Abstract
Part 1 of 2. This article examines the crucial role of cultivating diverse, godly leadership within American churches, particularly as the United States grows increasingly multicultural. It argues for the necessity of multiethnic church leadership, addressing objections and emphasizing the importance of reflecting a church's community diversity. The article's argument follows a Biblical and pragmatic approach to underscore the necessity and effectiveness of diverse leadership in fulfilling the Great Commission and navigating cultural shifts.
Introduction
Godly and gifted leaders are essential to obeying Jesus’ call to make disciples of every ethnic group (Köstenberger et al., 2009, p. 214). This has always been the case, but American churches face new opportunities and challenges as the United States becomes increasingly multicultural. The country's changing ethnic landscape provides unprecedented access to people from all over the globe (United States Census Bureau, 2021). Yet, at the same time, the rise in diversity has brought a new range of challenges.
“Diversity” includes every social distinction such as age, class, income, education, etc. When a church considers reaching the diversity around them, they should consider each of these factors. However, for the purposes of this research project, I will focus primarily on ethnic diversity. When considering growing in diversity, it is important to think locally rather than nationally. If a church is situated in a predominantly Latino neighborhood or a predominantly Black area, they should not feel obligated to become multiethnic because this is simply not their context. With that said, even these monoethnic areas (a) should value the ethnic diversity in the global church, (b) participate in the church's mission to send members to other ethnicities, and (c) pursue the forms of diversity that are around them.
The United States has experienced massive cultural and sociological tectonic shifts within just one generation. Just as years of subtle, undetected movement deep beneath the earth's surface results in abrupt, violent earthquakes, the United States has awoken to a decade where old cultural markers have completely rearranged themselves. Many factors play into our national shifts and tensions, but none may be as fundamental as our country's rapidly changing ethnic makeup. The same factor that offers such opportunities for obeying the Great Commission threatens divisions that would impede it. Two broad questions lay before the American church: how will we reach our diversifying communities, and how will we lead a diversifying church?
This article occurs in two parts, each in service of encouraging churches to raise up leaders that reflect their community's ethnic makeup. In Part 1, I seek to argue why empowering godly, gifted, and diverse leaders is vital for the Church's missional faithfulness and effectiveness. I will make this argument from a Biblical-theological perspective as well as a pragmatic approach.
Part 2 presents a vision for the types of leaders we should aim to develop. If Part 1 argues for intentionally developing diverse individuals, Part 2 envisions who these leaders must develop into in order to lead in multicultural contexts successfully. Part 2 presents the practical leadership qualities of knowledge, skills, and abilities that the next generation of multiethnic leaders must embody. This part presents a quantitative case study of multiethnic churches with a thriving leader developmental process. This study utilized a Delphi group to identify these churches and a questionnaire based on Keith Krispin Jr.'s Christian leader development outcomes framework (Krispin, 2020).
Though this article series is focused on an ecclesial context, many of the arguments in Part 1 and outcomes in Part 2 are transferable to other Christian developmental contexts (education, parachurch, etc.).
Theological Reasons for Pursuing Diverse Church Leadership
A foundational presupposition undergirding this research project is that churches should diversify their leadership to seize the Great Commission opportunity before them and lead their diversifying churches more effectively. This section will first consider objections to the premise that churches should be concerned with ethnic diversity. After outlining common disagreement, I will explain why kingdom diversity among church bodies and church leadership stands on firm biblical-theological ground. After the theological review, I will revisit the objections once more for a final assessment.
Biblical Reasons for Valuing Multiethnic
Church Leadership
After Jesus ascended into heaven and poured out his Spirit on his followers, we see the inclusion of people from every region of known territory as God's people (Acts 2:5–10). Not only are the people from different areas, but we observe the leadership reflects this diversity. This section explores the three ways we see this in the New Testament: (a) in the expectation that churches be led by a plurality of elders, (b) in the examples of diverse elder teams in Acts, and (c) among the first group of deacons.
