Does Diversity in the Church Even Matter?

Over the next four days, I’ll be posting excerpts from a book I have coming out next year—called Gaining by Losing: Why the Future Belongs to Churches that Send. This section deals with the increasingly relevant topic of racial and cultural diversity. What the world desires, the gospel alone can accomplish. (Be sure to read the other three posts: part 2, part 3, & part 4.)

 “If I could do it over again, I would pursue a racially diverse church even if it meant Willow Creek became only half the size it is today.” I heard Bill Hybels make that statement at a breakfast I shared with him back in 2006. And it’s quite a statement considering that Hybels has been a pioneer of the modern megachurch movement, practically inventing the “seeker service.” Hybels built Willow Creek, a congregation that has exceeded 25,000 weekend attenders, on the “homogeneity principle,” the idea that you can reach more people if you package your “product” for a particular slice of society—in his case, professional, middle- to upper-class white people in the suburbs of Chicago.

Knowing his heart for evangelism, I pressed him: “So you would be willing to reach fewer people just so your church could be culturally diverse? Greater diversity outweighs total number of conversions?”

Without skipping a beat, Hybels replied, “That’s a false dichotomy, because the corporate witness of racially diverse churches in America would be more powerful, and would likely result in greater total number of conversions, than a numbers surge in any one congregation.”

In this chapter I want to press home Hybels’ point by arguing that the diversity of the church, reflecting the multi-ethnic nature of the body of Christ, is a powerful witness in today’s world, one specifically timely and prophetic for our generation. Our world knows multi-cultural diversity is beautiful, but try as they may, seem unable to achieve it. We have a chance to show that the gospel can accomplish what the world yearns for but cannot attain. And, in line with the dominant theme of this book, I want to show you that the real potential for a multi-ethnic movement lies in the planting of new churches, not simply the renovation of old ones—though both are important. Along the way I will share with you some things we have learned as we, a largely white church, have pursued multi-cultural diversification—insights that I hope both excite you about the possibilities as well as temper your expectations.

Why Even Try?

The first thing anyone who has tried to live multi-culturally will tell you is that it is difficult. Like a lot of things, it starts off rosy and novel with a lot of “Hey, aren’t we neat?” and “Isn’t that special?” kinds of pleasantries. But that sentimentality quickly wears off and people go back to wanting others to conform to them and looking suspiciously at those who don’t look like, talk like, or interpret life like they do.

So why even try? Is multi-culturalism just another fad we pursue for a few years and then abandon?

Not at all. The author of multi-culturalism is God.

From Genesis 12 onward, we see a subplot at work in the story of our redemption.  God is bringing back and bringing together the divergent ethnicities and cultures that sin has separated. The salvation that God promised to Abraham is not just an individual reconciliation with God (though that is primary); it is also an inter-communal, inter-cultural, and inter-racial reconciliation with one another.

On the day of Pentecost, the birth of the church, the author gives us a deliberate picture of unity among ethnic diversity. The Apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, begin to preach the gospel in the languages of people from all around the world—languages they didn’t speak and likely had never heard. The significance of what happened cannot be overstated: the very first time the Holy Spirit preaches the gospel, he does so in multiple languages simultaneously.

This wasn’t a cool stunt or a one-time fluke, either.  It flows right out of the vision of the church Jesus painted for his disciples, a vision reclaimed out of the ashes of God’s purposes for the people of Israel. Jesus viewed God’s “house” as a place of worship for people from every nation: “My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations” (Mark 11:18). To the Apostle John, Jesus revealed that his kingdom consisted of believers from “every tribe and language and people and nation,” united, in all their multi-cultural glory, in worship around his throne (Revelation 5:9; 21:26).

The church between Pentecost and Revelation is to be a “sign” of this coming kingdom, an “already/not yet” picture of what is coming. Paul tells us that the unity in the church between people of diverse cultures and ethnic groups signifies to the world the multi-faceted wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10–11).

Think about that statement! According to Paul, the wisdom of God is most clearly demonstrated not in eloquent, anointed preaching or exuberant, intense worship—but through racial and ethnic unity in the church.

In Acts 13:1–2, Luke takes special care to point out that the early church was an illustration of this unity. He lists out not only the names of the church leaders in Antioch, but gives their divergent nationalities. Paul and Barnabas were Jews, of course, though neither of them were born in Israel. Manaen was from Herod’s household, indicating a privileged Jewish upbringing. Simeon had the nickname “Niger” (which literally meant “black”), because he was from the region of Sub-Saharan Africa. Lucius was from Cyrene, modern-day Libya. In other words, of the five leaders mentioned, one is from the Middle East, one from Asia, one from the Mediterranean, and two are from Africa.

So why does Luke take the time to tell us the backgrounds and races of these church leaders? We don’t hear anything about most of these leaders ever again. The only reason I can come up with is that Luke wanted to show us that the leadership in Antioch was multi-cultural. And is it a coincidence, then, that it is in Antioch that the followers of Jesus are first called “Christians”? In other words, when the world looked at the multi-cultural unity of the church, they called them by the name of “Christ,” because no other factor explained their unity.

When you bring up the topic of racial diversity in most churches, many people silently think to themselves, “Well, I’m not a racist. I don’t think other races are inferior. So, I’m good on this one!” But the point of God bringing us together in gospel unity is not simply to stop looking down on other races. God wants his church to reflect his love, a love that embraces people who are not like us. He wants the very makeup of his church to preach the gospel: that despite our racial variants we are united under one ancestor, Adam; one problem, sin; and one hope, salvation in Christ. He wants us to demonstrate to the world that this unity in Christ is weightier than anything that divides us. So when the Holy Spirit attacked Peter’s racism, he didn’t just command him to quit looking down on other races. He commanded Peter to embrace Cornelius, to go in and eat with him, and to worship with him.

So, if your metric for success here is just, “avoid being a racist,” you have yet to go where the gospel compels us. God’s not after racial neutrality; he wants a multi-cultural display.

Only 5.5% of American churches today qualify as “multi-cultural,” which sociologists generally define as no one race making up more than 80% of the congregation.[1] Full disclosure: at The Summit Church, we’re not quite there yet, but by God’s grace we’re getting close.

Multi-cultural diversity is in the DNA of the gospel, and a Spirit-filled church will supernaturally drift toward this diversification. We see this reflected in the history of Christian missions: Christianity is the most diverse, culturally versatile faith on the planet. Every other major religion has at least 80% of its followers grouped on a single continent. But Christianity has roughly 20% of its followers in Africa, 20% throughout Asia, 20% in Europe, 20% in North America, 20% in South America. Christianity, statistically speaking, has no dominant culture.

In this chapter I want to offer a number of suggestions, from a church “in progress,” about pursuing multi-cultural unity in the church.