Gospel & Culture blog
As a professor of missions, I often hear people say "you can be missionary right in your own neighborhood." As with any academic field, it's important to get the terms clear. While you can be an evangelist in your own neighborhood, "missionary" and "missions" should not be confused with "evangelism" or "discipleship."
Missions is cross-cultural discipleship, so some very important work that we do as the church is NOT missions. Drawing a boundary does mean excluding some work from the definition of missions (thought such work may be missional and strategic for the church). Consider the following true examples from my students:
Sharon, from the USA, teaches English in Thailand. She was not sent by her church, is not under a mission agency, and receives a salary from her university. While she is working cross-cultural, she does not see herself as a missionary because her presence in Thailand is not particularly about making disciples
Miguel, from the Philippines, is studying theology and missions in the USA, but plans to plant churches among his own ethnic group in the Philippines. He considers himself a church planter, but not a missionary.
Carmen, from the USA, is financially supported by members of her own church to do the bookkeeping for a mission organization in West Africa. She does not particularly “teach them to obey all Jesus has commanded,” but her mission organization does have an overall plan to make disciples. Carmen sees herself as a missionary because of her important role in an organization that is doing missions.
If a cross cultural worker digs wells but has no overall plan for “teaching them to obey all Jesus commanded,” then while it is obeying the first commandment to manage the earth for the flourishing of humankind, it is not part of the narrower aspect of the churches mission to make disciples across cultures. And in all fairness, I must add, if an organization plants churches and hands out tracks, but is not actually “teaching them to obey all Jesus has commanded,” then it, too, is not actually doing missions.
Of course, in our day-to-day experience, the set of activities which are involved in making disciples is fuzzy. Healthcare can be done in a way that teaches people to obey Jesus, or it can be done without touching on issues of discipleship. A Christian could work cross-culturally in such a way that she makes disciples in her secular workplace, or she could hide her light under a bushel. By defining missions narrowly as cross-cultural discipleship, I am not as much excluding certain activities as I am focusing on the setting (does it cross cultural boundaries) and strategy (does it make disciples) that drives those activities.
The activities (methods) and purpose seem to fall in three general categories. The most obvious is witness. Some “teach them to obey all Jesus commanded” by planting churches, teaching in international seminaries, exorcising demons, and preaching to crowds at college campuses. But in 2016 we reached the threshold where more than 50% of people who call themselves missionaries say their primary activity is not witness, but service, development, healthcare, or cultural production through the arts. A second category of missionary methods includes engagement in public life. And a third we may label as “cultural production.” The below shows how these categories fit together in the bigger picture of making disciples across cultures.
If I told you a movie was about a linguist who tried to establish a trusting relationship with foreigners so she could learn their language, you probably wouldn't expect it to be an alien movie. The aliens (called heptapods, because of their seven legs, in the film) arrived on earth in twelve pods, but never deboarded their ships. They were unhurried in making their intentions known. Meanwhile, armies around the world desperately wanted to know if the aliens were friend or foe.
Linguist Louise Banks (Amy Adams) had to learn enough of the Alien language to ask "Why are you here" -- and she needed to know enough vocabulary to understand their answer. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the answer was so ambiguous it could mean "Give weapons" "Give tools" or even "Show your weapons!"
I remember on Tanna Island how often people would ask me, "Why, exactly, did you come here?" Even though I learned enough of the vernacular in a couple months to say, "To translate God's word into your language," a number of people were still suspicious. What's your real intention? Are you going to steal our land? Are you going to make money off of us? I think it took several years, and numerous trips to the hospital, to demonstrate that our intentions were to be helpful.
In the film, it wasn't until Banks walked among the heptapods in their own environment on the ship that she became fluent in their language. Up to that point, she and physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) were only boarding the alien ship for a few minutes every ten hours. This can be a stern exhortation for cross-cultural workers: If you spend most of your time with expats, or boarded up in your own home while overseas, you'll never learn the language or culture. You have to get out of the environment you're comfortable in, and immerse yourself with the people you're going to be working with.
Linguist and anthropologist Eugene Nida argued that religious conversion is like learning a second language in adulthood: Just as languages have surface structures (vocabulary and grammar), they also have "deep structures" or underlying meanings. It's the same with religions: baptism is a surface structure, but its underlying meaning is about the sinful nature, regeneration, repentance. And, Nida continues the analogy, just as languages manifest in multiple dialects, so do religions-- there are different ways to do baptism, for instance, or different ways to pray to God. To complete the analogy, Nida said that just as we have accents when we learn a language as an adult, we carry this "accent" of our first religion into the religion that we learn later on in life.
That is, we learn our first religion- that of our parents and home culture- the same way we learn our native language. But if we convert, we have to learn the new religion like we learn a language in adulthood- we have to learn by immersion, of course, and also by analysis, by having things explained to us-- it's not as implicit and "organic" as the process of learning the religion of our youth.
