Perception of Good

One of the great challenges of hermeneutics is understanding context. This past two weeks I have been trying to bridge the gap between the traditional critical and historical approach to interpretation of scripture by using cultural anthropology as a model for contextual analysis. What does anthropology have to say about “honor and shame,” “purity and impurity,” “kinship and marriage,” and “limited good,” as it relates to understanding the first century church?

Missiologists have never advocated that the social sciences be THE model for interpretation of context. However, I am amazed how many theologians discount the role or even the validity in using cultural anthropology as a tool for scriptural understanding.

Anthropologist George Foster, in 1965, stated that in peasant societies (which one can clearly see in first century Palestine) there was an image of limited good. By that he means the access to goods, honor and resources was not abundant but indeed restricted. A person and/or family either had or did not have access to good based on kinship. Land owners, craftsman, tenant farmers for the most part were ascribed status within society. The only way good was achieved beyond cultural ascription was through deception and abuse of power. Vassar kings, like Herod, were despised by the common folk as his allegiance was to Rome and not the people he was given charge to rule. Matthew and Zacchaeus were despised “sinners” as their profession of tax collection was often a means to exploit others for their benefit. Limited good is a sum zero game. For someone to grow rich someone else must suffer loss. The rich get richer as the poor get poorer (a classic tension between capitalism and socialism as it plays out in today’s world).

Fast forward to the story of the landowner giving talents (investment capital) to three servants. Two servants make a handsome ROI (return on investment). The third steward is ridiculed and ostracized because he was not willing to be a Zacchaeus. You would think that the interpretation of this story is that the hero is not those who gain ROI in a limited good society, but the one who was willing to face the wrath of a harsh master rather than turn against his fellow countrymen. But that is not how the average evangelical theologian interprets this parable. Through the lens of unlimited good, capitalism and profit margins, the hero is the one who uses his talents to gain more talents. “Well done, good and faithful servant, you have been faithful (exploiting) with little to gain more. Enter into the joy of the Lord.” (Okay, I am going over the top in my interpretation, but I do so for effect and to make my case). The point being is that to be consistent in interpretation of scripture all tools or models can be helpful, including cultural anthropology. Especially as it relates to first century Palestine, today’s model of unlimited good does not fit, though we continually try to make the case through the lens of economic expansion.

Distorted hermeneutics comes into play when we try to make our interpretations fit into our culturally biased analysis. On this issue Lingenfelter writes, “One of the distortions that we as human beings bring to social relationships is that of making our familiar structure the only structure that God can use to accomplish his purpose. We distort the diversity of God's creation and reduce the structures for human life to those that are familiar to us. By denying the validity of other structures, we force people to submit to our standards and structures of relationship in order to accomplish the work and purpose of God (LEADING Cross-Culturally: Covenant Relationship for Effective Christian Leadership. Baker Academic: 64)

The parable of Luke 19 is still up for debate. Was Jesus teaching his audience to be counter-cultural, ahead of his time in seeing the world with unlimited resources? Or, was he making a strong case against greed in a limited good society? For those who think anthropology has nothing valid to contribute to the study of scripture the third steward is an example of squandering God’s talents he has given us. That lazy servant should indeed be cast into outer darkness, alongside those who use social science as tool for interpretation of scripture.

Culture and Negotiations

How much do you know about culture?  If you were “negotiating” in a particular cultural environment, would you understand the rules by which that culture plays the game of life?  Here are some examples, answer true or false.

The Chinese won't spend much time gathering and exchanging information since they are often eager to get started with the bargaining exchange.

Negotiators in Israel often use silence as a pressure tactic to obtain further concessions.

In the Netherlands, a person sucking their thumb is signaling that he or she does not believe you.

In Japan, prices rarely move by more than 10-15% from initial offer to final agreement.

For more questions on negotiation and cultures go to:

http://www.globalnegotiationresources.com/resources/quiz/

How did you do?  Share your results.

Year In Review and the Year Ahead

Report on 2009 activities are now online: http://Lewis-Training.com/2009_Report.pdf

Description of Makutano (Kenya) Institute Project also at http://Lewis-Training.com/Makutano.pdf

Cultural Faith

My train travel companion for nearly 34 hours was a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force.  From Chennai to New Delhi the WC talked almost non-stop.  Thank goodness he did rest long enough to let us get some sleep in the night.  Interesting fellow, nevertheless, and I found him a very likeable person.

