Michael Jackson and Anthropolatry

“Mobs torched buses and cars…stoned police on the streets ahead of the funeral. At least two people were killed before his burial. One was a man who was shot by police after their bus came under attack as people raged about not having a last opportunity to see [his body]...Dozens of mourners and police were hurt.”

No, this is not a headline of a Michael Jackson funeral service, as I write this blog one day before his memorial service. That was a news story about an Indian film star by the name of Rajkumar three years ago. This past week, hearing about MJ’s death and the 24 hour non-stop news obsession about his life and death and the live broadcast of his memorial tomorrow, my mind has turned to that day in Bangalore and Rajkumar’s funeral. I can’t help but wonder what will be the headlines after MJ’s memorial extravaganza?

As an anthropologist I am always intrigued with human values and, in this case, the worship or veneration of another human being. In India, where almost anything and anybody could be a god, people will commit suicide because of the loss of a god-like figure. Some, who perceive their celebrity “idols” as endowed with some type of divine gift, often confuse talent with anointing.

Anthropolatry is as old as humanity itself. The Pharaohs of Egypt, a mystic named Siddhartha Gautama, who became known as the “enlightened one,” i.e. Buddha, a cult figure named Jim Jones or David Koresh, or a healer called Sai Baba, people, for one reason or another, want to touch divinity. Groups still visit Graceland just to be near the spirit of the another “king,” one named Elvis.

Why are people drawn to other flesh for veneration? Perhaps because we have a desire to see our gods, not just have faith in them. Though we idolize our hero’s we certainly don’t want to emulate their lifestyle. Neither the King of Rock or Pop were great father figures. Mohammed, God’s last great prophet, according to Muslims, had as many as 20 wives and didn’t exactly live a life of peace. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, was married three times, was abusive and convicted of fraud.

So why do humans become devout followers of other humans? No doubt it is because we see in others traits we wish we had or at least admire. Charisma, self-confidence, beauty, intelligence, wisdom, talent or spirituality, humanity is always in search for that which we cannot find in ourselves but hope for in others. When someone becomes “bigger than life,” it doesn’t seem to matter that they are flawed mortals; their star power is a greater force than the reality of who they are as persons. Princess Diana’s funeral/post-funeral coverage overshadows the death of a little nun in India called Mother Teresa. There is a footnote on Friday November 22, 1963. Besides the assassination of JFK, a man named C.S. Lewis dies that morning of a heart attack, one week before his 65th birthday.

Most of MJ’s fans mourn his passing for his musical talent. For others, their grief will be inconsolable as though one of heaven’s deities has been taken away from us, forcing them to live with the void of his presence.

Ethnocentrism versus National Pride

4th of July is a big day for Americans. Not only is it a summertime holiday, it remains a day of pride for our country as we celebrate the birth of our nation. We remain proud of who we are as Americans and the things accomplished by this great nation we call home.

In my classes I spend a good amount of time on the subject on the curse of ethnocentrism in working with people of other cultures. Ethnocentrism is the attitude that one’s own culture is the best while looking down on other people in the process. The attitude that others are dirty, lazy, or stupid, has no place in the life of a Christian, yet it often creeps into our mind-set, especially during times of culture stress. Ethnocentrism has been around since the beginning of time and is a universal behavior with every people group I have worked with. I remind my students that, while it is okay to have national pride, when one begins to evaluate others by their own cultural standard, pride becomes destructive and counter-productive in sharing the Gospel.

In the late ‘70’s I was living in Kenya and being an American was not popular. We had just pulled out of Vietnam, Iran was in revolution, inflation was high, there were long lines for gasoline and we were in the grips of the Cold War. Our president at the time was on an apology tour reinforcing the feeling that everything American was evil and immoral. Thirty years later, history seems to be repeating itself. The question becomes, for me, is it possible to be proud of one’s country without being ethocentristic; can one humbly acknowledge our weaknesses without tearing down who we are as a people?

My favorite word, BALANCE, comes into play here. Recognize, first, that all cultures have their flaws. It’s as easy for me to look at what’s wrong with America as it is for me to see the imperfections of other cultures. Part of the work of Christ is that people and cultures be transformed into His image. It is not a matter of who is better but rather how the Gospel can make us better in our values, behavior and love for others. One does not need to go through a campaign or a forgiveness tour to acknowledge that indeed we, and all cultures, are sinners. I reject, however, the attitude that we can justify our miserable state by merely saying, “That’s just who we are, deal with it.” My culture, and the culture of those reading this post, must see our prison of disobedience through the eyes of our Creator. It’s indefensible to accept our moral failings, corporately as well as individually.

On the other hand, God, in His infinite wisdom, created cultures. It is through culture that He has used the best and worst of us to reveal Himself. Though I do not believe God favors America over other cultures, our history of faith, our Church, the core value that “all men are created equal,” has been used by God to reveal Himself to countless millions around the world. Without being ethnocentistic I can humbly be proud to be an American. That’s not a contradiction of terms…it is a balance approach that is always in tension, always something to work through.

