Beyond the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP) to a More Holistic Gospel Witness

When I started seminary at Golden Gate in 1997, I took a preaching class my first semester. One day, a representative from Lifeway came in and began sharing with us principles on church growth. One of those principles was the Homogenous Unit Principle, articulated by Donald McGavran.  I had never heard this before, but it explained a lot. The HUP basically says that people most naturally congregate with people who are like them, therefore, church growth should take place among these affinity groups. The boundaries to evangelism are often more sociological than they are theological.  Those boundaries can be removed if the gospel is contextualized to each sub-culture and if churches are formed that affirm those sub-cultures. For example, if I am a middle class white man, then under this way of thinking, I would prefer to congregate with other middle class whites. Therefore, the best way to engage me with the gospel is to tailor ministry toward me in a way that is attractive to a middle class white male.

I was only 22 years old when I heard this principle shared by the man from Lifeway. This made some sense among groups with language barriers in places like India, but it did not really seem to fit what should be happening in a country like America. It sounded strange to me then because I did not see where it was biblical. Even though I was just a young white man from Mississippi, I didn't understand why church was supposed to be all about me. I remember asking a question of the man from Lifeway and my concerns were quickly dismissed as being uninformed. The HUP was presented to us as just the way of things, but for me, it did not seem right.  Wouldn't this perspective actually reinforce negative issues like racism, consumerism, and selfishness?

After a while, we ended up at First Baptist San Francisco. It was a church of about 400 worshippers located downtown. 26 different nationalities were present in the body. I really enjoyed my time there and I also enjoyed the diversity of the body. It reflected the city in which it was located and there seemed to exist a mutual respect amongst people who were different. People did not stop being Hispanic, white, Asian, or black. But, they were Christians who loved one another and got along, even in the midst of cultural, ethnic, and economic differences.

Is it okay to promote churches made up of people that are the same culturally? Perhaps it is reality that people want to be a part of a church that reinforces their cultural values and expectations, but, when these desires are fulfilled, they can actually become unhelpful to the evangelization and transformation of America. We live in a multicultural nation. Most of America is made up of a plethora of races. By 2050, there will no longer be a majority race. Yet, over 90% of American churches are homogenous in their make-up. When the culture around us is diversifying, what does it say when the Church remains segregated? Should not the Church reflect a unity that can only be demonstrated in Christ? John 17:23 says, "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." Our unity, even across racial lines (Galatians 3:26-29), provides a witness to the truthfulness of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. When our culture bows to our Christianity, we actually show that Jesus is real and that He can perform social miracles.

Paul Louis Metzger in Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church says,

Today we live with an updated version of segregation. Many Americans, including evangelicals, believe that race barriers and their impact on class are in the past because we no longer live under Jim Crow legislation, with its enforcement of separate living quarters, as well as separate public bathrooms and drinking fountains, based on the color of one's skin. I would counter that segregation is still a fact of life: though it is perhaps no longer based on enforced legal structures, it is based on the norms of consumer preference. Intentionally or not, many evangelical churches are guilty of setting up structures of church growth that foster segregation, such as appealing to consumer appetites and the like. We who belong to the evangelical community need to eat crow - humble pie! Moreover, we in the evangelical community need to change our appetites and eating habits: we need to leave the segregated table and its consumeristic bacchanalia and gather at the table of repentance and reconciliation.

If we continue to develop ministry structures and churches that appeal to people's consumer preference, then are we really seeing people transformed based on a gospel perspective? Do our churches look like Heaven? If the gospel makes a new race of people out of the races of the world, then why is that not reflected in our churches? Is this a situation where discipleship is stunted because we do not challenge preferences for fear that people might reject our message if it requires them to accept those different from them?

I can see where the HUP might be helpful among language groups. But, in a country as diverse as America, it seems that a continued appeal to homogenous church growth based on preference would do harm to our witness. Things are changing in our culture on this issue faster than they are changing in the Church. Why is that? Why is the church not leading the way? Why do we solidify as the last bastion of consumer preference on issues of race and class distinction? How can we expect people to be followers of Jesus when their personal preferences are never challenged?  What brings more glory to God: a church where everyone is the same, or a church where people lay down their differences because they love Jesus together?

