Reaching the worlds

Exploring cultural nuance | Jonathan Gainey

Reaching the world for Christ is a task for which many Christians long. For those of you who take this task seriously, realizing that it means much more than knocking on neighborhood doors and asking, “Do you know Jesus?”, you are aware of the importance of communication.

It’s fairly obvious that a Christian who wants to share the Gospel in a foreign land must know the language of that foreign land. And you also know that sharing the gospel in the vernacular is the only way to effectively seed the gospel in a foreign country. Unless a people are able to receive and teach the Bible in their own tongue, Christianity is doomed to disappear. Even those evangelized by the great Augustine of Hippo no longer exist as a body of Christ, due to the fact that the North Africans to whom Augustine taught the gospel were expected to receive the Gospel in Latin and worship as Westerners. It only required the Christians there to be persecuted before they quickly gave up their “Western” religion.

Ralph D. Winter, General Director of the Frontier Mission Fellowship, spent many years as a missionary in foreign lands, and he argues in his article The New Macedonia: A Revolutionary New Era in Mission Begins that language and oceans are not the only barriers that must be crossed. It is just as important to understand the boundaries of social differences within our own communities.

Interestingly, many congregations want to reach every person in their neighborhood, but they only have one song book and one form of worship. I am not an advocate of blended worship, as this would be like trying to develop a congregation where Japanese and Hispanics worship together. As Winter says, “Some go as far as granting separate language congregations, but hesitate when the differences between people are social and non-linguistic.”

The next time you wonder, “Where are all the twenty-somethings?”, consider the culture of your congregation. The generational arrogance of the young and the old often separates us by assuming that we should be able to easily accept one another’s culture in worship. But is this reality? Even Paul argued over whether the Greeks must live like the Jews (see Acts 15). This is often read as if it means that Jews are not to live like Jews any longer either.

However, this is a misunderstanding of the text. The Jews were free to continue following the Jewish commandments, but they were not to force non-Jewish Christians to do the same. And even with their cultural differences of Christian worship and practice, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. Winter says, “I personally have come to believe that unity does not have to require uniformity, and I believe that there must be such a thing as healthy diversity in human society and in the Christian world Church.”

As Dr. Steve Strauss pointed out, there is a group of Christians north of Mecca who were previously Muslims. Although they now worship the One True God, confess that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, read, study, and teach the Bible, they continue to pray five times a day and worship on Friday, the Muslim holy day. These practices are so embedded within their culture that to tell them to do otherwise would destroy the opportunity to see them continue in their Christian faith.

Although it would not be ideal to say that people of different generations, ethnic groups and financial status cannot worship together, it would be just as wrong to suggest that they cannot congregate and worship with those of similar social norms. To worship in a context that is familiar, throughout history, has been the one overarching recipe for the survival of Christianity among people groups in any culture or nation.

Forcing earlier generational worship styles, music and even times upon newer generations is just as ineffective a form of evangelism as asking non-English speaking citizens to worship in America’s mostly Anglo, middle-class congregations.

There is one territory of The Salvation Army where every divisional youth leader has been told that, at every Divisional Youth Councils, only songs from the official Salvation Army songbook are to be used in worship. This is a case of confusing nostalgia for legitimacy. In this case, the older generation (younger generations also commit the sin of generational arrogance) has placed such a high value on the preservation of their historical forms that they don’t recognize the underlying message of their generational arrogance: We care less about whether you worship at all than we do about you preserving our expression of Salvationism.

If we are going to reach the world, we must recognize that there are many worlds within our own communities, not just across the oceans and national borders.

“I see the world Church as a gathering together of a great symphony orchestra where we don’t make every new person coming in play a violin in order to fit in with the rest. We invite the people to come in to play the same score - the Word of God - but to play their own instruments, and in this way there will issue forth a heavenly sound that will grow in the splendor and glory of God as each new instrument is added” (Winter).

Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.

9 Comments to Reaching the worlds

1. i’m confused. i appreciate the point you make about the need to contextualize the gospel, but i think i’m missing your larger points. is cultural homogeneity in a congregation more acceptable than generational (or “worship style”) homogeneity? is homogeneity the evil, or the imposition of one’s own homogeneity to the exclusion of other(s)? i want to respond, but i’m confused as to where you ultimately weigh in on these issues.

   thanks.
   g
grace on April 14th, 2009

2. Let’s use cultures instead of homogeneity, simply because it’s easier to say.

   The argument that missionaries like Ralph Winter are making is that people are going to worship with people like themselves. No matter how much we try to downplay the importance of cultural recognitions in worship, they are important. Some congregations have been able to create an atmosphere of multi-culturalism, but they are not the norm. This explains why our teens and children leave their houses clawing walls as they’re dragged out of the house by their parents who are very comfortable and familiar with the culture of their place of worship.