Using Critical Tension for Outreach

This past week I have been reading term papers from students of my doctoral class in Bangalore. I always enjoy reading these papers as it gives me insight on culture and, of course, allows me the opportunity to learn about the different ministries my students are involved with.

Many of the project papers are well researched as I push students to study their people groups in the context of their history, family, socio-economics, networks and religion. A typical paper gives me a lot of “what people are like,” but many times does not tell me “why they do what they do.” Rare is the paper that actually creates a new strategy on how to reach people with the Gospel beyond, what I call, standard program methods (programs that are meant to attract people through film, picnics, seminars, etc.). The church seems to be stuck in the attractional model of ministry rather than using the findings of their research to creatively looking for ways to meet the needs of the people they are working with.

In their research students also do a good job in identifying critical tensions within culture, i.e., alcoholism, poverty, depression, loneliness, materialism, interpersonal problems or family tension with husband/wife, children/parents. However, rather than working with these critical tensions that student/church/church worker can use as a means to develop relationships, they usually ignore them completely and revert back to standard ministry programs.

Many years ago I met a guy in Cleveland who has a campus ministry at a local university. Unlike the big organizational campus ministries, his is kind of a “mom-and-pop” ministry that he and his wife started where they actually interact on a personal level with foreign students, primarily, though not exclusively, with Chinese students studying in the U.S. What Tom has done is not just identifying the critical tension of people who live in a strange land, but seeks ways to befriend those who are lonely, displaced and need a helping hand. Yes, they do have standard method programs like pizza parties and movie nights, but these programs are a part of the relationship building process, not their main outreach. Tom and his wife live in Chinatown, they know the culture, the on-going struggles of family tensions, the feelings of isolation and the barriers of language. Through personal involvement, their ministry deals with critical tension as a bridge to build relationships and, ultimately, sharing the love of Christ.

The key to any effective ministry is not just knowing ABOUT people, but how to apply that knowledge to meet their needs. Christ is often revealed through critical tension. We are not called to solve the tensions but allowing those tensions to reveal the One who has answers to all the questions of humanity.

South of Dafur

Learn about training Kenyan missionaries serving in Sudan. CLICK HERE

Hierarchy of Trust

Last week one of the regular readers of this blog asked me about working with, in her words, a trustless culture. She went on to describe how that people in which she works does not trust anyone. From a Christian perspective, she argued, it is very difficult to work with such a culture as one of the foundations of Christianity is trust and she wanted to know, from an anthropological point of view, how to deal with a non-trust society.

My first thought is a class of deaf missionaries I worked with several years ago. In learning about their culture I was introduced to a “hierarchy of trust.” Without going into detail, their levels of trust is (1) other people born deaf, (2) CODA’s – children of deaf adults, (3) hearing who learned sign language and (4) hearing. Likewise, in the culture where she works there is a hierarchy of trust; starting with the family, then extended family, caste, others. All cultures have a hierarchy of trust, it’s just manifested in different forms. The key to building trust is to understand the trust structure.

My second thought is from Marvin Mayers (Christianity Confronts Culture) who was the dean of missions when I was at Biola University. He had an axiom he called the PQT, which stands for Prior Question of Trust. The PQT states, “Is what I am saying or doing BUILDING or UNDERMING trust?” Great question and one I tell my students often. Learn the questions of culture and one that is vital is the PQT.

My last thought is that trust and reciprocity are very similar. When dealing with economics and culture I use the levels of reciprocity: general reciprocity, equal and negative reciprocity, as an example of how people interact through exchange. General is favor or money returned about the same level, but not calculated. Some societies see favor as a means of exact exchange and calculate every favor, loan or act of service precisely. Negative reciprocity is trying to get something for nothing, which many of my African friends practice. Perhaps this would be true in the hierarchy of trust as well?

Sherwood Lingenfelter, in his new book, LEADING Cross-Culturally: Covenant Relationship for Effective Christian Leadership, he reminds us who are in charge of leadership training that trust is the cornerstone of building trust, not the agenda.

“Instead of giving first priority to attaining vision, meeting goals, and productivity, they must rather give highest priority to the formation of a community of trust and then to doing the hard ‘body work” of creating both community and trust.”

Keys to Communication - Lessons from James Carter

“Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?” LAPD James Carter yells at Inspector Lee in the movie Rush Hour. Of course Lee (Jackie Chan) understood Carter (Chris Tucker), but he played coy that he didn’t understand English, as he was amused with Carter’s antics. “Why is this guy screaming at me” he must have wondered? “I’m not deaf.”



James Carter, like so many people, are clueless as to how to communicate effectively and especially when communicating cross-culturally. Some people think if they raise the volume of their voice somehow people will understand!

