My passions are “Honor, Shame and the Gospel” … cross-cultural partnerships with great leaders in the majority world … adult learning theory and creative communications. I love integrating these passions to contribute my bit in sharing the transforming grace of Jesus Christ among the peoples of the world.
View all posts by Werner Mischke →
Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert are the authors of this excellent book
I have been reading When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself, by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert. The authors argue that a common unhealthy practice of North American Christians toward the poor is paternalism.Note: Since I am reading this book with an Amazon Kindle, I am referencing the book using the Kindle reference system which is by “location” rather than by page number.
Avoid paternalism. Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves. Memorize this, recite it under your breath all day long, and wear it like a garland around your neck. (location 1690)
The authors have outlined five types of paternalism.
Resource paternalism
Spiritual paternalism
Knowledge paternalism
Labor paternalism
Managerial paternalism
I am grateful for the work of Corbett and Fikkert in making these distinctions about the various kinds of paternalism. With this post, I am beginning to write my take on each of these “paternalisms.”
I define resource paternalism as the practice of providing money, materials or other assets to people or organizations who could otherwise provide it themselves.
Resource paternalism hurts the poor because it tells them indirectly that they do not have the ability to provide for themselves, thus harming their dignity as responsible, capable, creative persons made in God’s image. It hinders the development of the poor because it reinforces the idea that they lack the capability to address their own problems. Resource paternalism advances a worldview that contributes to the cycle of poverty.
Resource paternalism hurts the non-poor because it releases resources that could have been invested more wisely and effectively for God’s kingdom in other ways. Moreover, it contributes to a “poverty of spirit” on the part of the non-poor—pride and arrogance—failing to recognize that, in the words of Corbett and Fikkert,
… until we embrace our mutual brokenness, our work with low-income people is likely to do far more harm than good.
Can middle- and upper-class Christians from North America avoid paternalism, and rather, take an attitude of servanthood toward people in poverty—an attitude which recognizes “our mutual brokenness” and rejects a spirit of pride and superiority?
The Chalmers Center at Covanant College has developed an outstanding ministry of training Christians for helping the poor in the most biblical and effective
I have finished reading When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself, by Steve Corbett and Dr. Brian Fikkert. Steve and Brian draw upon decades of experience as practitioners, researchers, and trainers in economics and community development both in North America and around the world. They serve with The Chalmers Center at Covenant College. From what I have gathered from their book and their web site, their work and range of services is simply outstanding. I recommend them both to you.
The Lausanne World Pulse web site has an article by Ken Lane of Focus on the Family. Lane makes several good points that relate to the practice of cross-cultural partnership. Mr. Lane argues that:
Duplication of effort arises within an organization because of:
Ignorance. Different business units are unaware of similar efforts by other business units.
Pride. Different business units believe their approach to meeting needs is the only correct way.
Confusion. Different business units are unclear about who should be doing what in relation to each other (no integrated plan).
Duplication of effort arises outside of organizations because of:
Ignorance. Organizations are unaware of similar efforts by other organizations.
Pride. Organizations believe their approach to meeting needs is the only correct way.
Confusion. Organizations are unclear about who (which organization) should be doing what in relation to each other (no partnership plan).
Below is an excerpt from Roger C. Altman’s[1] article in Foreign Affairs, entitled “Globalization in Retreat: Further Geopolitical Consequences of the Financial Crisis.” This article represents a macro/secular/western/American point of view; I believe there is much for us to consider as followers of Christ who serve as advocates of cross-cultural partnerships. The article begins with the following four paragraphs. It is well worth reading the whole article, which is available here.
It is now clear that the global economic crisis will be deep and prolonged and that it will have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. The long movement toward market liberalization has stopped, and a new period of state intervention, reregulation, and creeping protectionism has begun.
Indeed, globalization itself is reversing. The long-standing wisdom that everyone wins in a single world market has been undermined. Global trade, capital flows, and immigration are declining. It also has not gone unnoticed that nations with insulated financial systems, such as China and India, have suffered the least economic damage.
Furthermore, there will be less global leadership and less coordination between nations. The G-7 (the group of highly industrialized states) and the G-20 (the group of finance ministers and centralbank governors from the world’s largest economies) have been unable to respond effectively to this crisis, other than by expanding the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The United States is also less capable of making these institutions work and, over the medium term, will be less dominant.