   “Although it would not be ideal to say that people of different generations, ethnic groups and financial status cannot worship together, it would be just as wrong to suggest that they cannot congregate and worship with those of similar social norms.” In other words, it is not right to force people to worship together, but it is also not correct to force them to worship apart.”

   The idea is to allow people to worship where they are comfortable, which is usually within their own cultural norms.

   Paul made it clear that Gentiles do not have to enter the Kingdom like Jews. And yet, there are no Jews or Greeks within the church. Even though we are all different, we are all one. Even though we have African-American congregations, Anglo-American congregations, Asian congregations, and Haitian congregations, we are all brothers and sister. We don’t have to worship in the same place, and we don’t have to feel guilty about wanting to worship within our own cultural languages (young, old, Hispanic, African, Chinese, conservative, progressive).

   Neither generational nor ethnic cultural differences are more or less acceptable in a congregation; even the music that we listen to can be a cultural difference that has nothing to do with age. There are many elements to culture, and the strongest elements of culture for one may have little impact on another. This is where you will find congregations full of different ages and ethnic groups who are attracted to the music of a particular church, because despite their differences, a particular music is culturally familiar to all of them.

   Another group of people may be culturally familiar with a preacher’s teaching style or even the version of the Bible used by a particular church.

   This is all to say that culture is much more than skin tone, age, or even music style, but any of them may be what a particular group finds familiar enough to call “my culture.” And it is in that comfort zone of cultural norm that people are most likely to grow in their Christian faith, while those who worship in a foreign or unfamiliar cultural setting tend to grow up and leave anyway.

   Hopefully I haven’t over-explained.

   Maybe this helps.

   Blessings,
   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on April 14th, 2009

3. To add to the understanding of what culture is, I quote from Paul G. Heibert, Chairman of the Department of Mission and Evangelism and Professor of mission and Anthropology at Trinity evangelical Divinity School:

   “Culture is ‘the more or less integrated systems of beliefs, feelings and values, and their associated symbols, patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people’” (Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, page 374).

   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on April 15th, 2009

4. thanks, that helps a lot. as far as these are empirical observations, i agree. it is some of the normative claims about proper missiology in your paper (not sure if they are your claims or the authors’) that i find troubling.

   the reality of christendom is indeed that we like worshiping with people who worship like us. that’s the reality of human nature in its fallen state, isn’t it? we like people who are like us. however, what is most natural or recurrent is not necessarily what is right.

   MLKjr. observed decades ago that 11am on a sunday morning is the most segregated hour in america. the same observation is true of america today, possibly even more so. most Christians i know cringe at this because we recognize it to be a sad and broken and deplorable reality. so why is it that when we turn our gaze to the world at large, to “nations” and “people groups,” that this reality suddenly becomes palatable, a “fact” of missions praxis that we should accept? yes, certainly christian missiology needs to learn from its imperialist past (and often its neo-colonial present). yes, certainly contextualization matters. but none of this means that missiology predicated on or pandering to what people are “most comfortable with”–homogeneity–is the way forward.

   while i fully agree that we need to recognize diversity as encompassing more than ethnic or cultural-linguistic differences, to me language is a much more legitimate “comfort” to build churches around than pretty much any other cultural difference.

   i worry about the kind of faith that can grow in the rocky soil of comfort zones and familiarity. after all, isn’t it trial and testing that develops faith?

   central to the Church’s calling is to be reconcilers. indeed, i believe in a world of deepening inequality, genocide, violence, war and alienation, this might be the most prophetic expression of the Kingdom that the church can show. when the social organization of our churches is fully explainable by sociological principles, all this talk of Jesus and unity of the Spirit is just babble. how would outsiders know that Jesus makes a difference? how would *we* know that it’s Jesus who draws us together, and not just our human desire to be with people who see God the way we see God, pray the way we pray, and like the music we like?

   there is definite tension between contextualizing the Gospel and pandering to comfort. there’s no magic solution to this, but i think if we at least recognize that there IS tension there, and not conflate the two, we will have come a long way.

   thanks for making me think!

   peace
   g
grace on April 15th, 2009

5. You know what this makes me think of.

   Acts 13 when Barnabas and Saul head out to do the work the Lord had called them to do and Saul changes his name to Paul. I grew up always thinking God had changed his name to Paul(Mainly because I was never really taught to study the bible myself but rather simply digest what was spoon fed without question). I am just now starting to learn what it means to dig into scripture.