“Oh, now, I get,” they listener is expected to reply, “Thanks for yelling at me, things are so much clearer now!”

Communication are not mere words, they are symbols of meaning. But it helps to know the right words within context. In Swahili, “nyanya” can refer to either grandmother or tomato. If you said to someone their “nyanya” looks plump and delicious, you’d better be looking at their garden!

Speaking of tomatoes, a friend of mine on Facebook asked how our garden was doing (my wife planted 46 tomato plants) and if we had tomatoes coming out the “wazoo.” A student in India asked me the meaning of “wazoo.” I had to transliterate its meaning rather than give the literal translation.

Want to communicate cross-culturally? Make sure you know the meaning of both your words as well as the words of others.

When The World Moves In Next Door

Last Sunday I taught the first of a four-part series on cross-cultural missions at the Temple Baptist Church in Springdale, Arkansas. I am particularly pleased with this opportunity as, for once, I will be able to speak and explain missions in a broader framework than what is the norm. Most of the time when I am asked to speak in churches it’s usually just for a Sunday morning, a half-hour talk, perhaps one hour if I am speaking to the early morning Bible class. In that limited space of time there is not much one can do in terms of information and the best I can do is to introduce who I am, where I work and a cursory description of what I do. Most of the time people expect inspiration from the missionary speaker, not education. However, with a fifty-minute class for four consecutive Sundays at least people will have a better understanding of the dynamics of cross-cultural communication and how cultural anthropology can be a tool for ministry.

The key to my teaching, and indeed all-good teaching, is relevance for the audience. Springdale is a city of less than 70,000 people. Thirty years ago it was a farming community made up of White Anglo Saxons. Today the Hispanic population is over 20% (locals are convinced they are much more), a large immigrant population from the Marshall Islands as well as people from India, Thailand and other parts of the world. For some locals they see the change in their little town as a threat to their way of life. Understandable. For many more, they accept the reality of change but wonder what they, individually as well as a corporate body of believers, should do about this shift toward ethnic diversity. My illustrations on working with the tribal people of Kenya or pastors in Ukraine aren’t worth the effort for them to sit and listen to a missionary four straight Sundays. However, if I can help them connect the dots on how they can develop friendships with “foreigners” (a term I loathe but referred to when every time I leave the U.S.) and how they can be a bridge in communicating the Gospel through these friendships, it will be time well spent. If I can help some just get over the animosity they feel for those who are now a part of their community I will feel I’ve made a huge contribution in my service to the church.

My only regret is that this format of information is not used more in local churches - not just for the American church, but for every congregation throughout God’s created globe.

Casting The Vision For Ukraine Missions

Read our latest newsletter update. Click HERE

Constant Change, Always The Same

This week I am in Ukraine teaching cross-cultural communication to pastors and church leaders with Craig Ludick and Christian Leadership Development International (CLDI.org). Since my initial visit to Riga, Latvia in 1991 I have visited several former Soviet Union countries including an eight-week field course I conducted in Moscow in 1994. In some ways it doesn’t seem possible that eighteen years have passed since I looked over the polluted beaches of the Baltic. In other ways, it seems like another lifetime ago.

No matter how much things change over time, it’s equally amazing to me to observe what hasn’t changed in this part of the world. Polyester tracksuits are still very popular for everyday wear for both men and women. Street vendors, selling everything from vegetables to DVD’s to Vodka, are still a common sight, though now outside major supermarkets. Young slender women in tight mini-skirts and high heels walking on the same streets as old fat babushka’s (grandmothers) wearing flats, long black skirts carrying shopping bags. The tall massive apartment complexes, where most people live, still speak of a bleak existence.

As I take my afternoon walks in Kiev, I’m surprised by the most common practices here; behavior that would be unheard of in my country of America and certainly in India, where I spend a great deal of time. Though I didn’t actually take a survey, it seems that three out every five men I passed on the street were carrying a bottle of beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Beer carrying women bottles was probably one out of five. Apparently drinking beer in Ukraine is a bit like drinking Coke in America - it’s for refreshment, a mere matter of preference and taste. One person told me that beer is not considered drinking alcohol. People who “drink” are those who consume vodka.

In a country where there is high unemployment, a spirit of fatalism, which is a hangover of Soviet Communism and the disillusionment of failed Western capitalism, leaves a culture with little hope. Premarital sex, abortion as a form of birth control and alcoholism is all a by-product of failed human systems. The church in Ukraine, like the church in many parts of the world, struggles for legitimacy in a culture of acedia. The church, for the most part, is irrelevant because their message is not pertinent to a population that is more interested in things they will never have (nice home, car, clothes) rather than the state of their soul existence today. The church compounds their irrelevance, in my opinion, through their own culture of restraint and legalism, which creates barriers for those outside the faith in having an opportunity to hear about the marvelous love of Christ. It is a constant tension among the church leadership…how to create a climate of holiness and spiritual growth, while at the same time be a body of believers that, like Jesus, are a friend of sinners?

