The Resistance

When Ethnic Identity Becomes a Barrier | Part 3 of Cultural Crossroads

In the Gospel of Luke, we find an episode from Jesus’ ministry when he returns to His hometown and preaches His first recorded sermon in the local synagogue (Luke 4:16-30). He reads from the scroll of Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 61, a passage that speaks of the Lord’s Anointed bringing good news to the poor and liberty to the oppressed. Jesus declares that this prophecy is fulfilled in Him, He is the “Anointed One” sent to proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sign for the blind, and liberation for the oppressed.

Initially, the people marvel at His words, but their admiration quickly turns to anger when Jesus expands the scope of God’s blessings. He reminds them of the stories of Elijah and Elisha, prophets who ministered to Gentiles during times of need. This emphasis on God’s work among non-Israelites enrages the crowd. Their anger leads them to drive Him out of the synagogue and attempt to kill Him.

It is important to note that people rejected Jesus not because of His bold claim to be the Messiah, but because He declares that God’s plan of salvation extends to all nations, not exclusively to Israel.

A similar resistance to God’s inclusive grace appears in another biblical story, the account of Jonah. Like the people of Nazareth, Jonah resists the idea of God’s grace extending to those outside his own ethnic and cultural group. When God commands Jonah to go to Nineveh and call the people to repentance, Jonah boards a ship headed for Tarshish, fleeing the opposite direction. His animosity towards the Ninevites ran as deep as the sea in which he nearly drowned. Even after he reluctantly obeys and the Ninevites repent, Jonah is angry and bitter, revealing his ethnocentric mindset. Both Jonah and the people in Nazareth struggled to accept that God’s love, grace, and salvation are not limited to their own people. These stories reveal a common human impulse to resist the radical inclusivity of God’s Kingdom.

The Modern Face of Resistance

This resistance to inclusivity is not just an ancient problem, it remains a challenge within churches today, and ethnic diaspora church is not an exception. Immigrant churches are naturally homogeneous and monocultural, which can foster an ethnocentric mindset that makes it difficult to engage with those beyond their cultural boundaries. As noted earlier, ethnocentrism in ethnic churches, though often unintentional, can arise as a natural response to the cultural, societal, generational, and linguistic gaps they face.

To some extent, resistance is a protective mechanism against the challenges of assimilation and cultural dissonance. However, it can unintentionally create barriers to fulfilling the Great Commission. In their concluding observations in The Psychology of Culture Shock, authors note that immigrants “can respond to second-culture influences by remaining staunchly monocultural in their traditions of origin and, if anything, becoming more ethnocentric in the process.” [1]

Ethnocentrism

So, what exactly is ethnocentrism? Mark Deymaz, in Building a Healthy Multi-Ethnic Church, defines ethnocentrism as “the belief that one’s culture is superior to another’s culture.” [2] Michael Rynkiewich offers a similar but more detailed perspective, describing ethnocentrism as “the all-too-human tendency to respond to other people’s ways by using one’s own culture, especially values and feelings, to prejudge people’s behavior and explain differences as if they were the result of perceived physical and mental differences (racism) or spiritual and moral differences (elitism).” [3] Together, these definitions emphasize the tensions that can arise in ethnic churches as their members encounter different cultures and worldviews, often leading to judgment, feelings of superiority, or even outright racism.

Paul Hiebert, in Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, elaborates on the emotional roots of ethnocentrism, “Cross-cultural confusion on the cognitive level leads to misunderstandings, but on the affective level it leads to ‘ethnocentrism,’ the normal emotional response people have when they confront other cultures for the first time. They have the feeling that their culture is civilized and that others are primitive and backward.” [4] For ethnic churches, this mindset often develops as a response to feelings of alienation and marginalization. As a result, many retreat into cultural enclaves, where ethnocentrism reinforces a sense of security in an effort to preserve identity and community.

Homogeneous Unit Principle

Some Christians, however, argue against diversity and in favor of homogeneous churches. One example is the Church Growth movement, which was inspired by the work of Donald McGavran in the mid-20^th century. The movement focused on measurable growth in church membership and evangelism, often advocating for homogeneous units based on cultural, linguistic, or ethnic similarities. McGavran argued that “people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic, or class barriers. This principle is an undeniable fact. Human beings do build barriers around their own societies.” [5]

McGavran’s model was called the Homogeneous Unit Principle, and was later advanced by another church growth expert Peter Wagner. In his book Your Church Can Grow, Wagner writes that a “sign of a healthy, growing church is that its membership is composed of basically one kind of people.” [6] Defending his view against accusations of racism, he continues, “The homogeneous principle is just the opposite of racism. It is based on a high view of culture. It advocates the propriety of churches developing their Christian life-style in ways appropriate to the culture of their members… we need to recognize that it is altogether possible for a church to develop basically within one homogeneous unit and still not be racist.” [7]

From a strategic or growth-oriented perspective, the Homogeneous Unit Principle may seem appealing, but it fundamentally fails to align with the biblical vision for the church and God’s Kingdom. Segregating races and excluding people groups stands in stark contrast to God’s inclusive vision for His people. Instead, the church is called to embody the vision of Revelation 7:9, where people “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” worship together in unity.

Ethnocentrism, while a natural temptation for all churches, undermines the vision of Revelation 7:9. By prioritizing cultural uniformity over gospel unity, the homogeneous approach fosters resistance to engaging with broader society and obstructs the church’s mission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). This resistance not only hinders meaningful cultural integration, but also produces harmful consequences for ethnic churches. The following outlines several dangers that ethnic churches face as a result of persistent ethnocentric tendencies and inward focus.

Isolationism and Separatism

One significant outcome of ethnocentrism is a tendency toward isolationism and separatism, as ethnic congregations increasingly focus on preserving their unique cultural identities. While this focus can be a source of strength, as will be explored in future posts it can also create barriers to meaningful engagement with broader society. Jehu Hanciles, author of Beyond Christendom, captures this tension well, noting that the immigrant church “embodies profound paradoxes. While it plays a critical role in the lives of immigrants as they adjust to life in the new environment (by functioning as a site of cultural preservation and social adaptation), it also potentially limits full interaction with other major segments of the wider society.” [8]

The paradox lies in the fact that the same structures that protect cultural heritage can hinder intercultural engagement. This isolation can foster a separatist mindset, making it difficult for members to participate fully in the life of their new context.

Vyacheslav Tsvirinko provides a compelling example of how this dynamic manifests in Slavic churches in the United States. In his publication Context and Contextuality, which includes a survey of the Pacific Coast Slavic Baptist Association (PCSBA) churches, Tsvirinko observes that “an isolationistic attitude towards American society in general, and the Christian community in particular, keeps church members at a distance from the ‘real Americans.’ This slows down the processes of acculturation in and adaptation to the new country.” [9]

Such isolation not only impedes the integration of church members into their host society, but also hinders their ability to witness effectively to those outside their cultural community. By becoming “ethnically closed enclaves,” as Tsvirinko describes, these churches risk creating an unhealthy environment where interaction with other cultures and even other Christian communities is minimized. This isolation not only weakens the church’s ability to fulfill its mission to “make disciples of all nations,” but also deprives its members of the richness and growth that can come from intercultural relationships.

Ethnicity as an Idol

Ethnicity is one of God’s gifts, a testament to His creativity and desire for humanity to thrive in diverse cultural expressions. Christians should not shy away from celebrating their God-given identities, and churches should be places where ethnicity and culture are honored and valued. However, no cultural expression remains untainted by sin, and what God has given for His glory can be twisted into objects of idolatry. Miriam Adeney, an anthropologist at Seattle Pacific University, notes, “Like other idols of modern society, money, sex, and power, for example – ethnicity is not bad in itself. When we exalt it as though it were the highest good, however, ethnicity becomes evil… When ethnicity is treasured as a gift but not worshiped as an idol, God’s world is blessed, and we enjoy a foretaste of heaven.” [10]

When retaining ethnic identity becomes the highest priority, there is a danger of the church being reduced to a cultural social gathering rather than a Christ-centered community. Prema Kurien highlights this tension in Ethnic Church Meets Megachurch, drawing from interviews with members of the Mar Thoma Church in the U.S. She observes, “The community-oriented nature of the Mar Thoma church was seen as diluting its spiritual goal. Many of the youth seemed to feel that the Mar Thoma church was ‘just a social gathering’ and not a faith community united in worship.” [11] This observation reflects broader challenges ethnic churches face in balancing cultural identity with spiritual mission. When the focus shifts from worshiping God to preserving traditions and cultural preferences, the church risks deviating from its God-ordained purpose.

Comfort as an Idol

Another challenge ethnic diaspora churches face due to ethnocentric tendencies is the idolization of comfort, often expressed as reluctance to reach and welcome those from outside their cultural group. Inviting the local community into the church involves embracing the unfamiliar, which inevitably brings discomfort. The desire for familiarity and preservation of culture often leads these congregations to prioritize their own comfort over the inclusive mission of the gospel.

Prema Kurien once again points this out in her study of the Mar Thoma Church, noting criticism from second-generation members regarding the church’s “closed-door” approach. One member expressed his discontent by saying, “I believe in opening our doors to everyone. The Mar Thoma faith doesn’t. It is very closed-door oriented. To me, that’s not being Christian-like.” Kurien elaborates on this statement, observing that interviewee was “referring to the discomfort of the immigrant generation with members of the local community entering the Mar Thoma church.” [12]

This discomfort reveals a deeper issue: an overemphasis on cultural exclusivity that impedes the church’s ability to reflect Christ’s example of radical acceptance and hospitality. Such attitudes not only alienate younger generations, who view this resistance as antithetical to Christianity, but also obstruct the church’s capacity to embody the gospel’s call to love and welcome all people.

Racism and Prejudice

Another possible outcome of ethnocentrism within ethnic churches is the presence of racism and prejudice. While these attitudes may not always be overt, they can subtly shape the dynamics of church life, creating an environment that becomes unwelcoming to those from outside the primary ethnic group. Curtiss Paul DeYoung and his co-authors highlight this issue in their book United by Faith through the concept of “cultural racism,” which they define as the tendency to view the practices and contributions of other cultural groups as “inferior or unwelcome”. They note, “Cultural racism is a powerful barrier, one nearly every multiracial church will have to face.” [13]

One pastor I interviewed of a predominantly Slavic congregation in Florida shared an insightful observation about one of the challenges ethnic churches face in pursuing healthy integration. As his church began offering an English-speaking service, they encountered resistance from within their own community. This pastor noted that, in some cases, what he described as “strong Slavic culture and racism toward outsiders” posed significant barriers. He explained that many in the Slavic community, being sheltered and unfamiliar with diversity, struggled to welcome those who differed from them culturally or ethnically. [14]

This reflects yet another pressure point ethnic churches face when outsiders, even those from the majority culture, become a “minority” within the ethnic congregation. Another pastor from Sacramento, California, observed a similar challenge. When his church began integrating an English-speaking service, there were instances when the majority Slavic ethnic group within his church “perceived new people as a threat.” [15] This perception creates a significant barrier to reaching the broader culture. To move forward, such churches must intentionally address these biases and foster a culture of humility and openness that embraces all people.

A Lack of Mission to the Local Community

Among the various effects of ethnocentrism on ethnic church, one final impact worth noting is the lack of mission work in the local context. A notable strength of many ethnic churches is their emphasis on international missions, particularly efforts to reach people in their country of origin. Short-term mission trips, financial support for missionaries and church planters, and funding numerous projects back home are often the extent of the missionary work undertaken by these congregations. Unfortunately, this hyper-focus on foreign missions can undermine their efforts to engage missionally in their new home. There is a willingness to cross the ocean but not to cross the street. [16]

John H. Redekop, writing on the integration of Mennonite congregations, underscores this tension, “The ethnic question confronts us in several respects, most notably when we commit ourselves to true home missions… having become integrated linguistically, vocationally, and largely geographically in urban neighborhoods, we can avoid it no longer. We can only avoid it in our present surroundings if, simultaneously, we are prepared to deny the Great Commission.” [17] To fulfill the Great Commission, ethnic churches must embrace their current urban and multicultural contexts, rather than retreat into ethnically homogenous bubbles.

