Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
The speaker frames new families and backgrounds as an “asset, not a liability,” and even says, “it’s what God wants us to do”—what would it actually cost your church (socially, culturally, stylistically, relationally) to treat “different backgrounds” as an asset, and what hidden preferences would get threatened?
Another way to ask: If your church treated different backgrounds as a strength, what would it cost in culture, style, and relationships? Which hidden preferences in your church would feel threatened?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests the cost is learning to welcome difference without treating it as danger—giving up suspicion, comfort, and control so that new people can truly “contribute to the greater cause.” Treating different backgrounds as an asset threatens the preference to keep church life feeling like “just your family.”
- He says we must “be okay with different families coming into the church, different backgrounds,” and to see that “as an asset, not a liability.”
- He states strongly, “it’s what God wants us to do,” tying welcome to God’s intention for growth.
- He uses the family analogy: in-laws are an “asset… They’re going to contribute to the greater cause.”
- He warns that if church is “no bigger than your family,” keeping the next generation is “very, very slim,” implying that comfort-as-family can become a barrier.
- He notes people often leave places with “zero growth,” suggesting that refusing the costs of inclusion produces stagnation.