“Why do you segregate your students?” This was the question that I was asked by a new student who had attended our weekly Cru meeting for the first time. He knew that our Epic1 and Destino2 ministries were meeting on campus in different rooms and wondered why we were not one bigger, “unified” group. Before I could respond, another student who was listening quickly jumped into the conversation by adding, “Yeah, I’ve been wondering that too.”
To be honest, I was not completely prepared for the question. I thought for sure our students understood what we were trying to do and that they had bought into the paradigm of multiple movements in contextualized settings.
I realized that although the idea of contextualized ministry had become normalized to me, it had not become universally accepted by all of our students. The perception for many of them was that we were segregating students based on their ethnic heritage. To them this was inherently wrong and unfair. How could we, as a group that follows Jesus and espouses His values, actively be separating students simply because of their racial background?
My first response was to refute the idea that we were in any way segregating students. Segregation is when you put a person in a group, not based on their own preferences, but based on your desire to maintain some kind of ethnic purity. In contrast, our desire is to give students a choice to be involved in a group that meets their cultural preferences yet maintains our ministry distinctives and values.
We don’t tell Asian American students that they must get involved in Epic. Neither do we tell them that they must join Cru, a group that is predominantly culturally White. With Epic, Asian Americans have a choice of where they want to belong—a choice regarding which community to live out their faith.
Though I’ve logically explained this to many people, I’ve found that my answers aren’t always satisfactory. For some, contextualized ministry seems to violate the Scriptures and their ideal that the church should be unified. To separate the races seems counterintuitive to what the church is about and to what the Bible teaches.
Then what is true? Does contextualized ministry violate some fundamental principles of Scripture? Or is there some Biblical precedence for contextualized ministry? What does the Bible really say?
God is the Author of Culture, and He Has a Purpose for Each Culture
First of all, we should recognize that God is the creator of culture. It was His idea from the beginning. Four times in the book of Genesis, God gives man the directive to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28, Gen 8:17, 9:1, 9:6). His desire was that the earth would be filled with people who worship Him and glorify Him.
But in Genesis 11, humans began to build a tower in order to make a name for themselves, not to glorify God. His response was to confuse their languages and scatter them so that their attempt would be thwarted and His ultimate purpose (that the earth be filled with people who worship and glorify Him) could be fulfilled.
The fulfillment of that purpose can be seen in Revelation. The Apostle John sees “a great multitude…from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne…” (Rev. 7.9).
God’s purpose is that each culture would be redeemed to become a reflection of His glory. It will not be people of different colors creating a colorful mosaic around God’s throne. Instead, there will be a vast array of different cultures representing every people group of the world, all reflecting God’s grace and glory in a unique way.
Our goal then, should not be just to reconcile people of color to God, but to participate with God in His purpose of redeeming whole cultures for His glorification.
Go and Make Disciples
There are two passages that clearly indicate that the scope of the mission for the church is the world.
In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus in His last words to His disciples, told them to “Go and make disciples of all the nations.” The Greek word that is translated “nations” does not refer to political kingdoms or geographical regions. Instead, the word might better be translated as “people groups.” A people group is a distinct entity that is often characterized by social, linguistic or cultural factors.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells His disciples, “you will receive power when the Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the remotest parts of the earth.”
Though the church was commanded to go to the world, it is clear that the early church didn’t go into the world, but remained localized in Jerusalem. Then in Acts 8, Stephen is stoned and a great persecution arose and the church was scattered.
This persecution caused the church to be scattered to the nations. However, the gospel still didn’t spread to the nations.
Acts 11:19 says that “those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.” In other words, although they were in new places, many in the early church neglected to step out across cultural boundaries to share the gospel with others who were not like them.
I think that we often respond in the same ways as the early church. Instead of “going” to others with the gospel, we expect others to come to us and we share the gospel only with those with whom we’re comfortable. God’s charge is for us to go to the nations and take the gospel to them and make disciples.
College campuses are fortunate to have “the nations” represented by varying cultural groups. Reaching out contextually is biblical because it represents God’s mandate to “go” and take the gospel to the nations.
Different Cultures in the Early Church
In American Christianity, it has become popular to desire an idealized view of unity that usually includes one large group that incorporates all races and cultures. This is usually understood to be the view of unity that is spoken of in the Bible. Yet, it is clear that different cultures existed in the early church.
In Acts 6, Hellenistic Jews made a complaint against the native Hebrews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. What’s interesting is that while the Hellenistic Jews and the native Hebrews shared the same religious values (Judaism), they congregated around their cultural values and preferences. The native Jews were Jewish in religion and in their cultural heritage, while the Hellenistic Jews were Jewish in religion but Greek in their cultural heritage.
