The Challenge of the ta Ethne

Multi-ethnic vs Multi-cultural Church

Dr. David A Alexander

The ethnographic landscape of the United States is increasingly more diverse.
The local church faces the challenge of constant adaptation in order to continue
penetrating lostness and making disciples among the generational, social-economical,
racial and ethno-linguistic diversity of its community. Texas is now riddled with churches
that either could not adapt or refused to adapt and now are counted among those
congregations that are either stagnant or ending their witness. Churches that are driven
by their burden for the lost are seeking ways to relate to their changing communities.
Paul tells the church in Corinth that the cross is a stumbling block. For the lost, it
is a significant obstacle to reception of the Gospel. The Church (capital C, the universal
one) has historically, at times, been guilty of adding to the obstacles a person must
overcome in order to become a devoted follower of Christ. Some of these obstacles
have been theological; asking people to clean themselves up before coming to church
or to believe a certain creed before coming to Christ. Other obstacles have been
missiological and sociological in nature; requiring people to speak a certain language in
order to hear the Gospel or adapt to certain styles or models of behavior. MacGavrans
homogeneity unit principle (HU) is getting a bad rap. The HU principle was presented in
an era when the USA viewed many things according to racial divides. Therefore, when
the HU is interpreted this way and applied to the church, it tends to create a culture of
segregation. As a church, this is definitely not desirable. However, the HU still holds
some truth that should not be totally dismissed. First, humans all around the globe
naturally gravitate to affinities and homogenous groups. Homogeneity need not and
should not be defined racially or ethnically. In the USA, it is more socio-economically,
having to do with peoples educational and social class. People move to communities in
their social range. People enjoy hanging out with others who have something in common
with them. This is the essence behind the HU. So even if an organization were able to
integrate various different people groups and cultures, it will constantly fight this natural
tendency people have to form cliques centered on commonalities. Also, even as
segregation and strife are barriers to faith, so is alien culture. Christianity is often viewed
as a western religion. To break this barrier and many others, indigenous leaders often
reach their own peoples better. Even Jesus came as a Jewish carpenter to reach the
Jews.
Simplistically, the missiological challenges faced by the western Church fall
within the scope of multiethnic or multi-cultural relationships or a combination of both.
Hallway dialogues often tend to use these terms interchangeably either unaware or
ignoring the significant missiological difference between the two. The distinction between
the two should not be dismissed. Not understanding the difference often results in
evangelistic and disciple-making failures. The distinction is incredibly important so as not
to create more barriers for a people to the gospel than exist naturally. The church needs
to address both, but the how can have significant positive and negative ramifications for
future Christian witness.
Multiethnic Perspectives
Ethnicity primarily refers to a group identity arising from a common culture,
language, ancestry and experiences. Multiethnic refers to a variety of ethnicities that

have found a commonality that enables interacting together within a common forum or
environment. Although there are ethnic distinctions, there is also a sense of
homogeneity. In a multiethnic group, the members have chosen to give up some of their
cultural values and preferences in order to come together. The group will use a common
language that is often the market language they are all familiar with. The group assumes
a certain culture of its own that is either a blend of its composite ethnicities or resembles
the majority ethnicity present. There is a tolerance and acceptance of the differences
between each ethnic group. The group as a whole can appreciate and participate in the
amazing diversity of cultures without being beholden to any one of them. At times, the
individual ethnicities will revert back to cultural preferences once they leave the
multiethnic forum.
Some multiethnic congregations can appear mono-ethnic at first glance. Spanish
language congregations in the USA are mostly multiethnic in the sense they are
multinational. But each congregation takes on a Hispanic culture and outsiders would
not view them as being multiethnic. Whereas they might celebrate the various national
foods, clothing and regional music and notice subtle differences in the Spanish that is
spoken, generally they have much in common that serves as the glue that will bind them
together. Regardless of their national origins, together they are la Raza, the race. This
holds true for many foreign ethno-linguistic groups who are in the USA. While the
population is at a minimal, the groups will forego cultural preferences and even heart
language in order to gather with others from their region that share a common market
language. This is done out of convenience and a sense of cultural preservation.
However, as the individual ethno-linguistic groups grow, they tend to divide more and
more into their cultural and linguistic affinity groups. Whether desirable or not, it's the HU
principle at work and is only natural.
The difficulty in becoming a multiethnic group depends on how far one has to
travel away from personal cultural preferences in order to join the group. A church in
suburban community might be easier to develop since the people in a suburban
community are generally socioeconomically similar around a common market language.
In older communities that are more culturally and linguistically diverse as well as
ethnically diverse, the church will begin to face multi-cultural challenges as it attempts to
assimilate all the people into the culture of its membership. As soon as a multiethnic
group begins to relate to peoples of differing heart language and worldview, multicultural
issues must be considered.
Multicultural Perspectives
A multicultural society is impossible outside of Christ. Multiculturalism in secular
society just gives rise to chaos. Sharia law and democratic or even socialistic principles
are incompatible with each other. A beauty in Christ is His ability to bring all peoples
together under the banner of the cross. Biblical principles are true for anyone anywhere
even though their application will vary as they are influenced by cultural nuances. For
example, Jesus and His disciples picking grain from someone elses field would be
considered stealing in the USA, but the Pharisees dont gripe at Jesus for stealing but for
breaking the Sabbath.
Current trends in the ecclesiological missional focus use passages like
Revelation 7.9-10 as their end vision. This glimpse into the heavenly reality of a
congregation that is devoid of linguistic and cultural barriers is wonderful to imagine.