This coincides with the movement away from a unipolar world, which the downturn has accelerated. The United States will now be focused inward and constrained by unemployment and fiscal pressures. Much of the world also blames U.S. financial excesses for the global recession. This has put the U.S. model of free-market capitalism out of favor. The deserved global goodwill toward President Barack Obama mitigates some of this, but not all of it.
What might the macro-perspectives in Altman’s article mean for Christians who are advocates of cross-cultural ministry partnerships?
With their relatively insulated economies, India and China “have suffered the least economic damage.” Might this mean that India and China will become less dependent on resources from the West? Will Christian leaders from India and China assert greater leadership in the world Christian movement?
“…creeping protectionism has begun.” Could this mean that more people in the American evangelical missions community will invest more in local missions? Will a form of “protectionism” in the local church cause a wane in the short-term missions movement—or a reduction in funds available for global concerns?
What are the implications stemming from the likelihood that the “global economic crisis will be deep and prolonged?” That funding for the Great Commission originating from North America will decline? That Christian leaders will take a harder look at the ways that their missions resources are being invested? Will this result in more funding for indigenous ministries, which inherently cost less, and less funding for westerners who want to go as missionaries?
“Much of the world also blames U.S. financial excesses for the global recession. This has put the U.S. model of free-market capitalism out of favor.” Will this hinder the influence of U.S.-based global mission efforts? Or will the “global goodwill” toward President Obama make it easier?
Given the vast numbers of immigrants from non-Western nations and unreached peoples in North American cities, will local churches focus more resources on reaching these people in their own communities?
What do you think? Please comment below.
1. Roger C. Altman is Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners. He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993–94.
Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert have written a great book about serving the poor: EXCELLENT for advocates of cross-cultural partnerships
Here is additional material from When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself, by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert. Note: Since I am reading this book with a Kindle, I am referencing the book using the Amazon Kindle reference system which is by “location” rather than by page number.
A helpful first step in thinking about working with the poor in any context is to discern whether the situation calls for relief, rehabilitation, or development. (location 1507). One of the biggest mistakes that North American churches make—by far—is in applying relief in situations in which rehabilitation or development is the appropriate intervention. (location 1527).
Our perspective should be less about how we are going to fix the materially poor and more about how we can walk together, asking God to fix both of us. (location 1168)
… poverty is rooted in the brokenness of human beings’ four foundational relationships … [relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation].
Unfortunately, as recent research has demonstrated, Caucasian evangelicals in the United States, for whom the systems has worked well, are particularly blind to the systemic causes of poverty and are quick to blame the poor for their plight. Evangelicals tend to believe that systemic arguments for poverty amount to shifting blame for personal sin and excusing moral failure. (location 1390)
Development is not to people or for people but with people. (location 1522)
Avoid paternalism. Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves. Memorize this, recite it under your breath all day long, and wear it like a garland around your neck. (location 1690)
[There are five kinds of paternalism: Resource paternalism, spiritual paternalism, knowledge paternalism, labor paternalism, managerial paternalism.] (location 1739)
There are situations in which a lack of local leadership and managerial ability may require the outsiders to perform these functions, but we should be very, very cognizant of our tendencies as middle- to upper-class North Americans to take charge and run things. (location 1755)
… many Christian community development experts have discovered the benefits of using “asset-based community development” (ABCD) as they seek to foster reconciliation of people’s relationship with God, self, others, and creation. ABCD is consistent with the perspective that God has blessed every individual and community with a host of gifts, including such diverse things as land, social networks, knowledge, animals, savings, intelligence, schools, creativity, production equipment, etc. (location 1822)
This image from the 15th Century goes with the ancient Jesus Prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” (Public domain) It is an icon of the Transfiguration of Jesus by Theophanes the Greek (15th century, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow). Talking with Christ: Elijah (left) and Moses (right). Kneeling: Peter, James, and John.
One of the major premises of this book is that until we embrace our mutual brokenness, our work with low-income people is likely to do far more harm than good.
The authors say that there is a deep brokenness that exists among both the poor and the rich.
