For many of us who participate in ethnic-specific ministries, the questions often come up: Are ethnic-specific ministries allowed? Do they divide the body of Christ? Don’t ethnic churches compromise the gospel? While it’s okay to contextualize for missions, what about after people become believers?
In opening this discussion, I intend to promote unity. Ethnic-specific ministries are often disparaged and seen as illegitimate. An unfavorable view of such ministries can lead to division: some churchgoers are reluctant (or even refuse) to associate with churches and parachurches that minister to a specific ethnic group. My prayer is that this content sparks dialogues that can bring healing to these divisions.
Please note that there is biblical support for multi-ethnic ministries as well. We see examples of ministries that reach more than one ethnicity together, and they are portrayed favorably in Scripture. My desire is that this discussion of ethnic-specific ministries will lead to partnerships between ministries, because both multi-ethnic and ethnic-specific ministries are needed in the church at large.
Here are four biblical points of support for ethnic-specific ministries:
1. Different Gospel Accounts
We have four accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each paint a portrait of Jesus. There are common key elements that run through all of them such as the feeding of the five thousand, the triumphal entry, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion and burial, and a report of Jesus’ resurrection.
However, each of the accounts is unique; the four documents have significant differences. For at least two of them, the differences can be attributed to the different cultures of their respective audiences. On the one hand, Matthew appears to be written primarily for Jews with a genealogy starting from Abraham (1:1-17), a focus on the fulfillment of Old Testament texts (1:22; 2:15; 4:14), and its connections with the figures of Moses and David. On the other hand, Mark appears to be written primarily for Gentiles as it contains explanations of Jewish customs (7:3-4; 14:12), interpretations for phrases in Aramaic (5:41; 7:34; 15:34), and terms with Latin roots (5:9; 6:37; 12:42).
The Gospel writers communicate in ways that would resonate with their audiences. This approach, which is employed in much of the modern missions movement, is often called contextualization. If the Gospel writers customized their messages for their audiences, it follows that a ministry can be built that makes disciples in a contextualized way.
It’s worth noting that the benefit of contextualized messages does not have to end with its primary audience. After all, modern readers can be served by all the different Gospel accounts. Likewise, modern content prepared for a specific group can and does benefit other people groups.
Some may wonder why ethnic-specific groups exist in America if we can all worship in English. This question is addressed by looking at the existence of different Gospel accounts: they are all written in Greek, but they each contextualize the message for their respective people groups. Therefore, the need for ethnic-specific ministries goes beyond language.
2. Paul Became All Things to All People
In 1 Corinthians, Paul describes contextualization while addressing the bitter division among churchgoers in Corinth. In this letter, he does not address one particular house-church but writes collectively to all the believers in the multiple house-churches in Corinth, urging them to be unified.
Paul describes his ministry strategy towards different people groups in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. He writes that he is a servant to all people to win them for the sake of Christ. He mentions four kinds of people: the Jews, those under the law, those outside the law, and the weak. While there is debate on the identities of the second, third, and fourth groups, it is clear that Paul approaches each group differently. The pattern is repeated: “to [the group] I became as [one of the group].” Paul teaches that one pattern of acting/speaking is effective for one group, while another pattern of acting/speaking would be effective for another.
We can observe Paul’s ministry approach in his other letters. He appeals to creation in writing to Gentiles in Romans 2 but appeals to the Jewish law in addressing Jews in Romans 3. He uses a local saying about Cretans in his letter to Titus in Crete (Titus 1:12) and speaks to the Corinthians’ cultural desire for a skilled speaker (1 Corinthians 2:4).
Paul’s ministry strategy serves as a model for us as well. A people group will resonate with a particular pattern of acting/speaking. One can imagine that today, Paul would minister differently in a Black church than he would in a Korean American church. Different ministry approaches are effective with different people groups. Today, we see the different ministry approaches at work in ethnic-specific local churches and other ministries.
Another lesson from 1 Corinthians is notable here. Some say that ethnic-specific ministries divide the body of Christ. The fact that Paul describes his contextualization strategy in a letter that addresses unity among the house-churches is significant. Contextualization is not necessarily at odds with unity and vice versa. Rather we see in 1 Corinthians that Paul urges unity between groups even while describing different ministry approaches. While all believers are one body of Christ, different local bodies have different contexts and challenges.
