical unity is not a heterogeneous gathering—it’s a body of Christ where traditions, languages, preferences, and customs are allowed full bloom; where those who don’t understand or enjoy what goes on in one setting still defend it as if it were their own, “because any friend of Jesus is a friend of mine!”
Homogeneity is the first step to diversity
Larry Osborne Jesus gave his life to break down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. His bride, the church, includes every tribe and every tongue. New Testament instructions command us to diligently maintain unity—both for the sake of pleasing him and drawing the lost.
But is God’s call for unity and diversity within the church at large to be mirrored in every local congregation? I think not. And for those who think so, how far do we push the value of diversity for diversity’s sake?
If it’s wrong for a congregation to be mostly homogeneous, is it also wrong for a particular service to be geared to and thus populated by like-minded and homogeneous worshipers? What about a youth ministry; a worship service in an old age home; an outreach in a different language? Must these be replaced by more diverse gatherings? No, they’re a necessary starting place.
The New Testament’s exhortation for unity is not a call for uniformity. On the contrary, our unity in Christ is most clearly seen (and most impressive to the world) when we value and support one another despite profound differences. And if these differences are not allowed to be in full bloom, how will they be seen and celebrated?
Much of the argument over the merits of homogeneous versus heterogeneous ministry is rooted in the assumption that homogeneity flows out of (or eventually produces) a segregated, divided body where love and genuine reconciliation don’t happen. While that may be true of churches that were once intentionally divided by race, socio-economic status, or denominational conflicts, it’s simply not true of many churches today.
Here at North Coast Church, we’ve used principles of homogeneity to greatly increase our diversity. Rather than asking everyone to gather for a blended service, we’ve emphasized and honored our differences by providing a wide variety of worship venues, each targeted at a specific homogeneous group. At present, our people can choose from 18 different worship options each weekend based on worship style, time slot, or location.
Since becoming one church with multiple styles, we’ve become far more heterogeneous than we were as one church attempting to blend everything together. What we had in the past was compromise. What we have today is diversity.
Those who choose to worship in “Traditions,” our hymn-based worship venue, love the fact that we also have a worship venue called “The Edge”—as long as they don’t have to suffer through the loud music and big subwoofer. They’re supportive, and even fiercely protective, of their brothers and sisters who like it loud. The same goes for those who choose “The Edge.” They can often be seen giving a tour of our venues to guests, proudly showing off the diversity—but equally thrilled that they have a service where the timeless message can connect with the culture of their peers.
This attitude of mutual support and honor—without the need to sing one another’s songs—reflects the biblical norm of unity amid genuine diversity. To paraphrase the apostle Paul’s analogy, the foot is not saying to the hand, “We need to become a combo foot-hand.” It’s happy to be a hand and it’s glad to have a foot. And both are cared for and honored.
If homogeneity is used to intentionally keep some people out, it’s evil. But if used to empower and celebrate differences, while enabling us to reach more people with the gospel, it’s a pretty wonderful tool.
Mark Driscoll’s response: Larry is focused on attracting lost people to the church. He correctly understands that many come into the church with the attitude of a consumer. Consequently, they may be unwilling or unable to place the needs and preferences of others above their own self-interest.
So, Larry advises churches to provide multiple congregations with a variety of worship styles. This allows differing groups of people to enter the church without sacrificing their preferences, and enables the church, as a whole but not at the sub-congregational level, to become increasingly diverse (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
But should we not also be wrestling with the implications of Romans 14-15? There Paul instructs Christians to demonstrate their maturity by becoming increasingly flexible and accommodating to those with weaker faith.
How do we move people beyond their own consumer driven self-interest into the Christ-like maturity that looks out for the interests of others? It seems part of maturing in our faith means learning to sacrifice our preferences; this may even include our worship preferences.
Craig Keener’s response: Different settings require us to pursue ethnic reconciliation in different ways, depending on the cultures and respective histories involved. “Blended” congregations are valuable, but Larry offers another viable model for diversity by welcoming each culture to practice and preserve its own customs (Acts 21:20-25). As a white Christian in a black church, I can affirm that I appreciate the worship style of my church and wouldn’t want it “whitened”!