As usual, when people ask me what I do for a living the discussion turns toward philosophy and religion.  As a teacher in intercultural studies it’s impossible not to touch on faith as it is a part of worldview, values and a whole host of other issues.  And, like most people,  WC wanted to tell me more about his views on these matters than listen to mine.  I find such encounters interesting and see them as learning moments of culture and people.  What I learned from the WC was that he is basically an agonistic, has always grown up with wealth and privilege, enjoys his family (2 kids, one wife), has no real financial worries now or in the future, likes to drink, smoke and play golf.  He is a “clean shaven” Sikh, married to a Hindu and will go to the temple or Gurdwara  only if he has to.  The WC is the classic case of cultural faith.

Sometime back I met an American who who had visited India.  As we talked he said he just couldn’t understand how reasonable, intelligent people can worship idols.  I reminded him that every faith looks and feels weird to non-believers.  Jesus certainly seems like a strange myth to Hindu’s. He confessed that he, too, had problems with the Lord’s death and resurrection.  After my train ride I thought that of that conversation with the American and that he is probably not any different than the WC – a product of cultural faith.

Yesterday I was reading a blog of someone I know in the U.S. who is now living with a man though not yet divorced.  Her comment was that she knows that she is living in sin, but she is so happy.  The assumption is if you’re happy God doesn’t care, but why would she admit she was living in sin?  Is the faith of a Christian so anemic that we can by-pass morality, or has cultural religious relativism so permeated our thinking that it’s not really what God thinks that is important but how I think He should think about my faith, no matter how I behave?

And what about my own faith?  Do I truly believe that this Jesus I proclaim is so necessary for all humanity it’s worth being away from my family half of each year?  Or am I just a religious coolie peddling my wares for a monthly income?  Am I, also, such a product of my culture that I only see God’s hand when it suits my taste, or is He a part of the process of my life trying to break through my cultural bias and assumptions?  The greater question, am I (or you) a product and part of a Divine intervention that through time and space is a great narrative for all eternity to observe?  Or like so many, am I, we, just a result of cultural faith, blissfully ignorant of eternal reality, hoping for the best?

Missionary Training

I received a note from a mission’s leader doing a survey on missionary training.  This was his question:

“If you were sitting in a room with five missionary trainers, what would you ask them?”

No way am I going to ask ONE question.  How about one question for each trainer. 

First - How practical is your missionary training?  Is it just a syllabus or does it actually help missionaries in their spiritual growth, planting the church or communicating the Gospel to non-believers?  Okay, I understand the need to know how to fill out a financial report to the office or how to write a letter to donors, but is that really what they need on the field? Most “training” in mission organizations today is a two-week orientation on how to work within the system.  What does your training do to help people make a difference in another culture? 

Second - How do you measure training effectiveness?  Of course one must also ask, is the training affective or effective?  What is the goal?  Church planting…how many churches planted?  Reaching the unreached…how many home meetings have been established?  Most training is “affective,” i.e. the emotional needs of people (their own spiritual growth, interpersonal relationships, family and marriage seminars).  All good stuff and needed, but is that the only thing that is taught in training?  Effective training is the operational, the task of what we are suppose to be doing on the field (reaching Muslims, Hindu’s, people who live in urban centers, working among tribal’s).  Does your training actually help people know what to do or say when they are working among the unreached?

Third - How truly contextual is the training?  Is your model of church planting, leadership development, appropriate technology, your BAM (business as mission) program relevant to the host culture?  Or, is it just another good idea that worked in one part of the world but doesn’t have relevance anywhere else?  People don’t need “principles” that work everywhere, because, frankly, they don’t.  Muslims in Senegal are not the same as in Turkey.  Training needs to be culturally/contextually specific.

Fourth - What success do you have in convincing people they need training?  People are taught/trained in every professional field in the marketplace, or at least they should be.  How does one convince people going cross-culturally that what they will do is so important they DARE NOT go without preparation?

Fifth - What organization has the best training and why?  The best organization I knew mandated training, focused on the real needs of missionary preparation and made it cost effective for them to get that training.  They’ve lost their way and now it cost more to go to their training than to a seminary for the same course.  Missionaries resist training, primarily, because of two things:  Time and money.  Solve the time/money problem; make the training practical and meaningful, and PERHAPS more people will be willing to be equipped for cross-cultural work (though it will still be a hard sell).

Those are my questions for missionary trainers.  What’s yours?

