When I left home for college, my younger brother told me that I should join a Christian Science church. He said this because I was going away to Caltech, a school primarily for scientists and engineers. Only about 14 years old at the time, my brother thought that the Christian Science church was a place that people who were Christians and scientists came together. Since I was a Christian and a budding scientist, why shouldn't I go as well? Of course, the Christian Science church is a group that is neither Christian nor scientific -- but his logic at the time is similar to a broader pattern of thought that many adults have. (Out of respect for him I should say that my brother was young at the time and would not say the same thing today.) Suppose there really was a church composed primarily of scientists who happened to be Christians, would that kind of church model be biblical?

On the one hand, the members of such a group would have a tremendous amount in common -- similar education levels, similar thinking patterns, similar concerns, and similar life experiences. These could well be viewed as positive features of such a church. But I think that most Christians would be decidedly against joining such a group, even if they were scientists, for at least three main reasons. First, partitions of this nature seem to go against the fundamental grain of what church represents -- there is no basis in the New Testament of churches forming around occupations. Second, the advantages of similarity would be outweighed by the homogeneity and lack of diversity that the church should also reflect. Third, such a group would be inept at drawing in the non-scientist friends and family with whom they interacted with outside of work.

Before stating my own thoughts on ethnic-specific churches and fellowships, I should state that I have been a part of them. For over eight years, I was active in an Indian church. I still frequently preach at Indian churches and have been blessed my many people that I have come to know in these circles. But before approaching the New Testament on this issue, let me state my fundamental thesis. On all three grounds listed above regarding the hypothetical church of scientists, ethnic-specific churches and fellowships are unbiblical. (There are some caveats to this statement, which will be discussed later.)

In the last twenty years, there has been a rapid expansion in the number and size of ethnic churches, particularly in the United States. Korean-American, Chinese-American, Indian-American, etc. churches multiply at a rapid rate. Even on universities, rather than assembling as campus-wide fellowships, there has been a growth in "Asian-American Fellowships" or other ethnically-centered campus fellowships. The number of campus fellowships on many universities can be disheartening for new students as upper-classmen often have already surrounded themselves with same-ethnicity classmates for prayer, bible study, and worship. Not surprisingly, friendship patterns amongst Christian students tend toward more segregated patterns when their fellowships are ethnically segregated.

The growing number of ethnic-specific churches and fellowships is partly due to a change in the demographics of professing Christians in the United States. Evangelical churches are more diverse than ever, drawing deeply from more ethnicities than ever before. As reported in Christianity Today, the Campus Crusade fellowship at Yale is 85% Asian, while the Buddhist gatherings consist mostly of whites! Surely times have changed. (In the Harvard Graduate School fellowship of which I am a part, the situation is similar.)

Why have ethnic churches and fellowships proliferated so rapidly in recent times? There are at least three reasons common in the United States. First, the ideal of America as a "melting pot" has been partially replaced with America as "salad bowl," wherein different ethnic groups do not necessarily assimilate. Following the lead of the mainstream culture, churches have often made themselves ethnic-specific. Second, people often use the church as a social vehicle. Many feel that they have unique issues to being of a particular ethnicity that cannot well be addressed in multiethnic settings. In churches, particularly regarding marriages or even close friendships, many people want to remain inside their own ethnicity. Much of this can be parental pressure on children. Third, many parents feel as if by remaining in an ethnic church, they may retain the benefits of living in America while keeping the culture of their homeland.

However, there are strong reasons to believe that these reasons carry insufficient weight. In fact, the core teachings of the New Testament subvert all these reasons. To begin to see this, it is instructive to consider the origin of the term "Christian." It comes from the city of Antioch in Syria, where for the first time the gospel comes into a multi-cultural city (unlike Jerusalem during the first century).

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists [Greek-speaking non-Jews] also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord... And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:19-21,26)

The city of Antioch has been the source of a great deal of interest in recent years, ranging from Rodney Stark's scholarly work The Rise of Christianity to more popular sermons by Tim Keller. One thing is clear about this intriguing city: it was there that non-Jews began pouring into the church. Noted biblical scholar F. F. Bruce calls Antioch, "the citadel of Gentile Christianity." Prior to missionaries coming to Antioch, the followers of Jesus were regarded as a sect within Judaism. After the gospel came to Antioch, for the first time, believers in Jesus could no longer be called Jews for the obvious reason that so many non-Jews were now declaring that Jesus was their Lord. After Antioch, followers of Jesus were multiethnic, including Jews, but much wider in diversity. A new term had to be invented; hence "Christian," meaning "people of the Messiah." Antioch thus represents a pivotal moment in church history -- when Christianity moved from being a religion closely connected to a specific ethnicity (Judaism), to a being religion for all people.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this cataclysmic event. Paul, not long after this revolution occurred in Antioch, would write one of the most radical statements written in the first century, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) A tremendous amount of Paul's writings deal with the fact that after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, faith alone should unite the people of God. Looking at the list Paul makes in Galatians 3:28, we should regard a "Indian/Chinese/Korean Church" today similarly to the idea of a "Church of Women" or "Church of Non-Slaves" in the first century. Or returning to our opening analogy about occupation, an ethnic church is in principle no different to a "Church of Watchmakers." This truth can be stated in more theological language:

