Missions 101

Is it possible for the gospel to be present “in” a culture and yet absent “from” that particular culture? The answer is, “Absolutely yes!!!” In a recent visit to my village of Kom, West Africa, I had to face the reality of this answer. First, some background. My father is a respected man in the village, considered to be a strong believer (judged by his involvement in the church, which by itself is an indication that the gospel has not penetrated the hearts of the people). Many years ago, as required by tradition, he inherited the compound of his uncle (in this case, the compound is composed of two buildings; one for the man and the other for his wife, including the coffee farm and all that belonged to the man). As the inheritor, he is required by tradition to carry on the activities of his uncle who is now dead, belongs to the league of the ancestors, and is watching to see that things are done properly. In this inheritance, my father also inherited his uncle’s wife and children. Part of the requirement for inheritance laws includes having children with the wife of the deceased. In the case of my father, fortunately, the wife was too old to have children. So, he inherited her, the compound and the children.

At present, the inherited wife has died. Given the significant role that her husband played in the village when he was alive, there are certain expectations for my father to fulfill during her burial, and subsequent customs surrounding her death. As I sat talking with my dad just this past week, it became clear to me that although the gospel is present in the tribe of Kom, it is still absent from its cultural practices and expectations. Believers are left in the dark when it comes to what the Bible says about certain cultural expectations.

Here is the situation with my dad in which I tried to apply the truth of the gospel and found that he was at a loss concerning what I was trying to communicate. According to tradition, as the successor of all that belonged to his uncle, including his wife and children, it is expected that at the death of the wife, my father will fulfill all that his uncle would have done if he were alive. The duties include providing all the goats and chickens and palm oil to the traditional elders to appease the spirits of the dead. Failure to do so would bring judgment both on my dad and his entire family. So, he listed to me all that will be required of him and proceeded to ask me for financial assistance to meet those needs. I told my own dad that my faith prohibits me from giving him money to provide for the needs of the elders in a supposed attempt to appease the spirits. He was shocked that I showed no concern at all for the dead and the danger for the living. It was a long conversation in which I tried to explain to him why I could not, as a Christian, give him the money to provide for such requirements. For my dad, I was not honoring him as my father. As for me, I only wanted to obey my father “in the Lord.”

After a long time of discussion, I asked my father what he thought was the teaching of Scripture concerning what he was intending to do and asking me to assist him in doing. His answer? Scripture has its place and tradition has its place. Both are authoritative and must be obeyed. That is where we differ and that is exactly where I came to the conclusion that although the gospel is present in the tribe of the Kom people, it is totally absent in its traditional expectations and practices. My father could not give me an answer as to what Scripture says about what he wants to do. On further discussion, he pointed out that the church has never addressed the concerns he is raising, and how dare I make any judgment about it. He was at a loss, but I could see that he was wondering what the matter was with me for not understanding.

In this case, my dad has been a believer for more than the 48 years that I have been alive, but never been taught in the church about how the gospel relates to matters of culture. As he pointed out, everyone “knows” that church is one thing and cultural demands is another thing. Both are to be obeyed.

So, my question: Is the gospel present and yet absent from the Kom cultural practices? I believe the answer is “yes!” If so, where does this leave the people of Kom? In a situation of confusion in which they claim to have the gospel and to believe it. As a result, they are clueless as to how faith in God speaks to the requirements of the culture.

Conclusion? We cannot say that a tribe has been reached with the gospel when it is present but yet absent. The work needs to be redone and properly so. People need to have a conversion of not just their soul but also of their way of life. The gospel does not only promise eternal life for the soul. It requires a certain way of life within the culture into which it is proclaimed.

My dad, having been a believer for over 70 years, still needs to learn how to be a Christian in his own culture. 

The question of how to relate the gospel to culture is a question about how to express the gospel message in genuinely cultural and authentic terms, while at the same time maintaining the purity of the gospel. Speaking of gospel and culture in the African context, Kato says,

Culture as a way of life must be maintained. It is God’s will that Africans, on accepting Christ as their Savior, become Christian Africans. Africans who become Christians should therefore remain Africans wherever their culture does not conflict with the Bible. It is the Bible that must judge the culture. Where a conflict results, the cultural element must give way.”[1]

In relating the gospel to any culture, it is good for the preacher to have an objective, which in this case is to make the gospel relevant without compromising the purity of the gospel.

