All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me...

~ Matthew 28:18

 

The American presidential election is coming up.  Who will Americans vote for?  The choices are fairly clear: McCain or Obama.  And most of us know who is in the lead...from the perspective of man.  But before Christians go to the polls to make their choice in the ballot box, they must choose the next president in the prayer closet.  And who must they choose?  Not Obama.  And not McCain.  Then who?  God.  Who will have more authority after the presidential election: the newly elected president or God?  Don't let that be a hard question to answer.  Our prayers must put God in the Oval Office...and in the Senate...and in the House of Representatives.  Prayer brings the presence of God into the high places.  God alone has ultimate authority.  And he has entrusted to us the task of enforcing that authority through prayer.  So, elect God for president.  Starting now.

 

I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.  Would that you were either cold or hot!  So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

~ Revelation 3:15-16

 

"Cafe Mocha or Frappucino, Lord Jesus?"  Jesus would take both, I'm sure.  The Cafe Mocha is hot, the Frappucino is cold; both bless him.  Surely Jesus would have had coffee in mind had he spoken these words in our day of Starbucks and Coffee Beans.  There is one kind of coffee Jesus does not want to receive from us: that leftover coffee sitting on a table in the center of the coffee shop, neither hot nor cold...but room temperature.  Were Jesus to walk into the local coffee shop, the hostess would serve him the best, either the hot or the cold.  The bum off the streets she may give the leftover coffee.  But not Jesus.  How about the coffee shop of our souls?  Are we serving him the Cafe Mocha, the Frappucino, or the leftover coffee reserved for the bums.  What's the difference between the leftover coffee and the Cafe Mocha and Frappucino?  The leftover coffee doesn't bless him.  He doesn't like it.  Does Jesus like what's flowing out of us?  Is he blessed by our love or put off by our apathy.  There is only one cure for serving him the leftovers: throw all the leftovers in the trash and get the coffee-maker brewing and the ice-grinder grinding.  And, don't forget, bless him some more with whip cream on top.  I'm sure he'll enjoy it.

Protestant Individualism and Eastern Orthodox Collectivism.  This distinction seems fair, to a degree.  Protestants are more comfortable with the priesthood of all believers, encouraging the individual to think for himself about the Scriptures and decide for himself the Word of the Lord to him.  Eastern Orthodox believers are more comfortable trusting in the Tradition of the church.  One "thinks for himself", the other looks to the group to think for him.  At least, that is how I understand it.  The two need not necessarily be terminally separate.  The challenge, however, is finding that unity.

 

 

 

During a discussion of the different church traditions, Roman Catholic and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox, I pondered the difference between the structural unity that can exist in a church tradition and the state of the common mind, which may or may not be in unity with the structure.  In this context, the structure can be a theological perspective and agreement.  But the mind of the people may have more in common with the surrounding culture, which at heart is not in agreement with the theological structure.  The challenge is to unite the common mind with the theological structure.  When this is not done, nominal Christianity becomes normative Christianity.

 

 

 

 

I've been meaning to write this blog for some time now, but I remember a discussion we had in class concerning liturgy.  I suppose it all depends on our conception of what liturgy is - that is, our definition of it.  In a sense, liturgy in the Anglican or Catholic sense is simply a formalization of a cultural practice.  Edward Hall talks about this, about how something is formalized and thus becomes a cultural institution.  So, it is true to say that Protestant churches have their own liturgies.  But it might be more accurate to say that there is a difference among all the liturgies.  Let's call them low liturgies versus high liturgies.  Or, perhaps even formal versus informal.  That might be the better definition: formal versus informal liturgies.  It is still liturgy, only one is formal and one is not so formal. 

 

The reality is that we are culture-creating creatures.  Even a work of the Spirit of God can become a cultural phenomenon.  And that's not a bad thing.  It's just that we need that sense of culture.  Humans are culture-needing people. 

 

C'est la vie... 

The first level of identification is human identification.  On this level we identify with one another's basic human passions and experiences, from fear to trust, love to hate, desire to disgust.  People from different cultures and social groups can relate to, or identify with, one another in these basic ways.  But again, social and cultural differences often fog up a clear identification on the human level.  So, often our identification must go deeper.

Cross-cultural workers concerned with identification do well to recognize that there are three distinct levels of identificaiton - human, social, and cultural.  Human is the level on which men and women identify at the basic level of shared humanity: anger, lust, hurt, and so on.  Social is the level on which men and women identify at the level of social groupings - fathers, drug addicts, academics, and so on.  And cultural is the level on which men and women identify at the level of their cultural heritage - American culture, Malaysian culture, and so on.  Identificaiton is central, but it takes many different forms and lack of identificaiton on one level can be a barrier to identification on another.

