Life of a Nomad

I’ve always been intrigued with nomads? What is it in their makeup that they can’t stay in one place for a long period of time, always on the move?

I’m not talking about the tribal nomads roaming the deserts. I worked with those people for fourteen years in the bush of Kenya, and I know why they move about…they are in search of grass and water for their herds. I remember the first time I walked into one the Turkana compounds and being struck by how little stuff they have. Their little huts are not more than five feet high and wide. They find just enough sticks and brush to provide shelter from wind, sun and rain; nothing else is needed. They have no beds, a few pots that could fit in a small suitcase, no extra clothes, nothing to weigh them down for their next move in a few days time.

The nomads I am thinking about are people, well, like my wife and I. My folks have lived in the same county for over forty years. My two brothers have never lived outside of Arkansas since we moved there in the early 60’s. My in-laws also haven’t lived out of Benton County and my father-in-law has lived on same corner of land for at least 60 years, maybe longer. So what’s the deal with Sandy and I?

The best my memory serves me, in the 39 years we have been married we have lived in at least 17 different houses. These are the times we physically moved our stuff into new dwellings and doesn’t include the many times we stayed in guest houses, homes and apartments for shorter periods of time. Along with that tally we have lived in six different states and foreign two countries.

Not all people in my profession are nomadic. I know several colleagues who have lived in their adopted country for thirty years. In fact, those who do stay on the field for any length of time usually put down pretty deep roots. Being a cross-cultural worker doesn’t automatically mean that they will be nomads.

I realize there are other professions that are inclined to nomadism. Military personnel come to mind, but also people in sales, who often get transfers. Even in these occupations people do not have to move around as they can ask their companies to give them permanent assignments. But some, like us, are forever packing up and moving to new destinations.

Every time we have a sale, selling our stuff for pennies that we bought with dollars just a few months before, I think about how nice it would be to just stay with our stuff in one place for a long period of time. Oh the joy of being attached to a worn out and outdated chair! Every time I wrap a box of stuff to send to my next destination I think of my African desert friends and how they never have to think about storing, saving, sending or even preserving their things.

At my age you’d think I’d be ready to settle down. I realize that social time will eventually catch up with me, but until I physically can’t move, I can't say for certain when will be our last stop. When I’m in my 70’s it’s entirely possible that I will say to Sandy, “What do you think about living in Macau for a few years?” Yo-ho-ho, it’s the nomadic life for me.

When The Days Get Shorter

It’s been one of those weeks when everything is abnormal. Routine has its place and this week has started out uneventful with a twist.

First, the weather has turned cold in Delhi. My friends in Europe or U.S. sneer at the thought of a climate that plunges to 50 overnight and finds its way up to 80 by mid-afternoon being late Fall. But may I remind you that (a) the buildings here are block – no insulation -- so the bricks in the house never warm up; (b) fires compound the pollution in the city at night by those who must live/work on the streets. The mood in the city is no longer as festive as it was just two weeks back during Diwali. The city, which has over a 100 degree heat more than 250 days of the year, has settled in, just waiting for the mini-spring that will happen sometime late February.


At 4:46 a.m. Monday we were jolted awake by an earthquake. Okay, a tremor, 4.6 or something like that, but if it’s strong enough to shake the bed and wake me up, it’s an earthquake. As I held on to the side of the bed I wondered when the time was right to start running downstairs? Before the (cold) bricks start falling, or do I just take flight immediately? If a major one ever does hit this place I can’t imagine the extent of the damage and loss of life.

My dear friend, Mr. J. turned 87 yesterday. Sick, malnourished, helpless, he just wants to die but doesn’t know how. His only words to me as I wished him happy birthday was, “I’m so sick of myself.”

Well, isn’t this a cherry post? I did receive a note from a guy who lives in Colorado. He said he reads Blue Passport often but seldom responds. He writes, “Your Blogs are something I always look forward to reading because they are food for the brain. An anonymous wise man once said there is food for the eyes, food for the body, food for the soul, and food for the brain; and to me that is what your blogs are, food for my brain.” Thanks, Bill, hope this one doesn’t give your brain heartburn.

Charitable or Foolish?

Standing on the railway platform my friend noticed a coolie carrying bags for a European. The going rate for such labor is about $1, but the coolie asked for $10. The visitor didn’t have the change in the local currency so he gave him the equivalent of $12 and told him “keep the change.”

As the coolie walked away he said to his friend, “God blessed me with a fool early today.” My friend, overhearing the remark, rebuked him and told him he should be grateful for other people’s generosity and not make fun of them. The coolie sneered at my friend and went his way.

Last week my friend and I took a cycle rickshaw to have supper. My colleague, who is a very compassionate fellow, ordered for our driver “take out” so he could eat as well. When the rickshaw walla took us to our final destination we paid him more than a fair fare. Instead of being grateful, he asked for more with an attitude that somehow we had insulted him by offering him less. My friend sighed and said, “Sometimes guys like that make me not want to be generous.”

There is always a tension between the rich and poor, generosity and ungratefulness. The European hardly will miss being overcharged twelve times the rate. The coolie, whose lot in life is one of carrying other people’s bags, no doubt can use the extra money. However, if a foreigner thinks for a minute that his generosity will be seen as an act of charitable kindness, they are sadly mistaken. Not all poor people see the rich as fools in which to manipulate for as much as they can get out of them, but the truth is there are more with the attitude of the coolie and the rickshaw driver than we imagine. My take on tipping in a developing country is to learn the rules of the game and behave from those cultural rules. Its okay to be generous, but try to do it within reason of the local economy. People will respect you if you are kind and charitable, but they have a disdain for rich fools.