When God Pulled The Curtain

As I walked to lunch, about 1 pm, I noticed that it was much cooler than when I went to teach my class an hour before.  The sun was shining, but it was not bright with very few clouds in the sky.  Strange.  It wasn’t until I was returning to my room that I learned that India was experiencing an annular eclipse, the longest solar eclipse of the millennium.  I turned on a local TV channel and heard the reports of the eclipse from cities in the north and south.  In Haridwar, near the Ganges River, 1 million people gathered to take a “holy dip” after the eclipse, while in Bangalore, school children were out of the classroom looking through any dark negative they could find to gaze at the “ring of fire,” as it wasn’t a total eclipse.

India is a country that is ripe with myth, folklore and superstition.  Astrologers do a brisk business every day, but Friday they surely did well as they interpreted the occasion of this solar phenomenon.  Here are some of the myths from Friday’s episode.

• It’s believed that god (they didn’t say which one and there are 300 million of them) pulled the curtain on the world to collaborate with other deities, leaving the earth in darkness.

• If you have made food that day it was no longer fit to eat and poisoned.  To take out the poison one should put grass in it, or better yet, throw it out.  No one should eat during the time of the eclipse. 

• If a woman is pregnant she should certainly stay inside until after the eclipse as the baby will surely have a birth defect if out in the open at this time.

• The devout should pray to their gods, saying as many mantras as they can think of, during an eclipse.

• Taking a dip in the Ganges after the eclipse is believed to remove sin from the dipee. 

The eclipse took place when, here in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the people were celebrating Pongal, the harvest festival.  Since the eclipse took place during this sacred time some astrologers have determined that this will be an inauspicious year, not the best year for weddings or business.

Of course not all Indians are bound by these myths.  In the IT capital of Bangalore not only did young people not refrain from eating, while gazing at the sun they had tea and snacks and the ice cream vendor did zesty business.

 

 

Filtered Comments

A few days back I received a comment from “anonymous.”  I filter comments as some people use other people’s blog sites to advertise or promote something that has nothing to do with anything I have written.  I am not looking for comments that only agree with my point of view and, though “anonymous” had some valid points, the way it was written was inflammatory.  Using words to describe other religions as satanic or evil is not something I do, so I passed on letting others read what this nameless person had to say on my blog.

I realize that many people do not approach other religions the same way I do.  My approach is to respect other people views, which some consider compromise, at best, universalism at worse.  Probably 99.9% of the people who read my blog are believers of a particular religion in which they were born.  I realize my evangelical and fundamentalist friends will make a distinction, and rightly so, that being a follower of Jesus is a matter of choice (through faith) and not a religion one is born into. But the reality is that of the 99.9% of those who read this blog are not converts from another religion.  Most of you have never been ostracized for embracing another faith, faced the loss of inheritance, had your life threatened or caused shame to their parents.  We are all CULTURALLY BOUND, and where we are born does make a difference on whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian.  I respect people of different faiths, not because of their beliefs, but because they hold something dear to them that is a part of who they are as a people.  As I would like people of a different faith to respect my beliefs and not say ugly things about my Savior, I want to extend that same courtesy to others. 

That is not to say that I believe other religions are on par with Christianity.  Christ Jesus is unique and I believe He is the only way to salvation.  Jesus is more than a prophet and not just one of many gods.  I believe that unless one accepts Jesus for who He is they have no hope for eternal life.  However, as I reject the offense comments of some Muslims who call us “infidels,” I do not want to call every Muslim a jihadists nor every Hindu wicked idol worshipers.  Why?  Because in presenting the Gospel to unbelievers we must understand that they believe what they believe because they (1) were born into that faith without real consideration of their belief and, (2) they really don’t understand the message of Chris and His salvation.  Our role as believers is to build bridges for the Gospel, not destroy communication with fiery rhetoric. 

I welcome your comments.  You can be as kind or ugly to me as you wish and you will get a fair hearing.  If you want to use this blog to flay away at others who do not yet know Him, then I suggest you create your own blog site and please, do it openly, not anonymously. 

 

Top Ten Comments To Missionaries

It’s time for the “TOP 10 LISTS.”   Whether it’s fashion, movies, songs, jokes, we get to fill in the last week of the year with the Top Ten Lists.

Here is a list of “hits” and “misses” – my top 10 mission statements and questions received over the years.  Maybe you can add to this list.