Predictability and explanation - all men and women need these.  One function of the worldview is to provide people with the ability to predict the behaviors, attitudes, loves, and on and on, of other members of society, as well as to empower them to explain the behaviors, attitudes, loves, and on and on, of other members of society.  Imagine, then, the difficulties presented to the cross-cultural worker when he or she enters a new cultural setting and finds the behavior of others unpredictable and inexplicable!  One of our tasks in adaptation at both the psychological level and the sociocultural level is the transformation of the predictions and explanations we make for the behaviors of others.  This will go a long way towards adapting to the new environment and developing healthy relationships.

 

One leader said, "Never allow member care personnel into your organization: they'll destroy it."  Member care and ministry effectiveness - these two needs of the cross-cultural worker must be met.  But for leaders such as this, the relationship between the two can be difficult to see or non-existent.  But all those who serve cross-culturally must remember that adaptation to a new cultural setting takes place on two distict levels: the psychological and the sociocultural.  The psychological is concerned with the increased well-being of the cross-cultural worker; the sociocultural is concerned with the cross-cultural worker's cross-cultural ministry competence.  So, let's reject neither member care nor ministry effectiveness, but pursue both with wisdom and good health.

 

"Our worst is worse than their worst."  So said Lecturer Sherman Kuek in a recent discussion of differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  Some had noticeable qualms with his show of support for the Roman Catholic church.  But for me it highlighted a neglected aspect of intergroup relationships: Protocentrism.

 

Protocentrism is the Protestant equivalent of ethnocentrism.  Ethnocentrism is one of the natural outgrowths of our group memberships.  Thus those of us who are members of the Protestant stream of faith will have a degree of Protocentrism, which is defined as negatively evaluating other streams in the body of Christ on the basis of Protestant standards.  Granted, certain standards may be higher and more orthodox, but the recognition of our Protocentrism is a first step towards a degree of realistic unity among different streams in the body of Christ. 

 

Unfortunately, too high a Protocentrism results in a fear of learning from the positive aspects of different faith streams.  We become Romophobic or Orthophobic.  Come, let's recognize our Protocentrism and lessen it, opening ourselves to truth found in other faith streams.

 

There was a discussion about the nature of the Malaysian Chinese identity.  It was pointed out that the fact of colonialism has radically affected the Chinese identity in Malaysia.  Since this discussion on Friday in Seremban, I have pondered this fact from the perspective of culture change.  The simple truth is that Malaysian Chinese have undergone a culture change as a result of colonialism.  This culture change is readily seen in the church.  A new culture has emerged that must be dealt with on its own terms.  A matsaleh like me coming into Malaysia is easily fooled into thinking a high degree of sameness exists, in particular in the church setting.  There IS a high degree of sameness on the level of language and church culture.  But interpersonally there is not.  Every group of people, including the church, needs to be seen as a group for what that group is in and of itself.  The church has undergone a culture change as a result of contact with the West over the last 100 years.  This is just a fact and it must be accepted as it is without encouraging the church to look back nostalgically…and yet not to reject its cultural roots.

 

A couple of areas where I have cognitive dissonance are, however, as follows.  There is, to all appearances, an over-dependence on Western ministry supplies.  For example, I’m attending a marriage course, a good one, that depends on videos.  During the last session the video was rosak and we could not finish it.  This is hardly ideal and not Incarnational, at least not in the cultural sense of the term.  In reflecting on this, I see how there are so many programs imported from the West that, while good, are not Incarnational.  Kairos, Perspectives, Purpose-Driven Life, and on and on.  Even Western speakers are imported…and usually on the basis of Western salaries.  There are quite a number of conferences that take place here on the basis of Western dollars.  For example, there was, recently, this conference of young leaders in Port Dixon organized by the church in the West.  The prices were outrageous.  Granted, the ministry footed the bill for some of the non-Western leaders.  However, that still left a paternalistic taste in the mouth of some of these non-Western leaders.  In other words, it told these leaders that because we Western leaders paid your way, you better listen to us.  In my opinion this just doesn’t work. 

 

I wonder if part of the problem is that conferences like these are organized by people who have not REALLY lived long-term among a different people, in particular among the people of God from a different economic and cultural background.  It seems to be organized by people who have a Western standard of living in mind when organizing the meeting.  Like an upcoming conference I’ve caught wind of: it is Christian in nature, and of course with all Western speakers, but the people who are coming to speak require first-class plane tickets.  At least, that’s what I’ve heard.  There needs to be a serious change. 