This gets me thinking- can you ever forget your native language? And to extend the analogy, do you ever "forget" your religion of your youth, when you convert as an adult? To extend religion to all aspects of culture-- maybe this is why assimilation is so difficult for any of us. If all of culture is like Nida's analogy of language- then we carry these "accents" of our home culture into the host cultures where we sojourn. And we can never seem to learn the nuances of all these new cultural "dialects".
There are many ramifications of this notion of conversion as a sort of "second language acquisition." It means when we disciple or evangelize, we have to be aware of the "first religious language" of the people with whom we are sharing Jesus. In some ways, the structures and underlying meanings of their native religion help facilitate the learning of this new religious language of Christianity (ideas about morality, for instance, or obligation). But in some ways, learning Christianity is like a foreign language (when it comes to grace, for instance)
Nida, E. 1978. "Linguistic models for religious behavior." In Smaley, G (ed) Readings in Missionary Anthropology. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
I was moved when I heard that the Olympics has a new team this year: Ten refugees who could not compete in their own country of origin were invited to compete in the Olympic Refugee Team. Remember, these swimmers and runners (and in one case, a judo fighter) do not have "refugee" as their primary identity: They are athletes. They have back stories too-- where they have had dreams of being in the Olympics for years. They have been training for years, with the support of coaches and families. It's not like these folks were let into the Olympics just as a PR move, or simply out of sympathy- though the Olympic Committee did intend to cast a spotlight on the refugee crisis. Still, these men and women earned their spot. In that way, they're not that different from any other team in the Olympics.
Then I thought, "But is the Refugee Team really a team, if the athletes come from several different countries, including Syria, Turkey, and Iran?" And then I realized that most countries competing in the Olympics have teams that are composed of multiple ethnicities and even national origins. The Refugee has more in common with the other teams than I originally realized. The Refugee team is just a more stark example of the sort of globalization we're all experiencing.
What was your response when you learned about the Olympic Refugee team?
1. Sample: Hofstede's data was gathered by professionals in IBM, so the values are not necessarily representative of women, children, or those in poverty.
2. Reductive: The culture-value orientation theory gives the impression that cultures can be reduced to a handful of values like "collectivist" or "indulgent." This reductivism was not Hofstede's intent, but it is nonetheless a reality of how the theory is used.
3. Essentialist: One gets the erroneous impression that virtually ANY cultural feature can be explained by the fact that a society is, for example, "collectivist" or "individualist." So we end up attributing even individual's behavior within a society to these cultural value orientations.
4. Positivist ontology: Hofstede's major research was done in an era before postmodernism, when scholars still largely assumed that there were scientific "rules of human nature" which could be discovered. Most scholars in the social sciences nowadays are more constructivist in their ontology, and do not expect theories to describe human nature the way the Culture Value orientation theory does. These value orientations can be factors that explain behavior, but it is too positivist to see these orientations as foregone conclusions.
5. Urbanization and globalization: We know that the USA is a melting pot; but increasingly, many of the world's nations are diverse; so it is increasingly difficult to pinpoint a national culture. Hofstede's value orientations may have been more accurate if they focused on ethno-linguistic groups, or took into account socio-economic status. Of course, the more they did this, the more complicated the theory would be- and it would become more cumbersome.
Do you assume that travelers are more accepted in certain countries,and less accepted in others? What accounts for the difference? One major factor may be cultural values. The more collectivist a culture is, the harder it can be to get into the "in-group." Another cultural value that can affect an expatriate's experience of finding acceptance would be the host culture's value of uncertainty avoidance. Cultures which highly avoid uncertainty tend to be less tolerant of difference- they tend to be tightly regulated and prefer many prescribed norms of behavior.
Without invoking "cultural values" framework (viz Kluckhohn and Hofstede), Berry (1990) focused on how cultural values affect whether immigrant communities will assimilate. His conclusion was that the more an immigrant community values convergence, and the less they value the in-group, the more likely it is they will assimilate. If they value the in-group and divergence to the wider culture, they will live separately in enclaves.
It occurs to me that we could use cultural values to work the other way around. Not only can values like collectivism and Uncertainty avoidance affect how an immigrant community assimilates to a new culture, but they can influence how expatriates are accepted when they travel. Below, I have plotted data from Geert Hofstede's study of value dimensions throughout the world. I have plotted 26 countries on a 2 dimensional grid that compares tolerance (uncertainty avoidance) and in-group cohesion (collectivism/individualism).
Countries in the upper right quadrant have a strong in-group; and with a high UAI, people are anxious about differences. That is, they tend to be both cliquish and intolerant. These would be the hardest countries for travelers find acceptance.
Countries in the lower right quadrant are pluralists. They accept cultural differences; but since they value the in-group. Nepotism or Guan Xi in China characterize social interactions. So travelers may not find people anxious about their own differences; but they still may find it hard to be accepted.