Having just completed Thanksgiving, I am reminded of the twelve lepers who were healed by Jesus. Only one of them returned to thank Him. The lesson of the coolie and the leper is a reminder that the motive of the giver should always be with honest compassion and the receiver would do well to have enough integrity and gratefulness to say thanks.

What About Bob (Singh)?

I was on a night train last week with Bob Singh. Bob (a name I’ve given him) is an American WASS (white Anglo-Saxon Sikh) who lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He wears a white kurta, turban and sports a long white beard. I’m guessing Bob, who seems like a good-natured fellow, takes on the roll of Santa Claus in his community around Christmas time. He is sitting one row in front of me so I can’t hear all of his conversation but, like all Americans, he talks loud and constant. I piece together that he has been a Sikh convert for over twenty years. Being from Santa Fe, a city known for their ethereal cosmology, Bob probably hardly gets a second glance from the citizenry. Bob has found a truer path to peace and tranquility and he proudly wears a silver medallion around his neck in honor of his guru.

What’s interesting to me about Bob is he’s traveling with Indian Sikhs and one young man is interested in what other people in America think of his conversion? I can’t hear Bob’s reply, but what strikes me is Bob’s ignorance of his enlighten experience. It’s okay for him to discover the truth, if that’s what he believes, but does he know that most of those around him do not share his faith out of conviction? Ninety-nine percent of Sikhs are of that religion only because it is a part of their cultural identity. That would be true of most Muslims, Buddhist and, though to a lesser degree, Christians. Those Bob proudly identifies with are a people who, if they did want to follow a different faith, would probably be barred from doing so. The few Sikhs I know who are followers of Christ tell stories of disinheritance, ostracism and persecution. The people Bob glibly is sharing his testimony with are citizens of a country that has anti-conversion laws. For a Sikh to take on the faith of Jesus would mean a loss of status in their society, which would be changed to OBC (other backward caste), which is one of many reasons why they are not open to the Gospel.

We are all in search of truth. Bob, and a lot of other Americans who embrace eastern religion, would do well to understand that the shining path to nirvana is seldom chosen freely. Bob should thank God he lives in a country that allows him the opportunity to seek truth unconstrained. It’s a privilege that his new brothers and sisters will never experience.

What's The Difference?

As I write I’m taking the night train back home. It’s time for assessment. I spent three days and about three hundred dollars for transportation, food and hotel. The class was not thirty pastors working where the Christian population is less than one percent. I was delighted to speak to those assembled on the theme, Reaching Your Community For Christ. The sessions went well; those in attendance seemed to appreciate the new concepts presented to them.

Before I left, my national friend and I discussed the challenges of being in ministry, especially since we both have to raise funds for our work. The Great Commission system is out of kilter as the only thing our Lord said to His disciples was to go into the world, present the message and make disciples. He didn’t say anything about church buildings, bible schools, holding seminars, raising funds to travel on a train or renting a place to live in a foreign country. Some of the best work for Christ is everyday people who live in their everyday communities telling family and friends about the joy that have in Jesus. Even more impressive are those Hindu’s or Muslim’s who are now followers of Christ that quietly, but faithfully, work out their salvation in their own context. They publish no prayer letters, they solicit no funds. They are the unseen church, though not invisible.

And then there is the mission industry, which is a branch of the market driven church. Missiologist write about and opine on the need to target UPG’s (unreached people groups), do statistics on the most UPG’s, but know that if they don’t quantify the ROI then the ecclesiastical venture capitalist (foundations, churches and individual donors), won’t be forthcoming in underwriting the foreign enterprise. The vicious cycle that the capitalist church finds itself in today is one of counting noses so the nickels (pennies actually, compared to the dollars that remain in America) will continue to make it’s way to those who have never heard His name.

As my train rolls on down the tracks, my mind swings back and forth, keeping rhythm with my swaying coach. What good is all of this traveling, teaching and begging for support? If I really were a gospel entrepreneur I’d package these seminars so that people in states could buy “soul shares.” For $50 a month they could support one national pastor which will baptize roughly ten people a month, which means their ROI is a mere $5 a soul. If more souls are saved there will be, of course, more bang for the buck and the initial investment will result in higher dividends. If the national doesn’t produce we can always close his account and give to the servant who took ten talents and doubled the initial investment. While this idea sounds economically and strategic viable it’s just another market scheme generated with a view of the bottom line but often does not make missiological sense.

Larry King asked Billy Graham, in his last interview, what difference he thought he made in the world? Is the world better today than when he first began his ministry? Graham replied that he didn’t know what difference his life made. On the surface the world doesn’t look a lot better than when he began his ministry in the ‘50’s. His answer was that “only in eternity will anyone know what difference they made on this earth.”

I have no idea the outcome of my time this past week, whether it will make any difference in the grand scheme of things is something won’t be revealed until the universal clock stops. I will always struggle with my role in a system that seems to have lost its way. I can’t quit, though sometimes it’s a temptation. I won’t because, in spite of all my reservations, I’m a bit-player that still has a role. Perhaps that’s what Christ had in mind for all of His followers – to do the best we can with the gifts He has given us, keeping our eye on Him and not the ROI.

Dogs, Goats and Seed Offerings

“I noticed you are getting up early these days and opening the front gate,” I said to my landlady, Mrs. J.