In the case of the poor, they have a “poverty of being” often reflected in their loss of dignity; they may be marred by both their personal sin as well as the sin of the world system that contributes to their poverty.
In the case of the rich, they have a “poverty of being” often reflected in their arrogance and pride; they may be marred by both their personal sin as well as the sin of the world system that contributes to the gap between the rich and the poor; their “poverty of being” may be contained in the false belief that they are superior and know innately how to alleviate the problems of the poor. Corbett and Fikkert refer to this as a “god-complex.”
One of the great seductions for western Christians in serving the poor is the belief that money and technology will solve the problems of the poor. Of course, this is partly true. But what westerners often fail to recognize is that without relational healing—without the transforming gospel and kingdom of Christ—money and technology will often only make matters worse. Corbett and Fikkert argue this point very persuasively.
I have been thinking about this idea of “embracing our mutual brokenness” and have made a connection with an ancient practice and prayer of the Christian church. It is called the “Jesus Prayer.” At the risk of sounding simplistic, I offer this as an antidote to the problem of rich Christians serving the poor:
There is a prayer from the Eastern Orthodox tradition that is widely prayed by people of faith all over the world. It is short—and it is meant to be said over and over again—almost like a mantra. It is a prayer that is meant to cover all the bases as it were—and goes like this.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner …
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.[1]
“The Jesus Prayer is composed of two statements. The first one is a statement of faith, acknowledging the divine nature of Christ. The second one is the acknowledgment of one’s own sinfulness. Out of them the petition itself emerges: ‘have mercy.’” [2] Of course, the Jesus Prayer is not all there is to serving well in a cross-cultural partnership. We are advocates for developing godly character, cultural intelligence, and organizational competence (for more on these three arenas of competence, see page on The Beauty of Partnership). But I believe that the godly character trait of humility—the inverse of superiority—is perhaps the one thing that will carry your partnership further than any other.
What if the Jesus Prayer characterized the attitude and behavior of both western and majority-world Christians—as they partnered together in serving our Lord’s Great Commission? I imagine that in living this prayer … “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner” … we would:
be more aware of the presence of Jesus Christ in our cross-cultural relationships and in our work together,
be willing to confess our mutual brokenness to one another, sharing our life stories, praying for one another, touching each others’ lives, hearing each others’ hearts,
be in less of a rush to get things done, more patient with one another,
not hesitate to repent of attitudes of superiority or inferiority, realizing our dignity is solely in Christ,
be connecting to the ancient grand narrative—the history of God’s people, the church—who have for centuries, been giving witness to the redeeming presence of Christ in a broken world,
more readily and more deeply experience our unity in Christ,
be able to work through conflict or confusing situations with less effort,
be less dependent on money and technology while more dependent on God,
have deeper, longer-lasting friendships that glorify God.
What do you think? How can we more readily “embrace our mutual brokenness” in our cross-cultural partnerships? Please comment below.
One of the major premises of this book is that until we embrace our mutual brokenness, our work with low-income people is likely to do far more harm than good. As discussed earlier, research from around the world has found that shame—a “poverty of being”—is a major part of the brokenness that low-income people experience in their relationship with themselves. Instead of seeing themselves as being created in the image of God, low-income people often feel they are inferior to others. This can paralyze the poor from taking initiative and from seizing opportunities to improve their situation, thereby locking them into material poverty.
At the same time, the economically rich—including the readers of this book—also suffer from a poverty of being. In particular, development practitioner Jayakumar Christian argues that the economically rich often have “god-complexes,” a subtle sense of superiority in which they believe that they have achieved their wealth through their own efforts and that they have been anointed to decide what is best for low-income people, whom they view as inferior to themselves.[1]
In serving a cross-cultural partnership, having the attitude of Christlike servanthood is crucial. “Embracing our mutual brokenness” is one of the attitudes that makes this possible.
1. Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert: When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself (Chicago: Moody Press, 2009) Chapter 2, subsection 5, “When Helping Hurts,” paragraphs 1 and 2. The authors reference Jayakumar Christian: Powerlessness of the Poor: Toward an Alternative Kingdom of God Based Paradigm of Response (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary Ph.D. Thesis, 1994)
I have completed a series of posts about seeing the five basic culture scales through the lens of honor & shame—illustrated with Scripture passages. With each post I suggested ways that westerners can better understand and serve their cross-cultural partners. Below is a simple directory of the posts I wrote.