Just some thoughts as we celebrate our Nation's Birthday on July 4th in a few days. 

Comments

[Gary Snowden]

Good thoughts, Alan. I read McGavran's works extensively during a doctoral seminar at SWBTS with Dr. Cal Guy back in the early 80s. I was a bit sympathetic to some of his arguments in books like Bridges of God where he talked about the gospel advancing through homogeneous units faster because it encountered fewer barriers in the process. Like you though, something didn't ring true about the make-up of a church that perpetuated segregation and prejudice rather than breaking down the walls of separation between previously hostile groups like Paul talks about in Eph. 2. Thanks for the solid reflections.

[Dave Miller]

I think that the homogenous unit principle works. However, I have always felt that it stands in opposition to Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2 about breaking down walls and making the two one.

[Doug]

Bro. Alan,
Your point was exactly my Bible Study lesson last night in Prayer Meeting, using the example of the First Church, which it seems, was multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-racial (Acts 2:5, 9-11; 14; 37-41, 6:1-7, et.al.). It is amazing to me that, though the church was born out of the exclusivity of the Jewish faith, the first Christians seem to be open to other cultures and races (although they still had to work out that Judaism background thing!). This is the work of the Holy Spirit before "church growth experts" could interfere!

[Yogi Taylor]

Excellent article!

It is amazing how many things we implement to create unity, actually creates division.

Yogi Taylor

[Strider]

With respect to Doug the first century church was very prejudiced and it took God's intervention on a number of occasions including Peter's animal vision and Philip's physical relocation to get the gospel past those barriers.

There is another way of looking at this. Jesus has come to redeem communities. The Church model we have had for a long time now has been 'leave your community and come and join ours.' This is traditional church and it has always been less effective than we have wanted it to be. Yes, we should be welcoming and inviting but it is time for us to come out from behind our walls and go and redeem communities. When we do that we will not be the deciders (I think George Bush is the 'decider' isn't he?) but rather as we go to communities they will already be in relationships. They will already have a 'make up'. They will already be black, white, mixed or mixed up. We need to start churches in lost communities that are for their community. It is always difficult- and a little dishonest- when we beat up our existing community and say, 'hey guys, we need to change who we are so we can reach those Hispanics!' Well, we should reach those Hispanics but why not help them build the church that reaches their own community instead of doing something artificial with our own community. Paul was all things to all people but he was also always himself. He went into a community, shared in a way that impacted them and then left. They carried on with Jesus building His Kingdom in their lives in a way that fit them and what He wanted them to be.
I feel strongly that if we are about building up God's Kingdom this will be easy for us to grasp and get done. If we are about building our own kingdoms then clearly this strategy makes no sense as it will not increase our numbers or benefit our congregation. Let's be about building up God's Kingdom by giving away our resources to establish works that are not 'ours' in new communities that desperately need a Church to redeem them.

[Alan Cross]

Good thoughts, guys. I think that Ephesians 2:11-18 is key here:

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Jesus tears down dividing walls between ethnic groups so that they both as access through Him to the Father by the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 11:15-18, we see Peter explaining his actions at Cornelius' house when the Gentiles first came to the Lord. It says,

15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" 18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

The key here is the work of Christ in his death and resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit in appropriating the work of Christ. When the Holy Spirit is at work, He takes from what is Jesus' and makes it known to us (John 16:14-15). Jesus tears down dividing walls. The Gospel is for all people (Col. 3:11). The Church at Antioch in Acts 11 was directly mentioned right after Peter's experience as an example of what a Spirit-filled, Christ centered, gospel proclaiming church in a pluralistic society should be.

[David Rogers]

Alan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I am generally sympathetic to your ideas, but still wrestling with some of the implications.

I know this is a late comment on this post, and you may not have the time to do this. But, if and whenever you are able to find the time, I would love to have your insights on a post somewhat related to this same issue that I recently posted at:

http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/07/22/cultural-engineering-in-church/

[David Rogers]

Alan,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I am generally sympathetic to your ideas, but still wrestling with some of the implications.

I know this is a late comment on this post, and you may not have the time to do this. But, if and whenever you are able to find the time, I would love to have your insights on a post somewhat related to this same issue that I recently posted at:

http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/07/22/cultural-engineering-in-church/