1. What do the people eat?  This question is often asked during and Q & A session at a mission conference.  My wife thinks that this is a barometer of a church’s missions intelligence.  After an hour of teaching about your ministry, if this is the only question they can come up with, they probably don’t know much about missions.
2. What do the people think of the Arkansas Razorbacks?  I actually had someone ask me this question and it remains one of the most stunning questions I have ever received.  I had to explain to the person that most Africans know nothing about American football, and certainly the Hogs have yet to become an international phenomenon (and no, they also have never heard of the Horns or the Crimson Tide).
3. What does your wife do?  I am assuming they mean what does she do in missions, but I find it an odd question.  Does anyone ever ask an engineer this question?  Next time you go to the dentist make sure you ask him what his wife does.  Will it make any difference whether he will work on your teeth?
4. How many people did you lead to Christ last year?  Let’s see, I have been in fulltime work almost 40 years now.  Pastored in the states; planted churches in Kenya; taught missionaries in over 40 countries.  I am assuming, accumulative, probably thousands of people came to Christ this past year through our ministry.  However, even those who I might have “led to Christ” this year, was certainly the result of someone else’s work, and most definitely the work of the Holy Spirit, so I guess the answer would be zero.
5. Are you involved in church planting?  (Actually last year this was framed in an assessment, not a question, i.e. “since you are no longer on the field planting churches we are dropping your support”).  It’s true, I could still be in Kenya, planting maybe one church each year.  OR, I could be teaching hundreds of church planters, reproducing myself in the lives of people who will go to places where I can’t go: reaching people I could never reach.  The answer is, yes, I am more involved in CP than ever.
6. Have you ever had a “real” job?  Do you mean those days when I worked on a loading dock, worked for a newspaper company or worked in a garage?  Sure, but for the last 40 years I’ve been sitting on my sanctified rear-end, sleeping late, going to church on Sunday and sponging off of others who have a “real” job to meet my physical needs. This has to be one of the most demeaning comments/questions anyone who is a career missionary will ever receive.
7. It must be difficult begging for money from other people. (Actual comment to my daughter serving in West Africa).  When you meet people who have that view of missionaries it certainly doesn’t make the task of raising support easier.  Makes one just want to give up and get a “real” job.
8. We can’t support you, but we will be praying for you. And what would that prayer sound like?  “Lord, we personally don’t have enough confidence in this person to invest in his ministry, but you are the God of miracles, so bless him nevertheless as you might know something we don’t.”
9.  If your parents didn’t want you, why didn’t they jut put you up for adoption?  Actual comment to one of our daughters when they heard they went to boarding school in Kenya.
10. Are the heathen really lost?  If they’re not, then the Lord’s command to go into all the world, baptize and teach those who believe must mean something else.  If they’re not lost then I guess I should quit goofing around and do something meaningful with my life.

Cultural Anthropology and the Christmas Story

So what does culture have to do with the Bible?  Like everything in communication one must consider the context.  Take, for example, the nativity scene.  Typically, historically the story of Jesus birth conjures up an image of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus in a barn.

 As the story goes (Gospel of St. Luke 2:1-7), Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to register for taxation.  Mary was due to give birth and because there was no there was no room in the “inn,” (conjuring up an image of a hotel), they were given a place in a stable where at the time of birth Jesus was placed in a manger (feeding stall for animals).

Kenneth Bailey, in his book, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels,  takes us back to first century Palestine.  He argues, from a cultural perspective that, in a society of extended families, Joseph no doubt had many kin in which to call upon for lodging.  To suggest that they were alone and unable to find a place for Mary to have her baby flies in the face of culturally accepted norms.  Because Bethlehem had many out-of-town visitors at that time, perhaps the guest rooms of relatives were occupied.  But Joseph and Mary were given accommodations at the lower end of the house, by the mangers, which was inside the house near the stable, which was attached to the house. 

“People of great wealth would naturally have had separate quarters for animals. But simple village homes in Palestine often had but two rooms. One was exclusively for guests. That room could be attached to the end of the house or be a ‘prophet’s chamber’ on the roof, as in the story of Elijah (1 Kings 17:19). The main room was a ‘family room’ where the entire family cooked, ate, slept and lived. The end of the room next to the door, was either a few feet lower than the rest of the floor or blocked off with heavy timbers. Each night into that designated area, the family cow, donkey and a few sheep would be driven. And every morning those same animals were taken out and tied up in the courtyard of the house. The animal stall would then be cleaned for the day” (page 28, 29).

