EVANGELISM - ACCULTURATION
CONTEXTUALIZATION - COMPROMISE


I’ve been thinking a lot again about “evangelism” and A: what this essential component of our faith looks like today, B: how it is most effectively practiced, and C: how much of what we call “the gospel” that we seek to share is actually just an acculturation of the “good news.” Much is being written and discussed and strategized today about how to reach the people in our culture with the basic message and reality of salvation in Jesus. (Although, actually, this has been ongoing within the Church since Peter and Paul first tried to figure out what it would look like to try and reach the Gentiles with the “good news” of Jesus!) Here are some of my reflections:

A: Our denomination’s seminar on evangelism these days is entitled “One Step Closer.” We realize that evangelism is more than just getting people’s intellectual assent to “Four Spiritual Laws.” This kind of simplistic reduction might even hinder people from opening up to Jesus. Evangelism is a process, and it involves all of one’s life, not just some spiritual or mental part of a person. Also, we realize that evangelism is not what we do to “get people saved,” but rather it is the Holy Spirit who is the evangelist. And this “good news” that we have to share is more than just about going to heaven when you die. It is about the Kingdom of God, which has already broken into time and space--and has already begun!

B: My friend and Covenant missionary to Muslims, Andrew Larson, titled his latest newsletter, “Why I Keep Going Back to the Mosque - An Embodied Gospel for Muslims.” He is finding that building bridges and breaking down walls of misunderstanding is necessary in order for the Church to have a credible voice that can speak into the lives of Muslim people. Some people are criticizing him for hanging out so much with Muslims, afraid that this sends the wrong message to them; that it compromises the gospel in some way. But Andy asks: “Did Jesus compromise his identity or his message by hanging out with tax collectors and sinners? Who is my model when I go to the mosque, Jesus or these contrary voices?” (Of course, we all know what happened to Jesus for living and teaching in this way...)

C: Soong-Chan Rah, associate professor of church growth and evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary, has written a fascinating new book, “The Next Evangelicalism,” and the subtitle speaks to the ways Christian faith has gotten confused with American culture: “Freeing the Church From Western Captivity.” Rah makes an excellent case for how our American values like individualism, consumerism, materialism, and the effects of racism have co-opted our presentation and witness of the gospel message. This has prevented the “good news” from being released in ways that people from other cultural backgrounds can receive it. Rah says: “In the last fifty years, American evangelicalism has more accurately reflected the values, culture and ethos of Western, white American culture than the values of Scripture. At times, the evangelical church has been indistinguishable from Western, white American culture. The phrase ‘captivity of the church’ points to the danger of the church being defined by an influence other than the Scriptures.”

I know that acculturation has been a major concern in global mission thinking for many years.


What is “the gospel,” and how much of what is seen and shared actually just our cultural trappings? Is there such a thing as the “pure gospel,” apart from any cultural context? The “Perspectives” class offered by the Center for World Mission (Pasadena) claims there is no Christian faith apart from culture. Christianity is always contextualized in a cultural setting. This, in fact, is the wonderful, unique thing about Christianity, compared to other religions: the gospel of Jesus is for the whole world, no matter what the ethnicity, social structure, context or worldview of a particular people group, because the gospel of Jesus comes alive and makes sense to people no matter what their culture setting might be. I also learned in “Perspectives” about the rather controversial practice of having Muslims who become Christians (“followers of Isa Masih”) actually remain “Muslim” in their cultural context. Rather than pulling them out of their families, communities, social structures, and cultural environment, when these people make a decision for Christ, they stay where they are, continuing to identify as a Muslim while following Jesus. I met a Pakistani man at the Covenant World Mission Conference last February who acknowledged this fact about himself. Andy also admits in his newsletter that he is “not trying to change a Muslim’s religion (meaning “culture”)” anymore than he tried to make good Protestants out of the Catholics in his Bible studies when he was a missionary in Mexico. Even Hudson Taylor, back in the 19th century, assumed the cultural appearance and manners of the Chinese people he went to evangelize in order to reach them more effectively--a practice for which he was severely criticized by supporters back home in England.

It seems to me that the key point in all of this, and what is most conflictual for people, is figuring out just where the line is in contextualizing the gospel before it is compromised and corrupted by culture. What do we mean, exactly, by “making the gospel culturally relevant?” What does this look like in practical terms? And what is “watering down the gospel?” Or “dumbing down the faith?” At what point is the gospel held captive or become obliterated by culture, as Rah describes in his book? What lengths can we, should we--indeed, must we--go to in order to help people “get it?” Especially in the increasingly post-Christian world that surrounds us?


Certainly, the Apostle Paul gives us a hint when he said: “I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (I Cor. 9:19-22)

God has given us an even bigger clue: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (John 1:14) And “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

Think of it: Paul--”a Hebrew of Hebrews” and a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5)--becoming like those unclean Gentiles he so passionately wanted to know Jesus! Imagine: God Himself, stepping out of eternity, out of heaven, out of glory itself and coming to earth in the finite form of a human being, into a specific culture and context, taking on all of what it means to be human--even death--in order to reveal Who He is and His purposes more clearly to us...Yikes! What does this suggest to us about how far we should be going to help people of every tribe and tongue and race, including the ones within our own culture, grasp the reality of who Jesus is?

Pastor Bruce recently preached on this topic too, and offered some excellent wisdom in this regard: the message and mission of the gospel never change. They always remain the same. However, the methodologies through which the message and mission are offered are always changing--indeed, they are meant to change and they must change!

What do you think about all this? IS there a line that gets crossed when we try to make the gospel of Christ culturally relevant? Is this what Soong-Chan Rah is referring to in his book? How can this be avoided? What does it look like for Christians today to do as Paul did: become all things to all people so that by all possible means some might be saved? Is this a good excuse even for bad or poor evangelism?


And what about all those references in Scripture about the cost of following Christ? Everything that must be given up, laid aside, re-prioritized in order to belong to Jesus? Are we fooling ourselves if we allow Muslims to remain in their familiar surroundings, rather than insist that they “come out and be separate” (II Cor. 6:17), as Paul also teaches? I’d love to hear your insights and perspectives on these issues. Comments???