Culture, the church, behavior, fatalism, hope, all is a part of the human experience. Dynamic in its present form, yet unchanging in its historical context. No matter how much things change it seems to remain the same.

Mission Trends: People Group Movements

A friend recently asked if I would be interested in teaching cross-cultural studies for their organization. He told me that they were going through a strategic shift in their outreach…moving away from “church planting” to “establishing people group movements.”

A few weeks later I heard of a missionary in Russia who has been very successful in doing Business As Mission (BAM) but now was being forced out by his sending agency as they wanted all of their people to focus on establishing people group movements (let’s call it PGM strategy). What is interesting is a few years earlier this organization was at the forefront of BAM strategy.

My reaction to PGM is twofold. First, is the inconsistency of mission strategy. Like the proverbial BB in a barrel, it seems that the mission community is forever bouncing around a new trend and declaring it THE strategy in reaching the world with the Gospel. For years the strategy of Storying (chronologically telling the “story” from Creation to the Cross) was presented as the best way to reach the world with message of Christ. Recently BAM made it’s way to the forefront of mission strategy as a way to enter into closed access countries. In between all these strategies there has been an emphasis on the 10/40 window, power-encounter methods, saturation church planting philosophy and adopting people groups. The latest trend is now Short-Cycle Church planting and PGM, but given the track record of trends one wonders how long these will last until something new and more promising comes to the forefront. Each of these trends has been helpful, in broad terms, within missiological thinking, but the question for me is are we chasing trends to meet a need or merely changing tactics in search of an effective strategy? I suggest, for many, we are merely chasing the wind.

Secondly, I have an adverse reaction to the notion that man can create a PGM. Some things are clearly a work of the Holy Spirit. To assume that through a strategy people will come to Christ in mass is a bit arrogant. (And now I revert to my same old anthropological song and dance). The way most people come to accept salvation through Christ is through building a relationship; the best way to build a relationship is knowing the culture of people and building a level of trust.

From an anthropological perspective, PGM usually happen in societies and cultures that are already group focused and generally, though not exclusively, through the network of family (caste or clan). Societies that are highly individualistic may get caught up in a movement but only as it meets the needs of that individual, not because of conformity to a group. Either way, PGM is a God thing and cannot be a strategy of mission, though understanding the dynamics of culture can at least help one understand how best to approach individuals as well as groups.

Annoying Airline Travelers

Some people get giddy when they begin travel…I get nauseous. Besides the long security lines, sitting in one seat for 14 hours plus the additional hours that must be endured for connecting flights, it’s those who are giddy ones that make me wonder why oh why I don’t get a job that requires nothing of me but a 10 minute drive to work, in the privacy of my own domain… my chariot, my own first class cabin.

On this last from Delhi to Newark, here are some of things that made me grab from the anti-acid tablets.

- "Do you have a pen I could borrow” the twenty-something Brit asked me as I filling out my immigration form? “Yes,” I replied, “but I’m using it right now.” How is that a person can afford to fly around the world but somehow doesn’t carry a 25 cent pen? To those who are flying internationally, you will have to fill out some forms so, for your sake and for the sake of those who are less charitable than me, invest in a Bic.

- “Now boarding people with small children and those who may need additional asstitance in boarding the plane.” That’s when there is a train of little old women all lined up in their wheel chairs. Poor things, too feeble to walk, UNTIL it’s time to disembark. It’s a miracle! Suddenly they jump up and squirm their way to the front. I think there should be roped off section for those who are too weak to walk. Give them their respect, but make sure they are as feeble getting off the plane as they are getting on.

- So we are getting off the plane and the guy in front of me stops on the jet-way to put his book in his bag. There’s not enough room to go around him, so I, and the herd behind me, must wait for him to do organize his suitcase. The definition of bad manners is stopping in front of people who can’t get around you. Some suggestions: (a) put the book in the bag before you get out of the plane, (b) wait until you are in the main hall, get OFF TO THE SIDE and then pack your bag.

- It’s true, you are hundreds of miles away from your friend, but yelling into the cell phone will not make them hear you any better. The technology is such that you can talk in a low voice and they should hear you. If they can’t it’s because you have a poor reception, yelling will not give you more bars! Get off the plane, away from the other 200 people who don’t give a fig about what an awesome time you had on your vacation; GET OFF TO THE SIDE, along with the guy who’s packing his bags, and yell all you want.

- Speaking of yelling, why is it that travelers in groups feel compelled to yell across the plane to their friends? This is not a frat party, it’s public transportation where each passenger is entitled to their own form or entertainment and privacy. You may the coolest dude on campus but on the plane you are just an annoying not-yet-an-adult who will never make much money on Comedy Central.

