What We Really Need ...

Recently Tom Steers, founder and co-director of Asian American Ministries for The Navigators, wrote a guest opinion column which was published online (only) by Christianity Today (July 7, 2010). The column is entitled, Needed: More Monocultural Ministires.

In the opinion piece ("not necessarily representing the opinion of the publication," as CT makes clear in the footer), Steers argues that a multicultural society demands more monocultural ministries. In so doing, however, he does not clearly state what he means by use of the term, “ministry.” Consequently, I believe he a) confuses evangelism with local church development, b) wrongly exegetes Scripture in attempting to support his claim, and otherwise c) speaks from assumption in stating what advocates of the multi-ethnic church truly believe.

With this in mind, the following blog entry respectfully, but critically, challenges Steers' thinking. Paragraphs from the original article are cited at the start of each new thought (i.e., P2, P3, etc.) to provide clarity as to just which part of Steers' article I am referencing at any given moment.

P2 – Steers writes, “Some argue that since we are an increasingly multicultural society, our churches should become more multicultural. There is a certain logic to that. As long as there are people who want to be culturally and socially multicultural, or multiethnic, there also must be structures for them. Such ministries are crucial for healing America's racial and ethnic wounds. They potentially model the unbiased oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17.”

Theologically informed “advocates” of the multi-ethnic church however (at least, none that I know) are not suggesting, as the author states, “since we are an increasingly multicultural society, (that) our churches should become more multicultural.” Nor are Bible-centered proponents of the multi-ethnic church interested in the “logic” of  “providing structures” for “people who want to be culturally and socially multicultural, or multiethnic,” as if guided by sociology, political correctness, or changing demographics. Furthermore, while we certainly celebrate any gains that are made through “such ministries” in “healing America's racial and ethnic wounds,” informed advocates of the multi-ethnic church understand that so-called racial-reconciliation is only a by-product of two a priori works of reconciliation, namely a) reconciling men and women to God through faith in Jesus Christ, and b) reconciling local congregations to the principles and practices of first century churches such as existed at Antioch and Ephesus, for example. Yes in these churches, men and women of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds proclaimed God’s love for all people by practicing love for one another beyond the distinctions of this world that so often and otherwise divide.

P3 - The author continues: “But despite what some advocates imply, multicultural ministry is not more biblical, let alone always most effective. I think our multicultural situation demands that we also employ what I call a monocultural approach.”

One question that is important at this point to ask is “monocultural approach” to what? I assume the author means “ministries,” as he alludes in the title of his submission. But this is too broad a term for an otherwise precise, necessary, discussion and exegesis of scripture. Again, no one I know that is advocating the multi-ethnic church today is saying “multicultural ministry” is “more biblical than a “monocultural approach.” What we are saying is that nowhere in the New Testament will you find the apostle Paul or anyone else encouraging us to plant or develop churches focused on specific people groups! To suggest that the New Testament teaches otherwise is to eisegete, not exegete, the text.

For example, Steers later writes (P10): “In Scripture we have examples of both monocultural ministry (Jesus) and multicultural ministry (some churches founded by Paul)."

But let us be clear: in Scripture we do not have examples of Jesus planting/developing homogeneous churches, only of Him doing monocultural evangelism and initial discipleship. And likewise not just some, but all of the churches founded by Paul were multicultural (multi-ethnic). On this point, I invite readers to carefully examine Paul’s travels in Acts, as well as his letters to the churches contained in the New Testament. In so doing, you will find that in every case Paul is concerned with both Jews and Gentiles not only coming to know Christ, but coming together as one in Him via the local church.

For too long, unchecked statements that assume there were Jewish churches and there were Gentile churches (as Steers eludes) have served to justify the church growth movement and more specifically, the Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) as it applies to church planting, growth and development.* But, the New Testament does not support this argument. As I have already stated, Jesus’ “ministry” was not focused on church planting, growth or development; indeed, the Church is something He only foresees (Matthew 16:18), and something not established until Acts 2.  

What Jesus was focused on in preparation for the Church was a) pre-evangelism (via acts of healing, the feeding of the 5,000, etc.), b) evangelism, and c) the initial discipleship of a single people group (namely, Jewish disciples). Yet in the end, having completed their training, He commands His disciples to go beyond the Jewish nation, as every student of Scripture knows (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8). Interestingly, they do not; and it is only after persecution of the (homogeneous) church they established in Jerusalem that the Gospel and local churches thereafter transcend ethnocentrism. It is then that the multi-ethnic, mega, missional, church at Antioch arises to become the model and standard for local church planting, growth and development for the rest of the New Testament. Technically speaking, then, Jesus did not plant a church; only the seeds (evangelism and discipleship) from which the Church (and local churches, too) would one day spring forth.

Paul, too, promotes targeted evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:20-23). But as I have tried to make clear, a ministry of pre-evangelism/evangelism/discipleship, and a ministry of local church planting/growth/development are two different ministries altogether.

P4 - In arguing for more monocultural ministries, the author reveals the all-too-common misunderstanding of generations past committed to the HUP 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; and again I agree, more is needed. However, 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 of providing for evangelism and basic discipleship of first generation internationals for precisely the reason the author suggests.

P5 - In such a way, churches avoid the problem of expecting (unrealistically) 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 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.

By the way, in all my writings I make clear that accommodation, not assimilation, is a key component to Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic 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, as well, in P5. "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.

P7/P8- Here, Steers writes, “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, Barnabus, 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 fuflill the Great Commission and expectation of Jesus, so that the world would know God's love and believe.

P10 – 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 is 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?

__________________________________

*The HUP is a valid strategy for evangelism, but a strategy misapplied to the local church. If the goal is to evangelize, then by all means target a people group and provide them with the Word of God in their own language. Sing to them in a musical genre they understand, and become incarnate in their culture so that the gospel is expressed through customs, mores, and traditions they readily embrace. But things change once you commit yourself to establishing a local church. You are no longer at liberty to create a congregation of exclusive worshipers — that’s just not a biblical option. According to Paul, the mystery of Christ is “that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6). Make no mistake: the context in which Paul is writing makes it clear the “one body” he is talking about is a local church.