“My brother-in-law told me if I would feed the [stray] dogs each morning it will help Mr. J. feel better,” she replied.

How strange, I thought. How can a person who is as educated as Mrs. J. believe in such absurd superstitions? However, in the four years I have lived here I have come to the conclusion that Hindu’s are some of the most superstitious people I have ever met. How else can you explain giving sweets to a cow, dipping money in yogurt for prosperity or hanging a sandal on the back of a rickshaw to ward off the evil eye?

All superstition is a form of animism. Edward Tylor, who coined the word, define animists as people that believe non-living objects have life, personality and even souls. In Tylor's opinion, the belief in spirits and gods arose from man's experience of dreams, visions, disease and death. Hinduism indeed has a strong animistic base, but so, too, does folk Islam, folk religion and some Christians.

Attending a funeral in the bush of Pokot years ago, the people sacrificed a goat at the end of the ceremony. After gutting the goat the people washed their hands in its stomach of the slain animal. Their belief that through this ritual they were cleansing themselves from the disease that took the life of their loved one.

Tibetan Buddhist’s hang prayer flags over their house believing that through these pieces of cloth the spirit of good wishes and positive energy is carried throughout the community by the wind.

To non-believers these practices seem bizarre and even primitive. Yet I also observe Christians praying to image of a "saint;" buying anointed prayer clothes for healing and hear preachers tell their flock that if they will just give money to the church as a “seed offering” of faith, they can expect a heavenly ROI (return on investment).


Superstitious ritual is an attempt to coerce god(s) and spirits to act. Functionally, irrational rituals of the Hindu and the Christian are equal. All animism is born out of ignorance -- not knowing or understanding God. All people, with “eternity in their hearts,” long to appease the higher powers so he or it will grant favor to them. Superstition is an attempt to bridge the void between the physical and metaphysical, and it is a universal phenomenon. One can judge such practices as foolish, but to assume that the rituals of others are different from our strange behavior is as absurd as feeding stray dogs for healing.

Happy Diwali

The night sky in New Delhi on Diwali reminds me of the images of Baghdad the night the U.S. invaded Iraqi. The fireworks begin at dusk and goes on throughout the night. By the fourth hour smoke hovers over the whole city. By the sixth hour we go to bed, with earplugs.

Diwali is the most festive of all holidays in India, primarily in the north. The celebrations focus on lights, lamps and fireworks. Celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, there are varied versions of legend and myth. The most common is the homecoming of King Rama after a 14-year exile in the forest after defeating the demon King Ravana (pictured below). Thus on this night people welcome him back by lighting up rows of lamps.


Another popular myth is the lighting of lamps to invoke Lakshmi Pooja, the Goddess of fortune and wealth. People believe that Lakshmi brings prosperity, which is denied, to those who leave their home unlit on the day. The goddess Lakshmi is worshipped at this time and her image and coins of are washed with yoghurt.


Sikhs associate this festival with the laying of the foundation stone of the Golden Temple at Amritsar by their fourth Guru, Ram Das. They also associate it with the release of Guru Hargobind from prison by the Mogul Emperor Jahangir. Jains celebrate Diwali as the day when Lord Mahavira attained Nirvana.

Those are the legends, but in practical everyday terms it marks the time of the Hindu New Year and a time when family and friends buy gifts for each other and visit. In spite of the religious overtones, few people see it as a holy festival, except for the superstitions that accompanies much of Hindu ritual.

Some Christians refuse to recognize the day and would never greet another person with “Happy Diwali.” I’ve never understood the resistance in being courteous to another’s person’s holiday, even if you don’t agree with the meaning behind it. When Hindu’s and Muslims wish me a Merry Christmas or Happy Easter, I don’t think they feel they are compromising their faith. I am assuming they know little to nothing about my faith and if they do, to say Merry Christmas to me is a sign of respect to me as a person, though maybe not my beliefs.

So, to my Hindu friends, Happy Diwali. Let’s indeed talk about the triumph of good over evil and about the One who said, I am the light of the world: he that follows me will not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Church Planting: Defining Terms

Last week one of my students asked a pointed and challenging question.

“Is church planting the only method to reach a community for Christ?”

His question was born out of the reality that he is working in culturally restrictive community. People in his region are identified by their religion, not as a faith but as a part of their cultural distinctiveness. Even if people become followers of Christ they will not openly declare their faith due to the prohibitions placed on them by society. Acknowledging openly that they are followers of Jesus does not just affect the convert but brings shame on the family which can lead to ostracism, financial ruin, even death. With the reality of such circumstances perhaps the emphasis on church planting within evangelical circles should be revisited.

Church planting, of course, is not a biblical phrase. Putting the pieces together of the Great Commission, i.e. taking the Gospel to all the world, make disciples, baptizing, teaching, meeting as a community of believers, over the centuries a model, called church planting, has evolved. Pentecost produced a hierarchy of apostles and deacons; Paul throughout Asia left leaders in the wake of his evangelism and then he wrote letters to local congregations (Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, etc.). No one I know believe these early congregations purchased land, erected places for meetings, started schools, orphanages or became organized in faith groups (denominations or fellowships).

The evolution of Christianity is a mixed bag of believers who took their faith throughout the world through the circumstances of war, famine, persecution, commerce and organized proselytizing. Protestants became active in the GC a little over 300 years ago. Most of the early workers were translators, explorers, medical workers and educators. From their efforts indeed people did come to faith in Christ and congregations of believers assembled. Most evangelicals today wouldn’t have supported the pioneers of the past, like David Livingston, Hudson Taylor, William Carey, because they weren’t church planters as we think of presently.

