Mark DeYmaz in his book Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church asks rhetorically, “Does a homogeneous church unnecessarily confuse the message of God’s love for all people?” and “Will such a church become increasingly cumbersome to the advance and proclamation of the Gospel in this century?” DeYmaz’s has a view that the homogeneous church does not biblically reflect the heart of God for all people.
The essay examines the validity of DeYmaz’s arguments in support of his view, and against some with similar or different views. With the NT evidence on the practice of early Christian churches strongly suggesting their heterogeneous nature, which composed mainly of Jews and Gentiles, the question becomes how relevant this model is in the present
…show more content…
century and what value there is for a homogeneous church today in the proclamation of the Gospel and the message of God’s love for all people. It is generally accepted that the homogeneous church had and still has its value in limited sociological circumstances, but with the increasing cultural and ethnic diversity in the twenty-first century society because of unprecedented mobility of world’s people, the multiethnic church model is arguably more able to assimilate with and reflect this diversity, and demonstrate the heart of God for all people in a visible way than a traditional homogeneous church.
Introduction
Missiologists such as Donald McGavran have long found that churches grow fastest when it is sociologically homogeneous as people do not like to cross racial, linguistic or class barriers. People are most comfortable with people who are like them.
In his book Building a Healthy Multi-ethnic Church, Mark DeYmaz asks rhetorically, “Does a homogeneous church unnecessarily confuse the message of God’s love for all people…?” and adds, “Will such a church… become increasingly cumbersome to the advance and proclamation of the Gospel in this century?” DeYmaz believes that multi-ethnic local church comprising of diverse believers as opposed to homogeneous church will drive the proclamation of the Gospel in the twenty-first century because of its witness of the diversity of the kingdom of God, and because it is the “very prayer and intent” of Jesus for the local
…show more content…
church. To substantiate his views, DeYmaz endeavours to show that the “homogeneous church” does not biblically reflect the heart of God for all people. Commands of Jesus DeYmaz first uses Jesus’ prayer in John 17 in which Jesus prayed firstly to the Father for himself, then for his eleven disciples, and lastly for those who believe in him through the message of the disciples.
The oneness of the disciples (v. 11) and of those who have come to believe through the disciples’ message (vv. 21-22) is emphasized as the witness of this community that the world would come to know God’s love and believe. DeYmaz insists that the local church is called by Jesus to display this oneness for the sake of the Gospel, specifically “men and women of diverse backgrounds walk together as one in Christ”, that “their oneness of mind, love, spirit and purpose proclaim the Gospel in a most powerful and compelling way”. That said, it would be hard to ignore that a homogeneous church which displays perfect oneness of mind, love, spirit and purpose could not proclaim the Gospel in the same profound way as a heterogeneous church. Jesus had also not specifically asked that oneness must be exhibited across diverse backgrounds. Yet DeYmaz rightly points out that a local church’s “collective heart” for people of every nation, tribe, people and tongue is key to being credible in proclaiming a message of God’s love for all people. It is true that this is where a traditional homogeneous church which is uniform ethnically or culturally may have its shortcomings in this sense, but must that mandate all churches be
multiethnic? DeYmaz quotes Matthew 28:19 where Jesus commands his disciples to go and make disciples of all the nations, and shows examples of God’s people since OT who left their comfort zone of homogeneity to accomplish God’s intended purposes, to encourage local church to embrace all people “in and through the local church”. John Piper shows that ‘all the nations’ are in fact referring to ‘all the people groups’ and points out that the focus of this command is making disciples of ‘all the people groups’ in the world. The question to ask is if a homogeneous church must dilute its homogeneity so as to fulfil the Great Commission. The answer is not straight forward, as homogeneous church has been known to be more effective in evangelism and church growth. As DeYmaz points out himself, the Church Growth Movement which promotes the homogeneous-unit principle came out of missionary Donald McGavran’s research in evangelism in India in 1930s suggests that “churches grow fastest when they are homogeneous”, because people “do not have to cross racial, economic, or linguistic barriers”. But DeYmaz’s primary concern is not so much how fast to grow a church, but how biblical it is to grow a church. DeYmaz proceeds to prove his point by examining early churches.
Rodriguez makes a point of stating that there are tensions between the “brother religions”, religions that should be unified but instead are “united and divided by the masculine sense of faith”, still this same pattern is shown within the church (146). Rodriguez acknowledges the fact that the church is being divided each day due
In today’s society, Sunday mornings have become one of the most segregated days all over the world. This common issue is due to racism. Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherit superiority of a particular race. (Meriam…2014) One of the common places that racism is portrayed is in church. The most common racial issue is “the black church versus the white church.” Each group, whether they be black or white, tends to stay to their own racial group due to the lack of social acceptance based on the color of their skin.
Goodstein, Laurie. "Pared-Down Episcopal Church Is Looking to Grow Through ‘Inclusivity’." New York Times. N.p., 18 July 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
Jesus Christ sought to improve the individual, the component of society, and as result, his teaching ideally aims to advance the well-being of society as a whole. The four Gospels and the book of Acts thoroughly demonstrate the extensive sociological knowledge that was present in Jesus’ teaching. His message facilitates personal reform, rather than change in the social structure alone. Although Jesus establishes the church as a social institution, he does so, only after a number of individuals become his followers.
