Skip to main content

As a teacher, you have to be ready to deviate from your notes sometimes. I teach theology students at an Anglican Bible College in Kenya. With my class on mission and evangelism, we had a tangent that amounted to a four hour class discussion over two days, not counting the time spent discussing outside of class. What began as a simple discussion about whether God uses dreams or visions to call people to missions, culminated in a few students questioning whether Jesus is really necessary as a Savior, whether they should write a new Bible that doesn’t challenge their beliefs, and a couple students boldly declaring that we must obey our culture before obeying Christ if the two contradict.  Let me tell you what happened. Have no fear, this story ends well, making it one of the most serious and disturbing class discussions I’ve ever had, yet one of the most delightful at the same time because God used my teaching.

The heart of the discussion was the relationship between culture and Christianity. I suggest that one of the greatest challenges facing Africa today is that Christians have not had a truly transformed worldview, based on the Bible. Instead there are many Africans who are still abiding by the beliefs and practices of traditional religion and culture, while at the same time attending church on Sundays. So there are very many Africans claiming to be Christian, but very few who have actually had a transformation of their mind, to believe and to act according to the truth of God’s revelation to us (Romans 12:2). Perhaps this is still a problem in America as well! Our class discussion is evidence of this reality in Africa.  This is why I’m a missionary teaching in a country that is already reached with the Gospel.

I had already spent two hours discussing the relationship between Christianity and culture. Most my students are from the Kikuyu tribe, but there many tribes in Kenya, and our class had several other tribes represented as well. We talked about how every culture has things that fit with the Christian faith and can be enjoyed and celebrated, and every culture has things which are fallen. All people need to be transformed when coming to Christ. We talked about contextualization and the Christian faith finding a home in each culture. We talked about how Christianity is not about Western culture, and is not a white man’s religion. We talked about the ways that Christianity could look different in Africa versus the USA. We talked about the tension between how we remain a part of our culture even as a Christian but yet we are also somewhat of a stranger to our culture as a citizen of the Kingdom of God. We talked about the uniqueness of African Christianity and celebrated aspects of African culture. The students were tracking with me and understanding, and I thought we were all on the same page. But it must have been going over their head and not truly connecting to their lives and reality.

When we came to a later topic about dreams, I found out that in their culture, if they have a person (even a Christian) who has been having a lot of dreams, they offer a sacrifice to “cleanse” the person and purify them so they no longer have dreams. Yet the sacrifice is not being offered to God. In this post, it’s not necessary to get into a discussion about this particular ritual, or our later conversations about witchcraft and curses. I was not trying to teach them that their cultural beliefs and practices were wrong  I was actually trying to learn more about these things from them. But I did challenge them to think about their beliefs and if they really fit with the Bible or not. I tried to make them think through why they believe in the power of witchcraft, or uttering curses. Where does the power come from?  The discussion was not about whether their cultural beliefs and practices regarding these things are good or bad. That’s not the point. The point was rather what we should use to determine whether they are good or bad. I taught them that we should only continue in such traditional beliefs and practices if they fit with what the Bible teaches us. But a few students argued that it does not matter so much what the Bible says. They told me they have to continue in such beliefs and rituals for two reasons: 

  1. They know from experience and stories people tell that the rituals work when prayer to God doesn’t work. 
  2. They cannot go against their culture or there will be consequences, notably other people being unhappy with them.

So we talked long, vigorously, and intensely about the relationship between culture and Christianity. I pushed them really hard, challenging them and asking difficult questions. I made them deeply think through what they believed and why. I so very much appreciated how honest they were willing to be with me. They trusted me enough to be open, and I think this was one of the first times that they were honest with themselves about this. They understood that I did not want them to embrace Western culture, and that I was not against their African culture. But the crux of the issue was what to do if our culture requires something different from what God requires. Though they probably would never have dared utter such a thing before this class discussion, after forcing them to really examine their beliefs, at the end they were willing to be honest and say that culture comes first, and Christ comes second, and they will only take what Christ says in so far as it fits with their culture. It wasn’t all of the students who said this. Most of the students agreed with me, and some weren’t sure what to think.