So what is church planting today? They are perceived as people who go into a city or village, preach, baptize and disciple followers of Christ. They also buy land, build church buildings and, theoretically, turn over the local leadership to nationals. This model works well where there are no restrictions on expatriates and there are no religious constraints on national church workers.

But what if a national or expatriate Christian is unable to serve in the traditional model of church planting today? What if they are living in a religiously restricted area and must work as a teacher or is contracted to do social work with a NGO? And, what does the traditional model have to say about those who hear the Gospel but are not yet ready or able to be incorporated in a traditional church plant?

Perhaps it’s time for us to revaluate our terms. While the function of church planting may be the same, the form, method and model should be as contextual as our message and discipleship. A church planter, as well as the convert, will look different in every context. Church planting is not the issue, but rather how we perceive what that means in today's complex and diverse world.

Challenge of Trust

Reading MA research papers this week, one of my students working with a minority population of Tibetan Buddhist in his city discusses the challenges of trust. His observation is that one of the problems is that people just don’t know one another and, quite frankly, don’t take the time to get acquainted. Though the Tibetan’s have lived in the community for decades and are involved in commerce and marginal public activities, no one has really reached out and tried to get to know them well. As his scale of trust indicates, no one can really value another a person until they go beyond just knowing them.

Working with Tibetan’s, this student must make a conscious effort to learn as much about them as a people as he can to establish a relationship with them individually and collectively. He should not build a rapport with them with an agenda to “evangelize,” but truly learn to like them as people before presenting the Gospel. If he is successful in cultivating a relationship with the Tibetan’s, in the process of building that trust he may one day be able to enter into the dialogue of faith. In every context of association the prior question of trust, as my professor, Dr. Marvin Mayers use to say, must be paramount.

Recently a pastor of a supporting church has been writing to ask about our ministry. Though the church has been a part of our ministry for over 20 years, he is new and therefore is questioning what we do and its value in church planting. I’ve written about donor attrition before on this blogsite and outlined the dynamics of new leadership and the precarious nature of faith based missions. My student’s scale of trust is a good reminder that until someone really knows you they will never like you enough to partner with you. When a person or church has confidence in your ministry then, and only then, will they value and trust the ministry you are involved in.

Whether one is talking about ministry, business or even marriage, nothing positive happens until we value the other person. If a husband and wife don’t like each other they will never value their spouse. Value translates into trust. Trust does not happen overnight or quickly. Sometimes it takes years of getting to know one another before a foundation of confidence is accepted. Moral of the story -- be a friend first and from that relationship one can move up the ladder of value and trust.

Leaders As Losers

Nothing like a catchy title to grab one’s attention. Dr. Ian Payne’s topic at chapel was entitled, “Leaders That Look Like Losers.” He then proceeded to show us several sections of the Bangalore Times and the frequency of photos of Shah Rukh Khan. Sometimes called "King Khan," SRK is the hottest film star in Bollywood. In today’s paper SRK is pictured in an expensive suit, casual wear and even shirtless to show off his six-pack abs for his latest movie. SRK is the image of success, cool, the example of what every man should be and every woman desires. And so it is with today’s image of success. Silk ties, sleek body, cool cars and flashy accessories are the symbolic indicators of one who is ahead of the pack. Winners are leaders.


Losers are, well, losers. Losers are those who go to the seminars of winners, buy the books written by leaders and try the best they can to look like success, even if they are not. The reason diet, leadership, investment, management and success books sell well is because of the vast population of losers wanting to be winners. To be a winner one must feel, act, imitate and smell like it. Leadership is having followers and if you don’t have anyone following you then you’re not leading, you’re just taking a walk…or at least that’s what we are told.

And then along comes someone like Micaiah who spent most of his life in prison. He could have been known as a leader; after all, he often spoke before the King (Ahab). His peers certainly tapped into the keys to success and they were paid high dollar for their consulting work. But Micaiah just couldn’t quite turn the corner of success and his lodging was always a cell instead of a suite.

And what shall we say about a cobbler named Carey, an obscure vinedresser named Amos, a army chaplain known as Chambers or, a jungle pilot with a name of Saint?
By any standard they none of these guys were seen, while alive, as winners. (William) Carey’s wife went mad, Amos was a dirt farmer, (Oswald) Chambers died of appendicitis in North Africa and (Nate) Saint was speared to death on a sand dune in jungles of Ecuador.

While no one is suggesting that being lazy, unkept, unfit, inefficient is a model to follow; it’s worth mentioning, again, that the essence of a winner in this world seldom follows God’s definition of a leader. The televangelist with his white suit and shiny buttons; the multiplex compound of the mega-church with a jumbo screen to make sure every member is up close and personal to those on stage; the worldwide ministry that spans the globe in thirty different languages may have their place in the Kingdom, or it may be an allusion of success.


Two thousand years ago no doubt the crowd on a barren hill just shook their heads and thought, “What a loser.” His following scattered, their expectations of what He would accomplish was shattered that day they crucified Him on a cross. But they got it wrong two millenniums ago and people are still getting it wrong today. Sometimes the best leaders look like losers.

Micro-Business Seminars - Are They Effective?

Few weeks back I received a note from a church in America asking how the members of their congregation might become more involved in ministry overseas? One area he suggested was that business leaders come over to do micro-enterprise seminars. Following up on that thought I sent a post to a network of business professionals with this question.

