Today in assembly at RC, there was a panel of ministers, (Messianic) rabbis, and priests engaging in a dialogue on the subject of racism in the Christian world. It was actually a preview for a larger discussion that the panelists were goinig to have as a part of the House of God series sponsored by RC's Student Diversity Committee. Unfortunately, I was not able to make the panel today and am typing this while the panel is meeting tonight, so I am missing all of the fun. My bride was at assembly today, though, and gave me a great review of the discussion and dialogue.
One of the many topics that broached by the moderator was Fuller missiologist and church growth expert Donald McGavran's "Homogenious Unit Principle" (HUP). As Natalie described the panelists' responses , I discovered that my thoughts on the subject were actually the minority opinion on the panel. So, in an effort to give some of my own opinions on the subject, I offer the following.
Preface: As the summative evaluation for my MDiv, I, along with my compadres, was required to address three case studies (a history case, a ministry case, and a text case) from each of the major fields of study in the MDiv curriculum (biblical text, church history, doctrine/theology, and ministry). Our ministry case directly intersected and addressed McGavran's HUP. The following is a section of my response on that project. Obviously, Blogger won't support the footnotes, so if you are a glutton for punishment and want to read more, feel free to ask. (Just copied in the text. Evidently Blogger does support notes. Go Blogger!):
Got Milk? Church Growth and the Homogeneous Unit Principle
“‘Men like to become Christians without crossing linguistic, racial or class barriers.’ This vitally important principle of church growth explains, in part, why some congregations grow and others do not.”[1] This, in a nut shell, is Donald McGavran’s Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP), a foundational assumption both in his own missiological “search theology” [2] and in recent church growth thought. McGavran’s homogeneous unit is “a section of society in which all the members have some characteristic in common.”[3] By removing the barriers of language, culture, and class, which hinder conversion, Christians expedite the church growth process.[4] Then, after conversion, people can be expected to practice the teachings of Christ.[5]
Although HUP does ease the process of evangelism, many find McGavran’s approach problematic and theologically flawed. Padilla argues that HUP distorts the Gospel message. “The unity resulting from the Christ’s work is not an abstract unity but a new community in which life in Christ becomes the decisive factor.”[6] This unity is not abstract but is realized in the community of faith where race, social status, and gender are no longer dividing lines, as in the world. The people of God are not “a quotation taken from the surrounding society…, but ‘an embodied question-mark’ that challenges the values of the world.”[7] In other words, the church realizes God’s vision for a new humanity and reveals it to the world at the local level.
Proponents of the HUP counter this critique, suggesting that the homogeneous unit is the primary vehicle through which the new humanity occurs. Wagner suggests the homogeneous congregation should be celebrated because it gives the possibility of healing, rather than creating, social ills.[8] He then suggests that homogeneity actually provides for the most enriched celebration of diversity.[9] Bosch challenges this view by observing real divisions within the church herself. The reality of these divisions suggest that those converted into homogeneous churches actually “become increasingly introverted, xenophobic, and victims of ethnic, class or cultural captivity.”[10]
It is important at this point to critique the homogeneous church growth movement in light of alternative understandings of church growth. For McGavran and HUP proponents, church growth is primarily, though not solely, a numeric phenomenon.[11] What McGavran fails to acknowledge is that the church often goes through important stages of growth that have little to do with numeric increase. The church goes through the continual and active process of transformation or sanctification, which shapes it more into the reality of the new creation.[12] The present crisis with Ansa does highlight the difficulty of heterogeneity. But Bruce must not allow himself, or the church, to choose the easier path toward homogeneity. The community must be challenged to perfect that which they to some extent already embody, a church for all people.