 

At this point, I would suggest that the problem is two-fold.  First, the church in the West has not let go of it’s leadership role.  Many still hold to an unconscious paternalism and self-righteousness, largely because those in such ministries have not lived incarnationally in another context.  It also still conceives of itself as the better leader.  Second, the Asian church has not taken enough steps in terms of creative leadership.  A good book on this subject is “Why Asians are Less Creative than Westerners”.  It is written by an Asian, so I’m not advocating anything an Asian would not.  That said, there seems to be a jam somewhere: while I think that it would have a longer, deeper impact on the value system of the people to have marriage courses that are crafted by the local church, and without any dependence on a workbook by Bill Gothard, Norman Wright, or whoever doesn’t have Lee or Chong or Wu in his name – while this would be the most effective way of ministry, it seems there is a lack of desire or willingness to embrace such locally-bred teachings.  A change needs to happen, I think. 

 

That said, I would like to make one final point or appeal: Western ministries often get real happy about the impact of their book or program in other countries of the world.  The impact is real and it is good.  I don’t want to pooh-pooh that.  But I would like to suggest that such an impact is not all that it could be.  And it is certainly not the “ideal” impact.  In other words, I would like to see the Western ministry boasting that the church in this or that country has created its own marriage ministry or seminary program along its own cultural lines and impacting culture-specific values.  Maybe this point will illustrate things: obviously I’m married to Viv, who is Chinese.  One of the realities of the Chinese culture is the need to “save face”, as it is called.  I believe “face” actually reflects a dimension of God and his character and glory.  Now, I’ve attended two marriage courses thus far, both done here in Malaysia and both authored entirely by Westerners, and I have taken pre-marital counseling classes here, all largely based on Western material, though taught by Asians.  And I’ve heard sermons preached on marriage, all of which I’ve heard here in Malaysia.  But nowhere has anyone ever taught me how to protect my wife’s honor in terms of the issue of face.  One simple reason for that is that Western Christians do not value face as do Asians.  Because of this none of us are being taught how to safeguard one another’s honor in this area.  Who will specifically address this issue?  Most likely not Western Christians who have never lived an Incarnational lifestyle among people who value face and honor.  In short, we really need to do something about all of this material coming from the West, material that has emerged from writers who have not left their mono-cultural environments, except for the occasional trip to this country or that. 

 

There was a discussion on how to view those whom we lead through the perspective of their being made in the image of God and the reality of sin.  Specifically, the discussion centered around the way that some leaders urge other leaders to keep a distance from the followers so that they do not climb all over you.  This seems to be a more pronounced reality or struggle in the Asian context than in the Western context, where greater equality is desired between leader and follower.  This is not to say that it doesn't happen in the Western context, but that it may have a different accent and a different priority.

 

All of this caused me to ponder the reality of role relationships.  Of course, roles are culturally defined in many instances.  But the question that came to my mind was about our genuine worldview concerning others within our role relationships.  Part of worldview consists of our perception of others.  If we do not adopt a perception that genuinely sees people as both in the image of God and the image of sin, then we will be more realistic in our assessment of them. 

 

In thinking about this, I realized that the Western (my) worldview mistakenly sees people as inherently good.  I think that is why many of us are frustrated with the world: we expect them to be good and blow up at them when they are not.  I see this with my perception of my own kids: in my heart I really want them to be these perfect little angels...but in reality they are, well, not that.  I think Henry Cloud pointed it out best when he pointed out that part of healing occurs when we are able to accept both good and evil.  The only catch is, for us Westerners at least, we need to come to terms with the deception that declares all men and women are good.

There are two hypotheses I would like to propose, being unsure that others have hitherto proposed them:

 

First, culture is in part the product of the remnant of the image of God in man.

 

Second, when the diversity of cultures is brought together in unity in Christ, the image of God (as the reflection of his glory) is more complete.

 

Third, the cut-and-dried distinction between "secular anthropology" (specifically, cultural anthropology) and Christian anthropology must have some degree of meeting ground, in particular so far as the image of God is concerned. 

 

Fourth, and related to the third, there is potentially an argument to be made for the development of a theological cultural anthroplogy.

 

Any thoughts?

