Niches and other pigeon holes

Late in the 17th century, a controversy arose over who invented calculus. Both Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz of Germany, and Isaac Newton of England argued for precedence in what they saw as a pinnacle of human achievement. In that era, Leibniz and others believed that “the calculus” would allow them to predict future events, even human behavior. So forewarned we might change reality by avoiding the mistakes of blindly blundering into the future. Useful as calculus might be, it didn’t turn out to explain or replace God. Man’s search for formulaic answers to life’s challenges had to continue.

It’s appealing isn’t it? Possession of a formula that guarantees success for all the important things we attempt would make life so much neater. We could just push the right buttons and all creation would respond according to our will.

Perhaps it’s not such a good instinct after all. Hoping to find a scientific means of controlling the future is a bit like hoping sentient computers might one day meet our every need. Read a little Asimov and you’ll see that tools which surpass their creators are as likely to become monsters as servants.

That’s why I’m a little uncomfortable with outreach, evangelism, church planting, or church growth schemes that claim to be (or are interpreted by adherents to be) “the way.” I intend this idea to be broad in application but in the context of our special report, there is more than one right way to do church in a multi-racial/ethnic context.

No one has developed a formula that ensures success. No one has found a way to bypass hard work and dependence on God to prosper the work.

Many of the ways we deal with people according to the mostly external ways we differ from one another are formulaic. Sure, racial differences have ramifications that are more than skin deep and so do generational and economic differences. Do they justify the scores of books, seminars, listening sessions, and consultations dedicated to these differences? Only in America, I’d say.

Sometimes a focus on a person’s or group’s distinctives is necessary. Even so, there is no cookie cutter way of predicting what will work in each case.

Evangelism requires us to approach people in their own language. We have much in common with our neighbors, externally. A neighbor is more likely to see you as a fellow struggler if you first show interest in his family or if you help him fix his mower. Kids and broken mowers are part of the reality Christians and non-Christians share. Paul’s testimony of being all things to all people was in the cause of evangelism. We begin with what we perceive we have in common with a person, or even a group of people, and then go on to explain more significant things. In evangelism we should deal with people according to their distinctives so they can hear the gospel. Evangelism is not the only work of the church, though.

Another reasonable and necessary way we must focus on distinctives has to do with language groups. Simply, Christians who don’t speak the majority language should have a church where ministry and worship are conducted in their own tongue. Diversity among Southern Baptist churches goes way beyond language.

Ideally, and biblically, relations within the body of Christ (corporate worship, discipleship, etc.) should focus on what we hold in common?one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Our diversity is evident in our gifts and in the experiences God brings to bear on our edifying service to other members of this one body. This perspective is apparently superior to the fragmenting of churches according to more temporary distinctives.

The reality is that we are more comfortable worshipping with those who are like us in as many ways as possible. Thus we start churches based on cultural distinctives, cowboy churches, trucker chapels, hip-hop fellowships, youth worship hours, contemporary music services, traditional music services (I assume they still exist somewhere), and many others yet outside my experience. Again, this is only in America. In places where we have options, we exercise our freedom of choice to the maximum. My family drives past at least one SBTC church on the way to our own church. We had an option we preferred and we took it. Is there anything wrong with that?

Maybe so. The fact that we have options is not a blessing on our pickiness. My impatience with the details of an otherwise sound ministry might be impatience with the discipline of God. A place that is too comfortable has a soporific effect on all the comforted. We’re going to be in Heaven with preachers who preached too long each Sunday and with those who danced in church. We’ll stand before the throne beside those lived well into physical infirmity as well with those who were still strong and beautiful when they heard the trumpet. The fact that we challenge each other is not a thing to flee but an opportunity to gain wisdom, or maybe just patience.

How would we do church if we lived in a place where only one evangelical church was in a twenty mile radius? Some might say, “Start a new one,” and maybe that’s an answer but we’d still worship with those of like faith and practice?regardless or our cultural preferences. Many in the most populous places in our country face that very situation. Maybe they’re better for it. The luxury of our church choices might be spoiling us in the usual manner of luxury.

Maybe nothing this side of persecution (and the resulting loss of choices) will drive us to lay aside our preferences. In the mean time, we should listen to true and useful things that those we perceive as different might offer. We could also stop working so hard to build a fragmented array of individually homogenous churches where no one is vexed by the personal style of another. As we see pastors sincerely working to make their churches look more like Heaven racially and ethnically, we see others who devalue more subtle kinds of cultural diversity. The result is angst over and a small degree of contempt for those who “don’t get it” the way we do.

It’s an equal opportunity temptation with plenty of self-important huffiness to go around. No comfort there. Let’s reach our neighbors with the good news of Christ. Then let’s build them into our own churches. Creative methods are great but this is enough formula for the job. People who live together and who can stand together on the sidelines while their kids play basketball for opposing teams can surely worship the God they both love in the same auditorium.