Babel’s Bequeathal: The Dilemma of Human Diversity in the Canonical Heritage
In the beginning, God created the very good creation. Then immediately, the primeval history of the Old Testament turns to a set of four narratives that depict a cycle of human sin and divine punishment.[13] The first three narratives conclude with the intermingling of divine grace that provides some hope of restoration. The final narrative, the events at
The hopeless cacophony of a divided humanity is the point of departure for the rest of the Old Testament.[16] Out of the depths of this hopelessness, Yahweh calls Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), bringing forth a new grace to address
The Old Testament is the story of
The New Testament authors embrace the vision of the unifying force of God’s kingdom. The Matthean evangelist weaves allusions to the nations throughout the text.[22] The author of Luke-Acts highlights the universal scope of the kingdom of God in the programmatic statements of both volumes of his work, announcing good news for the oppressed (Luke 4:18-19)[23] and commissioning the disciples to go to “the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Yet, nowhere in the New Testament is this theme as pervasive as in the letters of Paul.
Paul has clearly been captivated by the universal vision of God’s new creation in the prophets. In Christ the
Trinitarian Trifocals: The Church as the Image of the Triune God
The vision for a church unified in diversity sharpens when we slip on Trinitarian trifocals. The Christian doctrine of the Triune God provides the theological foundation for the discussion.[26] The doctrine is not mere theological speculation, but the affirmation that the inherent relationality of God demands that the lives of Christians bear similar virtues to those inherent in the life of God.[27] The Trinitarian confession affirms that the eternal life of God is personal life in communal relationship, actualized as self-giving love.[28] The unity of the Trinity preserves the unity of God (Dt. 6:4; Jn. 1:1-4; 10:38; 14:9-10; 17:21-22), but the dynamic relationship of the three preserves their diversity or distinctness and also necessitates their indwelling communion[29] (1 John 1:2-4; Col 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 4:4-6[30]). This communion in diversity reveals three Trinitarian virtues that are helpful for our case: polyphony, particularity and participation. These virtues illuminate the biblical vision for humanity, the revelation of true personhood, and a way of life that is in communion.[31]
The dynamic relationships that exist in the Trinity reveal the polyphonic[32] nature of God. Polyphony provides a creative balance between the unity and diversity of God, realizing that “difference provides an alternative to a monolithic homogeneity, yet without becoming a source of exclusion.”[33] A beautiful example of this is the synoptic depiction of polyphony at Jesus’ baptism.[34] The diversity of the Three comes together at this moment, revealing an inclusive unity in diversity. The polyphonic nature of God is also displayed in canonical attestation that Father, Son, and Spirit worked together in the act of creation.[35] Finally, the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2:6-11) reveals that polyphony does not just include harmony, but also dissonance. Though Christ was in the form of God he emptied himself of power, becoming obedient to death. This kenosis glorified God, and through it God glorified Christ (see also Jn. 17:1; 2 Cor. 8:9).
Trinitarian particularity is closely related to polyphony, though slightly different. Trinitarian particularity is not individualistic but communal, for it is only in relationship that we understand our uniqueness or “particularity.” In other words, Trinitarian polyphony actually highlights Trinitarian particularity.[36] Trinitarian particularity is never wholly isolated, but shaped and developed in the context of relationship or participation, the third Trinitarian virtue.[37]
Trinitarian participation is a mutually constitutive existence, in which each person both dwells in and is indwelt by the lives of others.[38] The Trinity does not consist of isolated individuals, but of three interrelated persons who mutual indwell each other. This perichoretic personhood entails the mutual indwelling and reciprocal interpenetration of each of the Three.[39] Jesus illustrates when discussing his relationship to the Father. In this participation, Father and Son are so interrelated that they are one (Jn. 17:17:21-22; also 10:38), reflecting the image of the other (14:9-10; also Col. 1:15).[40]
The Trinitarian virtues of polyphony, participation, and particularity are realized in the ecclesial community. In the community of faith, abiding with one another in Christ both reveals and sharpens our particularity, but in ways that magnify our polyphony.[41] Incorporated through baptism, the ecclesial/eucharistic community is woven into the being of the relational God and incarnates Trinitarian communion in the world.[42] This realization lays the foundation for the development of authority and structure in the church.[43] The description is seen most clearly in Paul’s metaphor of the church of as the Body of Christ, which highlights the three Trinitarian virtues.[44] It protects the particularity of the parts, refusing to annihilate the differences, but retaining them in a complex network of relationships that work together as a differentiated unity.[45] Here, distinction or differentiated unity is not just a benefit, but a vital part of the body’s completeness. Only through the unified diversity of the church can the Trinitarian virtues, polyphony, particularity, and participation, of God’s new humanity be truly realized in this world.[46] For Bruce, this means helping his leadership understand the importance of polyphony, participation, and particularity, especially the latter, as they interact with the church. If properly related, the Ansa’s particularity would have been understood more clearly.