However, this side of Heaven, unless God performs a Pentecost type miracle every time
a congregation chooses to gather, worldview and heart language will always be
obstacles to group unity.
At the core of every person is a worldview. This is the culturally structured
assumptions, values and allegiances underlying a persons perception of reality and their
responses to those perceptions.1 People are not born with a worldview. The personal
worldview is developed over the course of the formative years. People will respond
according to worldviews provided structure of perceived reality. For instance, people do
not respond to Gods reality, but to their interpretation of Gods reality, as they perceive
it. The two predominant worldviews among the peoples of Earth are innocence vs guilt
and honor vs shame. Simplistically, innocence vs guilt sees everything as wrong or right,
black or white, pure or sinful. In the honor vs shame worldview, the end justifies the
means as long as the end result brings honor to self, family and God.
In a diverse society, like the USA, it is common for people to experience a
conflict at the worldview level. This conflict results in the assimilation of an important
portion of one or more worldviews in addition to their original one. This leads to a
situation where a person can apply one worldview in a given circumstance and another
contradictory worldview in other circumstances. Some internationals may even have
parts of several worldviews competing within them, the worldview they were raised with,
the western assumptions taught to them in USA schools and Christian assumptions
(possibly infected by a western perspective).2 It can get quite complicated. Worldview
assumptions are considered true without proof. A person will organize their life and
experiences according to these assumptions that are rarely questioned unless those
assumptions are challenged by experiences that cannot be interpreted from within the
framework.3 Hiebert explains this brilliantly and points out a flaw that occurs when the
difference is ignored between western worldviews of reason and science and other
worldviews that see everything as being controlled by spiritual forces.4 This flaw
significantly impacts the health in discipling cross culturally. Unless a church has an
intentional disciple-making process that enables personal contextualization of spiritual
growth, then the church is operating under the false assumption that a weekly Sunday
sermon or casual small group session will have enough influence to erase the conflictive
non-Biblical assumptions the new Christian still possesses. He has to have some place
where his assumptions are challenged and responses given. This has to happen
intentionally specifically addressing these assumptions within some form of life on life
disciple-making process. If anything can be redeemed from MacGavrans homogenous
principle it is the advantage such a group has in being able to address a lesser diversity
of worldviews because the group has more in common to begin with. A congregation
comprised of a diversity of peoples must find ways to intentionally address the diversity
of worldviews. Simply translating western crafted sermons, Bible studies and evangelism
methods into other languages cannot solve this.
So is preaching or teaching to a multicultural congregation even possible?
Maybe. But it requires incredible intentionality and great preparation to be able to

Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness (Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY. 1996), 52.
Ibid., 55.
3
Ibid., 56.
4
Paul Hiebert, The Flaw of the Excluded Middle.
2

communicate to an innocence vs guilt peoples worldview simultaneously with a shame