First, the New Testament authors expected churches to be led by a plurality of elders. “The New Testament describes a unique method of oversight in the church that does not depend on one individual. This model of leadership uses a group of individuals that are open to one another, accountable to one another, and dependent on one another” (Ross, 2014, p. 38). This group leadership evolves from the twelve disciples to the first church leadership council (Acts 15); we observe that a plurality of elders is a mark of mature churches (Acts 14:23; 20:17–28; 1 Thess 5:12–13; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14) (Strauch, 2003, p. 36).
Second, we see the example of an ethnically diverse Antiochian elder team (DeYmaz, 2020, p. 71). In Acts 13, Luke intentionally highlights the diversity among the five prophets and teachers. Barnabas was from Cyprus, Simeon was called Niger because of his dark skin, Lucius was from North Africa, Saul from Tarsus, and Manean was likely raised in Galilee (Peterson, 2009, p. 375). Not only is there striking ethnic diversity, but Luke is hinting at the socioeconomic diversity through Manean, who was most likely highly educated and born into an influential Jewish family (Schnabel, 2012, p. 554). The repetition of the ethnic makeup of the Antiochian prophets and leaders shows that this is a clear emphasis that Luke is attempting to highlight (Peterson, 2009, p. 374).
Third, we observe diverse leadership among the first deacons. As a result of the Spirit's work, Hellenistic Jews from far and wide started following Jesus and participating in the early church (Acts 2:9–11, 42–47). Food distributors were overlooking Hellenistic widows because of the logistical difficulties accompanying rapid growth combined with the underlying ethnic divisions among Jews and Gentiles (Peterson, 2009, p. 230). What is notable about the apostles’ solution is that they chose seven Hellenistic men who were likely already recognized as leaders among the Greek-speaking Jews in the city (Bruce, 1988, p. 121). Luke intimates that the apostles relied on those most directly impacted by inequalities to lead towards a solution (Bock, 2007, p. 262). This passage demonstrates that when ethnic divisions threatened the church's unity, one of the apostles’ solutions was to empower a plurality of godly men who represented the ethnic diversity within the church and lead towards a solution (Heibert, 2019, pp. 25–28).
Having established firm New Testament precedent for churches diversifying their leadership teams, we now turn towards pragmatic reasons. In other words, we should value and pursue a diverse church leadership team simply because we see it valued and exemplified in the Bible. Yet even if one remains unconvinced, this next section explores why churches with diverse leadership teams will be best suited to meet the challenges of the future (Strauch, 2003).
Pragmatic Reasons for Valuing Multiethnic Church Leadership
This section will outline three pragmatic reasons why a church should install godly and gifted multiethnic leaders. Whether or not someone is persuaded by the biblical-theological argument, this section frames that argument in terms of its workability—we should develop multiethnic leaders because they will be more effective in the coming decades. These three reasons are that multiethnic leadership teams are more effective in reaching diverse communities, reaching the next generation, and leading diverse churches.
Effectiveness in Reaching Diverse Communities
The first pragmatic argument for churches to empower godly and gifted leaders that resemble their diversifying communities is that they will be more effective in reaching their neighbors (Loritts, 2018, p. 180). This is not to say that a monoethnic leadership team cannot reach their diverse community, but diverse leadership teams are better suited for the task. A primary reason for this is that when people's “identity is reflected in the racial composition of the leadership, they face far fewer hurdles in their worship community” (Barna Group, 2021, p. 111). A mixed-methods study by Barna Group confirms that when leaders of color occupy positions of authority in predominantly white churches, visiting minorities are much more likely to transition from guests to members. A core reason for this is the fear that joining the church without ethnic representation in leadership positions will require them to forfeit part of their ethnic identity. When a congregant does not have any church leader that resemble their race or ethnicity, 24% strongly or somewhat agree that they feel pressure to give up their racial identity. This drops to 7% when they join a multiethnic church with a leader from their racial group (Barna Group, 2021, p. 111). In a study analyzing twenty years of racial diversity among U.S. congregations, Daugherty, Chaves, and Emerson found that multiethnic congregations are more likely to be led by Black leaders. Additionally, a shift over the past twenty years has occurred where the “increase in black leadership of these congregations is mirrored by a decrease in white leadership” (Daugherty et al., 2020, p. 658).
