Do we Welcome Diversity?

We look forward to seeing our churches full, society transformed and God’s name honoured in our nation. But how can this vision be fulfilled?

This was the issue that was addressed by men such as Donald McGavran, Peter Wagner and the Fuller Theological Institute in Pasadena in the 1970’s and 1980’s. They applied learning from the social sciences and from business principles and worked out necessary features for church growth. This was later articulated by Roy Pointer in his book “How do churches grow?” for the British context in 1984.  

A Growing Church

Pointer suggests that growing churches might be expected to demonstrate:

• Constant corporate and personal prayer
• Respect for the authority of the Bible
• Effective leadership – the minister is the catalyst for growth
• Mobilised membership - equipped to serve God
• Eventful worship – preferably big and loud!
• Continuous evangelism – both personal and communal
• Community Life – love for one another
• Compassionate service - within the community
• Openness to change – both personal and in the church
• Released resources – generous members.

When I look at this list, I’m quite intimidated as few churches will tick all the boxes and some will miss most! The Church Growth Movement, as it became known, believed that by aiming at these characteristics you would “produce” a growing church. It was just like a business plan.

Church Growth Movement

The Church Growth movement also researched how people came to faith. McGavran and Wagner published their results in “Understanding Church Growth”, 1970, in which they quote evidence that: ‘people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers. As a result, homogenous churches grow fastest. Homogeneous churches are those in which all the members are from a similar social, ethnic or cultural background. People prefer to associate with people like themselves – ‘I like people like me’. And so, we should create homogenous churches to be effective in reaching people.”

I remember reading this and subsequently discussing it in a church leadership meeting. We really could not see how we could restrict our mission to the world when Jesus clearly came for Jews, Gentiles, slaves and free. Today, as an Amateur Christian, I still see it this way. Jesus came for all – so I must reach out to all with generosity.

The challenge however remains. In most of our churches, which in their thinking have more or less universally rejected the Homogenous Church Principle, we try to meet the needs of all and struggle to fully meet the needs of any.

I remember when my daughter went to University in Cardiff and invited her parents to visit her new church. It was a traditional old building, now jam packed with students who worshipped enthusiastically before a pastor (around 3-4 years older than they were) brought a message appropriate to a group of students, but less likely to touch anyone over 30. I had seen a homogenous church in action.

We do see other homogenous churches functioning today, even if they have not embraced the Church Growth Movement motivation. Churches like Hillsong appeal to young people more or less exclusively. Most Black Majority Churches, in spite of the efforts of many BM leaders, are more or less exclusively black. Even Holy Trinity Brompton has its own clearly discernible demographic.

What we do see is that people attend churches where the worship and music, fellowship and teaching feel most comfortable. They invite friends, who are like them, and who join church for the same reason. The result is that most British churches today are predominantly middle class and to some considerable extent homogenous.

Seeker Friendly

Recognising this issue a new breed of church leaders came to the fore, first in the US with mega-churches like Saddleback, led by Rick Warren and Willow Creek led by Bill Hybels seeking to be more “seeker friendly” with informal services, embracing “rock” style worship and conversational style sermons. The key word was to be relevant – to relate well to newcomers from secular backgrounds as they commenced church attendance.

Two issues arise to my mind as an Amateur Christian:

• Newcomers to church in the US would have significantly greater understanding of Christianity than would be the case in the UK. The cultural relevance gap was therefor much easier to overcome.
• Whist this approach gained more mega-church attenders, why did it fail to develop disciples?

In 2008 Willow Creek published the results of a research project on discipleship. Bill Hybels sadly confessed that: "Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker-sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it fails dismally. In a shocking confession, Hybels states: "We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become "self-feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

Willow Creek have sought to change direction since that time, and I look forward to hearing more.

Missional Church

Behind church mission activity in the 90’s onwards has been the Missional Church movement. Suggesting that we could not expect to “attract” new members into church (we are unable to put on a better show than the world) we should follow the Biblical pattern of the Godhead where The Father sends The Son who sends The Holy Spirit into the world (John 20:21). “Attractional church” is thus replaced by “Incarnational church” where equipped members are sent out into the world to serve the world and share the message, primarily with their lives of service.

This new theology of mission grabbed my attention a decade or so ago as I read men like, David Bosch, Craig Van Gelder, Alan Hirsch, Alan Roxburgh and Michael Frost. Men who I believed had discovered a key to reaching the world for Christ.

Vital to this approach was the understanding that “normal” Christians would contact friends, demonstrate Christ and introduce them to other believers, so that they would find themselves belonging to the Christian community, even before they had fully accepted Christian truth.

When such people came to church they would hear music they could relate to, a message that communicated in their language, truth on issues they were interested in and people “like them” who they could relate to. Later, as Mark Driscoll puts it, “churches should help new believers remain within “their tribes,” whether that tribe is punk rock, a ghetto block, or yuppie stock, just so long as they don’t sin.”

Last night I enjoyed a short video from Tim Keller, the leading US writer and pastor in which he tells the story of a young lady who came to faith following contact with the young pastor of a missional church in Berlin. He quoted her when he said that when she returned after reading a book he had given her, she exclaimed “you can’t be a Christian, your just like me! ….maybe I could be a Christian”. She had seen the pastor as relatable and with a message that she could accept.

As I discussed the video later with my beloved, very slowly a realisation dawned.

• She saw the pastor as “just like me”
• So, how did the light from within him expose her darkness
• Any saltiness clearly didn’t leave a strong taste.