Do you think that the average businessman from the West can effectively communicate micro-business startups? Yes or No. Why?

I received this response from a financial advisor:

“No! I don't think a western business person is a good teacher.

I have been a business consultant in Indonesia and have learned the severe limitations of advising small businesses. The smaller the business the more difficult it is to advise because the culture affects small businesses the most. Micro business are generally out of the understanding of a western business person.”

This businessman went on to say that few people from the West understand the obstacles of business in developing countries that are corrupt or play by different ethical rules. With laws that are slanted against certain castes or tribes, it is difficult for some small business projects to get a license or permit. The whole matter of paying a bribe to set up a business is also an issue that most westerner’s are not equipped to address.

Another obstacle that makes it difficult for western businessmen teaching in developing countries is the use of inappropriate business models. Loans, advertisement, distribution, inventory, profit margin, are all good terms but usually are either unrealistic or unheard of in countries where business is a means of putting daily food on the table. Using models that are sustained by outside capital has no relevance within a culture where risk is not even an option.

The challenge in working cross-culturally is the same regardless of the subject. Whether it finance or evangelism, the key is to first understand the context. Before a short-term team from the states launches out on doing business as missions, perhaps they should learn the context of the host culture to insure that they know the questions before giving the answers.

Holistic Partnership

I agree with the premise that to have a good working partnership, “Their goals and yours must be the same.” Too many times franchisers try to sell their agenda to others and hope it becomes a partnership. As a facilitator, I try to find people who have similar vision and see how I might fit into our compatible aspirations.

For the past four years I have been working with some really wonderful people who share a similar goal as mine – taking the Gospel to those who have never heard (Rom. 15:20). I realize that is a generic and sweeping vision, but you’d surprised how few programs there are in the world that focuses primarily on the two billion people who have never heard the name of Christ.

I met Dr. Vijayam three years ago. I was told he had a training program that focused on making the Gospel available to the 4000 unreached people groups of India. TENT (www.tentindia.org) philosophy is interesting because they approach ministry that is truly holistic. Concentrated primarily on the spiritual needs of people, they also are very much concerned with the physical needs of a country where 80 percent of the population (of over 1 billion) live on less than $2 a day. TENT, therefore, provides training for bi-vocational Christian workers and equips them with the tools necessary to establish micro-business enterprises and life skills in agriculture, animal husbandry and appropriate technology. My part in this training is teaching how to communicate the message of Christ in a cross-cultural setting.


I have worked with many national leaders and programs over the past thirty years and think I can discern between hype and legitimacy. What impresses me most about TENT is the integrity and spiritual commitment of everyone involved in this ministry. TENT does not create programs to attract outside funding, but rather create programs that help people and furthers the mandate of the Great Commission. Funding, though important and vital, is secondary, which is rare in today’s market driven church.

I believe TENT has a lot more to teach me in the field of holistic ministry. Next year I am planning on visiting some of the field works where TENT has established micro-financing projects. If you would like to join me in a learning about micro-business, finance and holistic ministry partnership, let me know.

Don't Be A Clown

Everybody’s a comic. Or at least they think they are. That’s how I feel when I’m in a group setting with people I don’t know. One-liners, wisecracks and silly puns are often the means of communication at conferences, small dinner gatherings and, sadly, when talking to people of a different cultures.

It was a Fourth of July gathering several years ago in Kenya, hosted by the American Embassy, that I heard this remarkable exchange. Bob, whose ministry was among the Asian community in Nairobi, was talking to a young lady from Bombay.

“Have you had one of these hot dogs yet, Shilpa?”

“I’m sorry, no, I haven’t” she replied politely, “I’m vegetarian.”

“We’re going to have to get you saved,” Bob retorted, “so you can enjoy meat.”

My jaw dropped in horror! I can’t think of anything more insulting than Bob’s insensitive remark to his Hindu friend. But if you ask Bob about his comment, who should have known better, he no doubt would have dismissed his ignorance by saying, “Oh, lighten up. I was just a joke.”

Americans are generally friendly outgoing people. I think they sometimes compensate for not knowing how to interact with people of different cultures by trying to be humorous. The fact is, joking is as culturally driven as eating or the clothes people wear. Being an American from the southern part of the U.S., I sometimes cringe when I encounter my fellow southerners who visit overseas. With their bubbly, gregarious, slap-on-the-back personalities they have no clue that “friendly” can be interpreted as insulting and even sexually suggestive. Consider this story from George working as a teacher in Thailand.

“A student handed me a letter and bowed politely. The writing was in Thai, which I had not yet learned to read. I looked up and jokingly asked if it were a love letter? The young man's face blushed visibly. As the translation ricocheted around, the class began to laugh. The letter invited me to a reception the class had planned in my honor. The young man did not make eye contact with me for weeks. Joking in class is a risky business.”

My advice to people when they enter a new culture is they act with dignity and respect. Be friendly without being silly. You’re not there to entertain people, so leave your jokes at home and don’t try to be a comic.

The Challenge for the Non-Residential Missionary

When I determined, back in the late ‘80’s, that as a resident missionary (RM) I had accomplished much of what I set out to do (plant churches, disciple believers and establish a training institution), I began praying and thinking about what my future role would be in missions? In seeking the advice of the Missions Director of my organization on possible mission opportunities he was of absolutely no help. His advice to me was, “Well, I guess you can come back to the states and be a pastor of a church.”