[1] Donald McGavran, “Without Crossing Barriers,” in Church Growth Bulletin, as quoted in Victor Hayward and Donald McGavran, “Without Crossing Barriers?” in Missiology 2 (1974): 205.
[2] Donald McGavran, “The God Who Finds and His
[3] Donald McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed., edited by C. Peter Wagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990): 69. McGavran notes that this characteristic is frequently language or culture.
[4] McGavran, Understanding: 30. See also
[5] Donald McGavran, “The Priority of Ethnicity,” in Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 19 (1983): 22-23. McGavran, Understanding, 177. McGavran suggests that attempting to plant multi-HUP churches can actually be “contrary to the will of God.” See also C. Peter Wagner, “How Ethical Is the Homogeneous Unit Principle?” in Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2 (1973): 13. Wagner suggests that it is unethical to force people to adopt another culture to become Christians. Although he rightly sees that Christianity is for all people, and therefore transcultural, he fails to see that in becoming Christian, people are, in fact, adopting a new culture.
[6] C. Rene Padilla, “The Unity of the Church and the Homogeneous Principle,” in International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 6 (1982): 23.
[7] Ibid., 30.
[8] Wagner, 12-13. See also Robert L. Plaisted, “The Homogeneous Unit Debate: It’s Value Orientations and Changes,” in EQ 87 (1987): 228-233. Plaisted suggests Paul was the quintessential HUP practitioner. He fails to understand the cultural and social milieu of the early church and Paul’s labor to unify those from different groups.
[9] Ibid., 14. Wagner also suggests that homogeneous churches provide the framework for admiring diversity from afar.
[10] David J. Bosch, “Church Growth Missiology,” in Missionalia 16 (1988): 21. See also Padilla, 23. Padilla suggests that HUP is actually counter to the gospel message because Gospel is about the unity of separated peoples.
[11] McGavran, Understanding, 71. McGavran differentiates three types of church growth: biological, transfer, and conversion. Of these, he gives priority to conversion or ‘discipling’ (124). McGavran’s categories are primarily about the individual. He does utilize the term “perfecting” to describe the process of spiritual growth, but it is a category altogether separate from his understanding of church growth (31).
[12] Lewis B. Mead, More Than Numbers (Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute, 1993), 42. Mead highlights the need to re-envision church growth as “maturational,” growth that occurs during an active dialogue between who the church is and what it is called to be (51). See also Transforming Congregations for the Future (Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute, 1994), 43-71. Here, Mead describes the church’s responsibility developing disciples.
[13] An overview of the structure is as follows: Cycle 1 (Gen. 2:4b-3:24) – Adam and Eve sin, they do not ‘surely die’ God makes them clothes; Cycle 2 (Gen. 4) – Cain commits fratricide, God gives him a protective mark; Cycle 3 (Gen. 5-9) –God saves humanity through Noah; Cycle 4 (Gen. 10-11:9) –
[14] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, Rev. Ed., in Old Testament Library, ed. G.E. Wright, et al. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 152. Von Rad correctly notes that Gen. 1-11 depict humanity’s movement away from God and the development of a chasm between God and his creation. See also Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis (
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), 555. See also von Rad, 154.
[18] Gerhard von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, in The Old Testament Library, ed. James L. Mays, Carol A. Newsom, David L. Peterson (Louisville: Westminster, 2001): 164. Von Rad rightly suggests that the climax of the problem of Yahweh and the nations at
[19] The relationship between
[20] Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 2nd ed., trans. John Bowden, in The Old Testament Library, ed. Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, Bernhard W. Anderson, and John Bright (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1983): 55. Kaiser suggests that universal peace only comes through the universal recognition of Yahweh via
[21] Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, trans. David M. G. Stalker, in The Old Testament Library, ed. Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, Bernhard W. Anderson, and John Bright (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1969): 424-425. Westermann suggests that this universal salvific gathering by God is something for which there is no precedent. God will even gather the nations together himself (66:18-21).