I observed a similar house set-up like this when visiting southwest China several years ago.  Though the family dwelling was upstairs, the stable was below allowing easy access to feed their animals as well as protection from the weather for their cattle, pigs and chickens. 

Therefore, in context of first century Palestine, the nativity scene makes sense --- No Jewish village would ever turn away a young Jewish girl about to have a baby; it is unthinkable that Joseph would not be welcomed in Bethlehem, the city of David in which he could trace his kinship lineage.  A better rendering of “no room in the inn,” would be, “no space in the guest room.”

What’s important about culture?  Just about everything.  MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Ukrainian Pastor Comments on Mission Conference

Check out this video clip from Ukraine.  Craig Ludrick of Church Leadership Development International interviewing a local pastor/leader on the significance of the missions conference, which I was a part of November 30 - December 4, and the development of training and sending Ukrainian missionaries.

Missions Conference in Ukraine

Pray Not For The Buffaloes

Gadhimai Festival

 Over the next day Hindu’s in Nepal will attend a sacrificial festival to the goddess Gahimai. Up to a half-million animals will be sacrificed to Gadimai who is to believed to grant devotees blessings, healing and power.  This festival wouldn’t draw much attention if it wasn’t for animal rights protest.  Bridget Bardo, writing to the president of Nepal, states "Thousands of terrified buffaloes will have their heads cut off by drunken devotees."

You’d think that in a land of vegetarian’s that this type of festival would be unpopular, yet, according to the Times of India, 75 percent of the  5 million devotees will be from India. Hinduism is not a monolithic religion and with 300 million deities the only similarity in their worldview belief is an underlying superstition and myth.

Animal sacrifice has been around since the days of Cain.  Muslims sacrifice sheep and goats every year at Eid Al Adha, to mark the end the 30 day fast of Ramadan. There was a time when our forefathers were involved in such sacrifices.  How many goats were slaughtered at Passover?  While I don’t condone the Gahimai fesitival, I give my Hindu friends a pass as they live in a world where there are few opportunities to hear about the final sacrifice secured 2,000 years ago at another sacrificial spot called Golgatha.

If one is really concerned about the buffalo in Nepal, may I suggest that they pray and support those of us who work and equip the people in that part of the world, 87% who do not personally know a Christian.  

Be Not Drunk With Wine And Other Things

As I listened to the sermon last week my attention was drawn to “control.”

The scripture is familiar to me, “Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18).  I grew up in a Baptist church and that verse is always used to teach of the evil of alcohol, which is a misinterpretation, but that’s a side issue.  That verse is seldom tied to the preceding verses, which is, “So be careful how you live. Don’t live like fools, but like those who are wise. Make the most of every opportunity in these evil days. Don’t act thoughtlessly, but understand what the Lord wants you to do” (15-17). 

People who are controlled by alcohol don’t make wise decisions, they make poor choices.  But booze is not the only thing that controls people and I began thinking about the things that has power over people these days, what is it that controls me? 

This is Thanksgiving week and you can’t think about Thanksgiving without thinking about food.  But for many people food is not just a holiday event, it’s what controls them everyday.  As my dad was fond of saying, “Some people eat to live, other people live to eat.”  Gluttony is an indicator of deeper psychological, emotional and even spiritual problems.  When one is controlled by food they cannot be controlled by the Holy Spirit.  

As the pastor spoke I made a list of things that control thinking, things that so dominate us that we make poor decisions. The Internet (especially Facebook these days), sports, TV, talk radio, music.  None of these things within themselves are wrong, but just like wine, if these things dominate us we run the risk of missing the opportunities that God would have for us if our mind were not cluttered with other things. 

Of course the darker side of alcohol leads to even more serious consequences.  So, too, does other destructive habits, like lust, which leads to pornography and illicit activity; bitterness, which leads to broken relationships; covetousness, which leads to debt; self-loathing, which leads to depression; obesity, which leads to physical breakdown and disease; fear, which leads one to paranoia and disastrous decisions; self-importance, which is another form of self-loathing which draws one away from reliance on God.

One does not have to be a “crackhead,” to be dependent, controlled.  In the days we live the addictions are subtler, but they are just as destructive.  To know the will of God, to make the choices He would like us to make, to seize the opportunities that are before us, we must have a clear mind.  Reining in wasteful habits is the path to clear thinking and being filled with the One who will guide us through a rich and fulfilling life. 

Tattoos, Cowboy Boots, Jeans and Leather

Last week I was in Texas at the Quest Church.  Jim and Meredith started this church about three years ago.  They meet in three metal buildings with two services.  Unique may be an overused word, but it certainly describes Quest. 

