Church family?

Much progress is being made in inter-church and interdenominational co-operation and unity.

However, the trend is often not mirrored within individual fellowships. Sadly, much of this disunity is split along generational lines and many churches are finding it difficult to 'keep everyone happy'.

Tensions that exist, often surrounding the issue of 'worship style', have caused many churches to adopt a pattern of three or even more different services to cater for the various preferences each Sunday. Advocates of this approach point out that in many cases churches that have adopted this pattern of niche services are growing. It is on this basis that the approach is then justified.

This two-part article argues that the niche approach may be problematic and is not necessarily the best way forward for the life and mission of the church. It considers that the one church ideal must be made a reality and is optimistic that workable solutions can be found if our confidence is put in the transforming, reconciling power of the gospel for all the people of God. If this is achieved there is significant potential for the ministry and growth of the church. If not, the future will almost certainly be one of growing fragmentation and tension in the church.

1. Setting the scene

1.1 Trends in society

Western society is changing. Our individualistic and consumerist culture tells us that 'I' am most important. Individual choice rather than community obligation drives our actions. This mindset has contributed to the escalating fragmentation occurring in marriages, families and communities. Interdependence is being exchanged for independence.

A recent Government initiative, 'The Tomorrow Project' has looked at the potential shape of society over the next 20 years and suggests that it will be characterised by growing fragmentation and isolation. The project recognises growing marriage problems and increasing problems relating within and between generations. 'The current trend towards less stable relationships seems set to continue'.

In the West, loneliness and isolation are increasingly being acknowledged as problems. It is thought that the growing elderly population will peak in the first quarter of the 21st century and there will be a 'crisis in care for old people'.

A recent Age Concern study has concluded: 'With the ageing of the population a much greater level of understanding is important if we are to achieve harmony and balance within society. For this reason more intergenerational programmes in education, work, volunteering and care must be developed as a matter of urgency'.

1.2 Trends in the church

The church, as a counter-cultural community of God's people, has enormous potential to demonstrate the reconciling, uniting power of the gospel, as it prophetically and practically challenges these destructive trends. Tragically, many churches are failing to grasp these opportunities. Os Guinness suggests, 'In terms of her alertness to cultural danger, the church is virtually in a coma'. This assertion is relevant to the current issue.

We like to refer to our congregations as 'church families', but it is difficult to see how this description can be accurately applied to many local churches, where the various generational groupings rarely, if ever, meet. These congregations are in danger of becoming specialist clubs. In these 'clubs' we choose whom to associate with and are willing to do this only with those who are the same as us. We are told that the personal, cultural and generational differences that exist are insurmountable, therefore we need to meet separately.
There has been a recent proliferation in books, journal articles and conferences on church growth strategy. One of the most popular themes has been 'The tailor-made church'. In an article with that title, the Rev. Dr. Michael Moynagh argues that, in a society driven by consumerism, individualism, customisation, and differentiation, the 'traditional church with its wide mixture of people will seem increasingly alien to those who want to join others like them'. He continues: 'Our society is becoming ever more fragmented. Let us incarnate the church by establishing new kinds of congregations within the fragments instead of inviting people to us. Just as Christ's love is tailor-made for individuals, the church's mission should be tailor-made to the different groups in our society... We may recoil at this theologically because a fragmented church seems to fly in the face of the "one church" ideal. However, planting churches in the fragments would proclaim that our unity is in Christ, not place.'

I agree that the big challenge 'will be to go to people - to connect church to the groups in our society who are distant from it', but question the suggested solution. I believe that rather than proclaiming our unity in Christ, Moynagh's approach proclaims that our 'unity' is found only in a context of others who share our personal preferences. This is not the unity that the transforming, reconciling gospel brings.

2. Discussion - the issues

2.1 Pragmatism and the Homo-genous Unit Principle

'If the niche approach works, then surely we should adopt it.' Similar statements would be echoed by many who support this approach. It reveals an interesting trend in modern evangelicalism - an emphasis on pragmatism. If it 'works', we do it. However, I believe that raw pragmatism can obscure other considerations (particularly long-term implications) that a particular decision may have. In relation to the current issue, considerations such as maturity, unity and discipleship may be overlooked.

Many of the advocates of the niche approach base their position on principles derived from Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP), developed during the early 1970s. A homogenous unit can be defined as 'a section of society in which all members have some characteristic in common'. These common characteristics may be linguistic, ethnic, economic, etc. The primary motive for such a strategy is the belief that sociological barriers often inhibit people converting because the gospel appears alien to them. HU churches attempt to reach one particular section of society by adopting an approach that does not appear alien to that focus group.

In 1977 the Lausanne Movement convened a special conference to consider the HUP. Supporters and opponents both presented papers and some common ground was found. One of the conclusions reached was: '...a HU church can be a legitimate and authentic church. Yet we are also agreed that it can never be complete in itself. Indeed, if it remains in isolation, it cannot reflect the universality and diversity of the Body of Christ. Nor can it grow into maturity. Every HU church must take active steps to broaden its fellowship in order to demonstrate visibly the unity and variety of Christ's church. This will mean forging with each other and different churches creative relationships which express the reality of Christian love, brotherhood, and interdependence.'

In both the Old and the New Testament, we discover that God's mission is to create a people for himself. We must remember that Christ came to establish a new society, not just new individuals. David Wells points out that it is difficult to see how we can witness to the gospel's truth that 'in Christ all barriers have fallen - those of race, education, class, etc. ... if they are carefully and deliberately preserving these barriers as part of their mission strategy'.

Similarly, Stott states: 'Salvation in the Bible is never a purely individualistic concept... God is calling out a people for himself... This single new humanity - which Christ has created and in which no barriers are tolerated - is an essential part of the good news (Ephesians 2.11-22).'

A church that effectively and proactively models true community is dynamic and attractive - and a powerful statement to society. Perhaps partly to blame for this lack of confidence in the one church ideal is the loss of confidence in the power of the gospel, not only to change lives, but also to transform the community of God's people. 'Christ the Lord gives to his people new standards. They also receive a new homogeneity which transcends all others, for now they find their essential unity in Christ, rather than in culture.'

2.2 Mission and Church

The basic thinking of the HUP was developed in a context of cross-cultural mission, and is thus most applicable in mission and evangelism. Indeed, it is on the basis of this missional motive that it is usually defended. However, questions arise when it becomes normative for the life and ministry of the church in general. While 'church' must be about evangelism and mission, it is more than this. Church is also about maturity, unity, discipleship and community (e.g. Ephesians 2.11-21; Hebrews 5.11-6.3; Colossians 3.12-17) and these dimensions cannot be fully demonstrated in a Homogenous Unit. Reaching the 'un-churched', and particularly our youth, in an effective and meaningful way is certainly a mission activity, arguably even a cross-cultural activity. However, it is my conviction that the intention must ultimately be to introduce all believers into the body of Christ with all its various representatives and parts (1 Corinthians 12.12). Mature Christians must be able to worship together. To say otherwise is a denial of Christ's reconciliatory accomplishment. Strong Christians and strong fellowships are those who are mature enough to experience variety and live with differences. Those who are unable are immature or ignoring the clear teaching of the New Testament.

This theme will be explored further next month.

Adam Sparks
The author is pursuing a PhD in Theology at Bristol University

© Evangelicals Now - March 2004
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.