 

There was a discussion concerning the need to intelligently dialogue with those who espouse evolution.  One example used had to do with the "new" Eurasian race.  Of course I agree on the need for intelligent dialogue on this subject.  As the conversation ensued, however, my mind began to pursue a certain course.  Obviously I first thought of my children, who are Eurasian, obviously.  Then the question arose in my mind: do those who espouse evolution consider the creation of a new race a biological phenomenon rather than a social phenomenon?  It would be very easy for someone who leans towards the position that a race is defined biologically to use that reasoning to argue for a race that is superior to another, especially among races that tend towards attitudes of racial superiority.  This then suggested to me that as we seek to intelligently dialogue with the philosophies of the day, we must integrate the moral element into our thinking.  The secular or materialist worldview has no real ground for moral considerations, not when that worldview is operating from its extreme point.  So, at least on the philosophical level, we must incorporate the moral element of thought into our argumentation or discussion.  The area in which I see this truth (that is, that we must incorporate the moral dimension into our thinking on such subjects) impacts my personal thought processes is in the realm of the study of intercultural communication.  I am studying theories of intercultural communication, but I realize I must intentionally integrate into my thinking processes the moral element, which will add an entirely new dimension to my thinking.  You should, too...

 

There are, indeed, rudimentary questions that all men in all periods of time in all cultures and nations have asked.  These are the existential questions, the answers to which comprise many of the primary aspects of the worldview of a particular people.  Three of these questions were brought up today concerning mankind.  These are the three main issues that theologians have grappled with over the centuries.  These questions have been answered, I would propose, on philosophical, theological, anthropological, and certainly in other fields of thought.

 

Our concern today was and is with the theological answers to these questions.  While I can't verify yet the claim that the first discipline of study was philosophy, though the idea is persuasive, I see the element of truth in the proposition that much of theology was constructed in the backdrop of a conversation with philosophy.

 

Pondering this apparent fact exposed for me one of the cultural prejudices that I carry.  Theology has, until the 20th century, been primarily been constructed in the Western context.  Therefore, the theological heritage for Christians worldwide includes Western thinkers from Calvin to Augustine to Tertullian, perhaps even to BB Warfield.  While their theological reflection is good and truthful, and while the inheritance that they have left is both good and truthful, it still represents a degree of cultural theological baggage.  Since my first exposure to theological education was in a Western Bible school, I was exposed to theology done in the Western context.  Though truthful, this theology "hardens" into Western worldview categories, the end result being, for someone living cross-culturally, a sub-conscious Western theological bias that is less skilled at dividing the truth behind theology and the Western cultural trappings, both from the issue of Western cultural and historical context and in terms of the nature of rationality and epistemological biases.

 

Carrying such Western theological biases may not seem so bad upon first examination.   However, the negative repurcussions become a bit more blatant once we examine the issue more closely. 

 

First, take the proposition that early theologizing took place in conversation with philosophical questioning.  This is certainly the case.  However, if you examine it closely enough, you will realize that early theologians were responding to Greek philosophy, or at the very least to a philosophy that was bathed in the Greek epistemological worldview and dealing with issues in the Greek context and world.  You could say that, in a sense, early theologians were in conversation with Socrates.  But did Socrates live in China?  Was he Chinese?  What was Socrates relationship with Buddha or Confucius?  The answer to that should be self-evident.   The implication of this fact is simple: I as a Westerner must change my locus of philosophical and contextual conversation if I am to do theologizing in the Asian context. 

 

What does this mean?  It means that I must first recognize my Western theological biases and "baggage" for what it is.  It does not mean I discard it.  Rather, it means that I seek to sort through the unchangeable truth and that which is relative and can be discarded. 

 

But it does not stop with that.  I must then meaningfully engage the philosophical propositions of Asian philosophers and thinkers and worldview-shapers.  Once I uncover an understanding of these men's propositions or, as really seems to be the case in terms of Confucius, their situational ethics, then I can move into developing or communicating contextually relevant theologies. 

 

But this sort of conversation is not limited to Asian philosophy.  Take, for instance, the project on the Word of Faith movement that I will have to do in the weeks to come.  I already have preconceived ideas of the movement on the basis of my Western experience.  I must acknowledge those experiential biases before I can successfully theologize.  Once I have acknowledged and taken ownership of my biases, I can then develop an understanding within the Msian context of the Word of Faith movement, which is here.  I must try to understand it for what it is in itself, not merely attributing the Western manifestation of the movement onto it.  At that point I can then successfully theologize, I believe. 

 

So, the Westerner, as well as the Asian trained in Western theology, must ask himself: With whom am I conversing as I seek to theologize in the Asian context:  Socrates or Confucius? 

 

One point I alluded to in the earlier blog was that of discovering the worldview by discovering how different cultures answer life's existential questions.  Here I would simply like to suggest that all people DO answer these existential questions, though they may not do it either rightly or satisfactorily.  Since they do, it is helpful in understanding the overall worldview of a people to find out how they answer those questions. 