Church growth experts focus most of their attention on mass appeal, or the Wal-Mart model.  People who go to contemporary churches are, like Wal-Mart shoppers, looking to find their needs met under one roof.  Usually white, middle class and kids that range from one to eighteen in age, the contemporary church has become the traditional church for much of the evangelical world. 

The Quest is not a Wal-Mart but more like Hills Hardware; it’s not major corp., but boutique.  It’s earthy, blue collar with an edge.  The music is hard rock and/or country and the membership is made up of people who the traditional church will tolerate but not encourage.  The contemporary church will try to guide these people into focus groups and encourage them to attend special seminars on recovery.  While the conventional church will reach out to those who are not typical, it’s always at arms length.

As an anthropologist I am fascinated with symbols as they are indicators of worldview.  Quest people are tattooed, shaved bald, long hair, big hair, leather and jeans.  These symbols scream out that they are not interested in mainstream but longing to find a place where they best fit.  These people are not misfits; they are just more comfortable finding God on a concrete slab floor than a soft carpet.  The one thing I heard over-and-over-again last week was, “If it wasn’t for this church I wouldn’t have found Christ.  This is a place I feel I belong.”  To many of the people of Quest, the traditional/contemporary model of church is religion whereas they are a church. 

Quest has a niche audience, but, then again, probably most churches in the world are primarily niche assemblies.  The niche may be tailored to occupation, families, clans, or an age demographic.  The Wal-Mart model will stock pet food, but not horse feed. The niche church will talk about Jesus, not as much in theological terms but contextually, to the audience in their niche environment. 

In my travels I have been in many different religious cultural environments including cowboy churches, Bakht Singh assemblies, high church Russian Baptists, Indian village house churches, deaf services, African Methodist Episcopalians and with Pokot herdsmen meeting under a tree.  You won’t find many church growth books from these congregations, but, like the Quest, they are a part of that wonderful Body called the CHURCH.  

Moving from COMMUNAL to PERSONAL Faith

It is not uncommon in Indian homes to have a designated place for prayer.  Sometimes it is a small room no bigger than a closet.  My landlady kept idols at the base of her vanity desk that had a little compartment with two doors she would open each morning, light candles and recite prayers.

Muslims don’t have idols, but their concept of a communal faith is rich with ritual as they pray toward Mecca, recite prayers at the mosque or pray at the grave of saints like Nizamuddin Aluyia in Delhi.

What all of these examples represent, as well as countless other expressions of faith in animism, Buddhism and Christianity, is that many of these adherents worship communal god(s).  Prayers to these deities are not personal in nature and the motivation behind their rituals is primarily for protection and blessing.  In some cases their gods are family deities, in other situations their Supreme Being is an ethnic God, i.e., to be Wolof (Senegal) is to be Muslim.

Communal gods have been around since the beginning of time.  It’s true that initially God sought a personal relationship with man when He created Adam and then Eve.  Very soon thereafter, however, man began to worship the Creator as a distant deity that they prayed to in time of war or ritual festivals.  What is interesting about Rachel taking her fathers idols when she married Jacob was that she had an attachment to these family gods (Genesis 31:32-53).  By default, when God made Abraham the “father of many nations,” Jehovah became the communal God of the Jews as well as the collective Allah of Muslims.

One of great challenges in communicating the Gospel to others is explaining a “personal” God who loved each person individually and that He sent His Son to die for their own personal salvation.  It’s easy for many Americans to grasp the concept of the personal God as we see the world as individualists.  Cultures, which are collectivists by nature, have a more difficult time understanding anything but a communal deity.  Perhaps one way to present Christ is through a collectivist mindset.  How does one do that? 

First, recognize that collectivists are multi-individualists.  Though they live their lives in community every person has individual needs, tensions and private thoughts.  Only when the stress of individual consequences becomes a reality will a collectivist be open to a personal God who cares for them individually.

Second, the concept of a personal God is best presented through personal relationships.  A follower of Christ that has built a relationship with non-believers and who models a personal walk with God will have more impact on others more than impersonal methods of evangelism. 

Third, and the most difficult thing to do, move the collectivist toward a personal God without intentionally diminishing the gods of people who they hold as a family protector.  Missionaries make a huge mistake when they try to argue their case by dismissing the faith of others.  Successful evangelism is seldom quick.  To bring people to an understanding of a personal God is often a lifetime process.