Number one, I had been a pastor in the U.S. prior to becoming a RM and found that pastoring was not where I was gifted. Number two, I found my niche as a cross-cultural worker and once a person experiences fulfillment and job satisfaction they are not looking to settle for something less. Being a pastor in the U.S. meant, in my mind, going back serving in a community where if half the churches in that city died tomorrow God would still have an adequate witness. I had embraced the vision of taking the Gospel where Christ had not already been named lest I build on another man’s foundation (Rom. 15:20). Returning to the states to pastor was not an option.

One of the reasons some RM’s do indeed opt to return to do ministry in the states is that financially it is their only recourse. (I know some are prone to say they could return and get a “real” job in the “real” world. Thus are the thoughts of people who do not value vocational ministers of any kind). In hindsight I could have served cross-culturally working among the many people groups living in the U.S., or served as a missions pastor in an established congregation. As it turned out, I was given opportunity to train potential RM’s, which over the years, has evolved into my present role as a NRM. Most of my ministry today is teaching and training national church planters and instilling in them the vision of taking the message of Christ cross-culturally in their own country and region.

Though there will always be a need for the RM, some will never leave the field even if their presence is no longer needed. New missionaries going out today are compelled to be RM’s because of one crucial reason…FINANCES. In the mind of the American Christian they still believe that missionary work is only valid if the person lives overseas. Even working among people groups in the U.S. is not considered real missions. If a person is physically sitting in a mud hut along with the natives he or she is deemed an authentic missionary. If, however, a NRM, who at one time sat in those mud huts but now serves as a consultant and teacher to the leaders of the national church, they are not perceived as a legitimate missions project. Funding is best maintained if they remain on the field as RM’s even if they are ineffective or not needed.

Those who claim the role of a NRM are few. Not everyone who takes a short-term trip overseas should assume the title of a NRM. Those who have embraced the work of NRM’s are most often missiologists as well as scholars who know the context of the people with experience and a certain expertise born out of their time as RM’s. NRM’s are neither franchisers nor chief’s…they are facilitators in the truest since of the word.

Case For Non-Residential Missionary (NRM)

Several years ago I read a book entitled “The Non-Residential Missionary.” The authors were making a case for the shift in the role of North Americans in global ministries from that of resident aliens, i.e., expatriates residing in a country, to cross-cultural experts working overseas not residing in those countries. The trend of missions today bears out that the authors were probably ahead of their time. Even though many churches or mission agencies today don't buy into the NRM philosophy, it is a natural trend that will be more of a reality in the years ahead.

WHAT IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL MISSIONARY?

A NRM is one who has certain unique characteristics and qualifications.

(1) They are former residents or have spent significant amount of time in a particular culture that now visit those countries frequently to minister. Due to their knowledge of the culture, their contribution in training, or advising the national church sets them apart for a unique role in cross-cultural work. I believe there is an important peculiarity for someone who takes on the role of a NRM. To be an effective advisor and teacher a person should posses a certain amount of insider knowledge. The understanding of culture requires that a person probably should know the language or, at least, have resided within the culture long enough to wrestle with the tensions of that culture.

I lived in Kenya for over ten years. I understand and speak Swahili. My exposure to other African countries, seven in all, gives me a certain level of expertise into the African culture. In addition, I have been teaching in India since 1992 and lived in the country for four years. Though I do not speak Hindi I have worked with Indian nationals long enough that I have more than a cursory understanding of the religious, political and economic dynamics of that country.

There are many people, like myself, who have spent years serving among a particular people group or culture that, for the lack of a better term, qualify them as experts in that culture. When they minister to these groups it is based on insider knowledge. I know of one brother who spent years in Lebanon before being forced to leave the country. Another colleague lived in Iran before the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini. For political reasons these men can no longer live in those countries, but as NRM’s when they visit or teach in the Middle East it is based on a thorough understanding of the Persian/Arabic mindset. Another friend, who is fluent in Russian and has lived in the former Soviet Union several years, travels as a NRM training church planters. All of these men are insiders into those cultures.

(2) A NRM functions as a facilitator alongside the national church. They moved out of being a resident missionary (RM) because they were either forced out or, more than likely, determined it was no longer necessary for them to remain on the field to help the national church. In my particular case, I left Kenya because that, in some ways, my presence retarded the national churches growth (I understand that is a debatable issue). I feel that today my NR status allows me to advise without dictating or managing local affairs. In the case of India, I lived in the country with the express goal of being a facilitator in training. Functionally I was a NRM even though I was a resident. Having served in that country for many years, though I in no way consider myself an expert in Indian culture, I have earned an intimate perspective into the culture with insights that allows me to present my teaching in a culturally relevant manner.

There will always be a need for RM’s and I am not suggesting that every RM should move from that role to that of a NRM. Increasingly, however, the role of NRM’s will be a part of the missiological landscape. As the national church continues to grow and takes ownership, the need for RM will continue to decline. The question is the church ready for the Non-Resident Missionary?

Unplugged

This past week I have been teaching in a remote area of the country. Though I have access to the Internet via a cell phone dial up, I don’t have ready access and what I do have is slow and unreliable. Being away from DSL in my home has been a great benefit. Though I have little knowledge of what is happening in the world I find my circumstances to be quite refreshing.

