Over the years, as I have taught about the social and cultural dynamics that limit church diversity, I have often heard thoughtful resistance from people I respect.
They care about their Christian responsibilities and love people, but they are not convinced that the demographics of their congregations and communities really matter. Ministry is demanding enough, they say, and a diversity aim seems like an unnecessary distraction. Though I disagree with them, I understand their viewpoints.
I have come to realize that sometimes such resistance reveals a weakness in how diversity advocates communicate. Learning from the struggles of my seminary students, I have changed my terminology to avoid any words—even common ones—that contribute to misunderstanding and unnecessary offense, at least until students gain a perspective broad enough to keep them from being derailed.
Some problematic terms are obvious. White privilege, a classic example almost always misunderstood in the early stages of learning, shuts down consideration among resistant learners before it even gets started. Likewise, the entrance of so-called critical race theory into evangelical vocabulary (“so-called” because people seem to be making up definitions as they go) has done nothing but hinder learning about important social concepts, triggering a defensive lock-down against both friends and enemies.
Others are less obvious. For example, thinkers have debated whether it’s best to identify churches as multiethnic, multiracial, or multicultural for years.[1] However, rather than bringing clarity about the overall goal, all three (and others) contribute to a message that is easy to misinterpret and thus to dismiss. Do any of these terms clearly communicate who should work toward diversity and why diversity even matters? Do any offer more than a surface-level description?
I don’t think so. To the contrary, I think each magnifies multiethnic doubt.
Multiracial
To doubters who judge from the label alone, the term multiracial suggests that the main purpose of a diverse church is to grapple with race. When my students hoping for church growth hear it, I can almost feel the grating of the gates as their hearts slam shut, as if they are thinking, “My job is already interpersonally challenging. Why would I go looking for trouble?”
Other doubters hear race in the label and jump immediately into underground bunkers of self-protection, darting out only to lob claims of color blindness or cries for race talk to cease. Leading them away from these errors takes time and trust—resources rarely available from fearful, defensive people.
Besides, they say, humanity’s sin problems are more than skin-deep, so race is just a tangent.
Advocates recognize a multiracial ideal as a means to the end of bringing people and communities to Jesus, but to the unconvinced, it is a grenade too hot to handle. Doubters dismiss it as either unnecessary obstruction to church growth, camouflage for deeper sin issues, or an irrelevant distraction.
Multicultural
The term multicultural and its perceived focus on frills has turned off many of the doubters I know. To them, a multicultural church sounds like a missions fair with flags and traditional finery—a fun celebration for some, if that’s their thing.
Others chafe at what they hear as an endorsement of multiculturalism, in which culture and relativism can be stretched conveniently and dangerously to include anything. Do such churches really teach the truth, and why take the risk?
In either sense, the loaded term implies that a church includes everyone, but it does not suggest why that inclusion matters. It simply announces, “We like culture!” People disinclined or distrustful of cultural exploration may question the value of diversity and mentally move on without seeking to learn more.
Multiethnic
Narrower than multicultural and broader than multiracial, this term strikes many as best among inadequate options. It points to the ethne, or the people group, a helpful concept among missiologists for the myriad social and linguistic divisions that shape both a group’s identity and its understanding of the gospel.
Unfortunately, though helpful on a church sign, multiethnic has its own problems. Assuming it to mean only physical features or national origin, many earnest doubters claim a caveat by contending that not every church can or should be multiethnic (which I write about here).
Worse, at face value, the term conveys deeper purpose no better than the others. All three indicate only who attends, giving doubters the false impression that politically-correct demographics—and not the gospel—is the point.
Tenacious pushback has pressed me again and again to speak more accurately. Some prominent advocates see word choice as a benign matter of personal preference,[2] but I disagree. Words are powerful, rallying hearers to act—and in this case, the most common ones actually drive people away.
A Border Crossing Exercise
Writing multiethnic, multicultural, and multiracial in a small square at the extreme edge of the whiteboard, I ask my students to consider a simple but powerful alternative: border crossing. I write it in the middle of the board and draw a large circle.
“This conversation isn’t necessarily about multiracial, multicultural, or multiethnic churches,” I tell them. “Let’s talk instead about border-crossing churches.” I clarify that although border crossing originated in social and educational theory to denote justice-focused teaching,[3] I have modified it for my own philosophy of ministry among diverse people.
Rather than explaining, I guide them inductively through an activity to consider what it might mean. “Draw a circle on a sheet pf paper,” I direct them, “and then outside that circle, list all the types of differences that you have noticed that characterize the groups of people in your community.”
After a few minutes, I add, “And now, on the inside of the circle, list the characteristics of the people in your church.”
A few minutes later, I ask them to take a moment to compare the inside and the outside of their circles. “Who is your church reaching and not reaching—and why? Who outside your circle are you not even inclined to reach?” I then have them get into groups of two or three to discuss what they may have noticed.
I call attention to the line of the circle and ask what constitutes it for each student’s church: culture, race, generation, style, politics, education, affluence, etc. I ask them to consider how hard it might be for that line—or border—to become more open, perhaps like a dashed line across which people would be willing to venture out into the unfamiliar (neighborhoods, groups, schools, etc.) or to welcome outsiders in. Students inevitably discuss with one another their church’s history or current openness to welcoming or collaborating in ministry with people from other groups.
Then as a class, we discuss questions like these: What principles and practices might a border-crossing church embrace, and what evidence might scripture offer to guide such commitments? What missional and spiritual benefits could accompany border crossing? What challenges? How does the human condition affect that effort? Who is exempt from needing to cross us-them borders for the sake of God’s purposes?
Deliberate Language
I still occasionally employ existing vocabulary, but especially for those critical moments when I have the opportunity to lead doubters into a potentially new and uncomfortable conversation, I avoid troublesome terms and choose the language of border crossing. It circumvents multiethnic doubt, engages everyone, and relates to every community. Most importantly, it reaches beyond demographics to pivotal questions of purpose.
Approaching the topic with fresh and more deliberate language, I regularly see multiethnic doubt give way to awakening, as students discover new vision for ministry within their communities and a new yearning for transformation within themselves.
It’s not that the common words are terrible. It’s just that they can actually work against the message, and they miss an opportunity to convey purpose. Border crossing implies action and communicates missional and spiritual purpose for every church.
For more on border crossing, see the category Church in Context or tags for border-crossing.
Updated from original publication: Elizabeth Drury. 2014, October 9. “Border crossing: Common words work against the multiethnic message.” The Exchange with Ed Stetzer [blog]. Nashville, TN: Christianity Today.
[1] McIntosh, Gary. (2012, April 24). Defining a Multi-ethnic Church. Accessed online at http://thegoodbookblog.com/2012/apr/24/defining-a-multi-ethnic-churchwhat-sounds-like-a-s/
[2] DeYmaz, Mark. (2011, January 1). Multi-what? In Ethnic Blends column of Outreach Magazine. Accessed online at http://www.mosaix.info/_blog/Outreach_Magazine_Ethnic_Blends_Columns/post/Multi-what_Define_Your_Terms/
[3] Giroux, Henry A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
VIBRANCY 
One Reply to “”