Lastly, collectivists must not be pushed to be “extracted” from their community.  Alan Tippett wrote 20 years ago,

"In communal society where the people have an intense awareness of the social group, where the group means social cohesion, security and the perpetuity in an uncertain world, one of the greatest cultural feelings of satisfaction is the idea of belonging, or HAVING A PLACE OF YOUR OWN IN THE GROUP, AND BEING ABLE TO PLAY YOUR OWN SPECIFIC ROLE IN THE GROUP LIFE.  THIS IS WHY IT IS SO TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT FOR CONVERTS, WHO COME OUT OF THE PAGAN GROUP, TO FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT WITHOUT SOME GROUP TO WHICH TO BELONG.  THEY COME OUT OF SOMETHING INTO SOMETHING" (Introduction to Missiology 1987:78).

The challenges of communicating the reality of a personal God to those who view God communally are enormous.  Our role as cross-cultural workers is to be aware of different views and finding the bridges of communication for the Gospel.

Communal God(s)

Okay, I’m putting on my anthropologist hat.  A student in Kenya sent in his project report on one of the tribes in the country.  Describing them as followers of African Traditional Religions he sated, “The people do not have a concept of a personal God but a communal God.”    My mind has been on that theme since then; the difference between having a concept of a personal God, as do Christians, Jews and, to a certain extent, Muslims, and that of those who have a concept of a communal God, such as animists, Hindu’s, cultural Christians and cultural Muslims. 

 Simply stated, a communal concept of deity is that which a collective of individuals believe in a supernatural force, which provides security (from evil, sickness) and blessing (good crops, jobs, children).  These communal deities range from trees in a forest to pictures in homes.  In anthropology, there is an evolution of religion based on economy and education, from those people who are hunter/gathers to those who are literate and technological.

My research interest in the communal God took me to this article in the American Anthropologist (Sanderson, Stephen K. and Wesley W. Roberts - The Evolutionary Forms of the Religious Life: A Cross-Cultural, Quantitative Analysis. Vol. 110, No. 4,  December 2008: 454-46).

Anthony Wallace delineated four types of cult institutions: (1) individualistic, in which individual persons perform their own private rituals; (2) shamanic, in which a part-time religious practitioner (a shaman) performs special rites for others in return for a fee; (3) communal, in which bodies of laypersons collectively perform calendrical and other religious rites; and (4) ecclesiastical, in which there are full-time priests who perform highly specialized rituals before audiences of laypersons. These cult institutions represent a typology of religious evolution.

In relation to these typologies, people’s view of God’s intervention follows:

(1) Absent or unreported, (2) present but not active in human affairs, (3) present and active in human affairs but not concerned with human morality, and (4) present, active in human affairs, and concerned with human morality.

The variable was coded as (1) Shamanic, (2) Communal, (3) Polytheistic, and (4) Monotheistic. We were guided by the following assumptions. A religion is Shamanic when a shaman is the center of most religious practice, a strong belief in animism is present, there are no calendrical rites, and laypersons rely on a shaman as the sole intermediary between themselves and the supernatural. A religion is Communal when laypersons are the center of religious practice and calendrical or other collective rites of some sort are present; although a shaman may be present, there are groups (e.g., kinship groups, age grades, or the whole society) that specialize in acting as a mediator between the people and the supernatural. A religion is Polytheistic when a hierarchically organized priestly class is present to direct laypersons in ritual practices, and the center of worship is a pantheon of distinct gods. Finally, a religion is Monotheistic when a hierarchical priestly class is present to direct laypersons in ritual practices, but there is a belief in a single, all-powerful god, rather than a pantheon of specialized and lesser gods.

Though a communal God may be a foreign concept to most Christians, I will make the case in the next post that many people unwittingly serve a Communal God.  In addition, I will explore what are the implications of this concept as it relates to witness and presentation of the Gospel.  Until then, read Genesis 31:30 –35, about Rachel and her communal gods.

Best, Better, Ugly: Mixed Reviews Keeps One Humble

Last week a student stayed behind after class to see me.  He said quietly, “I just wanted to tell you this class has changed my life. More than that, it has changed the way I think about things.  It hit me as I was driving to town the other day, all of a sudden I realized how my view of things has changed and it was like a big weight lifted from my shoulders.”

Humbled, I thanked him for telling me that.  Every teacher likes to hear such positive feedback.