At points in the long conversation:

  • Some claimed that Christianity is a white man’s religion (even though they know from church history that Christianity was in Africa first). Some of the students were really considering that their tribe should write their own Bible, and not have this one from the Jews. So we had to review the biblical teaching of how God revealed himself first to the Jews but always had a plan and heart for all the nations.
  • Some students, while wondering and trying to put their thoughts into words, tried to articulate that maybe Jesus is our savior and our help in some ways but in other ways we find salvation and help through the traditional culture.
  • Some claimed that their culture, before the missionaries came to Africa, was already perfect. They already worshiped God, they were already saved. Basically they had no sin and didn’t need a Savior. I said, “You have freedom to believe this, and I will still love you, but then are you saying that Jesus is not really the Savior, and that those people did not need to hear about him?” It shook me to my core to hear some of these pastors-to-be wonder out loud, “No, they did not need Jesus, maybe he is not the savior for all people.” I trust that God continues to give grace in such experiences of learning and wrestling through such doubts and issues.
  • One student suggested what amounts to modern day pluralism, that each religion finds its own way to God, its own path of salvation. And God will judge each person according to the beliefs and standards of their religion. So I had to teach about the logical problems with a pluralistic view.
  • Many of the students said they would do whatever is practical to meet their needs. “If prayer to God doesn’t solve my problem, I will do the traditional rituals.” This is really common in African Christianity. People do what works, not what is right. If prayer doesn’t work, do a sacrifice. If the sacrifice doesn’t work, go to the witch doctor. Whatever works to get me healing and to get more money, that is what I will do.
  • The main reason the students gave for not going against the culture was that there are consequences for not following the culture. I said, “But Jesus called us to do what is right, even if it means that we will suffer, to deny ourselves and follow him.” But they kept insisting that you have to follow the culture to avoid causing a problem and being criticized by others. So we discussed how the early Christians in the Roman Empire suffered for going against the culture, how American Christians have to go against parts of our culture today, how Indian Christians have to go against parts of their culture, etc. Some of the students were really getting it and were ready to suffer for Christ, but some still could not fathom suffering by going against the culture. I explained that that is the challenge of being a follower of Christ.  “Jesus said to count the cost, and we cannot be one of his followers if we are not willing to suffer for him.”
  • Some students tried to argue a middle approach, trying to reconcile what I was teaching and what some of the students were teaching. They said we need to accept both Christianity but also the culture, and that they go hand in hand, fitting together perfectly. They had trouble accepting that there are fallen aspects to every culture. It seems they only want to focus on the good aspects of their various cultures because when I tried to point out that corruption is a huge part of the culture in Kenya, they agreed that corruption is wrong, but didn’t want to say that it was part of the culture. (Only 1% of all the money spent by the government of Kenya is spent according to the law, according to how it was supposed to be spent.)

After the 4 hours of discussion, everyone could clearly see and understand all these issues, facing this dilemma honestly perhaps for the first time in their lives. But about 3 or 4 of the 13 students were stubbornly insisting that their first allegiance is to the culture, and secondly to Christ and the Bible. I challenged them seriously, but also in love, that to be true Christians we must put Christ above all other gods, including our own cultures. We must die to self, be born again, and find new life and identity in Christ. I said if they want be followers of the culture and only follow some of Christ’s teachings, that they should be honest and not call themselves Christians. And that I could not recommend anyone to be a pastor who is not willing to put Christ before their culture. It was tense, serious, and I spoke very slowly and carefully and in love. This might have seemed harsh to some of them, but it is the truth.

Outside of class, I checked on the students who disagreed with me. I was relieved that they had loved the discussion. They said it was the very best way to learn and appreciated me so much for allowing them to honestly discuss. They did not feel offended at all. It was one of the most helpful classes they have had.

Reflecting later, I know that part of the problem is that people are trying to value their tribal cultures that were so strongly put down by Westerners in the past. Some of these tribes went through awful things during the colonial period. Many of the tribes started to lose their identity and traditional practices and beliefs, many of which were good.  Many of the colonials and missionaries of the past preached Western culture right alongside the Gospel. And some actively preached against traditional African culture, again, some of which was very good.  So I understand that now these African Christians, my students, are trying to hold on to their cultural identity and celebrate what is good in their cultures.  I’m not against that and told the students so.  I had even told them I appreciate their cultures more than my own in many ways. But it’s ironic or at least interesting that the Kenyans today are emulating what they saw of Western missionaries in the past. If the Western missionaries could preach their culture along with the Gospel, why can’t Kenyans do so today as well? If the Western missionaries put their culture before Christ at times, why can’t Kenyans do so at times as well? 

It’s hard for any of us not to put our cultures first. I’m thankful that I have been a part of so many different cultures and known so many people from around the world. It has helped me to better see (though not perfectly of course) what is really the core of the Gospel, what the Bible really teaches, and then the cultural periphery that changes from culture to culture.

I felt like the class discussion was a huge success, even though I couldn’t convince all the students to put Christ before their culture. Many Americans or Kenyans or Christians who do put their culture over Chris don’t realize they are doing it, or aren’t honest that they are doing it. At least these few students are able to recognize clearly what they were doing and articulate it.

