To fully understand the relationship between culture and christianity, the first logical step would be to define both entities. This will take care of the misunderstanding relating to the difference between culture and tradition, of which the latter is clearly refuted by the text, Matthew 15:3-9,
"... why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". So, from the outset we should define the parameters in question. Culture refers to that entity comprising of language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organisation, inherited artifacts, technical processes, values, and norms. On the other hand, christianity is a religion practiced by those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, that is inclusive of all the law and the testimony contained in the Bible.

If we thread out each and every component of the definitions above, we realise that we cannot have absolutes. People cannot exist in the absence of minimal forms of language, habits, inherited artifacts, social organisation, values, and norms. So, if we say that christianity disapproves a people's culture; in essence what we are saying is that it rejects them, which is inconsistent with the plan of salvation, "...whosoever believes" (John 3 v16). However, there are customs and beliefs contradicting christ’s teachings; these cannot, and therefore should not co-exist with christianity.

But let us consider the fact that human speech about divine revelation is conditioned by cultural components and historical relativity. This is witnessed in the many writings of Biblical prophets, to the effect that they could only relate what they saw or heard in human terms. More like
‘the-sun-stood-still’ type of situation. We, now, know very well that the earth revolves around the sun, and thus it was the earth which stood still (NOT the sun) when Joshua asked God to stop the sun over Gibeon so to allow him to finish off the Amorites. But to this day, this event is recorded relative to what human beings knew about the relation between the sun and the earth at that point in time, in history; i.e. the sun revolves around the earth.

In Exodus 3 v5, God instructed Moses to put off his sandals from his feet, for the place whereon he was standing was holy ground. Today, if the same incidence happened to a person of Southern african cultural origins, this text would read, "take off your hat, for the place wherein you are standing is holy". This is simply because the cultural concepts of show of respect are not universal. The Jewish culture, and indeed many cultures of the middle East, express their respect for places of reverence by taking off their shoes. Hence, today, if you go into any Muslim mosque, you are required to take off your shoes. The Jews do not remove their ‘little rounded hats’ when they go into synagogues. But for an African man of Southern african cultural origins to walk into a church, or a house without first taking off his hat, is unheard of, unless if he was not socialised in that culture. So, clearly, God addressed Moses through the medium of cultural components. He, certainly, spoke to him in Hebrew (a cultural component), and NOT some Heavenly language.

Paul instructed women, in 1 Corinthians 14 v34,and 1 Timothy 2 v11, 12, to keep silent in the church, as the law permits. Which law?, because you can read the Bible from cover to cover, and search the moral laws, civil laws, and least of all, the ceremonial laws; there is no slightest suggestion against women sharing ‘a piece of their mind’ in the congregation. (A chauvinist will somehow dig some innuendos to that effect; suit yourself). Paul was referring to a people with such a customary law; get it? Such a culture! Like polygamy is allowed by customary law in other cultures, albeit the latter is not biblical. Dare you suggest to any self-respecting Adventist
lady to keep quiet in intellectual discussions; she will be well within her rights to ‘eat you alive’. Because you will be doing so, out of unsubstantiated evidence. Our ladies, and indeed our mothers, should be at liberty to speak out in the congregation; for the culture of the day permits it!

In Daniel 1 v4, we read that the king of Babylon instructed that the cream of Israelites be taught "the tongue of the Chaldeans". In v7, he went further by changing their names. King Nebuchadnezzar knew exactly that it were those little things that made one loose their identity. He intended to have them forget everything that identified them as Jews, a chosen nation; chosen by a mighty God. New names and a language foreign to their mother tongue, literally!

In some Oriental cultures, a white colour is associated with death; and hence when missionaries painted the churches white, churches became white elephants indeed. Orientals, who would have otherwise accepted Christ, deserted the churches. And because Christ was presented in the same package with this foreign culture, they rejected both. Thula Nkosi, in their joint article with Pule Makgethi, God or Apartheid, comments that " the synonymity between western thought (culture) and christian thought is (made to look) so close that a rejection of the former is seen as an assault on the latter". Makes you think, ne?

However, it should be noted that culture, as an entity per se, is neither homogenous nor static. Rather, it is a dynamic and heterogeneous concept. Hence, even, in one group of people, it is neither constant nor consistent.