The very next day a student from a previous class approached me and said, “Your course has had the most impact on my life.  I belong to a denomination that is very critical of other groups.  After your class I came away with a sense of appreciating others and I am no longer judgmental of others.

“You may not remember,” another student said to me, “but you taught me in another school in 1998.  I still remember your lectures on the Pokot and your message in chapel on having “Universal Significance.’”

There isn’t a person reading this that hasn’t had such an experience one time in their life.  Perhaps you offered a kind word to someone, a word of encouragement or perhaps a time when you just prayed with someone.  An act you don’t remember that, while you do not remember, made a profound impression on someone else.

BUT WAIT…THERE’S MORE!

On my last day of teaching a student asked to see me.  Upset with his test score, he let me know in no uncertain terms that I was unfair, not sympathetic, aloof and not accessible to students.   He even accused me of teaching from a biased western perspective and that I wasn’t concerned with the Indian view of missions. 

Suddenly, all the goodwill you thought you had goes down the drain.  The praise of a three is overshadowed by the negative one.  That other feedback, the one that seemingly comes out of nowhere, blindsides you.  You feel defensive and, even worse that you let someone down.

Though no one likes criticism, in a way I’m grateful for that student’s stinging assessment.  I totally disagree with his judgment and, quite honestly, I felt that I gave him a better grade than he deserved.  But what I did get out of his honest opinion of me was that I am not infallible, not everyone thinks I walk on water and, while I am grateful that I am a blessing to some, there is always room for improvement.

Moral of the story is obvious.  Count your blessings when you are praised but remember it only takes one negative review to bring you down to earth.  Walk humbly as it hurts less when you are humbled.

 

 

Should Christians Wish Hindu's A Happy Diwali?

Saturday India celebrated Diwali, the second big festival in as many months (last month it was Darsa).  Like Darsa, Diwali centers around a mythological tale of good over evil.  The god Rama returns after 14 years of exile killing the evil god Ravna. Diwali, known as the festival of lights, is marked to welcome Rama’s return. The tradition of lighting lamps and shooting off fireworks is symbolic of light over darkness, a path for a brighter future. Hindu’s in the north also celebrate this day as a pooja (worship) to Lakshimi, the goddess of prosperity.

The question for Christians in this country is should they join in this festival?  The students in my anthropology class are divided on the subject.  Some of them are adamant that it is not appropriate for Christians to wish people “happy Diwali,” as they argue it is giving credence to other gods.  Others don’t see any harm.  My students are always interested in the professor’s opinion on the matter.

When I lived in Delhi my landlord, a cultural Hindu, asked why his servant girl, a Pentecostal, would not wish him happy Diwali?  He thought it was rude that she would not. She told me her pastor said it was wrong for them to do so; therefore she would not wish him glad tidings on that day.  “Is that what all Christians believe,” he asked?

My argument on the subject is much like using the word Allah as a reference to God with Muslims.  I am well aware that the Jehovah of Christians and Jews is not the same as the Allah of the Mohammedans, but for me it is merely a linguistic title.  I use a lot of cultural titles of god that are not the same as my perception of God or Lord.  Swami, Senor, Mungu are all language references to the Supreme Being.  While some Christians want to argue the etymology of words, I contend that most Hindu’s and Muslim’s don’t have a concept of the origin of words anymore than Christians know the meaning of the word “Christ.”  It’s a title, a tag word for identification only.  Refusing to use words of culture does not enhance our witness as Christians.

My landlord was gracious to wish me “Happy Christmas.”  He doesn’t understand the story, but out of respect for my faith he is willing to acknowledge it.  He is not compromising his faith by being courteous, nor I when I wish him a Happy Diwali.

Bringing people to an understanding of our faith is a process, sometimes a very long process.  While I am uncomfortable with accommodating some cultural and religious practices, I want to choose my battle lines carefully.  Diwali is not the place to draw a line in the sand.  In fact, by wishing someone a happy Diwali may be an avenue for further discussion about evil, good and Jesus.

Equipping National Cross-Cultural Missionaries

Last month I was in Hyderabad working with, what they call, the Master Trainers.  These are men and women who are bi-vocational, cross-cultural church planters and workers.  The women have a unique role in that they help coordinate micro-business finance projects among villagers.  Many of this class come from the state of Orissa, a place where there is much persecution for Christians.  One girl in this class actually witnessed the murder of her family members.

I appreciate Dr. Vijayam and the staff of TENT for allowing me the opportunity to serve with them.