There is nothing that indicates that the Apostles saw this “separation” of cultures as problematic. They did not see this as some violation of unity. Instead, the Apostles appeared to respect the cultural differences that existed and developed a solution that respected those cultural preferences.
In our dominant culture of American Christianity, we sometimes neglect to respect the cultural differences that exist in other groups. Too often, we expect others to come and join our group and become a part of the culture that we’ve created. This seems to satisfy our view of unity. However, I believe this concept of unity is more influenced by our society than the Bible.
Empowering Others to Lead
There’s an overlooked aspect to this situation: leadership. Contrary to what we might expect, the Apostles chose seven culturally Greek men to become the leaders of this food distribution program. Instead of seeming overly concerned with integrating the two distinct cultural factions within the group, they actually empowered members from that group to lead in the solution to their complaint.
This is important as it relates to reaching students of varying cultural and ethnic identities. Sometimes, students who are not part of the dominant culture don’t feel the same freedom to lead. Therefore, when we plant movements within each distinct culture on campus, we’re actually empowering more students to lead.
Ministering Cross-Culturally
Scripture is clear that we’re not to convert people to our cultural preferences but we’re to convert them to faith in Jesus while allowing them to preserve their own cultural values.
A biblical example is found in the book of Galatians. Some people were saying that people needed to observe Jewish customs in addition to accepting the gospel message. In essence, they were telling the Galatians that they needed to be culturally Jewish—be circumcised and observe the customs of Moses—while accepting Jesus as their Savior.
Paul explicitly rejects this and calls it legalism. In Galatians 2:3, he writes that Titus, a Gentile, was not circumcised because it was not necessary. In fact, to require him to observe the customs of Moses would be adding to the gospel.
Yet Paul, in Acts 21:26, goes to the Temple and observes the Jewish customs. Why does he do this if it isn’t necessary to be saved? It’s simply because Paul is Jewish, and this is part of the Jewish custom for worship. It wasn’t necessary, but he does it as an act of worship, not as an act of absolution.
We know these ideas to be true intuitively. When we go overseas, we’re careful to adapt to the culture of the host country and we seek ways to adapt the gospel message to their cultural context without expecting them to adopt our western cultural preferences. Yet when it comes to ministering cross-culturally here in America, we frequently place cultural demands on people that Paul explicitly rejects as legalism.
Now it’s true that we’re not explicitly telling people that they need to observe Jewish rituals in addition to accepting Jesus in order to be saved. But when we require people of other cultures to come to us and adapt to our culture in order to be a part of the church or group, the end result is the same. We unconsciously send the following message: Adapt to our cultural preferences and forsake your own cultural preferences or else you are not “really” following the Biblical view of unity and discipleship.
Do Whatever it Takes
Paul relays an important missiological principle in 1 Corinthians 9:22: “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.”
If we’re going to reach people who are different culturally than we are, we need to adapt culturally to them. Paul said that “to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law” (9:20-21).
Those who question the validity of contextualized movements often fail to recognize this principle: We’re to become like those whom we’re reaching in order to see them won to Christ.
This is the heart of true missions—going to another culture and becoming like them in order to plant the gospel within their community and witness some won to Christ. Cru is a missionary organization whose mission is the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Therefore, if we’re to see people of different cultures in our communities come to faith, we must not only be willing to go to them, but we must be willing to become like them in order to win them. This is what we mean when we talk about crossing a cultural boundary to minister to others. It means we’re giving up our cultural preferences in deference to their cultural preferences so that we might win their trust and plant the seeds of the gospel within their culture and community.
Often we don’t share Paul’s attitude to do whatever it takes to see others won to the gospel. But this is what is required. We cannot simply be content to wait for others to come to us and see that we are different. Nor can we assume that because we all live in one country or the same community that we are all alike and share the same cultural values.
We live in a society that is incredibly diverse. We’re called to be ambassadors, not merely representatives. Therefore, we must cross cultural boundaries and reach out to others within their own cultural context.
Conclusion
God is the creator of the nations and the author of each culture. He has called us to go to the nations instead of expecting them to come to us. It’s also evident that different cultures existed within the church and the Apostles did not see that as a problem or as something that needed to be changed.
By going to other cultures with the gospel, we’re empowering others to step up and lead without being under the authority and power of the dominant culture. Furthermore, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to take the gospel to others without importing our cultural preferences. Lastly, we are to do whatever it takes to see others come to Christ. This means we’re to cross cultural boundaries and become like those whom we’re seeking to win.
With these principles in mind, there can be no doubt that the concept of contextualized ministries is not only Biblical but strategic as well.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published for Cru Press Green, a part of Cru. It has been republished here with edits and with permission from the author.