Tom Steers, founder and co-director of Asian American Ministries for The Navigators, recently wrote a guest opinion column for Christianity Today (July 7, 2010). The column is entitled, “Needed: More Monocultural Ministries”. Mark DeYmaz, founding pastor of Mosaic Church of Central Arkansas, and a leader in the multi-ethnic church movement, has written a response to Steers’ article. Read part one of DeYmaz’s rebuttal.
In arguing for more monocultural ministries, Tom Steers reveals the all-too-common misunderstanding of generations past committed to the Homogeneous Unit Principle as a pragmatic tool for local church planting, growth, and development. It is long-past time to recognize, however, that there is a significant difference between the need for evangelism focused on specific ethnic groups (more is needed, I agree) and the New Testament’s expectation that following salvation believers are to walk, work, and worship God together as one – in and through the local church – for the sake of the gospel.
Monocultural evangelism then? Absolutely. More monocultural churches? I say, absolutely not. What we really need is more multiethnic churches that understand and practice the HUP in their own context by providing for evangelism and basic discipleship of first generation internationals for precisely the reason the Steers suggests.
Steers believes monocultural churches avoid the problem of unrealistically expecting that “each of these groups assimilate to one another or to multiethnic congregations—at the same time they are trying to assimilate into U.S. culture.” This problem, by the way, is not always rooted in one’s ethnicity; personality is also a factor that plays a role in how soon or slowly 1.0s (a common name for first-generation immigrants) desire to engage the greater body. In fact I address this very thing in my latest book, Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity Into Your Local Church. In promoting a model I call, “Graduated Inclusion,” multi-ethnic churches can and will apply the HUP strictly for the purpose of evangelism and initial discipleship while simultaneously providing for the needs of 1.5s, 2.0s and beyond, all from within one local church.
“And it’s not just new immigrants who have unique and particular needs that the gospel can address in culturally specific ways,” Steers writes. “Most often the 1.5, second, or third generation offspring desire high ethnic identity ministries.”
Really?
Again, the author here confuses evangelism with church development. For when it comes to the latter, it has been my experience in discussing this very thing with ethnic pastors that virtually all agree (despite what they and their congregants might otherwise desire): 1.0s will have “two feet in” the ethnic-specific church; 2.0s will likely have “one foot in and one foot out;” and third generation offspring will in most cases have “two feet out.”
Of course, planting a homogeneous church is something we more readily understand — and something that is much easier to do. But let us not confuse that which is easier or seemingly more “effective” by human standards or measurements (i.e., “How big is your church?”). Christ expects us to align ourselves, and our churches, with his agenda; anything less is unacceptable.
Steers goes not to write, “I believe our approach to ministry has to be in and through a given culture.” This incarnational approach to ministry, he suggests, is a “pragmatic model of ministry” with “biblical precedent.” Such a strategy allows the Good News to “take root properly,” allowing it to flow naturally to family and friends within that culture.” And, indeed, I agree it does when the “ministry” we are talking about is evangelism/discipleship. But not when it comes to establishing a local church. In fact, it was from the diverse environment of Antioch, as those being saved quite naturally became concerned for family and friends, that the first missionaries were sent forth intentionally (Acts 13:1ff.). This is something that did not happen in Jerusalem.
So as Paul, Barnabas, and later others, were sent from the diverse congregation at Antioch, they not only went forth to evangelize Jews and Gentiles living in other places (including, quite likely, the family and friends of those who had been saved at Antioch), but to establish Antioch-like churches in other cities and towns as a result; churches that were in fact multi-ethnic and, thus, truly fulfill the Great Commission and expectation of Jesus, so that the world would know God’s love and believe.
In conclusion, the author writes. “Every person and every group has dignity and validity no matter their ethnic, social, political, or economic roots—and whether they gather mono or multi.” On this point, I wholeheartedly agree, as I do with his final statement, “And, in the end, every people group will be represented in heaven (Rev. 5:9–10).”
However, it is important that we consider just one more thing.
Jesus taught us to pray, ‘Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” (Matthew 6:10). But if the kingdom of heaven (then and now) is not segregated along ethnic or economic lines, we must ask ourselves the question, Why on earth is the church?
Mark DeYmaz will be speaking at the Multi-Ethnic Church Conference on November 2-3 in San Diego. Learn more about the event at www.mosaix.info.