This principle applies to both diverse non-Christian communities as well as Christian immigrants. Justo González has argued that because of the country's demographic changes, the church “must acknowledge the cultural capacity of much of our institutional and ecclesiastical life, which prevents us from recruiting and making way for the growing minorities that will soon be the majority of the church . . . it is necessary if our institutions are to remain viable and relevant in the decades to come” (González, 2015, p. 139). Sociologist R. Stephen Warner notes that among the demographic shifts in America, “the great majority of the newcomers are Christians . . . . This means that the new immigrants represent not the de-Christianization of American society but the de-Europeanization of American Christianity” (Warner, 2004, p. 20). Diverse church leadership makes it much easier for these Christians to integrate into established faith communities and easier for the church to adapt to our changing cultural landscape.
To put it plainly, it is much more challenging to reach, attract, or retain ethnicities other than the predominant ethnicity in the church without representation at the leadership level (Haesly & Hass, 2023, p. 7; Scott, 2021). This perceived pressure to alter one's identity exists for anyone not in the church's racial majority (including a White person joining a predominantly Black church). Still, because of the United States’ history, this representation is even more vital for minorities entering majority White churches (DeYoung et al., 2003, p. 117).
Beyond empirical data, anecdotal experiences from leaders and thinkers confirm these findings. Jarvis Williams, a leading theologian in the multiethnic ministry conversation, provocatively states, One of the first things many ethnic minorities see when they visit predominately white churches is the absence of ethnic minorities participating in leadership . . . . In my view, predominately white churches that claim to desire multi-ethnic ministry, on the one hand, but refuse to appoint qualified ethnic minorities in leadership, on the other hand, are multiethnic church plantations. Qualified, ethnic diversity in leadership is a key element to becoming a healthy, multi-ethnic church. (Williams, 2021)
Likewise, Korie Edwards, a renowned religious sociologist specializing in American church multiethnicity, says that “when it comes to leadership structure in interracial churches, race matters both symbolically and culturally” (Edwards, 2008, p. 81). To put it another way, the choice of who leads the church is both a road sign for where the church is heading as well as the vehicle that enables the church to get there.
Mark DeYmaz, the lead directional pastor of Mosaic Church, is another leading voice in multiethnic ministry and church leadership. DeYmaz has said that a central strategy for growth in diversity has always been to follow Antioch's example of empowering diverse leaders (Lee, 2011, pp. 129–130). Bill Head, another one of Mosaic's elders, recounts the decision to pursue leaders of color for their leadership team: It's what we’ve done from the beginning, and that is be diverse not only in the body, but in the leadership. And I think that's what separates many times churches have that desire to be more inclusive, to be more diverse, but the leadership never changes. The leadership is homogeneous, whether it be African American or Caucasian. But we have intentionally gone down that road to make sure that the leadership of this body represents what we’re desiring to do as a whole. (Lee, 2011, p. 162)
Effectiveness in Reaching the Next Generation
A second pragmatic argument for diversifying a church's leadership team is that the church will grow in reaching the next generation. Gen Z, those born between 1999 and 2015, is the most diverse generation in the history of the United States and will grow up looking for diverse churches (Barna Group, 2018, pp. 12, 112). Barna Group notes that “the kindergarteners who started school in 2016 were the first American class in which minority ethnicities made up a majority of students, and whites the minority” (Barna Group, 2018, p. 34). Because of this, Gen Z is “more comfortable than older generations with practicing diversity-in-unity now, as well as in the age to come” (Barna Group, 2018, p. 105). Beyond being comfortable with a diverse life, this will become increasingly what young Americans are looking for (Barna Group, 2021, p. 14). For Gen Z, diversity is normal, which means homogenous churches will feel abnormal.
“The future of western society and western culture is multiethnic,” and multiethnic churches are simply “keeping up with the changes” (Barna Group, 2020). Even today, “two-thirds of practicing Christians believe churches, in general, should have a major role in improving race relations in the country. The number-one way they suggest churches should go about doing that? Welcoming people of all races and ethnicities (80%)” (Barna Group, 2021, p. 30). As of 2019, only 16% of US congregations were multiethnic, and of these multiethnic congregations, only 32% are minority led (Edwards, 2021, p. 41; Edwards, 2008, p, 56). If the next generation will grow up looking for multiethnic churches with multiethnic leadership, the American church must begin intentionally raising up gifted and godly leaders that resemble the diversity of their communities.