The first benefit of being “unplugged” is that I am not wasting time surfing the net. Television is a wonderful communication and entertainment tool, however, to sit before, what we use to call the “boob tube,” for hours is a time stealer. I’ve heard it said that it takes less mental energy to watch TV than when sleeping. I’m assuming it’s because in sleep our mind is still engaged in dreaming. The same can be said of sitting in front of a computer for hours checking mail, reading news and the weather. Helpful if you can discipline yourself, but unfortunately I am not as disciplined as I should be and waste an incredible amount of time clicking links. My oldest daughter, Becky, wrote the other day and lamented the time she spends at the computer and has asked her husband to hide their connecting cord, forcing her away from the worldwide web.

The second benefit of isolation is that I reading more and listening to messages I have downloaded on my computer. I intentionally did not bring DVD movies on this trip to force myself to seek other outlets of pastime activities. I am of the old school in Bible study and sill find the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee and his “Through The Bible Studies,” both inspiring and even amusing. Listening to a verse-by-verse study of the Scriptures has been much more rewarding than the dire news reported on CNN.

Third, without the distractions of 24/7 connection, I have been able to think, exercise, pray and write with more consistency. If I just write one page a day for a whole year I will have put down enough words to make a pretty decent book. There is no guarantee that what I’ve written will ever see the publishing light of day, but certainly I will have a better chance in making a book a reality than if I fritter away my writing time by checking the ten-day weather forecast in Summers, Arkansas.

Of course the greatest challenge is if I will remember the benefits of being unplugged when I get home. Perhaps, like my daughter, I will have to ask my wife to hide the DSL cord to make sure I remain unplugged.

Ownership Versus Autonomy

As I speak in churches around the US I encourage congregations to take ownership of their global outreach program. Historically the local church has been asked to fund missions but not be personally engaged in the strategy or direction of the mission focus. In the past several years some churches have taken up that challenge and have created mission policies that target a people groups or region and have set guidelines on what type of projects they will fund (nationals, church planting, training programs, etc.). I applaud these efforts as it propels sending congregations into a more active role in missions beyond just writing checks.

Like so many things, however, there is a balance as well as a limit on how much a local church should be involved in mission activity on the field. Some churches and mission committees are so involved they begin to dictate the ministry activity on the field. Nothing grates fielded people more than dictates from a mission board or a church on how they should do their job. Missionaries are placed in a precarious position when the home office or a sending church creates policies that are outside the missionary’s scope of ministry. Faith missionaries (those who are not salaried by a denomination and must raise their support) are forced to keep a low profile on some of their ministries approach as their activities may not be understood by people in the states. Likewise, issues that dominate the American Christian culture often becomes a unnecessary issue for missionaries on the field. Examples:

• There are some churches in the US who are still debating the proper translation to be used in ministry. Those who are strong King James Version have actually dropped missionaries on the field who use the NIV or some other version. Silly? Perhaps, but it’s an important issue for some sending congregations.

• In polygamous societies (Muslim, tribals) churches in the states have called on missionaries to renounce the practice in the church or they will lose support.

• Partnership for some congregations means allowing American congregations to visit the mission field allowing them to give seminars on marriage, church leadership or church planting. This, in spite of the fact, that the American teachers do not understand the cultural context of the field.

• In the past missionaries have been asked about the type of music they listen to, books they read and sign statements declaring they will not smoke, drink, play cards or watch movies.

As a missionary grows in their thinking they’re philosophy of mission may be to allow converts to remain “secret disciples;” may use native terms for God (Allah, Ram); express their form of worship in context (praying on Friday, audible praying with hands lifted); or place no restrictions on converts who hold on to cultural habits (drinking blood, chewing coca, or continue the practice of dowry or brideprice). For some sending congregations these practices are unacceptable behavior and therefore could be a cause for donors to suspend their funding.

So what should a missionary do? Most missionaries just keep a low profile and share as little as possible to people back home. That’s the safest way to deal with controversy, but it also keeps missionaries intellectually and spiritually stunted. Being quite can also lead to dishonesty if a missionary practices things he thinks the donor church won’t approve of, even though it may culturally acceptable and doesn’t violate biblical principles. I often receive notes from fielded people telling me they agree with some of my writings but would never say it publicly.

Sometimes missionaries will yield to the dictates of the sending church or agency. This is not always bad as I believe some people benefit from receiving direction from outside input. There are some people on the field who, frankly, are not as productive as they should be and who need some guidance. Sadly, however, some missionaries will yield to directives just to maintain their support. To give away autonomy just to preserve funding cheapens our profession and is a betrayal of conscience.

There is a fine balance that missionaries and donors must sustain. I welcome the opportunity to interact with donors about cross-cultural ministry. It gives me a chance to educate the sending church while at the same time give them a sense of ownership in our ministry. I cannot, however, satisfy everyone, so the best I can do is pray that God will bring people into my life who will keep me accountable without demanding I give away that which I believe is culturally, intellectually and spiritually correct for my ministry context.

Imported Leadership Training

As a faculty advisor for a local college here in India, one of my responsibilities is to read doctoral dissertations. I am presently working with three students and they are sending me their work, chapter-by-chapter, for my input and correction. Like all students, some are good; others need a lot of work. One of the discouraging things about some of their presentations is they “cut and paste” submissions, meaning they have taken an outline or a paper previously written in another class and try to submit it as a chapter for their thesis. It doesn’t work. A good thesis must be good writing; it can’t be read like last Sunday’s sermon outline.