But beyond affirming one another’s differences, we also need to explore ways to learn from one another. We must keep Christians from different cultures in relationship with each other, and talking across cultural divides.
Perhaps this means visiting other services, sharing leaders, or inviting representatives from other cultures to communicate their vision and needs so we can work together (e.g., Acts 11:27-30).
Know the destination: a life of reconciliation
Mark Driscoll I was recently late to my cousin’s funeral because I spent the better part of an hour lost in the woods driving around. I later realized that the directions were fine, but I had typed in the wrong address. Likewise, it is important for churches to not simply have good directions, but determine the correct destination. And, regarding diversity in the church there are really only two destinations: Babel or Pentecost.
Babel was the first human attempt at cultural uniformity—hanging out with people like me because I find myself so wonderful. Babel was a small city built to house a few people. This city was marked with walls to separate insiders from outsiders, thereby allowing them to resist diversity and avoid hospitality toward strangers. Instead, their aspiration was simply to gather together a homogeneous community to make their name great on the earth. God’s response to their project was judgment. He confused their languages, and thereby forced diversity upon them.
The way a church travels toward Babel is by asking, “How can we glorify ourselves by growing our ministry?” This desire leads to a false gospel that does not call me to love my neighbor and show hospitality toward those who are different from me. This gospel expects that I love only those who are like me and who share my same values and interests.
Conversely, Pentecost is God’s attempt at kingdom unity through diversity—hanging out with people unlike me because God has been gracious to us all.
Pentecost is not a city shaped by human hands to house a few, but the beginnings of a cosmic kingdom built to welcome people from every culture.
The way a church travels toward Pentecost is by asking, “How can we glorify Jesus by expanding his kingdom?” This desire leads to the true gospel that calls me to love my neighbors who are unlike me, and welcome them into Christ’s church.
Therefore, the real issue is not will we pursue diversity, but will we follow the gospel of Jesus Christ? If we are following the gospel, diversity will occur as a result of the reconciliation accomplished in Jesus Christ. If we are not experiencing diversity, this may indicate we are lost in the woods following the directions of a false gospel of convenience and self-promotion.
At our church, true gospel diversity is something that has grown as the church has matured.
When we began, we were comprised primarily of college students and a few young couples. We had a handful of children, and no one with gray hair. Today, three of the fastest growing groups in the church are children, grandparents, and older couples.
More important, the young and old are learning to love one another and labor together to see the gospel move forward in our city. Our church is increasingly becoming a loving, multi-generational, and diverse Pentecost community, rather than a church of Babylonian affinity.
Larry Osborne’s response: Mark Driscoll is right. Homogeneity can be a tool for self-aggrandizement and evil if used to keep out or repel those who “aren’t like us.” This is not only wrongheaded—it’s sin. Acts makes that abundantly clear.
But to set aside or refuse to use a ministry tool simply because some have abused it would be a mistake. Imagine the apostles tabling signs and wonders because of Simon the Sorcerer’s bastardization.
Like any ministry tool, homogeneity can flow out of the flesh or out of the Spirit. When motivated by the Spirit, it can be a powerful tool to reach out to a specific mindset or demographic that would otherwise remain untouched. It embodies Paul’s exhortation and example of becoming all things to all people that we might win some.
If it results in the lost coming to Christ, and Christians coming to a deeper maturity that includes appreciation, tolerance, and support of those who are socio-economically or culturally different, then bring it on.
Craig Keener’s response: Mark touches on a biblical crux in God’s plan for our diversity. Whereas God confused the tongues at Babel to scatter the people, he multiplied tongues at Pentecost to unite us.
Here and elsewhere in Acts, God lavishly demonstrated that his Spirit is now empowering the church to cross all cultural and linguistic barriers. I know that some Christians fear the way some have abused multiculturalism, but Mark’s contrast between Babel and Pentecost helps to remind us of the true source of our multicultural unity.
Revelation offers a pervasive contrast between the values of Babylon (the prostitute) and New Jerusalem (the bride). In Revelation we see members of all peoples and languages worship the beast, but we also see members of all peoples and languages worship the lamb.
Multiculturalism can be abused, but under the Lordship of humanity’s rightful ruler, Jesus Christ, we can celebrate a true cultural diversity.
Copyright © 2005 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information onLeadership Journal.