   But anyway, back to Acts 13, Saul just seems to randomly also be known as Paul all of a sudden. looking deeper I find that they are in Paphos which is on the western end of Cyprus. That is less than 100 miles from the headquarters for Roman rule, Salamis.

   Many come to the conclusion that Saul from now on is known as Paul because he has officially begun the “Gentile phase” of his ministry.

   Not only does Saul (A name with a large Hewbrew, Jewish backround) take on a very Roman, hellenistic name like Paul, but he also takes on the name of the first person who becomes a believer throught Gods work through him, Sergius Paulus.

   It seems quite clear that Paul found a deep importance in being able to relate to, understand, and preach the gospel in a way that the people of that particular culture would understand. So much so he even changed his own name.

   Quite contrary to what we do so often in our Corps and churches today. Sure, your all welcome,you just have to come to us and learn to be like us, pray like us, think like us, worship like us…etc.
Booth Jewett on April 16th, 2009

6. I believe that a homogeneous place of worship is a myth developed by blind arrogance and an ethnocentric attitude that is offensive.

   No matter where we go to worship, one overarching culture prevails. What we may come to accept as a multi-cultural congregation is really the result of a people who have accepted (or have been forced to accept, if they want to be a part of that congregation) the culture of that place of worship.

   It only takes a quick look around to recognize the culture of a particular “church” to see the obvious established culture, whether that be a retro culture, an Anglo culture, a neo-European culture, an urban culture, a suburban culture, a senior culture, a high-church culture or a progressive culture.

   In my own congregation, we claim to want to reach many people, but our musical instrumentation, songbook and even the set-up and style of furniture in the chapel sends a clear message of what culture we have chosen to accept.

   The idea of homogeneity is a theoretical one. It would be nice if it was practical, but the reality proves otherwise. Most young people come to worship while they are forced to, but leave in droves upon entering college or moving away from home.

   The appearance of a homogeneous congregation is further assumed because of the acceptance within most Western communities of Christians. This means that once a person becomes a Christian, he or she is expected to be a part of a local place of worship regardless of the current cultural preference of that place of worship. But, wherever that person chooses to attend, he or she is still accepted as part of their community and family.

   The theory is broken down when we begin to attempt homogeneity within a community where it is considered treason to become a Christian. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a congregation is built upon a single culture in order to prevent ostracism and persecution. Interestingly it is in these communities that the churches grow by leaps and bounds, which is not the same outcome where missionaries attempt to build one congregation out of many cultures.

   We take this for granted in our all-English-speaking country, where to be a Christian means to get along with and have fun with and worship with everyone, even if you don’t understand the nature of what is being shared.

   As for your first paragraph and your statement about being troubled about not knowing whether the normative claims about proper missiology in my paper are mine or the author’s, you can be sure that I have my own thoughts, which receive further emphasis from reading, which is properly cited in this paper, and class study from my Missions professor, Dr. Steve Strauss, at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. All of my work is properly cited and my integrity is fully intact. I don’t want to come across as defensive, but the allusion to an accusation of plagiarism is not one to be taken lightly by me or others who may be reading this as well.

   Many blessings,
   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on April 16th, 2009

7. And, after re-reading your statement, I must apologize for my assumption that you were accusing me of not being clear about the authorship of my statements. I misunderstood what you found troubling.

   Please accept my most humble and sincere apology.

   Johnny
Johnny Gainey on April 16th, 2009

8. Hi,

   You’re right, I did not mean to insinuate plagiarism at all–I just wanted to engage with the substance of your article.

   Although after reading your last comment, I fear I may have misunderstood your ideas after all!
grace on April 17th, 2009

9. Amen. The last few lines with the anology and the statement about preserving the Army culture make lots of sense to me. thanks for the article i’ll probably be thinking of these all day.
Dietrich on April 20th, 2009

Leave a comment