Today’s mission Franchiser (yes, this is an extended thought from a previous post) is very much like my students papers, they are often warmed over cut and paste presentations people use in their home country. One of the most popular subjects for seminars is leadership development. Everyone has an idea on what makes a good leader and books on leadership are as plentiful as diet books. I quit buying such books a few years back because they are all basically the same. In my database I typed in the word leadership and came up with:

Principle Centered Leadership
Biblical Leadership
Leadership as Art
Effective Leadership
Servant Leadership
Nigerian Leadership
Roving Leadership
Leadership Control
Matriarchal Leadership

And the list goes on. I won’t even begin to share with you the list for words like, “leader” “manger” or “follower” in my data files.

So the Franchiser wants to visit the foreign field and do a seminar on leadership, as though this is a new concept. Perhaps it is for many. But in the end it will be a cut and paste presentation, created in his cultural context with the expectations that it will translate transculturally. The reality is, it won’t. Leadership principles, though similar, are different in every cultural context. Like my students, if the Franchiser can demonstrate how to bridge the gap between the general concepts to fit within the cultural context they will have made a great contribution. But to do that, they will have to understand the context – they will have to know the questions before they give the answers. Pasting concepts doesn’t often stick.

Writers Write Till They Die

A colleague from China wrote recently asking me about writing…how to get started, tips on getting published, etc. I answered that the main thing about writers is they write. They write when they are on the train, waiting in government offices, even while walking (or at least I do, in my head).

It’s intriguing to me what people write about and even more surprising what people read. On our bookshelf are titles such as The Kalahari Typing School For Boys, One Night At A Call Center, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, and Yoga School Dropout. Biographies, Bible commentaries, political satire, travel and business books are all a part of our eclectic reading collection. So, when people ask me what to write about my standard answer is, “Whatever interests you.”

Publishing what you write takes a bit more focus. I started writing for our denominational bi-monthly publication many years ago. Emboldened by their acceptance I began submitting articles to Leadership, Christianity Today, Evangelical Missions Quarterly and a host of smaller known magazines. I published my own newsletter for years and a guy I never heard of wrote me the other day saying he always enjoyed those mimeographed mail-outs. Today, blogging is a way for me to get in my writing fix a couple of times a week and helps me quantify my thoughts as well as sharpen my craft. The main thing is…writers write.

Writing is a solitary activity, sometimes lonely. Yet, while alone with ones thoughts, it’s a chance to communicate with others, whether they read what you’ve labored over or not. Writers are people of process and the only instant gratification a writer receives is a well-turned phrase, a word that fits and making a blank sheet of paper (or computer screen) come alive with an intriguing thought or story.

Most of all, good writing is work. Writing is laborious, tedious and tiring. Nothing is more daunting than looking at an empty screen trying to express through words something meaningful. I’ve typed thousands of words no one will ever read; hundreds of paragraphs filed in the abyss of cyber hell because the thoughts and meaning never came together to make any sense.

Good prose, for me, must pass the “so what” test. In the Bible a passage may begin with “Therefore…” and I was taught to ask “what’s it there for?” (meaning, you need to read the verse above to understand what the "Therefore" is there for). If what I read, or write, has no entertainment or educational value and I come to the end saying "so what?" then it has been a waste of time.

Write then. Write about your adventures and lessons of life. Put your thoughts in a journal for your grandkids; send it to your friends or your mom (who will always cherish your scribbles). Master the craft and submit it to a magazine. Or, when everything else fails, get a blog site and let the “hits” determine if anyone is interested in your words. Above all, remember, writers write until they drop. Write until they pull your cold dead fingers from the keyboard.

How Cultures Think

A thorough understanding of how cultures think cannot be accomplished through a series of blog posts. In the past couple of offerings I have tried to identify the difference between Franchisers and Facilitators from a purely North American position and their role in missions. The broader discussion of how cultures work, however, is more complex.

I was introduced to anthropologist May Douglas and her concept of cultural theory in 1987. My students will either be encouraged or distressed that I am still using the grid and group model in analyzing culture. However, if a person can grasp this model it will help them understand how different cultures function. The issues of leadership, how cultures make decisions and how people view property are all tied to how cultures think.

In looking at the categories above one can easily identify Americans as Individualists or Franchisers. Bureaucrats, which is known as the establishment or the street term, The Man, are in every culture, but they are strong in places like Russia and East Europe. Hierarchy, where there is a strong bond as a group but also have layered roles is found in countries like China or India. Egalitarians, or Facilitators are most often found in rural communities but also formed as interest groups (MADD, PETA, MOPS, Young Republicans, etc.). The key in understanding grid and group is not in just knowing the categories but connecting the dots on why it’s important. Two brief examples.

LEADERSHIP - Americans love to talk about leadership and every year they travel throughout the world giving seminars on how to be a (servant, biblical, purpose driven) leader. Being from a society of Franchisers, Americans assume that leadership hold universal characteristics that transcends cultural boundaries. There is nothing wrong with teaching principles of leadership, but in countries that sees value in group solidarity, where decisions are not the sole property of the man/woman at the top, those leadership principles are of limited use. In high group cultures it's equally important to understand the dynamics of consensus in decision-making as is the character of a leader.

PARTNERSHIP - As noted in an earlier post, today’s trend is for the NAC to enter into partnership with national churches. Tensions often surface when the Franchisers try to impose their programs on people who are Bureaucratic, Egalitarian or Hierarchy. Franchisers value autonomy, risk taking, unilateral decision-making and innovation. Many cultures do not esteem these characteristics and, in fact, often see these actions as self-serving and selfish.

As Bob Buford writes in Half Time, “You can choose the game, but you can’t choose the rules.” To play the game properly in a cross-cultural context the most important ingredient is to learn the rules in which they play the game of life.