Australian anthropologist, Alan Tippett worked with McGavran and gave his missionary observations a cultural depth. I have sometimes wondered if the tendency to construct ideas and experience into a methodical approach or principle undid some of the wealth of Tippett’s and McGavran’s anthropolgy that dealt with the ‘raggedness’ /untiddiness that tends to accompany human beings.

While at St Andrew’s Hall in the late 70’s, David Penman had us read Tippett, A.R., 1970. Church Growth and the Word of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; and we also had the privilege of lectures by Alan Tippett – a marvellous gracious Christian with a wealth of cultural insights.

In rural Tasmanian contexts (and the urbanised poor of our regional towns) I think McGavran’s missiological observations are important. Social and familial ties mean that people do think of themselves in the context of the group, not solely as individuals. For the person in this context who becomes a Christian, the tide of opposition from the group is often massive, and massively difficult to overcome. This has consequences both for our discipling of individuals from such contexts, and for our missiological strategies. We need to work with the social group, not just try to convert individuals.

As applied in many contemporary western contexts, however, I think the homogeneous unit principle has great weaknesses. It also presumes that someone else is going to reach out to those not ‘like us’ – a presumption that is quite unsustainable in many of our contexts where there is little or no other Christian presence.