As an example, you said in the post: “By being around people who are not like us, we are reminded that Jesus came to a people completely not like Himself.”

But, while he came to human beings, who are of course, completely unlike Himself, would it not also be fair to say that he did minister very much within his own context, which was, first century Jews? Sure, he conflicted with the religious elite but would not a carpenter have shared those conflicts as well?

I think Jesus ministered amazingly to people who were very much like Him (in some ways) as well as powerfully ministering to those that are completely unlike Him.

I fully agree with your comment that: “I think it is better served from a gospel-driven position, because in our weaknesses, God’s grace is on display.”

but with regards to: “A great baseball player may not be as effective a[t] reaching baseball players than an average baseball player in whose weaknesses the grace of God is on display.”

could it not be argued that a great baseball player would have a farther and wider reach than an average baseball player? The message of the great baseball player and the average baseball player must, of course, be the same: the Gospel. But, would not the admission of weakness of a great baseball player further display the power of the Gospel than the same admission from the local average joe baseball player?

Just some thoughts from reflecting upon yours. Thanks for sharing them, and looking forward to reading more of them.

D.L. Kane

I see what you are saying. Actually, there was a time where I used beach volleyball to do just what you mentioned. I took some high school guys with me to the beach, gathered folks to join in, played a couple of games with them, gave free bottles of water, and then told them about Jesus. Having interested and moderately good players did help out.

I’m still unconvinced, however, that volleyball is a greater common denominator than the gospel. Functionally, it is perhaps more effective and will obtain more immediate results. The HUP (homogeneous unit principle) is very popular in church growth circles. While I think that mission can spring from a hobby-based homogeneity, I think it is better served from a gospel-driven position, because in our weaknesses, God’s grace is on display.

In other words, when are to consider our calling, as in 1 Cor. 1:26-31, the focus is on what we are NOT as compared to what we are. A great baseball player may not be as effective as reaching baseball players than an average baseball player in whose weaknesses the grace of God is on display. In other words, does human performance commend Christ more than gospel-driven dependence?

Paul said he would become all things to all men to win some. Fine. We cannot expect the lost to live out the meaning of the gospel. But when we have reached folks, we need to intentionally become focused less on our human traits that unify (or divide) and more on the gospel which unites and motivates all Christians.

I see your point. If all you have, for instance, is college students in your community, then obviously you will have inevitable homogeneity. Among the aspects of gospel community is not the denial or diminishing of interests or affinities of each member of the community. Indeed, those connecting points with the lost world are important, especially in third places. If each person in the gospel community had different interest and affinities and built a relationship with unbelievers through those avenues, then that gospel community will be able to reach people of various types. On the other hand, if everyone in the community had identical interests or affinity, then the group will reach people just like them.

What I think you are arguing for is variety/diversity in the church gathered and homogeneity/affinity in the church scattered in the missional communities. But why can’t it be variety/diversity in missional communities where the common denominator is the gospel and each member of the missional community leveraging their individual affinities to bless the community? Does that make sense?

Interesting thoughts on homogeneous community vs. Gospel community. My church, Hill Country Bible Church UT, is a missional church looking to impact The University of Texas. One of the primary ways we do this is through what we call “missional communities.” These are done how you describe the homogeneous communities. Our church however is not a homogeneous community (other than most people being college age, but we’re constantly trying to grow that). I look at our ability to connect with people off of a common interest or affinity and as they are introduced to Jesus and become curious and visit our church, then they are seeing the Gospel lived out among varying people. Additionally, are missional communities are often only a few believers who are interacting with a much larger group.

This was kind of a disjunctive email, but my point is that I think both can exist. Our “homogeneous” missional communities are the first interaction point between the unbeliever and our Gospel missional church.