vs honor worldview peoples.
Everyone has a heart language. This is usually the language that a child learns
first in the home from its mother, siblings and extended family. The heart language is
often referred to as the mother tongue. People are influenced and learn better in their
heart language. The fact that the world is getting smaller does not mean that heart
languages are diminishing. The Church is tasked with communicating the Gospel to
every people, tribe and language. Yet, sending out the message is not enough.
Communication is what is heard, not only what is said or written. Cultural patterns of a
society fundamentally influence the form of communication. Existing beliefs and value
systems are a major factor in building communication. Personality and experience
modify the form of the message.5 As a church attempts to communicate to multiple
people groups simultaneously, it must understand that some idioms, expressions and
illustrations simply cannot be translated. Translation devices should only be seen as a
desperate bridge to a better solution. A person should be able to hear the Gospel and be
discipled in their heart language. This would increase immeasurably their understanding
of the Gospel nuances and implications to their worldview. Experiencing the Gospel
indigenously confronts their personal and cultural preferences directly with Biblical truth
without having to discern it through other cultural or linguistic filters. For instance, deaf,
who are not abstract thinkers for the most part, are the only people group in the world
who can never learn to speak the language of the majority. Many barely read material
written in the national language. In a hearing church, their pastor is their interpreter, not
the senior pastor. Most deaf will only feel like an equal part of the church when they are
allowed to sit anywhere they choose during the worship service rather than be roped off
in a special section. There are some who choose to use translating devices desiring to
learn the language of the majority. However, the devices are often used as a poor
attempt at assimilating foreigners to the congregation and calling it unity. Communication
is a serious issue that has to be addressed in a multicultural church.
The Church must strive to exemplify within its community the unity the Gospel
brings among all peoples. However, unity in The Church will find its climax in heaven
where language and worldview are no longer issues. There exists a healthy tension in
Scripture between bringing Jews and Gentiles together and becoming all things to all
people in order to win some. The Bible speaks of the followers of Christ being one in the
Lord as well as detailed examples of Gods awareness of cultural diversity. There are
good reasons why there are 4 gospels and multiple authors to the epistles thereafter.
Although Paul taught the unifying work of the Gospel, there are cultural reasons why
Peter was sent to minister among the Jews and Paul primarily to the Gentiles.
Whereas every local church should intentionally work at being a place where the nations
find a naturally welcome environment, it should not view itself as the only option for all
the nations. The Church should work at relating well to all cultures. But at the same time
acknowledge that disciple-making increases in effectiveness the closer the presenter is
to the recipient ethnolinguistically; hence, the incarnational ministry of Christ. While one
local church seeks to reach all in its community, indigenous church starting still has
merit. One Church many languages/cultures/nations/peoples might, but does not
necessarily have to, mean all belonging to one local church.

Arne H. Fjeldstad, The Concept of Heart Language.

http://www.ocrpl.org/2007/the-concept-of-heart-language/. Accessed on June 7, 2016.

Too often, thoughts of unity are ethnoocentric thinking of unity to my or majority

preferences and not unity according to their preference. In these cases, unity exists as
long as others are taking on the majority preference. In Christ, this can be overcome.
However, even during sanctification, the Christian wrestles with self. This is a major
individual problem. A church, being a group of individuals will have this issue to deal with
many times over. So, any progress it makes toward true multiculturalism will occur
painfully as the group intentionally sacrifices itself at the altar of cultural and personal
preference. The believer should feel the urgency of reaching the nations for Christ. Yet
when barriers exist that cannot be easily overcome either 1)the believer should sacrifice
whatever necessary to overcome them; ie. by learning a new language or moving to a
new community, or 2)partner with another believer who does not share the same
barriers; ie. partnering with someone who speaks the language needed or working with a
person who already lives in the focal community. Whereas the former should happen
anyway, for the sake of time, expediency and spiritual economy, the latter is often a
better solution.
Another multicultural challenge lies in leadership preferences. Different peoples
and cultures have different leadership values, styles and paradigms. For example, USA
leadership is more democratic, while most of Latin America defaults to a dictatorial
caudillo style and some tribal cultures of the world lead by committee. Understanding
these is critical to gaining trust and empowering people. If ignored, those that derive
from more self-assertive individualistic cultures or those with strong personalities will
usually have their way. Also, since the majority congregation had leaders in place before
the minority congregation(s) came to be, the minority congregation may defer to the
majority and not feel burdened to develop leaders. Majority leaders will have to be willing
to sacrifice time, energy and position and face possible communication barriers in order
to allow for the development and empowerment of minority leaders. All may be invited to
the table, but the question who owns the table? should be asked.
The senior pastor of a church seeking to become multicultural is faced with a
personal dilemma. If the senior pastor is not able to communicate to a person in their
language, he will most likely never really become their pastor. If a church has to use an
interpreter for the deaf, or translator for other language groups, said person should be
theologically and ministerally trained because, more often than not, said interpreter
becomes the pastor to the language group. A worst case scenario is that the
congregant is asked to go to a subordinate staff member for their pastoral issues. This
happens in many churches where the church has hired an associate pastor for certain
language groups within the congregation. Even worse is if said staff member answers to
another subordinate staff member (like a missions pastor) and not the senior pastor.
This unconsciously tells the congregant that they are part of a subservient group within
the church. Every church member, for equal status, should have equal access to the
senior pastor.
Current Trends
Jesus has commanded the Church, as you go, make disciples of all the ta
ethne. So the Church (universal) and the church (local) are faced with the challenge of
the ta ethne. The first, and very much doable, step for every church is to become
multiethnic: a congregation that resembles the ethnic makeup of its community. Once
there, the next great adventure is pursuing multiculturalism. As churches launch out on