 

As I used this principle in my own life, I asked how the American answers these questions.  What I discovered was that, at least for the middle class American, the question of what man was created for is answered: the American dream.  Man exists to live the American dream.  Many Chinese, it seems, answer this question by saying that man exists for security and money, and a combination of the two.

Last night I pondered Thanksgiving.  I have not celebrated Thanksgiving since I arrived in Malaysia.  Last night my loving and thoughtful wife helped me to celebrate it.  Of course, it can never be Thanksgiving like you have it at home.  But it got me thinking about the following points:

 

First, living cross-culturally we must at some point go through a cultural loss.  I must go through the grief process of not being able to enjoy my home-grown rituals.

 

Second, a culture will make room for a ritual.  Why is it hard to celebrate Thanksgiving in Malaysia?  Because no one makes room for it.  They make room for Deepavali and Chinese New Year and Hari Raya, but not Thanksgiving.  And they have no reason to, unless they happen to be married to an American.  The reality is that people make room for a ritual and holiday.  It is part of their lives. 

 

Third, even rituals are deeply embedded into our subconscious.  Rituals like Thanksgiving and Christmas and Hari Raya are embedded in our subconscious, so much so that they often make us part of what we consider us.  This fact needs to be accepted, especially as Christians, if we are wanting to honor those who come to Christ from other backgrounds.  Culture is deeply embedded in our identity and sense of self.  At least, that's my theory.  But this fact that even rituals are embedded into our subconscious explains one reason why I have difficulty celebrating some of these holidays: they are part of my unconscious and are connected, in part, to the external environment of culture. 

I'd like to call it the Snyder Theory of Cross-Cultural Adjustment, mostly because I don't yet have a good name for it.  In my thinking I'm working through a theory of cross-cultural adjustment.  The fact of having to adjust is evident more from the presence of a "cultural hernia".  The cultural hernia results from not simply from a misunderstanding of another culture, but from the cultural baggage carried into a cross-cultural encounter. 

 

In other words, when we enter a new culture, we bring our worldview with us.  This worldview is that through which we think.  Or, we think with our worldview.  And so we interpret the world that surrounds us from the perspective of our worldview.  The cultural hernia comes to us when we see or experience an event or behavior in another culture that does not fit in our personal perception of what reality should be.  Basically, our perception of reality tells us that the world should be this and not that, but what we encounter in a new culture is neither this nor that.  The reality of our minds does not mesh with the reality of the world that surrounds us.

 

That, by the way, gives us a clue to understanding culture: in any given culture, its members all have minds that fit the surrounding cultural patterns and behaviors.  It seems that the connection between the cultural mind and the external culture (the culture of the mind is part of culture) is somewhat like the cogs in a watch: they mesh together.  They synchronize.  There is a sort of cultural synchronization that people unconsciously engage in. 

 

The mind is really quite something in this respect: as I was pondering these things, I realized that my mind actively lives in American culture, almost like a hamster running in a hamster wheel.  Even though I make my way into a new cultural context, my mind is still running.  After a number of years I only become aware of that running of my mind, and the fact that my mind is not necessarily in sync with the world that surrounds me.

 

Okay, after those two digressions (anyone who reads this has to actually be interested in the material, cause I am definitely not doing this with an audience in mind!!!), let's return to my working theory of cultural adjustment.  So, we have the cultural hernia caused by the presence of personal cultural baggage that colors the lens through which I see a different culture.  I interpret cultural events through my own understanding.  This being the case, I am not actually understanding the other culture for what it is in itself.  And that is actually the goal of my cross-cultural adjustment: to understand the culture in and of itself, in particular at the level of worldview, because only then can I adjust properly.

 

What must I do?  The idea that I have been cogitating over is that what I must do is that I must develop a cultural theory.  I take my best guess at the meaning behind the behavior that causes the cultural hernia, and then from there I must gather information to either validate or discredit my theory.  The goal of the whole process, more than anything else, is to understand the culture in and of itself, and then from there to...well, to adjust to the culture. 

 

I am starting to see that one of the chief problems for the person living cross-culturally is the persistent, underlying stress that is felt because of these cultural differences that we fail to understand and properly appreciate.  Cognitive understanding will help to ease that cultural hernia. 

 

I'm starting to question whether or not the goal is to become "one" with the people.  There is too much personal cultural baggage to allow for that.  But if we have cognitive understanding, then we are better able to cope with and respond to the surrounding realities.