In the history of missions in West Africa, different approaches have been taken in relating the gospel to culture.[2] One approach believes that there is nothing redeemable in the culture and thus seeks to destroy the cultural practices of the people before establishing Christianity. This is what Pobee calls Tabula rasa. With this approach, Christians were more or less called out of society instead of being redeemed in society. One very different approach is what was called accommodation but now is called adaptation, localization, or indigenization. This view acknowledges that there is “a whole heritage in the non-Christian culture and consciously attempts to come to terms with that heritage” (Pobee 59). Here the missionary makes use of he belief system of the people and builds on what they already know. Yet, everything in the culture cannot be accepted en masse. Wisdom and discernment should be used. Some elements will have to be modified but others will be rejected. Again, Kato notes,

In the African evangelicals’ effort to express Christianity in the context of the African, the Bible must remain the absolute source. The Bible is God’s written Word addressed to Africans —and to all peoples—within their cultural background (Kato, 148).

This second approach has to do with couching the gospel message in genuinely African terms and categories, while at the same time not compromising the truth of the gospel. The point here is that while the gospel remains the same, its truth should be communicated in a culturally relevant manner.

Paying attention to how the gospel is communicated in a culture avoids the concept of working misunderstanding where “a missionary preaches the gospel in very foreign terms and the natives appear to receive it. That is, they may attend church services, obey church regulations, and so on, without any real understanding of what is going on” (Pobee, 59).

The importance of making the gospel relevant in a culture cannot be overstated. Once the gospel is stated in culturally meaningful ways, the people will embrace and own it and no longer see it as a foreign concept. They will embrace Jesus as Savior and Lord of their lives. Bediako writes of this point for Africans;

Once we discover that there is no valid alternative to Jesus Christ, the question is no longer: why should we relate to Jesus of Nazareth who does not belong to our clan, family, tribe and nation? But, how may we understand more fully this Jesus Christ who relates to us most meaningfully and most profoundly in our clan, family, tribe and nation?[3]

It is therefore the duty of the missionary or any one preaching the gospel in another culture to be able to make the gospel message culturally relevant. How should this be done? While one finds many articles and books on methods of contextualization, I do believe that the preacher needs to be one who knows the gospel message well, knows the cultural context of his ministry, and prays for wisdom to make the message clear without losing an iota of it. I commend Paul’s principle on how to do this as seen in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

This passage shows Paul’s pattern of ministry to people of different cultures, Jews and Gentiles. Paul made himself a servant (slave) to all with the objective of winning more to Christ (v. 19). He adapted himself to Jewish customs as to win Jews to Christ (cf. Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:23-24, 26). To those under the law he lived as one under the law (note his qualification of this statement in v. 20) to win those under the law (v. 20). To those without the law, he lived as though without the law (again note qualification of the statement in v. 21) to win those without the law (v. 21). He is weak among the weak in order to win the weak (v. 22a).

He concludes,  “I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (v. 22b). Paul’s goal is specific, the salvation of some people. He will do whatever it takes (becoming all things to all men) and he will use whatever means or method (“by all means”) for the purpose of saving some people.

Why would Paul want to become all things to all people with all the risk that might come with this practice? One answer already given is that he does it in order to save some. Another way to look at this answer is stated in verse 23, “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.” Paul does what he does because of the gospel, for the purpose of partaking of the benefits of the gospel with those who are saved through his ministry.

It would appear that Paul has a gospel to preach to different kinds of people in different cultures, and he becomes what those people are and uses whatever means necessary in each culture to preach the gospel so as to save some. We could say that while Paul’s gospel does not change, his means of presenting the gospel changes. However, he takes care not to compromise the purity of the gospel itself.