But the best part came later!  After we agreed to disagree, the students themselves continued the discussion, all of them together, outside of class.  And the rest of the class was able to convince some more of the students that Christ comes before culture.  One who had initially disagreed even came to tell me of his heart/mind change, that he is putting Christ first, and that he is now going to work on convincing the last of the hold-outs.  I’m so grateful for this class of students, to wrestle through hard topics like this together, and support one another in figuring out the truth.  And I’m thankful for God using me to help them think through these things.

How about you? Do you put culture before Christ? You might quickly say "no." But are you sure? Are you willing to suffer by putting the truth of God's Word first in forming your beliefs? Are you willing to be called a bigot for believing what God says even if it radically goes against the culture's ideas? Are you willing to go against your political party because you put Christ first? Do you get your identity first and foremost as a Christian, rather than as a conservative, or as a Baptist, or as a Dutch person, or as a Democrat? I'm proud of my students for admitting what they were really doing. Can we be courageous enough to also admit if we are forming our beliefs and opinions about controversial issues based on our culture's ideas first rather than God's Word?


Two or three observations:

First, Maslow's Hierarchy. For most humans, basic food and shelter comes before religion. If one's kids are hungry . . . .

Second, the first center  of Christianity was North Africa, then Europe, then North America. Seems like God has given up on North America. Next will be South America and then South Africa? History seems circular and cyclical.

Third, I spent my first 40 years in Dispensational Christianity and was then "Reformed." I confess I don't understand how Reformed theology supports Reformed evangelism. (I think) Reformed theology and evangelism should be based on regeneration temporally preceding conversion, conversion temporally preceding sanctification.  NOT convincing people to "believe in . . . ."

Thus the purpose of Reformed evangelism should be to identifying those whom the Holy Spirit is "working on," regenerating, and then inviting them to join the fellowship of those whom the Holy Spirit is also "working on." I was happy to support the (old) CRWRC because their philosophy seemed to be to  first earn the right to be heard through doing good works without any hope of gain for ourselves. Not even of earning higher status in the next life but simple because it is what Christians do. The (old) name "said it all." 

Yes at the end of the day, it is the Holy Spirit who changes hearts and minds, we cannot do so.  But he also uses means to accomplish that, and he can use us to try to convince others of the truth.  That is what preaching is.  Before regeneration there is effectual calling, through the means of preaching the Gospel.  While our preaching efforts can do nothing without God's election and the work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, God has not only chosen those who will be his, but he has also planned ahead to use us and our preaching, to call people to that salvation, those whom he has chosen.  There is no reason to think that evangelism and Reformed theology don't work together.  In fact, Reformed theology gives us comfort.  For example, with my students, I didn't have to teach with anxiety and pressure, because I knew it is the Holy Spirit's job to change their minds, not my job, but I had the privilege of God using me in it.  Your idea of evangelism seems to lack the idea of preaching, read Romans 10.  Your definition seems very different from Paul's.

I don't like the idea of doing good works only to earn a right to be heard.  Doing good works it part of the good news of God's Kingdom (Luke 4).  And we do them out of love whether or not it gives us a chance to preach the Gospel.  Good works are not just a means to an end of preaching the Gospel.  We love non-Christians whether they listen to the Gospel or not.  We love Christians even if they have already accepted the Gospel.  As we preach continually to all, we also continue to love all.

Thanks for the reply. Theologically agree but pragmatically taking human nature and social contract into consideration, street corner preaching, for example, is no longer useful. As a cynic, CRC policy and publications would read differently if CRC "professionals" followed St Paul's example of earning his living expenses outside his spiritual/church activities.

Decades ago I worshipped with the Plymouth Brethren when they (still) had no paid preachers yet they pragmatically "invented" dispenational theology and influenced 80% (?) of the books in "Christian" book stores.  


Thanks Anthony for this article on whether putting culture or putting Christianity should come first in one’s life.  Quite frankly, I think you are rather naive in thinking that Christianity should win the battle for dominance over culture.  On what grounds do you think your students should abandon their cultural values for those of Christianity?  What makes Christianity any more valid than the Islamic religion or the traditional religions of Kenya?  Are the core teachings of Christianity any more valid or verifiable than those of other religions?  Don’t the teachings of the Bible, especially the New Testament, have to be accepted by faith, apart from any verifiable evidence?  Is there any evidence to verify that God is a three person being or that Jesus is one of those three persons who has come down from heaven to be crucified and then rise in some kind of victory over the world which we can’t see or verify?  So why would or should your students so completely abandon their traditional beliefs for those of Christianity?  It can't be that our beliefs are more rational or verifiable.

