Are biblical churches monocultural or multicultural?
- Thread starter jawyman
- Start date
- Status
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
yes they are.
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
agreed
ericfromcowtown
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, however...
I think that biblical churches can be either. I think that it is realistic to assume that a church will reflect the neighbourhood or town in which its placed. I.e. if your church is in the inner city and is pasty white, then there might be a problem, but if that same church is out in the suburbs and simply reflects the people in the neighbourhood then I don't think you have to sound the alarms.
I think that biblical churches can be either. I think that it is realistic to assume that a church will reflect the neighbourhood or town in which its placed. I.e. if your church is in the inner city and is pasty white, then there might be a problem, but if that same church is out in the suburbs and simply reflects the people in the neighbourhood then I don't think you have to sound the alarms.
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
forgive me, PuritanPilgrim had a corrupting influence on me, I could not resist.
Are these seminarian monikers for something doctrinal? Perhaps you could explain what the terms mean to you in this context of "biblical church".
Are these seminarian monikers for something doctrinal? Perhaps you could explain what the terms mean to you in this context of "biblical church".
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
One of my elders Voodie Bauchem is black and he grew up in the inner-city of LA. He is often asked his advice of how to diversify a church. One time he was in a predominantly white suburban church and they asked him how they could get more people in their church that don't look like them. They wanted to get more people who weren't white to attend their church. As they drove around this predominantly white area, Voodie asked him, "Where exactly do you intend to get these people who don't look like you from?" An individual church may or may not have many cultures/people groups/races within it's body. It really doesn't matter. A church should be worried if it doesn't fit the normal university catalog cover of diversity. However, the church should call all people. And the church should be hospitable and accepting to all cultures who come because God has already accepted them.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Multi-cultural churches are great. They're a picture of heaven and a witness to the world that Jesus indeed removes the "dividing wall of hostility."
Those of us who don't live in places that are culturally diverse shouldn't worry too much about it. Nor should any of us compromise the true gospel in order to draw in members of a certain culture we desire.
But a church with almost no diversity (either culturally or socio-economically) ought to look at itself and see if it is somehow putting up barriers to those who are different, or settling into the comfortable life of practicing religion with the sort of people who might be your friends even if you weren't all Christians. Ideally, the New Testament pattern is that people who wouldn't normally hang out with each other—rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, slave and free—come together in one body that is in Christ.
Those of us who don't live in places that are culturally diverse shouldn't worry too much about it. Nor should any of us compromise the true gospel in order to draw in members of a certain culture we desire.
But a church with almost no diversity (either culturally or socio-economically) ought to look at itself and see if it is somehow putting up barriers to those who are different, or settling into the comfortable life of practicing religion with the sort of people who might be your friends even if you weren't all Christians. Ideally, the New Testament pattern is that people who wouldn't normally hang out with each other—rich and poor, Jew and Gentile, slave and free—come together in one body that is in Christ.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Thabiti Anyabwile delivered a message on this at this years' T4G conference. The statement sticks in my mind that "Churches are to be multi-ethnic but mono-cultural, and their culture is to be the culture of Christ."
That pretty well sums up where I'm at on the matter.
That pretty well sums up where I'm at on the matter.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I like that. A very good way to put it.
People of the same type of group naturally gravitate towards one another.
If Spanish language services are held in the American SW, we might expect almost all congregants to be of this particular background.
If this thread is about the HUP (homogenous unit principle), it should be noted that, at first, this was not prescriptive nor a methodology for planting churchs but was descriptive and merely described what often happened, McGavran noting that in India folks of the same ethnicity and caste were best able to reach those of the same ethnicity and caste such that mono-ethnic churches often arose naturally and unplanned.
The homogenous unit principle also became a useful tool in targetting neglected ethnicities. For instance, in some cities of the world there are minority groups that remain un-reached even despite a good number of churches that are made up of other ethnicities and languages. Therefore, some missionary efforts set out to specifically target those neglected groups that are not being reached by normal efforts and I think in these cases a narrow and specific ethnic focus is called for.
For example: in some urban Indonesian cities the mixed Chinese populations prefer more of a westernised and broadly evangelical approach to worship, and the music and the "feel" of church is quite different than the Sundanese of West Java. In some city churches, as more Chinese joined, the Sundanese believers felt less and less welcomed such that some evangelists made and are making intentional efforts to create churches catering to Sundanese tastes in music (local instrumentation as opposed to keyboard) and style of worship (sitting and more quiet). I believe this is appropriate when there are large minority populations that would be hindered by joining to the majority's church services.
Remember, there is no such thing as theology or worship done in churches that is totally untouched by that population's culture. There is no a-cultural worship...it always bears the marks of somebody's culture. We often think we have "the culture of Christ" but naively export our own cultures to others.
In the US, if a single church or a single type of church lives in regions where a multiplicity of ehtnicities exist, and yet 98% of the members of those churches are white...well, I would not rule out that there might be problems. For instance, in the Deep South, I have heard several pastors speak about the old glories of the Confederacy and I actually heard a calvinistic pastor tell a joke about a "colored boy" from the pulpit. I think there are many cases where we are not aware of just how unwelcoming we can be to minority groups or folks who are not like "us".
If Spanish language services are held in the American SW, we might expect almost all congregants to be of this particular background.
If this thread is about the HUP (homogenous unit principle), it should be noted that, at first, this was not prescriptive nor a methodology for planting churchs but was descriptive and merely described what often happened, McGavran noting that in India folks of the same ethnicity and caste were best able to reach those of the same ethnicity and caste such that mono-ethnic churches often arose naturally and unplanned.
The homogenous unit principle also became a useful tool in targetting neglected ethnicities. For instance, in some cities of the world there are minority groups that remain un-reached even despite a good number of churches that are made up of other ethnicities and languages. Therefore, some missionary efforts set out to specifically target those neglected groups that are not being reached by normal efforts and I think in these cases a narrow and specific ethnic focus is called for.
For example: in some urban Indonesian cities the mixed Chinese populations prefer more of a westernised and broadly evangelical approach to worship, and the music and the "feel" of church is quite different than the Sundanese of West Java. In some city churches, as more Chinese joined, the Sundanese believers felt less and less welcomed such that some evangelists made and are making intentional efforts to create churches catering to Sundanese tastes in music (local instrumentation as opposed to keyboard) and style of worship (sitting and more quiet). I believe this is appropriate when there are large minority populations that would be hindered by joining to the majority's church services.
Remember, there is no such thing as theology or worship done in churches that is totally untouched by that population's culture. There is no a-cultural worship...it always bears the marks of somebody's culture. We often think we have "the culture of Christ" but naively export our own cultures to others.
In the US, if a single church or a single type of church lives in regions where a multiplicity of ehtnicities exist, and yet 98% of the members of those churches are white...well, I would not rule out that there might be problems. For instance, in the Deep South, I have heard several pastors speak about the old glories of the Confederacy and I actually heard a calvinistic pastor tell a joke about a "colored boy" from the pulpit. I think there are many cases where we are not aware of just how unwelcoming we can be to minority groups or folks who are not like "us".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