[22] Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. J. Bradford Robinson, in New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1995): 26-30. Luz rightly notes that four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, signaled by the paraphrase of Bathsheba as the “wife of Uriah,” highlights the universal perspective of his gospel. The Great Commission (28:19) bookends the gospel with this theme.
[23] Here, Luke’s Jesus and interprets the text of Isaiah to show its universal nature.
[24] Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, rev. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994): 114. Banks astutely notes that Paul’s emphasis is shared integration of different groups. He concludes, “[Paul] is more interested in the unity the gospel brings than in its equality, and in this unity diversity is preserved rather than uniformity imposed.”
[25] Paul utilizes his vision of the new humanity to theologically shape the community into a cruciform people. (Phil 2:1-11; 2 Cor. 8:9). Practically, this means that leadership must not lord their power over others, those with excess must selflessly care for those in need, and those who have rights must defer for the sake of others. This speaks to many different facets of our case, including the need for leadership to empty themselves for others and of the privileged to help others in the community.
[26] Time and space do not permit attempts describe and dissect the metaphysical question of the Triune God. I will proceed, accepting the doctrine and attempting to explicate helpful conclusions from it. The discussion on Trinitarian virtues will hopefully provide a better glimpse into the nature of the relationships within the Trinity.
[27] David S. Cunningham, These Three Are One, in Challenges in Contemporary Theology, ed. Lewis Ayers and Gareth Jones (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998). Cunningham’s work is an attempt to show how three “Trinitarian virtues” (polyphony, participation, and particularity) should be lived out in “Trinitarian practices.” His “Trinitarian virtues” are helpful, and will guide the discussion here.
[28] Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991): 67, 69, 70.
[29] Cunningham, 115.
[30] The latter three might can be taken at least as proto-Trinitarian thought in Paul.
[31] John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, in Contemporary Greek Theologians 4, ed. Christos Yannaras, Kallistos of Diokleia, and Costa Carras (Crestwood, NY.: SVS Press, 1985): 17-19. Zizioulas suggests that the existence of God is an event of communion. Likewise, “there is no true being without communion,” “but every form of communion which denies or suppresses the person is inadmissible.” (18).
[32] Polyphony refers to the mixing of various sounds that work together to achieve something. The various tones and sounds produced by various instruments and voices combine to create the rich world of the piece.
[33] Cunningham, 129.
[34] When John brings Jesus out of the
[35] This becomes evident when creation narratives are juxtaposed (i.e. Gen. 1; 2-3; Prov. 8; Jn. 1; Col. 1).
[36] This particularity becomes clear when examining texts about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For example, re-examine the texts above or consider the particularity revealed in Jesus’ command to wait in
[37] Cunningham, 203.
[38] Cunningham, 165.
[39] Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness, in Sacra Pagina, ed. Alan G. Padgett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 208-211. See also Cunningham, 180.
[40] Christians also share in this participation through the indwelling Spirit that comes at baptism, drawing Christians into the participation in the life of God, and likewise into the lives of all other Christians.
[41] The obvious challenge is to keep these particularities from becoming barriers to relationship/communion.
[42] Zizioulas, 18-19. Zizioulas goes so far as to suggest that there is no real existence outside of the ecclesial community. True personhood comes into being at baptism, the second birth. The references to baptism and the Eucharist here are intentional. It is in these two acts that Christians most fully participate in the life of God.
[43] Zizioulas, 114. See also Volf, 195. Volf suggests that “correspondence between the Trinitarian and ecclesial relationships is not simply formal. Rather it is ‘ontological’ because it is soteriologically grounded.”
[44] Cunningham, 154-155.
[45] Volf, 145.
[46] Volf, 181. Volf beautifully describes the new humanity of the church as an “‘open’ fellowship of friends and siblings who… summon enemies and strangers to become friends and children of God and… accept them as friends and siblings. Only such open fellowship is commensurate with the ultimate vision of the church as the eschatological gathering of the entire people of God from all tribes and nations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment