In the Belhar we find,
Therefore, we reject any doctrine
• which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate
church formation;
Again the Belhar document suffers from severe ambiguity on this point.
We already noted in the last post the problems that the phrase “natural diversity” suffers from, so we won’t go down that road again, although we most certainly could. Let us assume instead that this is a prohibition against congregations forming that are ethnically homogeneous. A natural reading of this rejection might be (and who can know for sure given the ambiguity in the statement) that it is verboten to have congregations or Classis’ that are Korean in their makeup since a Korean Classis would be an example of hindering or breaking the visible and active unity of the Church.
So, if the Christian Reformed Church makes the Belhar document a Confession will that mean that Pacific Hanni California Korean Churches will have to dissolve or reorganize since such a Classis breaks the visible and active unity of the Church?
Really, though, what is sinful about a set ethnic people being homogeneous in their formation and worship? It is perfectly understandable that people find it more comfortable to worship with people who have a shared culture, language, and history. In “The Bridges of God” Church growth guru, Donald McGavaran wrote: ‘People become Christian fastest when least change of race or clan is involved’. In Understanding Church Growth (1970, 3rd Ed. 1990), which McGavaran co-wrote with C. Peter Wagner, this observation has become the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’. Empirical evidence, they argue, ‘people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers’. As a result homogenous churches grow fastest. Homogeneous churches are those in which all the members are from a similar social, ethnic or cultural background. People prefer to associate with people like themselves – ‘I like people like me’. And so we should create homogenous churches to be effective in reaching people. Obviously the Korean Churches and Classis in the CRC are employing the homogeneous unit principle and yet should we make the Belhar a Confessional document it would seem Classis formed like this would have to go.
If we affirm the status of the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that the Koreans are racist? If we don’t pass the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that we affirm the Homogeneous unit principle for all peoples? And if we are affirming the homogeneous unit principle for all peoples then would we not be in error for pursing quotas in the denominations hiring practices since such hiring practices would be erecting more barriers to individuals of all people groups pertaining to salvation.
Ironically, the insistence that we must reject any doctrine which absolutizes “natural diversity,” could be argued as “racist,” since the insistence that Churches must be a homogenization of multiple people groupings is to give in to current and recent Western notions of the way culture should be formed. To insist on a multicultural approach to organizing Churches is to absolutize the fad of pop Western multiculturalism as the organizing motif by which all Churches must be formed.
So, it seems we are on the horns of a dilemma here. If we affirm the Belhar we are implying that the Korean Churches are racist. If we don’t affirm the Belhar we are denying the Homogeneous unit principle.
However, all of this is assuming that the statement on “natural diversity” is referring to ethnic groupings and not to something else. Given the ambiguity of the document, it is hard to know what is being said exactly.