this journey, several models have developed. Since the journey is in its infancy, more
models are bound to appear as time passes.
One model that is proving successful in a churchs journey toward multiculturalism is that of granting some autonomy to the other language congregations that
are forming within the primary group. The pastors are viewed as equals. The foreign
ethno-linguistic group is encouraged to have their own pastor (that they choose),
worship time, their own deacons/elders/leaders. They are challenged to be a selfsustainable ministry and often encouraged to affiliate with the network/denomination as
an entity so they can have direct access to the resources offered. They develop a
budget where 15-20% is designated to be returned to the primary group to help with
facility expenses, joint ministry and student ministry since the language congregations
youth and kids will be moving back and forth between the two. Fellowship, community
ministry and missions still occur together as both congregations seek to work united in
the community for the Kingdom of God.
Another is the multi-congregational but one church model. This model requires
large enough facilities to pull it off if all congregations meet at the same time. This model
would have a senior pastor and pastors for the other language or cultural groups. Each
language might have its own worship time. There might even be separate English
worship services to allow for different musical and preaching preferences. Small groups
allow all to attend the group of their choice as well as providing for heart language
groups. Fellowships, missions and ministries are done together as well as providing
interpreters for leadership meetings. All monies flow into one church budget. This model
is messy but is working to some degree.
In some second generation churches, the pastor is able to translate for himself
while he preaches. This is extremely hard to do and requires much practice and skill to
do well. Small groups are held with multiple languages available. Childcare workers
usually speak both of the necessary languages. Hispanic churches are benefitting
greatly from this model due to the pastors ability to speak the heart language of the
young folks as well as relate to the parents and first generation.
Multisite strategies provide some sense of multiculturalism although its more akin
to having several multiethnic churches in a network led by a senior network leader.
Most churches who refer to themselves as multi-cultural are really only multiethnic congregations. This is not a bad thing and should be celebrated. However, for
healthy missiological and disciple-making purposes, the distinction needs to be made
and understood.
Suggestions for Moving Forward
Purposefully view community reach and church starting as things that are not
mutually exclusive but part of the both/and of what the mission is. Seek to be multiethnic
and pursue multi-culturality while realizing that while the local church (small c) may not
be able to perfectly be all things to all people, the Church (capital C) can be through
the diversity of many local multiethnic churches that have strong fellowship with each
other and are united in Christ for the expansion of the Kingdom of God. So make
disciples, grow and plant!

Be an indigenous church in your community. There are natural networks already

at work within your community. Learn from them how people are interacting. Find people
who can help you bridge relationships into the networks. Dont force out of network
interactions. Be intentional about intercultural relationships, but let the redeemed
community build new networks once Christ breaks down the barriers. Second and third
generations are key to helping connect with first generation peoples.
Start with a goal toward multi-ethnicity. Make sure your visible leadership team is
an ethnic representation of your community. Do things well among a mono-language
multiethnic group before trying to incorporate other ethno-linguistic groups. If necessary,
start other churches to reach the other people groups while you are acclimating your
congregation to the multiethnic idea and functionality.
Pursue multi-culturality. Fellowship regularly with distinct cultural people groups.
Reach people for Christ from other groups. Start small groups for the language groups.
Collaborate ministry and missions as much as possible. Begin to worship on occasion
together allowing the language leaders to take active roles in the worship experience.
Help your worship team learn new cultural music styles. Use music that can be sung in
various languages and post all the languages on the screen at the same time. It is
unknown whether or not a true multicultural local church is possible this side of heaven.
However, it is fun to consider the possibilities!
For those interested in this area of study, here are some recommended books
excerpts in the article were taken from.
Hays, J. Daniel. From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race. Intervarsity
Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2003.
Hiebert, Paul. Missiology: An International Review, Jan 01, 1982, pp. 38-41. Tenor:
Analysis.
Hunsberger, George and Craig Van Gelder. The Church Between Gospel and Culture:
The Emerging Mission in North America. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids,
MI. 1996.
Kraft, Charles H. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY. 1996.
Stetzer, Ed and David Putnam. Breaking the Missional Code. Broadman & Holman
Publishers: Nashville, TN. 2006.