Concerning the five culture scales through the lens of honor and shame / related key Scripture
My primary resource for understanding honor and shame cultures—and the cultures of the Bible is Jerome H. Neyrey’s Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. The opening chapters alone provide an excellent overview of the prominence of the honor and shame values which are entrenched in the eastern world, beginning with the ancient world of Greece and Rome.
If you have any comments about this series, please use the comment/response fields below.
God Calls Abraham, State 2 by Wencelas Hollar, 1607-1677 (public domain)
You can take a quantum leap in understanding your cross-cultural ministry partner by understanding the five basic culture scales. Today’s focus:
Risk/Caution
According to Brooks Peterson in Cultural Intelligence: A Guide to Working with People from Other Cultures, there are five basic culture scales. They are: 1) Equality/Hierarchy, 2) Direct/Indirect, 3) Individual/Group, 4) Task/Relationship, and 5) Risk/Caution. Previous posts focused on the culture scale of Equality/Hierarchy … and Direct/Indirect … Individual/Group … and Task/Relationship. In this post, we are looking at Risk/Caution, which refers to the degree to which people embrace change, risk, and the future—versus stability, caution, and the past.
have fewer rules, regulations, guidelines, and directions, and
be comfortable changing plans at the last minute.
A caution style means people prefer to
collect considerable information before making a decision,
focus on the past,
be more cautious—in a “ready, aim, aim, fire” way,
change slowly and avoid risks,
want more rules, regulations, guidelines, and directions
refer to past precedents of what works and what doesn’t,
stick to proven methods for solving problems, and
not change plans at the last minute.
An example from Scripture: God calls Abraham
The calling of Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 represents God’s command for a radical departure in the life of one man living in the ancient Near East.This “radical departure” is not simply a departure from one land to another. It is also a departure from one way of thinking to another: From caution to risk … from past to future … from family–based honor to God-given honor. Knowing that the ancient Near East was thoroughly rooted in the culture of honor and shame, it is helpful to understand these verses from that perspective.
Here is my two-part thesis:
God called Abraham to leave his family in the land of Ur and all of the familiar, traditional, family-based honor that went with that—to a life of honor that is of a much greater magnitude: honor bestowed by God himself.
While God’s call constituted the risks of a radical departure in geography, faith and worldview, it nevertheless retained as a central motivation for both God and Abraham—the pursuit of honor and glory.
Here are the verses:
1 Now the LORD said to Abram, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
(Genesis 12:1–3 ESV)
When God told Abram to leave his country, his kindred and his father’s house, God was telling him to leave his core identity—to abandon his very source of honor, or manhood—in exchange for another. All of the wealth and honor of a man in the ancient Near East consisted of land and family—land because their wealth would be based largely on the number of livestock they would have (camels, sheep, goats, etc.)—and family because it was through family, that is, blood relations, father to son, that wealth and honor was passed from one generation to another. The command by God to leave all this comprised for Abram an unthinkable risk. In his book, The Gifts of the Jews, Thomas Cahill has a chapter about this called “The Journey in the the Dark: The Unaccountable Innovation.” In regard to Genesis 12:4, “So Abram went, as the LORD had told him…,” Cahill writes:
So, “wayyelekh Avram” (“Avram went”)—two of the boldest words in all literature. They signal a complete departure from everything that has gone before in the long evolution of culture and sensibility. Out of Sumer, civilized repository of the predictable, comes a man who does not know where he is going but goes forth into the unknown wilderness under the prompting of his god. … Out of mortal imagination comes a dream of something new, something better, something yet to happen, something—in the future.”[2]
The point is this: What Abram (or Avram) did in response to God’s call, was for him a tremendous risk, and constituted a huge counter-cultural act of boldness because it violated the traditional way that men accrued and preserved their honor. Despite this great risk, consider the honor-laden rewards that Abram would receive by believing God’s promise and by acting in obedience:
“to the land that I will show you”—God was promising Abram that, although he was to leave the honor of his father’s land, Abram would gain the honor of another land. This was made plain in later revelations from God that this ‘promised land’ was to be the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:18–21, Gen. 17:8).