Effectiveness in Leading Diverse Churches
A third pragmatic argument for empowering godly and gift multiethnic leaders is that multiethnic leadership is better equipped to lead a multiethnic church. Whereas the first two pragmatic reasons focused on reaching those outside the church (different ethnicities and the next generation), this reason focuses on leading diverse people within the church. There are at least three reasons why a multiethnic leadership team is better suited to lead a multiethnic church than a monoethnic leadership team.
Modeling unity and mutual submission. A healthy, diverse leadership team communicates that the minority church member can maintain their culture and individuality, but more than that, they are needed and can offer unique contributions to the church. Generally speaking, White people sit under White preaching, Black people sit under Black preaching, and some Black people sit under White preaching. Yet, it is much less likely for White people to sit under Black preaching. A sign of true diversity is when “white people learn to submit to the minority culture as black people have had to submit to the majority culture” (Carter, 2007, p. 13). Additionally, minority pastors leading primarily White congregations can be uniquely challenging, and thus calls for appreciation and care for the extra burden these leaders carry (Edwards & Kim, 2024). As previously stated, the mutual submission among a diverse leadership team becomes the road sign for the congregation's direction and the vehicle to get them there.
Defining maturity. A second reason is that those in authority implicitly and explicitly set the criteria for leadership potential and maturity (Loritts, 2023, p. 94). It is only human nature for leaders to conflate leadership potential with personal experience (DeYoung et al., 2003, p. 171). Churches with highly educated pastors will find it easy to gravitate towards potential leaders with master's degrees, and pastors who were once high-powered business executives will naturally identify potential leaders with marketplace experience. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, if left unexamined, these tendencies can easily default along ethnic and cultural lines, thus creating a “gentrification of sanctification” which makes spiritual growth and maturity only available to practices linked to certain classes and cultures (Jones, 2018). These filters result in a barrier to leadership growth pathways that may prevent minorities from being considered in the first place.
Curtiss DeYoung et al. add that some White reformed churches prefer reverent, stoic worship as the cultural norm—this is a cultural form of worship that is not necessarily good or bad. But they offer that when African Americans or Latinos who may have grown up in a more expressive worship environments attend these churches, they may consciously or unconsciously be overlooked as potential leaders because of this perceived immaturity (DeYoung et al., 2003, p. 171). Having minority representation in positions of leadership helps compensate for these blind spots and unconscious prejudices and clear the way for developing future minority leaders, which will continue to aid the church's effort to grow towards kingdom diversity.
Creativity and innovation. Lastly, diversity among church leaders allows for increased creativity and innovation. Healthy multiethnic churches must create a new culture that allows everyone to maintain their own ethnic identity while also making an entirely new church culture and ethos (DeYoung et al., 2003, p. 167). Building something new necessarily requires innovation and creativity. Having a diverse leadership team allows for this creativity because it utilizes the concepts and expressions from different church cultures. The creation of purple requires both blue and red. In the same way, leaders would be hard-pressed to create a unique church expression where people from multiple ethnic backgrounds all feel welcome if they are only drawing from one ecclesiological tradition (Cleveland, 2013, p. 41). Additionally, research demonstrates that leadership team diversity (ethnicity, age, gender, education, etc.) increases team innovation (Jackson & Bantel, 1989; Richard et al., 2021). Thus, diversifying leadership teams is not merely affirmative action or tokenism to appease the politically correct, but all things being equal, diverse leaders possess unique skills and assets that will aid the church as it charts the course forward (DeYoung et al., 2003, p. 177; Hartwig & Bird, 2015, p. 127).
Objections to the Premise: Churches Should Not Focus on Diversity
When considering why a church might consider raising up ethnically diverse leaders, some may reject the question's premise, though reasons for this rejection can vary widely. America's original sin still lingers in the dark pockets of our society, and the sad reality is that racism continues to influence some churches. These churches would refuse Jesus's call to engage other ethnic groups out of a sense of hatred or superiority. Blatant racism in the church is repugnant, but it is too simplistic to hurl this accusation at any church that does not embrace a multiethnic vision. Many churches in diverse areas choose to pursue a monoethnic or monocultural vision for ministry, though not due to racist ideologies. This secretion will explore three possible objections to the premise of this article, followed by a brief rejoinder.