Ethnic-specific churches and fellowships represent an eschatological violation. They are a throwback to the period before the Christ-event. To put up labels like "Korean/Indian/Chinese Christian Fellowship/Church" is not as different than we might like to think from "Church of Circumcised/Kosher people." In fact, it is not far from the mirror-image (Gentile) error that Paul addresses in Galatians. The primary error that Paul combats in Galatians is the one where circumcision is made a requirement for table fellowship (see Galatians 2:11-12). Even though most people within ethnic churches and fellowships do not deny that others can be saved outside their group, they functionally partition themselves off from other believers over ethnic and racial issues. As a practical matter, this partitioning includes table fellowship. Especially in a church, partitioning over being "Jew or Greek" (ethnicity), "male or female" (gender), or "slave or free" (socioeconomic status) violates the integrity of the unity in Christ that Paul clearly articulates in Galatians 3:28.

A natural corollary of this "faith transcending ethnicity" principle is that the church should mirror the demographics of the population around its members. In the New Testament, churches are referred to by their geographic location. It should be obvious that the church should reflect the heterogeneity of the area that it is situated. Although a church might have more members of a particular ethnicity by virtue of its location (especially suburban versus urban), there is no reason to embed exclusionary terms such as ethnic labels into its name. For clarity, my thesis applies to intentionally (sadly, the better word is often exclusionary) ethnic-specific churches or fellowships.

Besides their inherent unbiblical nature, ethnic-specific churches and fellowships have several attendant dangers. A Korean friend of mine once told me that a joke in her community was to say, "Let's start a Korean church so that we can split." Splitting over secondary issues was so commonplace in the Korean-American community that this joke reflected reality in a humorous, yet uncomfortable, way. I have seen this many times in Indian churches. These churches are full of nepotism. They divide over whether or not to have a cross in the sanctuary, how to distribute the elements during communion, how much English versus Indian language to use during worship, etc. We should not be surprised. Once lines are drawn in artificial, unbiblical ways such as with ethnicity, other superficial lines will surely follow.

Another problem with ethnic-specific churches or fellowships is that reasons for going are often self-centered. It is of course more comfortable to interact with similar people to ourselves. Parents attend because they want their children to marry within their culture. Others go because the environment is similar to what they are accustomed to back in their home country. Yet surely these reasons are basically selfish. Many immigrants forget that the reason that God has brought them to any country is to be a blessing to that land as a whole, not just to their own ethnic group. There is a related danger to religiously segregating ourselves by ethnicity. All cultures have areas where they have greater propensity for sin (for example, the idolatry of academic success in Asian culture) -- when people are homogenized, these sins can grow to monstrous proportions.

Several years ago, I visited a Chinese church at a friend's invitation. Being the only Indian person in the congregation, I felt like I "stuck out like a sore thumb." When I was involved in an Indian church, I often remember the attention and and curiosity being drawn to a person who came if he or she was non-Indian. The simple fact is that it is exceedingly difficult to bring newcomers to such an environment if they are not of the ethnicity of the host group without changing the dynamics of the group or making the guests feel out of place or uncomfortable. These churches and fellowship thus straightjacket the ability of members to carry out the Great Commission. A person is forced to say "Go to that other fellowship or church and be blessed there." This is not far from the error that James describes when he writes, "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" (James 2:15-16) We ourselves must bring those whom we work with and study with to our churches and fellowships, not sending them to other places with hopeful wishes.

There are three caveats to this general principle that ethnic-specific churches and fellowships are unbiblical. First, if a person does not understand the language of the wider culture, it is reasonable to find a church where he or she can understand the language and also contribute. Second, if an ethnic-specific group is under the umbrella of a multi-ethnic group and is being used as an "intake" mechanism to draw people into the larger group, that would constitute a outreach tool with a specific focus. In such circumstances, it must be clear that the ethnic-specific group is not the main group, but only an outreach tool to draw people into the umbrella group. Third, in regions and countries of persecution, foreigners may be legally forced to remain in churches that lack native believers. This final caveat is almost completely irrelevant to churches and fellowships in the West.

Insofar as possible, may our churches reflect the state of heaven, where people of all nations praise God continually, even though it is less comfortable. As churches and fellowships continue to divide along ethnic lines, may more believers choose instead to participate in multiethnic churches and fellowships. May we not undo Antioch!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Back to essays
Back to home