Additionally, churches with strong ethnic identities are especially vulnerable to growth barriers if their heritage overshadows their faithfulness to Scripture. James Nikkel, a pastor from Canada, warns about this potential problem, “Churches with an ethnic or cultural history are particularly vulnerable to growth barriers. If our roots and heritage do not help us to be faithful to the Scripture, they will become a barrier to fulfilling the Great Commission.” [18] Ethnic churches must evaluate whether their cultural practices and priorities align with the biblical mandate to make disciples of all nations. When cultural preservation takes precedence over gospel proclamation, the mission of the church is compromised.

For ethnic diaspora churches to thrive at the “cultural crossroads”, they must actively resist the pull of ethnocentrism. It’s a struggle that mirrors the response of the religious leaders in Jesus’ time, who rejected His message, and Jonah, who tried to flee from his divine mission. The good news is that the gospel transcends all ethnic and cultural barriers, proclaiming salvation for every nation. Ethnic diaspora churches have a unique opportunity to embody this truth, embracing their diversity as a strength rather than a stumbling block. As the next post will explore, adopting a missional mindset rooted in gospel unity is the key to overcoming these challenges and fulfilling God’s vision for His church.

---

Thank you for reading Part 3 of the series Cultural Crossroads: From Challenges to Impact - Ethnic Diaspora Churches in the American Mosaic, an ongoing journey into how immigrant churches navigate cultural gaps, preserve their heritage, and engage their communities to make a lasting gospel impact in the United States

---

[1] Bochner, Stephen, Adrian Furnham, and Collen Ward. The Psychology of Culture Shock, Second Edition (East Sussex: Routledge, 2001), 272.

[2] DeYmaz, Mark. Building a Healthy Multi-Ethnic Church: Mandate, Commitments, and Practices of a Diverse Congregation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2020), 101.

[3] Rynkiewich, Michael. Soul, Self, and Society: A Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011), 24.

[4] Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1985), 97.

[5] McGavran, Donald. Understanding Church Growth, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 223.

[6] Wagner, Peter. Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church (Ventura: Regal Books, 1984), 127.

[7] Wagner, Peter. Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church (Ventura: Regal Books, 1984), 132.

[8] Hanciles, Jehu. Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration, and the Transformation of the West (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008), 372.

[9] Tsvirinko, Vyacheslav. Context and Contextuality: Towards an Authentic Mission Perspective for the Churches of the Pacific Coast Slavic Baptist Association (Carlisle: Langham Monographs, 2018), 323.

[10] Adeney, Miriam. “Is God Colorblind or Colorful?: The Gospel, Globaliztion and Ethnicity.” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Ed. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, Fourth Edition (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2009), 422.

[11] Kurien, Prema A. Ethnic Church Meets Megachurch: Indian American Christianity in Motion (New York: NYU Press, 2017), 120.

[12] Kurien, Prema A. Ethnic Church Meets Megachurch: Indian American Christianity in Motion (New York: NYU Press, 2017), 126.

[13] DeYoung, Curtiss Paul, Michael O. Emerson, George A. Yancey and Karen Cai Kim. United by Faith: The Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of Race (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 171.

[14] Interview, Seattle, Washington on October 4, 2024.

[15] Interview, Seattle, Washington on October 4, 2024.

[16] DeYmaz, Mark. Building a Healthy Multi-Ethnic Church: Mandate, Commitments, and Practices of a Diverse Congregation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2020), 180.

[17] Redekop, John H. A People Apart: Ethnicity and the Mennonite Brethren (Winnipeg: Kindred Press, 1987), 131.

[18] Wiebe, Katie Funk. Who Are the Mennonite Brethren? (Winnipeg: Kindred Press, 1984), 6-7.

Cover Photo Credit: Photo by Shalev Cohen on Unsplash