Ihave been musing recently on the Scripture passage where Jesus says, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2, KJV). It is a widely held truism that Jesus was referring to an after-life assurance of heavenly bliss and reward that awaits all those who have been faithful in service and worship. This declaration has been the buoy to many a weary traveler on the troubled waters of this earthly existence. Through the centuries, the Church has subscribed to the reality of life after death. Often lost in this admission, however, is the implication that it is very possible that the “many mansions” might refer to the fact that we will not loose our individuality in the New Jerusalem. In fact, I find great comfort in 1 Corinthians 13:12, which suggests that I shall know even as I have been known.

Using this line of thinking, is it plausible that there is a legitimate place for congregations to maintain their particular individuality based on ethnic and cultural ethos that is not viewed as being exclusive, but as an entity that celebrates its corporate uniqueness? Is it realistic to have on any Nazarene district ethnic and immigrant congregations that exercise unity with the values and vision of the district, and yet not be subjected to uniformity?

In travels around the country and through unsolicited correspondences, I have often engaged well-meaning Nazarenes who unwittingly and unintentionally confuse uniformity with unity. These faithful saints confuse the biblical command to be “one” with a desire for district uniformity. Often-cited passages of Scripture are mistakenly used to buttress their argument, and very rarely is reference made to Paul’s injunction in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 about the analogy of the body that functions with various independent parts. According to these passages, the unity that must be sought after is one of purpose, vision, and mission around the personhood of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, when Paul expressed concern over divisions that existed in the church at Corinth his counsel was that “ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10, KJV). Paul was not saying there had to be uniformity, but rather that they learn how to accept the diversity within the Body of Christ and the community of faith. As God is one, yet three persons, likewise the Church could encourage diversity without uniformity. It is unmistakable in Romans 14 that unity was not uniformity in the Early Church. I like Eugene Peterson’s translation of this text. Peterson says:

For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume he should only be a vegetarian and eat accordingly. But since both are guests at Christ’s table, wouldn’t it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn’t eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God’s welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help (Romans 14:2-4, The Message).

Every cultural group brings to the playing field different histories and traditions, tastes and mores, smells and familiar sights, myriad degrees of diversity; they face different internal and external problems, and provide solace and security that cannot be provided by any other group. While we strive for unity within districts and congregations, no dominant group should ignore these basic demands of a cultural group. It is by God’s deliberate design that various groups of people inherently possess specific cultural traits, and it is not judicious that they be coerced to a uniformity that dismisses such particularity. Diversity should not be an unwelcome nomenclature. Rather, we need to take advantage of some of the values that can be accrued, such as:

• Diversity is a fact of life in a multicultural society and serves to dismantle the counterproductive tendencies of assimilation.

• Diversity reinforces the intrinsic cultural particularity of individuals that are shaped by history, mores, and customs.

• Diversity adds enrichment and vitalization to ethnic and immigrant groups. Every niche group brings a particularity that cannot be granted by the dominant culture.

The Case for Ethnic-Specific Churches

Pragmatic Reasons

If people naturally want to worship with those of their own kind, then ethnic-specific churches provide the pragmatic solution. Church Growth expert and educator Donald McGavran has maintained that most people do not want to cross the lines of race or culture to go to church. He argued that this is the most successful approach for the development of growing vibrant churches. Many members of first-generation immigrant congregations are converts, and would never have been evangelized without such places of fellowship. These new converts were attracted to the church primarily because of the ethnic character of the congregation.

Theological Reasons

The history of racial alienation and supremacy contributed to the formation of separate churches based on race and ethnicity. Denied the full affirmation of their humanity, ethnic groups found dignity and self-worth in these congregations. A person’s culture and faith interpretation should be upheld and enhanced in the faith community, and this fact is not easily duplicated in a multicultural experience.

Activist Reasons

It is important that in various faith communities of color there be opportunities to express the struggle against injustice and lack of equality. Particularly in the African-American church, social and political leaders have emerged to champion civil and human rights.

Cultural Reasons

Unless multicultural and dominant-culture churches become intentional about affirming and acknowledging other cultures, there is a loss of the unique ways that ethnic groups understand and worship God.

Sociological Reasons

The ethnic church serves as a place of refuge and community development. They “are places where people are embraced for who they are, valued for their cultural particularities, free to communicate through shared experiences, and not pressured to change their ethnic ways so as to gain acceptance. These congregations celebrate, safeguard, and pass on to the next generation cultural practices and traditions.”*

A cursory look at the Early Church sheds some light on the practice and attitude of church leaders. Although there were mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations, there were also homogeneous Jewish congregations who still observed Jewish customs and homogeneous Gentile congregations who observed no Jewish customs. Nonetheless, Paul evidently taught them that they belonged to each other in Christ, and that they must welcome one another as Christ had welcomed them. The Early Church house obviously had many rooms.

by Oliver R. Phillips
Mission Strategy
USA/Canada Director

*Curtiss Paul DeYoung, et al, United By Faith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).