10. The Ambiguity of Serving the Globally Mobile (MICN Missiology Series by Andrew Lupton)
Before discussing the exciting opportunities of serving the globally mobile, we should acknowledge the elephant in the room. Most international churches have to deal with this elephant. This elephant can be one of the main detractors as we pursue healthy partnerships with sending agencies. Even yesterday I found myself sitting with denominational leaders in Europe discussing how to deal with this elephant. This elephant’s name is ambiguity.
Given the size of the global expat population and the limited number of churches serving that people group, international churches must embrace ambiguity for the sake of maximizing their strategic reach. I’ll let you in on a little secret. I am an ordained teaching elder (a.k.a. Minister) in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). So is our Associate Pastor. Like you with your own tradition, we are convinced that this tradition is faithful to God’s Word. But if our congregants were asked whether or not their pastors were ordained Presbyterians, many wouldn’t be able to answer. Why? Because we intentionally embrace strategic ambiguity with the language we use at church and how we are branded as a church. This is the choice many international churches make.
Much caution and clarity is needed up front with this point. International churches and their leaders must not become all things to all people if, in doing so, they compromise their orthodox and biblical convictions. We are bound by Scripture and at UCB we unashamedly advertise that we are a Bible-based church. In fact, we publicly acknowledge what that means, even when it may be bothersome to some in our target market. We describe our church as one standing in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation. Even last week on Reformation Day I preached on the rich heritage of rediscovering the gospel as Protestants through the story of Martin Luther.
Branding matters. We used to be officially branded a non-denominational church. But describing ourselves as non-denominational left much to be desired. It felt odd to describe ourselves as “not something” and was counter to our identity as a welcoming home to the nations and the next generation. Thus, we officially rebranded our church in January of 2021 as a multidenominational church to match our identity as, “a diverse fellowship of Christians who want to encounter God in worship and experience the impact of his grace on every part of our lives and in our world.” In fact, multidenominational also matches our history and the history of many international churches around the world.
Ken MacHarg has pastored expat churches in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Honduras, the Czech Republic, and Kyrgyzstan. He is widely considered the expert historian of international churches around the world. He visited my office one day to tell me all about the history of our church, which unbeknownst to me, began in 1867 and is one of the world’s oldest international churches. Ken writes:
Some international churches were started way back in the 1800s by missionaries and in the early 1900s. They were called Union Churches because they were genuinely a coming together of people from various Protestant denominations to form one church that represented and served all of those bodies. There are numerous international churches still operating that carry the name Union Church including in London, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Guatemala City, Bogotá, Panama City, Manilla, Tokyo (and several other cities in Japan), a few in Korea, etc.. Even the many international churches that were started after World War II up until the 1980s or so were intentionally developed as being multidenominational.
In more recent times, however, there has been a movement to start new international churches by groups that are tied or semi-related to some denominational movements such as Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, and others. While they have indicated that they welcome people from multiple denominations (and they genuinely do) they also take on strong characteristics of those founding bodies. Theses churches are primarily found in Europe and retirement spots in Latin America such as Costa Rica.
The DNA of the United Church of Bogotá has been influenced by both the multidenominational and denominational movements to which Ken alludes. UCB was one of the original Union Churches, the Union Church of Bogotá. That multidenominational identity stuck for decades. Sadly, by the 1990s, the Union Church of Bogotá had deteriorated into a Bible-less group more akin to a social club than a church. The Union Church of Bogotá was near collapse at the turn of the 21st century with no money, no pastor, a tiny congregation, and a badly aging building. Meanwhile, the Bogotá Baptist Chapel in the north of the city had a congregation, a small building, a pastor, and some income. After a mass exodus of expats from the city due to kidnapping and violence in the late nineties, the two congregations merged into the United Church of Bogotá around 2002.
This story reveals the dangers of both ambiguous and overt denominational identity. Union Church had no theological accountability holding it to its biblical, theologically orthodox roots. As the pulpit changed with pastors from a wide variety of denominations, so did the theological convictions of the church. It wasn’t until the merger to form UCB that its theologically orthodox heritage was restored. However, amidst that restoration, infants were no longer baptized, more liberal congregants were made to feel unwelcome, and altar calls capped off services as the church assumed a more narrow identity. In both extremes, the church failed to capitalize on its potential as the only international church in a bulging city of millions and millions.
Warren Reeve points out that international churches that are denominationally-driven often “forfeit the fullest kaleidoscope of potential that can be found in a non-denominational church.” Reeve interchanges the labels non-denominational and multidenominational. He notes, “Often the healthiest, most holistic, and deepest-impacting [international churches] are not driven by denominational distinctives, but motivated by a more inclusive understanding and practice of the whole counsel of God.”
What about your church? Is there a “multi” element to your community that invites people in from variety of Christian backgrounds? Regardless of your branding, are you able to present a welcoming face to the diversity of nations and theological traditions that darken your doors while also operating within your theological convictions? Are would-be sending agencies comfortable with that ambiguity? Tune in next week as we continue our discussion of strategic ambiguity.
Andrew Lupton