- God deliver me from the person sitting next to me who feels obligated to tell me their life story; their kids, their jobs, their recent surgery and all they saw in the 10 days they were in India. I lived there so I don’t need to be reminded of how good the food is, the poverty or about the cool elephant ride they had in Jaipur. After 14 hours I know more about these people than my own family members and what’s really amazing…they never even ask me MY name!

- Why is that everyone wants to be a comedian? What’s worse are Americans who joke with foreigners. The little Indian man smiles back and in his head he says, “I don’t understand what this white person is saying. He’s smiling, so I must smile back.” “Hey pal,” the happy Texan asks “What does a Hindu wish someone on their birthday? …. May you have many happy returns…get it!” Just for the record cowboy, they’re not smiling because they think you're funny but because they think you're weird.

- I know that being an airline stewardess is a tough job, but there is no excuse for grumpy airline personnel. Listen lady, I’m not the one who keeps ringing the call button. I am not responsible for the mess in the toilet. It wasn’t me who has the crying baby and I refuse to confess to farting in my seat. If you want to be the terrible witch (notice the “w” instead of the “b”) on flight CO 83, that’s your problem. For those who just want to get home, try to focus your bad attitude to those who made your day miserable and smile at the rest of us who have tried to make your job worth your check.

This is just a partial list of traveling annoyances. Do you have any to share?

Doctoral Student's Study "How Cultures Work."

How Cultures Work: A Roadmap for Intercultural Understanding in the Workplace, is the title of my article in the January issue of Evangelical Missionary Quarterly. Using the principles of that article I taught the DMin. students in Bangalore this past week.

Each student has an interesting story.

FRONT ROW, LEFT TO RIGHT – Yuni is a Baptist pastor in New Delhi. Mohan, is from Sri Lanka and married to a nurse from Singapore. Miss Khetoli works with the Nagaland Police Baptist Churches Assoc. Ebenzer belongs to an organization called Peace on Earth Ministries, which helps Muslim background believers reach other Muslims for Christ.

BACK ROW, LET TO RIGHT - Sunil is a Methodist pastor in Goa, reaching out to urban Hindu intellectuals. Rajan for the past 25 years has worked with the Friends Missionary Prayer Band of India, which is 50 years old, has 903 missionaries. Charles is a leader with E3Ministries, which is the creator of the “Evangel Cube.”

I count it a privilege to teach and influence others for the cross-cultural work. At the end of five weeks I am of course tired and ready to get back home. But it won’t be long after I am in the U.S. I will want to get on the road again. Such is the life of a non-resident missionary.

Famous For God

In Timothy Keller’s book, The Prodigal God, he gives insight to one of the most familiar parables found in the Bible. The story is about two sons: the younger who wasted his inheritance through debauchery and the elder who hated his father because he showed grace to his brother Luke 15:11-32. Most of what Keller discusses in the book is the elder brother who Jesus draws a parallel to the religious Pharisees which criticized the carpenter from Nazareth for his association with sinners (tax collectors, sick people, even prostitutes).

The elder son in this story is the “faithful” one. He never left home, worked diligently, and certainly didn’t waste his life foolishly on wine, women and song, as did his younger brother. He is incensed that his father would not only receive back into the home this prodigal sibling but that he would do so lavishly with great fanfare and rejoicing. Keller goes to the heart of the matter by stating that the eldest son did not stay nor serve his father out of love but because of duty and self-interest. Like the righteous religious crowd listening to the parable, the Pharisees expected to gain heaven because of their following the rules, of the Mosaic Law. Their open display of piety (fasting, praying on the street corner), they believed entitled them greater standing before God than the sinners they disdained.

Living a righteous life is certainly not wrong and there is no suggestion that the father was more pleased with the prodigal than the eldest son. But the question is the motivation for one’s devotion to God? Keller then recounts the scene in the movie Amadeus where Salieri, an a Italian composer, prays to God for His blessing on his musical career.

“Lord, make me a great composer! Let me celebrate your glory through music – and be celebrated myself! Make me famous through the world, dear God! Make me immortal! After I die let people speak my name forever with love for what I wrote! In return I vow I will give you my chastity, my industry, my deepest humility, every hour of my life. And I will help my fellow man all I can. Amen and amen!”

Have you ever prayed to be famous for His glory? I may not have prayed exactly for that, but in Christian babble I am sure that I said something like, “Lord bless my work. Use me beyond what even I can imagine for your sake.” When the book “The Prayer of Jabez” came out many purchased the book hoping that God would enlarge their tents, for the glory of God. In return for His favor we tell Him that we will devote all to make Him proud that He made us renown.

The story of the two sons doesn’t really come to a conclusion, just implied principles. One is that the father shows amazing grace to the prodigal. Living a reckless life, though forgiven, has consequences. This son spent his inheritance and after his dad’s death probably continued to work for wages from his eldest brother. The second principle is whatever one does for God is to be done because we want to serve Him, not a means of gaining either fame or favor. Lastly, if one is in the household of God, they do not have to earn the inheritance, it is already ours…all of it.

