Multicultural Church - Part Two: Is it wrong for a church to strive to be multicultural?

A church that desires to be multicultural will in some way strive to be multicultural. This is to be expected is it not? Why would a church that desires to see Christ exalted among the nations not work toward that goal, starting with their own community? The only answers I could arrive at are residual prejudice or a subtly Hyper-Calvinistic understanding of how Christ builds his church. 

Residual prejudice

I recall a scene from Harper Lee’s classic To Kill a Mockingbird. Ladies attending a Missionary Tea praise a man who has gone to Africa for missionary work, while interspersing their conversation with derogatory comments about black people in their town. Another example can be found in Kathryn Stockett’s more recent novel, The Help. One lady moves to exclude another woman from her organisation’s bake-sale for “the Poor Starving Children of Africa” because people won’t buy cake from a “racial integrationist”. The ironic point is that some people will “send money to colored people overseas, but not across town.” 

Though these stories are fictional, their substance is factual. These foul sentiments were popular a mere few decades. Is it too cynical of me to think that the removal of the tumour has not successfully removed all of the cancerous tissue, that some trace of the prejudiced perspectives of yesteryear persist? Such persistence is denied by many - indeed, one man who spends a disproportionate amount of his time ranting against anyone who speaks out against racism bizarrely claimed on Twitter, "There is no 'enduring legacy of American racism. That is a lie and a manufactured crisis...'" A sad and lonely pseudonymous blogger  who feels less pathetic by randomly spouting attention-seeking, outrageously wrong opinions? Not at all - actually a married father of five, employed by the radio ministry of a globally recognised evangelical pastor, who appears to be emulating the old myth about ostriches and sand. The mentality can be further seen in a dialogue that I had with an American pastor, wherein I was asked by a third party to give actual examples of recent or ongoing racism in churches (doubtless expecting me to have none). After producing a few, I was asked to stop commenting on the thread as the original, quite imbalanced statement that started it all was not meant to inspire "sinful conjecture". I only wish the examples I gave were conjecture - rather, they were cold hard facts. Denial does not create a new reality. 

People say they have a heart for the nations, that they want to see the nations reached. I do not doubt them. But does that include the nations on their doorstep? I have read statements, had conversations, and seen behaviour that indicates more "no" than "yes". Some will go so far as to imply or state outright that such intentional, targeted, local efforts are wrong. This is done under the guise of "we should reach all", but it sometimes appears that "all" actually means "people like us". I ask this - how is spending thousands to fly across the world on intentional, cross-cultural mission any different or better than intentional, cross-cultural ministry at home on a church’s doorstep?

A Hyper-Calvinistic understanding of how Christ builds his church 

John Donne was right: contra the individualistic spirit of the postmodern Western Age, “No man is an island/ Entire of itself”. People of particular colours, classes, cultural, and credal backgrounds will naturally gravitate to each other in a sense of common identity and shared interest, but the all encompassing, transcendent message of the gospel means the old “us and them” excuse of “they keep to themselves” is simply not good enough. Indeed it is appallingly inadequate, and may mask sinful insecurities and prejudices. Beyond that, it may reveal an unhelpful understanding of how Christ's builds the church. 

A repeated theme in much commentary I have seen disparaging some churches' interest in being multicultural insinuates that such a pursuit is worldly, diminishes the gospel, and dishonours Christ. Christ will build his church, so we are told that we needn’t go to specific kinds of people but should simply preach the gospel to “all.” I agree that Christ will build his church, and I agree that we should preach the gospel to all. I do not agree that we needn’t go to specific kinds of people in our efforts to preach to “all”. Despite its pretensions of preaching to “all”,  this mindset runs perilously close if one is not careful to the “Christ will save the [insert any type of person] and he’ll do it without your help or mine”  attitude that William Carey faced when he proposed evangelising India. 

I would love to preach to the universal “all” if I could, but I can’t - not least because of the confines of time, space, and mortality - so I must do my utmost to go to some and there find all kinds of people. In the same way that I believe there are vital elements of particularity in the atoning work of Christ (“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”), I believe there are of necessity elements of particularity in reaching the world’s all kinds of people with the message of Christ. The big picture is one where salvation in Christ is offered indiscriminately, but that big picture is made up of little pictures, moments when the gospel is shared with specific people, from specific backgrounds, asking specific questions, dealing with specific sins and personal burdens, and facing specific obstacles - often cultural or sub-cultural - to repentance, faith, and spiritual growth. Yes, Christ builds his church - but his sovereignty does not negate human responsibility, and he does not build his church mystically apart from the intentional labours of his Spirit-empowered people. God sovereignly brings people into his church through the witness of other people. 

With these thoughts and principles in mind, I get to know my community. I try to understand the cultures and even subcultures represented, to know their tensions, observe their interests and needs, and identify their beliefs and rituals. I can't preach in anything but English, but if translation is needed and someone else in the church speaks the language, I encourage them to do so and not feel that they are interrupting or distracting from anything. Where translation is not available, or the person is from a background where everything he is seeing is new, I try (and fail, so try again) to be as simple and clear as possible. Though more could always be added, I try and ensure that a variety of languages are represented on our evangelistic book table - English, Turkish, Albanian, Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Somalian, Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Ukrainian, Moldovan, Estonian, Slovenian, German, and so forth have all been represented. I also try to take into account the major world-views of our area - Islam and Atheism/Secularism, with a thing or two for nominal Christians as well. This is not even to skim the surface of what is evangelistically helpful and pastorally involved in ministering to different kinds of people, but I want to be able to say with the Apostle Paul “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Cor. 9:23).

Part 2 of 3. Next post: Is it wrong for a church to celebrate becoming or being multicultural?