Skip to main content

Homogeneity, homophilia and ethnically-specific churches

This continues my series on immigrant ministry.

* * * * *

Pragmatically, the homogenous unit principle would encourage ethnically-specific churches. In 1970, Donald McGavran stated that people “like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers”, [Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, (Fully Revised) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1970]): 223] and cited research that 60-90% of converts were brought to church by a friend or relative [McGavran: 225].
Not much has changed: in 2008, Edwards noted that the “homophily principle”, which “says that people like to hang out with others who are like them”, has often been used to explain the success of homogenous churches, because “people are recruited into voluntary organizations through social networks made up of people who are similar to them.” [Korie L. Edwards, The Elusive Dream: The Power of Race in Interracial Churches (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): 118].

But this homophilia could lead to an inward turn, a complacency, because we are amongst people who are 'just like us'. This is not unique to ethnic churches - homophilia is broader than ethnicity. People could be happy merely becuase they're with people of their own profession, or social status, or whatever. We must be wary of the 'comfort zone', which could turn our church into a mere social club.

The question is: what are the warning signs that this is happening? I can think of one: a loss of interest in evanglism. Anyone got any others? Also, if this complacency is setting in, what do we do about it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...