Cultural Circumcision

If you are a subscriber to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, you probably read it for its focus on mission history. I am particularly fond of the section “My Pilgrimage in Mission.” Everyone has a story; everyone has a pilgrimage that is interesting. For me, after thirty-four years of mission ministry, many of these stories are eerily familiar.

In the most recent IBM quarterly Howard Kurtz shares his life’s passage in missions. Though he preceded me to Africa by twenty years, some of his reflections on his naiveté, his lack of proper training, failures and re-tooling for the task is a story in which I can relate.

Kurtz, like myself, had been a pastor in the U.S. prior to going to Africa. Having pastoral experience, indeed, any ministry experience (something that is lacking in many people going to the field) CAN BE a plus. The problem with Kurtz and myself was, because we had no missiological training, our efforts in Africa were an overlay model of our home culture. Because we had no clue of worldview, clan/lineage dynamics or even a cursory study of animism, we carried on our work as though our norm was a universal given. Kurtz, admitting that forcing the Ethiopian’s missionary compound church to look and behave as his model from Oregon was a bad idea, “Through eyes of the New Testament, I was a Western-world circumcision party.”

Interesting metaphor. The Judiziers of Paul’s day insisted that Gentile converts follow the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. Paul, the first to espouse indigenization and contextualization, refused to make Jews out of Gentiles. Sadly, it was not a lesson colonial missionaries learned and even today missionaries from America, Korea, and Philippines are still a great big circumcision party, in the name of evangelism and church planting. The greatest circumcisers are denominationalism who insist that their brand of Christianity be overlaid on Hindu’s, Muslims and every other religion and people group they encounter. Though I am not anti-globalization, I cringe whenever I go to church service in the bush of Kenya or the rural areas of India and hear the same old tired English hymns and the praise ditties of the West. Short-term missionaries also contribute to the circumcision of culture as they teach subjects from a western hermeneutic without even the slightest understanding of the host culture.

The moral of the story is that in the path of pilgrimage there is a difference between a conqueror and a sojourner. One travels knowing he is just passing through; she treads lightly, but with a sense of purpose knowing that one can influence, even transform the natives of the land. The other invades with an agenda to convert. It matters not what the locals think, they must be circumcised, cut off from the old and made to bow to the new. The challenge is knowing how best to walk the journey.

Slumdog and Perception

If you saw the Academy Award winning movie “Slumdog Millionaire,” you, like many others, including myself, truly found it an entertaining movie. I knew it was a controversial film here in India, primarily because it depicted a part of India that is not very flattering, the slums in the big cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta and many more. Being here in the country over the past week and hearing my friend’s different reactions to the movie, I can see their point.

I remember many years ago when I lived in Kenya how that visitors always wanted to take pictures of the poor tribal’s. In all the years I was in Africa I never had one person say, “Hey, I’d like to get a picture of the rich Kenyans in Nairobi.” I guess it’s normal, but a Kenyan friend asked me why Americans only take pictures of the slums?

In a recent episode of a popular TV series the Amazing Race, one destination the team went to was Jaipur, India. The TV produces thought it was necessary to show the poor kids in the city eating from the trash bins and a close up of one of the contestants in tears, obviously distraught over the plight of poor children.

To be sure, there are many poor people in India and around the world and, for good and bad, many people exploit the images of the downtrodden for many things, including food relief, medical services, and schools and building their own non-profit coffers. The easiest ministry in the world to raise funds for is social work. Westerner’s fall all over themselves to help the poor (at a cost of $2500 for a two week excursion), to hand out rice and, of course, take lots of pictures of those they helped. (Interesting, they don’t often show the hotels or food they eat after they feed the poor in the slums).

Nevertheless, I still liked the movie. It had a good story line, well produced with great acting (at least from a layman’s point of view).

There is a bit of hypocrisy in Bollywood as many of their movies show a side of India that is out of reach for the masses. While not everyone in India lives in the slums, and even greater number will never reach middle class and, living like the super wealthy will only be attained, perhaps, in their next life or in another 100 reincarnations.



Movies, no matter the setting, are usually more fantasy than fact. Slumdog’s controversy was due to national pride and I get it. Reality doesn’t make for good movies so we are left with the polar opposites of the rich and famous and the poor slumdog’s. The happy middle of authenticity is somewhere tourists and movie produces don’t go.

The Mysterious Padre

As a Protestant cross-cultural worker, I must admit there are times when I admire Catholic priests working in remote parts of Africa and other hidden hamlets throughout the world.