As an Amateur Christian, I was wondering whether the pastor had become so “Relevant” that he ceased to pose a challenge to conversion. What Gospel was he proclaiming and was it “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”? (Jude 1:13)

Don Carson, respected Bible teacher, comments on recent expressions of the Gospel in this, rather lengthy quote:  “We have repeatedly seen how the ‘story’ of God’s advancing kingdom is cast in terms of rescuing human beings and completing creation, or perhaps in terms of defeating the powers of darkness. Not for a moment do I want to reduce or minimize those themes. Yet from what are human beings to be rescued? Their sin, yes; the powers of darkness; yes. But what is striking is the utter absence of any mention of the wrath of God. This is not a minor omission. Section after section of the Bible’s story turns on the fact that God’s image-bearers attract God’s righteous wrath. The entire created order is under God’s curse because of human sin. Sin is not first and foremost horizontal, social (though of course it is all of that): it is vertical, the defiance of Almighty God.”

Whilst only an Amateur Christian, I really do believe that the Missional Church message, transforming many churches to be more outward facing has been a breath of fresh air over the last 15 years or so. I suspect that it has been more successful in the US than the UK with their stronger Christian culture and where the culture gap is smaller.

Culture Today

However, all this leaves aside the issue of where our culture is today. Mark Sayers, writing in Disappearing Church, 2017, quotes sociologist Philip Rieff who describes three alternative cultures:

Culture 1 is a pre-Christian culture with many pagan gods and the individual a victim to fate.

Culture 2 is a Judeo-Christian culture, understanding that God created the universe and centred on his worship. God reveals himself through scripture and the individual finds faith and security in worship and obedience to his rule.

The early missional church leaders had faced cultural difference in overseas missionary work and found on return to the west that a new “missionary” challenge awaited them. In both cases they saw the challenge as one of making Culture 2 relevant to Culture 1. This was seen as similar to that faced by Paul in Athens in Acts17.

A decade ago, this mission seemed challenging but possible, with God’s help as whilst the two cultures were far apart, they co-existed peacefully and generally enjoyed dialogue. They saw post-Christian culture as similar to pre-Christian culture.

Philip Reiff’s Culture 3 is somewhat different however. He describes a culture that defines itself “against Culture 2. They believe in no greater truth; there is no sacred order. Instead, their energy is devoted to deconstructing the sacred. They have no creed but heresy, and their cultural power is centred on transgressing the sacred commandments and prohibitions of the second culture. The only authority is found with the individual, thus there is no possibility of a sacred order. All authority that challenges and restricts the autonomy of the individual must be levelled. With no sacred order, the third culture is in constant flux, as new authorities and rules appear but are soon deconstructed. The meaning and purpose of all stories, rules, and symbols is contested and left up to individual interpretation.”

Mark Sayers goes on to explain that “the third culture is not anarchic as such. Rather, it positions itself as the latest incarnation of the West’s mission to re-educate the world. It propagates its own creed, one which believes in no creeds, except the creed of self. The third culture is the engine that powers post-Christianity. The ultimate authority in the third culture is the self.”

Thus, we see that Culture 3 defines itself in opposition to Christianity and institutions such as the church. It is not a matter of church being “culturally relevant” because however “relevant” one is, Culture 3 is in opposition. This culture celebrates “Diversity” as a means of rebellion against the status quo. It demands “Diversity” as a way of seizing power. And, wo betide anyone who disagrees, even in the smallest detail, to their “woke” agenda. This is for them a moral crusade, against Culture 2. Against us!

So, when we consider how we do church today it will to a large extent depend on whether we are reaching out to members of Culture 2 (primarily older folk who have not accepted “Woke” culture, hesitate about “Diversity” and are broadly sympathetic to the church and other institutions), or members of Culture 3.

The problem Mark Sayers draws out is that whilst Culture 2 (Church) may over time convert Culture 1, this is far less likely with Culture 3. Culture 3 believes that it is on a moral mission to convert Culture 2 and being “relevant” and works of service won’t help one little bit.

Living Today

For many years the church has been looking for the “silver bullet” that will deal with the world around us and bring folks to Christ. Sometimes there is no such solution, we just need to continue in faith, following Jesus as his people.

Jeremiah gave advice to the exiles in Babylon in Jer 29:5-7 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce.  Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.  Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.’

Sometimes the answer when living alongside a competing culture will be simply to remain as good citizens. Honouring and serving the Lord. Living different lives, which shine out as light in a dark place. Bringing cleansing to our secular culture by remaining salty and by remaining willing “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15.

Conclusion

As we currently experience a plague of Biblical proportions, we ask ourselves what God is doing in the world. Maybe he is in the process of changing all of our ideas, of revolutionising societies and re-focussing our attentions. We wait and see.

In the meantime, we seek to live lives pleasing to God. To worship in Spirit and truth and find comfort in his word. We seek to witness to the love of Jesus to those who will listen.

Over recent decades we have experienced distinct changes in how God’s people have sought to win others for Christ. We have seen changes in Gospel emphasis so that a previous generation might find it difficult to relate to the Gospel preached in some churches today.

The truth remains, however. That whilst “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18) we can share the Good News that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

We may find that some sections of our society will listen more than other sections whom we may find in direct conflict with us from time to time. We may find that churches may feel the need to specialise, to direct their mission towards a section of society rather than reaching out to folk from widely differing cultures which may become increasingly difficult.

We will find comfort in the fact that this is not our mission, that would be a form of “Mission Impossible”, but it is the missio dei, the Mission of God, and he will fulfil it.

If you liked this article, remember to like and share with others.

Philip Stevens