The Case for International Churches

In the evangelical missions world, "international" churches are often discussed with rolled eyes or condescending tones. They have often been the target of critique.[1] And to be honest, some of the criticisms are valid.

For example, it is true that at times, involvement with or planting an international church can be an obstacle to a missionary truly learning the local language and culture. At times, they become nothing more than a "lowest-common-denominator" ministry where, due to the diversity of the church, no real doctrinal distinctives are pursued. Also, international churches can unintentionally reproduce distinctively Western (often American) Christianity. In other words, there is no real "international" identity at all; they are merely "American" churches. Further, they can become so isolated that they are completely disconnected from the indigenous church community of their field.

Again, these are valid and earned critiques of some international churches. However, it feels like the common critiques overshadow the unique blessings of international churches. I believe that healthy international churches can make positive contributions to the mission field.

I'll put all my cards on the table — I planted an international church. Without writing out the entire story, we planted our church, not as the original goal, but after humbly conceding my plans to the ways the Lord was working in our ministry. In fact, to distance ourselves from the negative preconceptions of an "international church," we determined to say that we were an "intentionally multi-cultural and multi-lingual church." Even with that, misconceptions could abound. After all, having multiple nationalities present does not necessarily make a healthy international church. By healthy, I mean a church that intentionally seeks to embody shared gospel life across cultural boundaries. Did we do it perfectly? Of course, not. I can see how all of those critiques listed above threatened the vision we had for the church at different times.

Years later, however, I still believe international churches can provide unique blessings to the community in which it lives. I want to offer four:

1. International churches offer a needed corrective to unhelpful missiology.

It's hard to overstate the influence of what was coined the "homogeneous unit principle" (HUP). Developed by Donald McGavran, the principle posits that the gospel spreads quicker when people are not asked to cross racial, social, linguistic, or any other cultural barrier.[2] HUP greatly influenced the "church-growth" or "seeker-sensitive" movement.

Much has been written to critique the HUP and the modern missiological tendency to rely on sociology over theology. International churches, though, critique HUP-driven missiology through practice. As mentioned above, at times international churches suffer from a theological "lowest-common-denominator" problem. However, hyper-obsession with cultural homogeneity or an overly narrow understanding of indigeneity could be critiqued with a cultural "lowest-common-denominator" problem. Intentionally multicultural churches refuse to settle for a missions philosophy that is often billed as easier and quicker.

Though patience is needed, asking people to consider not only the claims of the gospel, but also the unity the gospel brings across cultural lines, international churches can bring a needed correction to misguided missiology. After all, the uniting of cultures into "one new man" (Eph. 2:11-22) is not a barrier or inconvenience in gospel ministry. It is the glorious result of the finished work of Christ on display in the local gatherings of his people.

2. International churches offer a unique opportunity to demonstrate the beauty of the diverse body of Christ.

I'll never forget being at dinner with a group of Italian parents when one asked me about our church. When I mentioned that we were an evangelical church, he asked, "So, you have many Americans there?" I answered, "Yes, we have Americans, but we also have Italians, Japanese, Albanians, English, and others." He replied, "Really? So, they just choose to go to your church?"

In his mind, evangelicalism or Protestantism was for Americans, not Italians. It was unthinkable for him that church life could bring together people from different cultures. As mentioned in point #1, some might struggle with engaging a diverse group of people, but there is a beauty to the gospel that cultures need to witness: Jesus brings people together with wildly different backgrounds and makes them not just acquaintances, but family (Rev. 7:9).

3. International churches offer a unique opportunity for the edification of the church body.

Not only are international churches uniquely positioned to reflect the beauty of the gospel to those outside the church, they also remind their members of important truths as well. For one, they help us remember the scope of the gospel. When you stand shoulder to shoulder with people from a different country than you, hear them lift their voices with you in song, pray with you, and eat with you, a narrow vision of the global church becomes impossible. The global church becomes your local church.

Further, life within a diverse body develops humility in its members as cultural preferences are challenged by others. Wealthy expats worship alongside refugees. Eastern believers lead alongside Western Christian leaders. Cultural preferences revolving around time, conflict, friendships, marriages, and more are all challenged when face to face with those of differing cultures. Needless to say, it takes patience, humility, love, and gentleness to navigate those differences. A healthy diverse church can become a sanctifying church.

4. International churches offer a truly incarnational model in our globalized world.

Of course, many, many places in the world are not globalized. Local, longstanding traditions dominate many places because no outside influence has challenged them. The major cities of our world continue to be globalized, however. That means planting a church in the city is to be a church for the city. To be a church for some cities means adopting an international identity. In an international city, contextualization can mean becoming more international, not less.

Just as the Savior we worship and proclaim inhabited our world, we go in his name seeking to be incarnational in the places he calls us. For churches in globalized, increasingly international places, that may mean intentionally becoming a diverse body truly reflecting the diverse city in which it lives.

International churches are not "silver bullets" for missions strategy. We should always strive to learn the language of our host culture. A truly multi-ethnic church should strive to share leadership with believers of the host country. Further, there is great joy in seeing a people group with a truly indigenous church established. Indigenous church-planting should be the norm for most of the world. Nevertheless, when done well, international churches can be a unique blessing to the world.

[1] Examples of articles containing critiques of international churches are John Folmar, "Pastoring a Multi-Ethnic Church," 9Marks, February 26, 2010, https://www.9marks.org/article/pastoring-multi-ethnic-church/; Zane Pratt, "The State of Global Missions in 2024," Desiring God, May 2, 2024, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-state-of-global-missions-in-2024; Brooks Buser, "Four Reasons the Unreached Are Overlooked," Missionary, September 16, 2024, https://www.missionary.com/articles/four-reasons-the-unreached-are-overlooked; Eric White and Dean Polk, "International Churches Aren't the Silver Bullet of Missions Strategy," The Gospel Coalition, October 9, 2024, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/international-churches-missions/.

[2] See Donald McGavran, The Bridges of God: A Study in the Strategy of Missions (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005); Donald McGavran and C. Peter Wagner, Understanding Church Growth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990).

Connect

© 2026. All rights reserved.