Following Paul’s example, the preacher of the gospel should be willing to make himself a member of the culture in which he is working, so that he can effectively communicate the gospel and save those who believe. He should adapt himself to his cultural setting for the sake of the gospel. There is one unchanging thing in this approach; the gospel. The gospel message will not change but the means of presenting and applying it will change according to the cultural context.

Constant study of the Word of God, culture, and prayer is needed to do this effectively.

The next two blog posts will study the relationship between gospel and culture. In this post, I make some general observations on gospel and culture. The next post will focus more on the nature of the gospel and the challenges of relating it to any given culture.

Nominal Christianity is a problem in certain cultures. This is because, generally speaking, religion is often seen as something that meets a need in their lives. Christianity cannot be presented in a culture as just something that meets a need (you need Jesus, therefore receive Jesus into your life and everything will be fine). The impact of taking Christianity simply as meeting a need is huge in some cultural contexts (particularly in the African Traditional Religion context [ATR]). It is no surprise that for many people, Christianity is a good thing as long as it meets their needs. For these people it is not so important what Christianity demands now. What matters is what it promises now (wealth, good health) as well as after death (eternal life). In that case, people are willing to perform what is required to be a Christian (in hopes that it will benefit them now) so that at death, life will be their portion.

There is a sincere human need for answers about how religion relates to our present life and what happens after death. African Traditional Religion, for example, has its own answers. Life is lived now under the watchful eye of the spirits and ancestors. Certain rules must be followed, otherwise judgment will be swift. As to what happens when one dies, ATR is mostly silent since not everyone gets the opportunity to become an ancestor. Christianity comes into the picture and offers answers to life now, and better yet, to life after death. Since ATR does not forbid different religious views, adherents to ATR find no contradiction in holding to the Christian faith, while at the same time holding to the practices of ATR.  There is a real danger in presenting Christianity simply as a need-meeting religion, since it is taken simply as that. The result is syncretism and nominal Christianity.

The gospel does not simply meet a need. It calls people to respond to the revelation of God as seen in Christ and presented in the gospel. As such, the gospel calls for a response (conversion) that permeates the whole of life (culture). The gospel calls for people to respond to God’s revelation, a response that includes a change of view in all areas of life (including cultural values).

The fact is that culture, and life in general is religious, in the sense that each culture seeks to make sense of the creator and the created. So first, Christianity should not be presented as just one more need of man that is met in Christ, but rather as the only answer to the real life questions about God, man, and the relationship between God and man. When the gospel comes to people “in culture” and not “outside of culture” they begin to change their worldview (culture) rather than add Christianity to their worldview, which remains unchanged. The gospel, therefore, transforms culture from inside out. It does not add to culture as if the two were independent. So in a real sense, no culture, no gospel, in the sense that culture is a vehicle for the gospel.

The gospel calls for a change in worldview (how one sees the world, God, and mankind). A change in worldview necessarily involves a change in cultural practices and values. There should therefore be a Christian culture within the culture of a people, in that when people turn to God, they necessarily reevaluate their culture and at the same time begin to form a new culture that is consistent with the gospel they have received. Thus, a Christian culture emerges within the culture.

In the area I worked in Cameroon, it was sad to notice that some young people feel that being a Christian means rejecting some of their cultural practices (even those that are not harmful in any way). They need to be helped to embrace the gospel within their culture and see that the gospel, rather than calling them out of their culture, is instead calling them to honor God in their culture. It is not uncommon to hear a person say, “I will not do this because I am a Christian.” This is a good statement, but problematic when they say it in rejection of an innocent cultural practice. Rather than this promoting Christianity, this attitude tells people that to be a Christian necessarily means divorcing oneself from culture.