Paul’s message to the house-churches in Corinth calls for unity while still maintaining the differing ministry methods. We observe that unity does not necessarily erase distinctions between groups but can be expressed across distinct bodies. Modern expressions of unity between local bodies are found in denominations, inter-church partnerships, and conferences.
3. Apostolic preaching in Acts
A survey of the gospel presentations preached in the book of Acts shows that (1) the gospel message contains the same key elements, but (2) is framed differently for different people. In each instance of preaching, the message contains the key elements of the death of Jesus Christ and his resurrection (2:23-24; 3:15; 4:10; 13:28-30; 17:3, 31; 24:21; 26:23. It also contains the call to repent and turn to Jesus for salvation and forgiveness of sins (2:38; 3:19; 4:12; 13:38-39; 17:30; 26:20).
While the gospel message contains the same key elements each time, the instances in Acts show that the apostles present the message with different starting points for different people. To the Jews in Jerusalem, the apostles start their proclamation by appealing to the Old Testament, which resonates with their audience. They appeal to prophecies (2:16-21), the patriarchs of Israel (3:13), and the psalms (4:11). To the Hellenistic Jews in Pisidian Antioch and Thessalonica, Paul and his companions appeal to their common history and the promised Messiah (13:17-23; 17:3). To the Gentiles in Athens, Paul appeals to their practice of worshipping an “unknown god” to teach them about the known Creator (17:22-28). To governor Felix, Paul assures him that he is not causing a stir but keeping his civic duties (24:16-18). To King Herod Agrippa, Paul appeals to his knowledge of Jewish customs and authorities (26:2-11).
Some may wonder if contextualization of the gospel message compromises the truth. But the different apostolic presentations of the gospel in Acts demonstrate that one can reach different audiences in different ways while keeping the essential elements of the message. Modern missionaries, while keeping the key elements of the message, often vary in their different culturally-informed approaches to making disciples. Likewise, an ethnic-specific ministry aims to contextualize the message to reach a specific demographic. The fact that the approaches differ does not mean the gospel is compromised. In fact, as Paul indicates, we contextualize for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:23).
4. The Decree at the Jerusalem Council
As we trace the movement of the gospel in the book of Acts, we see the Holy Spirit build the church. What starts in the Gospel of Luke as a movement of Jews in Israel progressively expands to include Hellenistic Jews, Samaritans, and finally, Gentiles. The early church leaders’ approach to the inclusion of Gentiles demonstrates the way the modern church can approach the distinctions of ethnicity.
Acts 10-14 describe a monumental change in the history of the church. Here, many Gentiles become followers of Jesus because of the Spirit’s work through Peter, the scattering of Jesus-followers in Jerusalem, and Paul and his companions. In response, some insist that new followers of Jesus had to be circumcised to be saved. In other words, they teach that to follow Christ, one had to become Jewish (Acts 15:1-5).
The resulting debate brings about the Jerusalem council, which includes the apostles and church leaders. At the council, Peter points out that salvation comes by grace, and Paul and Barnabas report how God worked through the Gentiles. After the discussion and reports, James determines that Gentiles should not have to be circumcised to be saved. He writes an encouraging letter to the Gentile believers everywhere. The content of the letter affirms the unity of the church, exhorting them to keep pure, abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and refrain from sexually immoral acts (15:22-31).
The decree at the Jerusalem Council affirms ethnic differences and ethnic-specific ministry. Even though the Christ-following Gentiles had different needs, they were considered equals with the Christ-following Jews. The leaders of the early church welcomed these Gentiles into the body of Christ, offering only some guidelines to consider the consciences of their Jewish brothers and sisters. Thus, even though pockets of Jews and Gentiles were in different locations and contexts, they could be unified with the church at large. The ministry approaches, while different, were not evidence of division.
Acts 15 also teaches us that the value of different ministry approaches goes beyond evangelism—it also applies to discipleship. The Gentiles were already followers of Christ. James and the rest of the church leaders recognized that discipleship, not just evangelism, was to be contextualized to different groups. Likewise, ethnic-specific ministry does not end with evangelism but continues with discipleship in a local church.
Throughout the Scriptures, we see teaching and demonstration of the contextualization of God’s message. As we fulfill the Great Commission, our disciple-making, baptizing, and teaching (Matthew 28:19-20) occurs within contexts as we faithfully reach different people groups.