The first objection is pragmatic; people are naturally attracted to similar people. Therefore, churches will be more effective in reaching people who are ethnically or demographically similar to themselves. Donald McGavran first introduced this concept to the American church through Understanding Church Growth, where he identified ethnic, socioeconomic, and other social differences as barriers to church growth (McGavran, 1980). Others have argued that beyond church growth, homogeneous-unit churches “should be seen as one of the most viable institutions for healing such social ills” and “much of the ethical opposition to them … may turn out to be a subtle and thinly disguised manifestation of racism” (Wagner, 1978, pp. 12–19).
The first objection to intentionally diversifying a church's leadership team is that it is pragmatically more difficult. In some ways, this argument is true; diverse churches come with diverse problems. It is certainly not easier to pursue multiethnic ministry. Yet, as we have seen, neither Jesus nor the early church followed this strategy. In fact, Acts and many of the New Testament epistles are written to churches wrestling with the implications of living in ethnically diverse new covenant communities. Additionally, this pragmatic approach will backfire as the next generation looks for diverse churches rather than a homogenous church experiences (see previous section).
A second objection names a difference in calling as a reason a church may opt out of attempt to move their leadership community to resemble their neighboring community. They would agree that heaven will one day be a wonderfully diverse place with people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Even today the global body of Christ is extremely diverse. Still, it does not follow that every local congregation must pursue this same diversity (Kocman, 2020). Because local monoethnic congregations add up to a global multiethnic church, the focus on congregational or leadership diversity is unnecessary.
This objection overlooks the examples of New Covenant communities in scripture and the matching diversity among their leaders. Yet this is precisely what we observe. If reaching all ethnic groups is central to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20), then that necessitates people from one ethnic group intentionally crossing cultural boundaries to bring the gospel to other ethnic groups. Thus, if the Great Commission has been given to every believer, then every believer is called to cross cultural and ethnic boundaries for the sake of the Gospel. This call applies not only to those called to move across the sea but also to walk across our street. Missionary best practices include intentionally reaching people from other ethnic groups and strategically reaching, discipling, and empowering leaders from these contexts (Terry et al., 2013, p. 51). If this applies to an overseas context, it follows that the American church can learn from these practices in reaching other ethnic groups within their own neighborhoods.
A third objection for resisting intentional efforts at growing towards the diversity of the surrounding community is misplaced emphasis. Some would argue that the church's primary calling is to preach the gospel. Adding any other category such as resembling the surrounding demographics harmfully adds to the simple call to faithfully preach the gospel (Baucham, 2014, p. 21).
The final objection is that focusing on diversity is a misplaced emphasis. The church must simply preach the gospel and focusing on demographics is outside the definition of faithful preaching. In a way, this argument does have an important point to make. Diversity cannot be the end goal or driving motivation for preaching for in reality hell will be a very diverse place (Piper, 2009). While this article focuses on developing diverse leaders for diverse contexts, this is not an assertion that a church should solely or primarily focus on diversity. “Diversity is an implication and a result of gospel-driven love, not the goal itself. The goal is faithfulness that embraces the unity God has already accomplished in Christ through the power of the gospel” (Williams & Jones, 2023, p. 21).
Summary of Need for Developing Diverse Church Leadership
The call for a church's leadership team to resemble the ethnic makeup of its community has deep biblical roots. Even if the theological argument is unconvincing, there are numerous pragmatic reasons why diverse churches and diverse leadership teams will be instrumental in reaching the United States in the coming decades. If one of the key strategies to diversify a church is for the leadership to resemble the ethnic makeup of the community, the American church must begin raising up this next generation of diverse leaders. But before we can begin developing these leaders, we must have a vision of who we are developing them into; we need a robust vision for leadership effectiveness in diverse contexts. Part 2 of this article series outlines the knowledge, skills, and character qualities necessary for emerging leaders to gain for fruitful leadership in multiethnic contexts.