I am not saying that believers should not be critics of their own culture. I am saying that where the culture is not inconsistent with the gospel, let us be a part of the culture (being truly cultural Christians without compromising the gospel). In some cases, there are certain practices that are inconsistent with the gospel. Even in these cases, an outright rejection of the cultural practice becomes a hindrance to the gospel. While pointing out the wrong aspects of the practice, we can seek to change it by explaining why we differ and showing how it can be done differently. For example, in 2001 I returned from U.S.A. to my village in Kom, Cameroon. I was told that while I was gone, one of my cousins died, and it was required that I provide a chicken to appease the ancestors. I was with a couple of students from the seminary who were quick to remind me that as a Christian, not to mention as a visiting teacher in the seminary, I was not allowed to do such a thing. To their amazement, I told them that I was going to do it. Instead of taking one chicken, I took three. At the event, those deemed to be the most respected elders in the village were gathered. I was instructed to take the chicken to the chief elder and present it to him and he would take things from there. I knew that after giving the chicken to him, he was going to take it to the grave (which in this context is right in front of the house) and address the ancestors by saying appeasing words on my behalf.

So I took the chicken to the chief elder and instead of handing it to him, I expressed my thanks for their labor in burying my cousin and mourning with the family. As a token of my appreciation, I said I had brought with me three chickens. When he asked me to give him the chicken I was holding, I declined, saying instead that I had brought a few friends who were waiting outside ready to kill the chickens so that we could all eat together. At that point those present realized that I was not going to perform the required ritual. So I was told to hand the chicken over so that the rightful rituals could be carried out. At that point I said that because I am a Christian (which they all knew) and do not subscribe to the rituals, I wanted things done my way since my interest was to feed those present as a way of saying “thank you.” It didn’t take long for the elders to ask my friends to kill the chickens so the people could eat.

What is the point of telling this story? Simply put, the whole point behind such a practice is for people to fellowship over a meal. Every member of the family plays his or her role to show community solidarity. Culturally, to make sure that no one ever refuses to provide the required birds or animals, the culture built into place protective measures such as the gods, ancestors and spirits who are constantly watching to make sure you fulfill your duties or else face consequences.  When they accepted my offer, I realized that for them, the whole point was about eating and not so much about the well-being of the ancestors and spirits. As a Christian, I tried to change a cultural practice rather than outrightly rejecting it. At the same time, it was clear that I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Can we be all things to all people in different cultures without compromising the gospel we preach (1 Cor. 9:19-23)? Absolutely!!!

An example of a Christian culture within the culture would be how Christians carry out the activities or shared patterns that identify and distinguish their people groups, in such a way that these practices are all transformed by the gospel. When gospel comes into a culture, there is then a conversion not just of souls, but a conversion from the culture of men to the culture of the gospel; from a culture informed by the values of men without God to a culture informed by the values of the gospel.

To the extent that there is no difference between the cultural practices of believers and unbelievers, there has not been true conversion. In this case, the gospel has not transformed culture. It has simply been added to it. When you put the gospel and culture together, things must change. One of the two must change, and it cannot be the gospel. The gospel is the same in all cultures and cannot change. Culture must change to conform to the gospel. The gospel will never change to conform to culture. The truth is that culture contains in it truth about God as well as errors about who God is and how man must relate to God. The gospel exposes these errors. An example is the foolishness of idol worship (Ps. 115:4-8; Is. 44:9-20).

In answer to the question of how culture and gospel relate, I have argued that Christianity cannot be present in culture as something that simply meets a need. Rather, the gospel calls for a conversion, not just of souls, but of a worldview. The gospel commends Jesus to people in any given culture. The gospel calls people to the reality of the kingdom of God now in their midst and the need for them to accept the will of God as their rule for life. Before the coming of the gospel, culture or tradition determines how people should live. This no longer is the case for those who receive Jesus through the preaching of the gospel. For them, the values of the gospel determine how they conduct their lives in their own culture.

Gospel and Culture: What is Culture?

Jesus said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:24). In line with the need for the gospel to be proclaimed throughout the whole world, Paul, speaking of the need to hear the gospel and believe, said,

But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Rom. 10:14).

All the nations to whom the gospel is a testimony are the different peoples of the world. As the gospel is taken to the different people groups, the preacher has the task of communicating the gospel of the kingdom in settings that are not familiar to him. He is bringing the gospel into different cultures. But, he must proclaim it in such a way that the people will hear and understand in order to call on the name of the Lord and be saved. 