Countries in the top right quadrant do not have strong in-group mentalities, but are nonetheless fairly intolerant of cultural differences. Travelers who fit within the cultural norms (i.e., know the language and behave like the host culture) may make friends easily; but those who diverge will find socializing more difficult.
Countries in the lower right are the most open. The in-group boundary can easily be crossed, and differences are tolerated.
This theory relies on previous work that has been done on value orientations. The theory that the acceptance travelers experience is dependent on UAI and IDV could be further explored through a quantitative study on people who have traveled to various countries. We may have participants answer the following questions with a Likert Scale:
1. How easily did you make friends?
2. To what extent did you find people frustrated with your own culturally-bound behaviors?
There are, of course, many other factors that influence the way that travelers experience acceptance from their host country. One salient value orientation would be hospitality, but we do not have global data on "planned v. spontaneous hospitality."
Cultural adaption is affected by internal competencies like preparedness, personality, openness, predisposition, positivity and strength. And the degree and rate of adaptation is also affected by external factors like the conformity pressure of the host culture, the hosts’ receptivity, the hosts’ in-group solidarity, and the ethnic proximity of the host and guest (Jackson, 2014, p. 211). For example, it seems fairly obvious that US Americans would have an easier time adapting to life in a culturally-similar society like the UK than in a culturally-distant society like Afghanistan or Nigeria. Also sojourners find acculturation easier in a society that is flexible, and which has a lower level of uncertainty avoidance (e.g., the USA) rather than tight with high levels of uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Indonesia, Japan).
Some sojourners retain dual memberships, but never expect to make a permanent shift to the host culture. For instance, cross-cultural workers must engage their host culture, but may not expect to assimilate, since they will eventually return home. Early theorists usually described the bicultural sojourner’s adjustment a “u” shaped line over time (Lysgaard, 1955). At first, the cross-cultural worker experiences the euphoria of a new setting. The sights and smells are refreshingly unfamiliar; the laws and customs are bewilderingly different- even exotic. When all of this change becomes irritating, there is a downward turn in emotional composure, which represents a dip on the line graph over time. Eventually, the world traveler adjusts, copes, or even enjoys his new environment, and the line on the graph ascends again- maybe even supersedes the initial “high”.
Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) modified this “u” model to look more like a “w.” The expatriate still experiences a “honeymoon phase”, disillusionment, and adaptation. But eventually, he will receive a home assignment. He initially has anxiety about this, and his anxiety turns to a genuine depression as he experiences nostalgia for “the way things were in my host country” as well as disappointment about the new life he is establishing in his home country. According to the “w” theory, a healthy individual will eventually work through this “reverse culture shock” and the line graph will ascend to normalcy.
Cross-cultural trainers have repeated this “u” or “w” theory over and over again – and many students accept the theory at face value. But does it represent reality? What percentage of cross-cultural businessmen and missionaries actually experience adjustment as euphoria, disillusionment, adaptation, anxiety about returning home, further disillusionment and finally growth and acceptance? Kealey’s (1989) study of 277 expatriates showed that while 50% of the sample experienced stress during adjustment, only about 10% of cross-cultural workers actually experience the typical “u” curve. Therefore, the “u” curve is not really typical at all, calling into question the generalizability of the model (Jackson, 2014, p. 209).
Some theorists have recognized the weakness of the “u” or “w” curve, and have proposed alternate representations for the process of adjustment. For example, Young Yun Kim’s model is an upward spiral, moving from stress to adaptation, followed by more stress and adaptation. Over time, as the spiral moves upward, the cross-cultural worker grows in character and ability (Kim, 2002, pp. 236-239).
Still other theorists recognize that we adjust on different levels at different rates. The emotional adjustment may very well follow something like a u-curve, whereas one’s interpersonal skills or technical skills in a host culture may sharply increase without a dip. Ward (1999) has noted that sojourners experience acculturation on at least two levels: psychological and socio-cultural. However, our adjustment to the physical surroundings, to the workplace, and to interpersonal relationships will likely follow different trajectories. Would we expect a traveler’s adaptation to his physical surroundings to follow a u-curve, where he is initially competent at getting on trains and ordering in restaurants, then his skills sharply decrease, only to take an upward turn after time? Of course not- one’s competence at getting around should start lower and increase (though it may eventually plateau as he gains nearly full-competence). Similarly, one’s competence in work duties may easily increase without an initial downward dip. Interpersonal relationships may take longer to develop, but will still increase, not decrease, over time.
Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. (1963). An extension of the u-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 33-47.
Jackson, J. (2014). Introducing Language and Intercultural communication. New York: Routledge.
Kealey, D. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 387-428.
Kim, Y. Y. (2002). Cross-cultural adaptation: an integrative theory. In J. Martin, T. Nakayama & L. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (2nd ed.). Mountain View, Ca: Mayfield.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
Ward, C. (1999). Acculturation and Adaptation Revisited. Journal of Crosscultural psychology, 30(4), 422-442.
Kenneth Nehrbass, Ph.D.
Professor at Biola University, Author, Pastor