This fascination of these reclusive padres began in the ‘70’s where I met a solitary Father in the deserts of Turkana. Alone in the hot arid climate of the bush, surrounded by only the illiterate semi-nomadic, at first I pitied him. No family, little contact with his home country, it all seemed very sad. Over the years, however, having observed Evangelical missions and there “here-today-gone-tomorrow” approach to missions, primarily because of family issues, makes me wonder if perhaps they don’t have it right and we have it, in some ways, wrong.

Early this year I visited a Pokot village I lived and worked in 20 years ago. I took the imitative to meet Father Anthony who has resided in that village four years before I even arrived in Kenya. Fr. Anthony lives by himself in a block building on the Catholic compound he helped build thirty-six years ago. As I walked away from his house I was impressed with a man who has invested his life into a the lives of a tribal group who, he admits, has not advanced much in the nearly four decades he has worked with them.

There’s something mysterious, compelling, about ascetics. While the rest of the world clamors for fame and fortune, solitaries seem to be single minded, an antithesis to the rest of the population. The legacy of a married man is his family. The legacy of an entrepreneur is the building of his business, their worth measured by accomplishment and wealth. For a padre in the desert his legacy is an investment in a people no one has ever heard of. Fr. Anthony will die with little fanfare and his eternal accomplishments will be known only to God.

The reality is that most of God’s creatures will exit with little fanfare and our accomplishments are indeed known only to God. But in the meantime we spend a lifetime trying to please others - our families, peers, donors, along with God. In some way the padre intentionally lives outside the spotlight of this world, while evangelical missionaries must promote their activities to keep up with the religious marketplace.

Of course the celibate life is not for everyone and the Apostle Paul noted the uniqueness of that discipline (1 Cor. 7:7-9). The moral failings of those who have taken the vow of celibacy is well documented and often highlighted. Personally, I can’t imagine my life without my wife and having children and now grandchildren. However, from a purely Kingdom perspective, perhaps the padre’s in the deserts, like their ancient cousin John the Baptist, aren’t so far removed from having it right.

Faith Versus Salary

Recently I visited a church that belongs to a large denomination that pays the salaries of their missionaries. As a result of the cooperative effort by associated churches, missionaries within this bureaucratic structure do not have to “pound the pavement,” i.e. solicit support from churches and individuals for support overseas ministry. An appointed missionary within this structure receives a salary, retirement benefits, medical coverage and everything on the field is paid for (housing, vehicle, etc.).

In contrast, myself, like the vast majority of missionaries on the field, function on what is called “faith support,” which means, that the individual missionary and family must raise their own support and whatever the budget is must go from church-to-church, home-to-home, finding people who will partner with them in their ministry. There is no cost efficiency in either one of the plans. Though the budget of faith missionaries may be slightly less than salaried people, the cost of doing business overseas is basically the same.

Secretly I have always envied salaried missionaries. I’ve often wondered what it would be like not to worry about inflation, rate of exchange of currency, finding affordable housing, purchasing a vehicle, insurance or donor attrition (trying to maintain support is a lifelong occupation). When you are in the faith support program it feels like you are asking people and churches to support “you,” whereas salaried people are compensated for the work they do.

Strategically I don’t believe salaried missionaries are any more effective than faith supported people. Indeed, as is the true of many bureaucratic structures, salaried people sometimes are less creative as they are placed in a job-to-do and unless they have seniority are unable to think outside the box until it goes through endless committees for approval.

The weakness of faith missions, though it does allow for more autonomy, is that there is often less accountability. Because so many people are not trained for cross-cultural work, programs and projects are often not well thought and tend to reflect the needs of the missionary than the needs of the host country. Evangelistic outreach, youth camps, feeding programs, schools and even partnering with the nationals sometimes is designed to justify the presences on foreign missionaries more than a strategy of missions.

Since we don’t live in a perfect world neither salaried nor faith missionaries has the advantage. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. What is important is that each missionary, no matter how they live and serve on the field, is that they be responsible to their calling. It truly matters to me what others may think about my job performance, but their evaluation is less important than my own assessment in missions. This self-evaluation can be deceptive as we all have a tendency to justify our work. Being faithful is important, but being faithful doesn’t mean I can just do anything (or nothing) and declare it a work of God. How one gauges effectiveness is often subjective, but it can’t be an excuse for not having a clearly defined role. At the end of each day the question has to be asked, “Have I done anything today, even if it’s as mundane as learning language, read an article or taught a class, to advance the Kingdom?” It’s a question that every missionary needs to ask, whether they are salaried or live on faith support.

Modernity and Missions

A pastor friend of mine sent me a book to review. Fortunately it was a book that was only 80 pages in length and lots of white space so I was able to go through it quickly. The author, who is the head of a missionary sending agency, was proposing a new missiological method for church planting; one that proposed universal rapid church growth. Though it has merit, there really wasn’t anything remarkably new and was short on particulars, but then again, what can you expect from a book that can be read in a couple of hours.