In Conclusion, I believe that these three societies that I have mentioned totally reflect the focus of the article, “Whom God May Call”. The pioneer society looks at new ways and new methods that will help them (society) in spreading the gospel. It is a call to overcoming barriers and approaching new tasks without already knowing the solution to that particular problem. The evangelical society states that the center concern of everything is the gospel. It is a call to put a high priority on the “good news” (gospel) of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ. Finally is a call from God to focuses more on the union of Christians of various denominations, to be ecumenical. Whom God may call? Everyone.
Miriam-Webster’s dictionary defines unity as the state of being in full agreement. When one reads the Bible it is clear that God’s will is for the church to be unified. In I Corinthians 1:10 the Apostle Paul instructs the church to be perfectly joined together in mind and speech and to have no divisions among them. Today we see various denominations, or as defined in Miriam-Webster’s dictionary, religious organizations united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices. This raises the question, where is this unified church that is described in the Bible?
God and His plan are often brought up in terms of faith, to believe in His plan means you trust Him and His guidance. His primary pan though of whether family or church is first is often more of an issue. As examined in ‘Taking Sides,’ an excerpt of Michael Gold (1999) and Stanley Hauerwas (1996) are presented to look at both sides of the argument. Gold (1999) believes that family is and needs to be the primary plan while Hauerwas (1996) says that the church is primary. While church is important and is largely a part of God’s plan, family is the start and end of it all.
In his the paper The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture, Andrew Walls explores the way Christian message was shaped by the culture in which it was brought. Although Walls shows successfully that the Christian manifestation has changed throughout history, Walls places too much emphasis on the influence of culture as part of the church, and not opposed to the church.
In Faithful Presence, David E. Fitch presents a response to his observation that church, for most people, has become disconnected from the lives of the people that attend them and the world they live in. The introduction to the book, that he calls titles, Searching for the Real Church, Fitch asks, “does the church have anything to offer the world full of injustice? Can the church reach out to the worlds around me in a way that doesn’t judge them, alienate them or ask them in some way to come to us?” (10). It is questions like these that this book attempts to answer.
When the Bible commands “Love your neighbor as yourself”, it means be kind and helping to them, not judgmental and hateful towards them. Bethke says, “if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean, because its not a museum for the rich people, it’s a hospital for the broken.” Meaning the church should accept people and help them, not turn them away and judge them. The church should represent Jesus and Gods love for his creation, and since God is the only one who is blameless and perfect, He is also the only one who has the right to judge
Community-formation is further manifested in the corporate language of Christians as a unique “race” and “elect” people. According to MPol 3.2, the whole crowd marveled at “the bravery of the God-loving and God-fearing race of Christians.” Polycarp’s prayer in 14.1 refers to “the whole race of the righteous who live in your presence,” and 17.1 similarly refers to “the race of the righteous.” The language of being an elect people is even more common: “the whole crowd was amazed that there should be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect” (16.1). The next verse affirms, “This man was certainly one of the elect.” The “holy elect” are also referenced in 22.1, and the Lord’s “chosen ones” reappear in 22.3 and in the Moscow Epilogue (“so that the Lord Jesus Christ might also gather me together with his chosen ones into his heavenly kingdom”). Interestingly, MPol does not only use the language of election in a
As research, will show, the new church is growing more so in an *evangelical (*loaded word these days) non-denominational, and abroad, culturally diverse setting. Fortunately, I see an attempt, particularly in the Methodist church to change that up a bit and address the reality of those diverse communities aht surround us and to be deliberate about including “the other”.
Ecumenical spirits influence various religions to lay aside theological differences, and accept and tolerate diverse beliefs coming together and forming ecclesiastical bonds. Historically, Catholics and Protestants fought each other, and not only through verbal exchange, but through physical means as well. World and religious leaders today advocate accepting all faiths and tolerance of differing viewpoints. For the most part they reflect the ideals of the general consensus. Popular opinion suggests that there are various paths to God, and it is narrow minded to believe there is only on...
For you may imagine, what kind of faith theirs was, when the chief doctors, and fathers of their church, were the poets. But the true God hath this attribute, that he is a jealous God; and therefore, his worship and religion, will endure no mixture, nor partner. We shall therefore speak a few words, concerning the unity of the church; what are the fruits thereof; what the bounds; and what the means. The fruits of unity (next unto the well pleasing of God, which is all in all) are two: the one, towards those that are without the church, the other, towards those that are within. For the former; it is certain, that heresies, and schisms, are of all others the greatest scandals; yea, more than corruption of manners. For as in the natural body, a wound, or solution of continuity, is worse than a corrupt humor; so in the spiritual. So that nothing, doth so much keep men out of the church and drive men out of the church, as breach of unity. And therefore, whensoever it cometh to that pass, that one saith, Ecce in deserto, another saith, Ecce in penetralibus; that is, when some men seek Christ, in the conventicles of heretics, and others, in an outward face of a church, that voice had need continually to sound in men's ears, Nolite exire, -Go not out. The doctor of the Gentiles (the propriety of whose vocation, drew him to have a special care of those without) saith, if an heathen come in, and hear you speak with several tongues, will he not say that you are mad? And certainly it is little better, when atheists, and profane persons, do hear of so many discordant, and contrary opinions in religion; it doth avert them from the church, and maketh them, to sit down in the chair of the scorners. It is but a light thing, to be vouched in so serious a matter, but yet it expresseth well the deformity. There is a master of scoffing, that in his catalogue of books of a feigned library, sets down this title of a book, The Morris-Dance of Heretics. For indeed, every sect of them, hath a diverse posture, or cringe by themselves, which cannot but move derision in worldlings, and depraved politics, who are apt to contemn holy things.
Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.