You may suggest that the teachings of Christianity are true, maybe even verifiable, because the Bible, God’s inspired word, teaches those truths.  But the Koran, and I’m quite certain that Kenyan traditional religions, will affirm that their teachings are also completely reliable because they are also inspired of God and therefore completely true.  As to truthfulness, other religions make the same claim as Christianity. So, again, why should your students jump on your wagon and abandon what they have been taught all their lives? Certainly, the fact that you believe, shouldn’t convince them anymore than what they believe would convince you to change what you believe.  Again, it seems naive on your part to think that your perspective is any better than theirs. What is your rationale for saying that my religion is better and therefore it makes sense to jump all ships but mine?

I would like to suggest that we take more seriously what we read in Genesis 1 about God creating humans to be his image, particularly in the matter of "subduing the earth."  This means that God wants us as humans to create our civilizations in such a way that they incorporate the virtues of God such as honesty, love, justice, truth, etc. in the way our culture functions.  History is the process of our learning how to do that, so that the closer any culture gets to this standard the more godly it will be.  African cultures need, as to all cultures, to be analyzed in this respect.  How truthful, just, loving, etc is our culture?  Christianity exists for that purpose, to disciple the nations, as Christ commands us.

Edwin Walhout

Thanks Anthony for your response to Bill Wald.  It seems as though you put a lot of stock in Reformed theology to explain the effectiveness of the gospel and to further explain the effectiveness of your teaching, as to whether your students grasp and take hold of it.  You explain that your teaching is simply the human means that God uses to effectually call students to commitment to Christ above culture.  The bottom line, it’s not your fault if they don’t fall, hook, line, and sinker, for the message you’re trying to convey.  That’s the work of the Holy Spirit who does the convincing.  You can rest at peace and in comfort, that you’ve done your work.  I’ll assume that you do an excellent job in your teaching, although some might theoretically question whether your teaching was truly effective.  The deeper problem I see, is whether the message you are conveying is really reasonable and therefore palatable.  If the message doesn’t meet a rational standard why accept it as true?  Why shouldn’t your students also see value in their own religious traditions?

As I see it, Reformed theology (the five points of Calvinism) is just a clever way of explaining why most people aren’t interested in the Christian message.  The truth may be that the gospel is unreasonable and therefore unbelievable.  But Reformed Christians (and the apostle Paul) would try to claim that such refusal is only because these refusers have not been chosen or elected unto salvation.  The rational explanation is that the claim of the Christian gospel is unreasonable and unbelievable.  

I’m quite sure you think that your students (who are holding on to parts of their old religion) are being unreasonable in trying to accommodate both religions or to holding on to any part of their old religion.  Christianity makes so much more sense.  But it makes sense because you are looking at Christianity from within the box of Christianity.  You are not looking at Christianity objectively  from outside the box.  An objective look at Christianity from outside the box will show that Christianity is no more reasonable than other religions.  You seem to be asking your students to evaluate Christianity from within your particular box (a Reformed Christian perspective) rather than stepping back and evaluating your claims objectively from outside of the box.  From outside the box, some people objectively see value in a variety of religions and might want to acknowledge and accept the good in each.  But you seem to fault some of your students (and some Christians in the U.S.) for wanting to do this.  Again, you seem naive in wanting your students to acknowledge the same narrow view that you hold of Christianity.  If I were you (and I'm not), I would be glad that my students accept the core of Christianity, even if they don't accept it in every detail as you understand it.

This is an interesting topic because of a recent case by a parent on Vancouver Island who went to court objecting that her children (in a public school) were "forced" participate in some aboriginal smudge ceremony and prayers and considered that to be an infringement on her and her children’s religious liberty (i.e. being forced to participate in a religious event). The local Indian band dismissed the complaint, that while they would certainly exempt people from participating, the event itself was "cultural".  The judge will have to make a decision, I guess, unless the parent withdraws the case.

From your article it was not clear to me how we distinguish between religion and culture. And certainly in Africa where does religion start and when does culture end.

This issue was indirectly handled many years ago when the Canadian Federal government did not allow Christian schools to declare that all subjects were religious. It took a few years to define what Christian was and was not.  This, in Canada, had some very interesting financial implications (good or bad depending on your views) for folks who sent their children to Christian schools.

There is no official legislative definition of "religion" in the US. An organizations applies to the IRS for tax exempt status and it is granted or rejected.  Apparently a "church" is not required to "believe in" any sort of God.  I think I could get tax exempt status for a house of prostitution. If one combined the published "legal" details of Scientology and the LDS with classes of memberships and fees for educational services, AND secret ceremonies . . . .

Tax-Exempt Status Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication): n the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes; n net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder; n no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation; n the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy. Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status Automatic Exemption for Churches Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because this recognition assures church leaders, members and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits. For example, contributors to a church that has been recognized as tax exempt would know that their contributions generally are tax-deductible. 

Let's Discuss

We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.

Login or Register to Comment

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post