For several weeks on Sunday nights we looked at the “communion of the saints.” In light of what we’ve seen, what are we to think of the claim of the leadership of the normally staid Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (with apologies to Buick): “This is not your grandfather’s church.” Hmmm. This is an arresting claim. Why is it not his church? Whose church is it? Is he not welcome? Should he not belong? The Apostles’ Creed affirms the “communion of the saints,” that is, the fellowship of all believers across all temporal or worldly categories. Has this article of faith, enshrined in Galatians 3:28, been abandoned?

The truth is that churches today are practicing generational exclusion. They design their ministries without consideration of the older generations, even fully aware that older folks will be alienated by their innovations. Churches today which recoil in horror at the deliberate racial segregation of the churches of previous generations think nothing of justifying generational segregation today. It remains largely unrecognized by the advocates of diversity that a common (or catholic) worship alone makes the communion of all the saints possible. Ironically, it is precisely the generational, ethnic and cultural diversity of the church that makes uniformity in worship so important. All ages, races, and ethnic groups can gather together for worship only if the church has a common worship. Current theory runs in exactly the opposite direction. Donald McGavran and the church growth movement have provided the philosophical justification for the “homogeneous unit,” that is, the building of churches in which members are ethnically, culturally, educationally, and racially similar.1 The movement’s aim has been to remove sociological barriers to conversion, which were thought to play a crucial role in preventing church growth. The principle of homogeneity has been applied to the generations as well, as overwhelming numbers of churches have devised forms of worship that are thought to be effective in attracting the young.

Church-growth experts argue that if the church is to properly “market” itself each culture and subculture must have its own worship, with culturally familiar or relevant forms if the church is to grow. Michael S. Hamilton, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, says that contemporary worship musicians “bring the baby-boom assumption that different groups will all need their own music.”2 Rick Warren, in his often helpful, frequently insightful, but fundamentally flawed, The Purpose-Driven Church, urges, “Discover what types of people live in your area,” and then, “decide which of those groups your church is equipped to reach . . .” 3 Then tailor your church’s services to the tastes and style-preferences of that type of person: “You must decide who you’re trying to reach, identify their preferred style of music, and them stick with it.”4 Notice he is not saying that a church should discover the kinds of people living in its neighborhood and then reach those people, all of them. No, he urges that churches target a subset of the neighborhood, a group within the neighborhood, and reach that group and be content not to reach the rest. Again, “You must match your music to the kind of people God wants your church to reach (my emphasis).”5 Warren claims that “targeting specific kinds of people for evangelism is a biblical principle for ministry,” and cites Matthew 15:22-28 and 10:5-6, “I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel,” for support. “Targeting your audience for evangelism is a method God invented! He expects us to witness to people in their own terms.”6 The purpose-driven church is, in truth, the market-driven church.

Marketing a homogenous church through homogenous outreach, however, is fundamentally at odds with apostolic practice. If Warren means by “their own terms” that we must witness to people in their own language, we have no argument. If he means “in their own style” or “according to their cultural preferences,” so that each culture, sub-culture, and sub-sub culture must have the gospel repackaged to suit their preferred style or form, and then must have its own church to serve that preference, we disagree. It is taken for granted by the marketers that churches are supposed to reach certain kinds of persons and not others. Warren is not just saying that the church ought to conduct periodic evangelistic events that target specific kinds of people who are then brought into a church that exists for all kinds of people. Rather, the whole church is designed for and consists of a kind of person––“Saddleback Sam,” in Warren’s case. It is assumed that churches as churches are to “market” to the cultural preferences of a specific demographic. This is how purpose-driven and seeker-sensitive ministry is done. When the targeted generation is the baby-boomers that has meant a style of music: soft-rock; a preferred format: the late-night comedy show; a comfortable environment: non-churchy, with exteriors that look like corporate headquarters or Wal-Marts, interiors that look like TV production sets, and seating that is comfortable and plush; and a mood that is casual: Levi’s and lattes being equally at home. Boomers like entertainment, so market conscious “worship” mimics the world of entertainment: generational music, gregarious leader, conspicuous use of humor, relevant skits, helpful sermons, and perhaps even a dance routine. Is there a problem with this? Yes, indeed. The problem is, what is appealing to boomers is alienating to non-boomers, who will conclude that any such church is not for them.

The gospel-marketers would have us believe that the Apostles would sanction churches according to age: a church for the young, another for the elderly, another for families with children. They would have us further believe that they would establish churches according to race or ethnicity: one for whites, another for blacks, another for Hispanics, and another for Asians. They would have us still further believe that they would establish churches for affinity groups: a church for cowboys, another for Hip-Hoppers, another for jazz lovers, and another for rockers. This is what they would have us believe, but getting us to believe it is a tough sell indeed.