Last winter I took a course dealing with the issue of missions. One of the issues that I was perplexed by was the issue of contextualization of the gospel to the culture. The perplexity was not due to the principle of contextualization, as I believe Acts 17 is a ready example of the apostle Paul making the gospel understandable to those at Athens and thus "contextualizing" the gospel to the cultural setting he found himself in. This much is very agreeable.
The hard part of course (as it is many times) is applying the principle faithfully and consistently. As a result I have stewed over the idea of contextualizing the gospel to the "American" culture which is by nature diverse, ever evolving, and prone to indefinability. Case in point is the vast amount of ethical diversity in the United States which is quite pronounced in our own backyard here in San Diego, CA. Even the simple question of, "what language should the service be in" becomes somewhat complicated when you have people who do not speak English coming into church services. Moreover, beyond just the simple language barrier, there are the real cultural differences of clothing, social propriety, hospitality, fellowship expectations, etc. that is ever present in the American church. Sometimes I think that those pounding the good principle of contextualization might assume too much about the ease with which one can exegete the culture of one's setting and then make the gospel understandable.
The very pressing question on my mind becomes "which culture"? Especially when there are multiple languages spoken in my neighborhood and multiple customs observed each day. The question then moves to, is their warrant for demographically, ethically based churches in America? Should there be denominations based on the cultural diversity in America (such as the KAPC the Korean-American Presbyterian Church). Or, is their any warrant for bridging these cultural barriers side-by-side in the same church week-by-week and even daily? Should churches have their services translated into other languages during the service?
One of the KAPC churches that I have been privileged to preach at had the idea of simply having a Korean speaking service (KM) and an English speaking service (EM). That way, the first generation Koreans whose English is not that great, worship in their native tongue, and then the second generation Koreans who primarily speak English can worship in their primary tongue. This seemed fitting as during the same Lord's Day that I preached I was at once unable to understand some of the adult's English, yet at the same time talked to second generation Koreans who did not know a lick of Korean.
The thought posed in the aforementioned class taken last winter that has had me chewing the fat for sometime now is: should American churches re-think the whole idea of "home missions" versus "foreign missions." In America, are the nations at our doorstep? It seems quite apparent that they are. If this is the case, how should church planting look different at all? Is America primarily the stopping point for many internationals or are they just in transit till they get back to their home country? Should the PCA plant a Russian speaking church in America? Should the OPC plant a Korean speaking church in San Diego, or should that task get delegated out to ethically-specific denominations?
I think one helpful place to start is the boundaries set up in the civil realm. What I mean is that the primary language of a country, as deemed by the country, should be the starting point in terms of what language should be spoken in the service. Then those who do not speak the native language can be instructed as to how to speak the language (TESOL should ring a bell). However, I am not so ignorant as to know how messy and unreal an expectation that is. So perhaps as the need arises churches can have two services in two different languages so that the gospel is contextualized into both languages that are present in one cultural area, until the church helps those assimilate into the culture. Yet this brings up the issue as to whether churches should help congregants assimilate to the culture the church is in as part of its ministry. Partly, I believe the answer is that they should. Does not Paul exhort us in Romans 13 to be subject to the governing authorities over us? Part of helping a congregant assimilate and part of instructing them in the word of God, I believe is really helping a congregant be subject to the laws of the land. If part of this being subject to the authorities means helping a congregant become a citizen of the U. S., I think it such an endeavor is appropriate. Is it any different than members of Christ's body helping one another at tax time every year, so that a congregant unskilled in taxes can render to caesar what caesar is due? Isn't that in one sense, helping someone assimilate better to the culture and submit in a more biblical way to the governing authorities that God has established?
It seems that America is more of a tossed salad than a melting pot these days. With less and less assimilation occurring, and as pockets of all different types of cultures grow and remain within the United States, should this affect the way churches plant? Is their such a thing as the "mainstream" of American culture. Isn't American culture all about having multiple streams one can be a part of?
A question that will be looked at tommorow is: To what degree do churches trying to "contextualize" actually do contextualize to culture, and to what degree do they import culture?
Thoughts?
Well Rebecca and I just got back from what we have come to call a "staycation." We took a trek to our favorite little beach town called Encinitas, and we stayed 1 night at a great bed and breakfast right off the shore called The Seabreeze. For some, staycations might not be that refreshing given the short time span. However, we both found it to be quite refreshing. 