For the gospel to be proclaimed effectively, there needs to be an understanding of the culture into which we are preaching the gospel so that people will hear and understand and respond in genuine faith that produces works in keeping with their repentance. When one travels to another culture, he is said to experience culture shock. Culture shock, simply put, is when one gets a sense of confusion, uncertainty, and even anxiety when he or she is in a different culture. This culture shock is a result of a lack of adequate preparation for that environment. For example, an American will give a hug or shake your hand once as a way of greeting. This is not repeated if he meets you again during the day. In Cameroon, hand shakes are done each time you walk up to a person. If you happen to meet that person 10 times during the day, you will shake his hand ten times. This is a polite way of greeting. When I first came to America, I found that people often asked me how I was doing. That happened at church and in college. Each time, I would stop to explain how I was doing that day. How my little child just caught a fever the night before and I stayed up and could not finish my reading. How my family back home is stressed and who has died in my extended family. That to me was news worth telling. Shockingly, each time I turned to explain my situation; the person would already be gone. It took me a while to realize that they never meant to hear how I was doing.  Contrast this with Cameroon in general. In a community like a seminary or church or village, if you are walking by and see a person standing or a group having a discussion, it is respectful to stop and greet everyone in the group. These are issues of culture. An African in America has culture shock just as an American in Africa experiences culture shock. (The reason is always that neither was well prepared for what they are now experiencing.)

Since these differences in culture exist, it is important to prepare for each culture by understanding it before serving in it. In this post, I want to attempt to briefly define culture. 

What is Culture?

The most basic definition of culture is given by the University of Minnesota CARLA Center for Advanced Research:

Culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.[1]

This definition of culture shows that it consists of shared patterns that either identify people or distinguish between them. Culture is about the common ideas, feelings, and values that guide the behavior of a community, as well as personal behavior. These ideas, feelings, and values also regulate how the group thinks and feels about God, the world, mankind, and man’s relation to God and to each other. The cultural shared patterns of each culture determine how the people of that group relate to the world and to each other.  

The shared patterns of a culture are evident in social gatherings, celebrations, marriage practices, initiation rites, death and burial practices, view of children, inheritance laws, view of man and woman, the gods, etc. All these practices are informed by the values of a group.

These shared patterns also identify and distinguish different people groups. People who are proud to be identified with their tribes uphold the values of that tribe no matter where they are in the world.

Implicit in the definition of culture is the point that culture is a human creation. In order for people to live together as a group, they set in place the values that will guide them in the group. As such, it is a human creation. Biblically, we understand that culture must necessarily reflect some truth about God since people who are created in the image of God create it. The religious practices of different people groups reflect their search for God. The laws of each culture have some values consistent with the Law of God. Paul says that even unbelievers can do what is in accordance with the Law of God because it is written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-16).

So we assume that culture is a human creation and that man is created in the image of God, therefore his culture reflects some truth consistent with the law of God. This point should to be taken seriously where the gospel is proclaimed in different cultural contexts. In a real sense then, culture serves God even though created by sinners because they bear the image of God.

Knowing then what the gospel is, the preacher of the gospel has the task of studying the culture of the people to whom he is going to proclaim the gospel. It is his task to seek out and know the shared patterns of the people, those values, belief systems, and practices that define a people. He also needs to be aware of his own cultural patterns so as to keep them from becoming part of the gospel.

Some Questions to Ponder

1. What is your culture? In light of what you have read so far, how would you explain your own culture in terms of shared patterns?
2. Is God calling you to a particular people group around the world? Are you planning a short-term mission trip soon? Where? If yes, what do you need to do in order to be effective when you go?
3. Are there people in your church or city from the part of the world that you are planning to travel to? What have you done to get to know them and to learn from them? They are your best teachers and a ready resource while you are still preparing to travel.
4. What cultural patterns do you have that might be difficult to put aside as you preach the gospel?
5. For those of you in Africa (and other places too), why is it that pastors feel that they must wear a suit to preach, when in their day-to-day life they wear African clothing? Have we made the clothing style part of the gospel? How should we dress to make the gospel authentic to Africans?