I reviewed this book on the heels of finishing a study on the Enlightenment which today philosophers call Modernity and their mechanistic view of reality. Most people in my generation grew up with this mechanistic worldview, which believes if we just find the right formula or technique we can solve problems and can create programs that will be efficient, profitable and give good return on investment. Hiebert asserts that (1) techniques led to division of labor with an increasing number of specialists who are experts in their field but know little of the overall process involved (2) requires quantification (3) is amoral focusing on the “how” not “why” (4) efficiency and profit are the supreme value (5) turn everything into goods that can be produced and sold.

My cautious reaction to the book my friend sent me, which really does have some good thoughts, is due to my own epistemological shift as a moderate post-modernist. I’ve seen and tried so many techniques down through the years that I weary with another how-to approach to world evangelism. I sympathize with churches and donors who have a heart for the world and who are frustrated with missionaries who seemingly spend a lifetime on the field with little to show for it. However, the answer to the needs of a world without Christ has never been nor ever will be reduced to a technique, whether it be power-encounter, Jesus Film, prayer walks or Short-Cycle Church Planting. The world is too diverse, issues of politics and religion too complex to suggest that mechanistic formula will bring about mass conversions and multiple church plants. My post-modernism tells me there isn’t a single answer. That doesn’t mean that we should ignore new ideas and new techniques, but my view is that success in missions will only be created within the context of the field, not an overlaid formula from the West.

Best Practices in Missions

A friend asked if I knew of some “good models” for missions/missionaries. Here are a few and the reasons why.

In Tanzania I met some folks who have been there over 10 years who have done some good work in planting churches and creating good solid training programs for national pastors. Tanzania is one of those countries that are not overrun with North Americans, a population that is significantly unreached with a high percentage of Muslims. Their roles have evolved over the years, less hands-on, more in facilitation. They still need to get away from the old church planting models and need think more about how to reach those who have no Gospel witness rather than the nominals, but they are making progress.

Some former students or mine are working with the youth in Mexico and Ukraine. Because they are focused on training national youth workers, it is a “niche” ministry that is important not only to local churches but also for the moral future of their countries they work in. I am assuming they have contextualized their training, as most youth work in the US is, for the most part, pretty superficial.

One dear brother in India is purely salt and light, working mostly with non-believers in business. He is not supported by any churches or individuals in the states and, does not ascribe to the “method” of BAM (Business As Missions). He and his wife live on the income of their business, pay taxes in the country, actively share Christ with their Hindu friends, attend church and even have Bible studies in their home.

The most successful models of missions are those who (a) understand their cultural context well, (b) have a well-defined purpose of why they are there, (c) understand their role, (d) generally are there to facilitate, (e) are relationship based rather than project based and (f) are committed to the task for more than a decade.

Learning Relationships, Not Techniques

The whole idea behind my training, and offering this training to North Americans in Kenya and India, is to teach others how to build relationships, not just a technique for ministry.

I’m wading through Paul Hiebert’s book, Transforming Worldview. In describing modernity he states, “Central to the mechanistic view of reality is the focus on technique. Technique is the rational mechanical process designed to produce the maximum results with a minimum of input by focusing on efficiency and speed.” Hiebert goes on to outline the salient points of techniques highlighting that, “Technique requires quantification…Techniques are amoral [focusing] on ‘how’ not ‘why’…Efficiency and profit are the supreme value…Technique turns everything into goods that can produced and sold.” Not surprisingly, throughout history modernity has led to capitalism, which has affected church and missions.

For the past 150 years the church has moved from a “body” of community relationships to a corporate structure based on “contractual associations.” Two distinct models, based on individual preference, evaluate the successful church or ministry in our modern society. The first is the high yield model, which is commercial in nature. Goaded by the business paradigm, competition for a share of clients in the community (church and unchurched souls) is the driving force behind multi-million facilities, attractive programs and thousands of dollars needed to stay in business. The second model is what I call the boutique or niche congregation. The assembly remains small and is not in competition with the high yield model as they are content because their outreach is to specific group of families, socio-economic or ethnic population. Both models are contractual as the basis of both groups is predicated on meeting the individual needs of the congregation. If those needs are not met either the leadership is removed or the individual members move to another church to have their needs met.

Apart from the philosophical or theological merits of this system, it nevertheless does determine how Western missionaries and missions are developed. Most short-term missions, the 10-day experience for world evangelism, are decidedly based on technique, not relationships. Whether it’s dispensing medicine, handing out tracts, giving a seminar on leadership or replicating a program that is currently producing the most bang-for-the-buck in America, the short-term teams know little about the people they are going to visit and don’t know much more about them after they have “served” them.

X-Cultural Live program is about learning how to develop relationships with people of other cultures. Our goal is not to give the answers but learn the questions. The “how’s” of doing ministry is discovery through learning the “why’s” of culture. Technique gives way to building trust through interaction; it’s Kingdom work, not a means of production.