“I will make of you a great nation”—this was God’s promise that, although Abram had no son, had no heir, and therefore had none of the highly-prized honor that comes by having a son to carry on his name—Abram would nevertheless, according to God’s promise, be the father of a great nation. Further promises from God revealed that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5). God also said, “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you” (Gen. 17:6). God’s promise to honor Abraham in this way is simply of inestimable value.
“I will bless you”—this is God’s bestowal of divine favor on the man Abram. In the economy of honor and shame, to be blessed by God Almighty (Gen. 17:1) constituted an enormous accrual of ascribed honor.
“I will make your name great”—this was God’s promise that Abraham would gain a public reputation of great honor. Abraham would become a man of renown and glory in the “public square.”
“so that you will be a blessing”—this is God’s promise that Abram would become a benefactor. A man can only be a benefactor of blessing if he himself is a man of means; he must first himself be a person of wealth and honor if he is to be a means of blessing to others. God’s promise that Abram would “be a blessing” is another promise of honor.
“I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse”—this is God’s promise to pay close attention to the social, public dimension of Abraham’s relations. As blessing is to honor, so also is cursing to dishonor; this is a vivid acknowledgment by God of the public nature of honor and shame. God is guaranteeing that God will not allow Abraham to be shamed by his enemies. Again, this is an extremely valuable bestowal of honor from God to Abram.
“in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”—this is God’s way of explaining the extent of the honor which is to accrue to Abram’s account. God promises that Abram’s honor will not be limited to his own family, local community or region. God promises that Abram will ultimately have the weighty influence that extends to all the families of the earth—a global significance, global renown.
Again, from the cultural perspective of honor and shame, God is asking Abram to abandon the traditional source of honor (in that culture, a truly unthinkable act; this was a huge risk) in exchange for the honor that God himself is able to give. Remember the Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22—in which Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son? This represents the climax of a lifestyle of risk which Abram lives out by faith in covenantal relationship with God—and which, in the end, is commensurate with the immense honor, inexpressible in value, granted him by God.
What are the lessons for practitioners of cross-cultural partnerships?
With regard to risk and caution, it has been my observation that godly Christian leaders in the majority worldmay sometimes be more comfortable with risk than their western counterparts. Even thoughthey may come from risk-averse societies, their faith in God, their walk with Christ, their knowledge of God’s promises may lead them to take big risks; this propensity for risk-taking may be greater than the western Christian partner. Suggestion: Try to assess your partnership in the light of biblical values more so thanon the basis of cultural preferences. Pray together about risk-laden opportunities in the power of the Holy Spiritso that you can have unity of mind and heart. And don’t assume that higher risk makes it more biblical or spiritual. Practical wisdom is still necessary in all situations.
The pursuit of honor and the avoidance of shame was core to the cultures of the ancient Near East. They are still core values in most majority-world cultures, especially in the Near East and Far East. I would venture to say that all Muslim peoples and all Eastern peoples have honor and shame as vital, core values. Suggestion: Do not underestimate the significance of honor and shame as motivation in the decisions made by your cross-cultural partners. When faced with a situation that puzzles you, look at it again through the lens of honor and shame, and see if it makes more sense.
Remember that Abraham, even in his abandonment of his familial and traditional sources of honor, nevertheless was moved to obedience in part because God’s promises were heavy-laden blessings for immense gain in his ‘honor account.’ Suggestion: Because westerners generally live by a different set of values—right & wrong, not honor & shame—they may have the tendency to judge people with the honor & shame value system as being less than virtuous, or at worst, unbiblical. This would be a big mistake. Instead, practice “suspending judgment” and patiently, quietly listen and learn.
The honor and shame value system is not inherently good or evil. God rewarded Abraham with great honor because of Abraham’s obedience and faith. I believe the whole Bible is written with the default cultural value of ‘honor and shame.’ I also believe that because of man’s fallen nature, the honor and shame value system can be very sinful and destructive. On the other hand, one could make the argument that the most biblical and wholesome of cultural values is the pursuit of honor and the avoidance of shame—when lived out through God’s grace and truth in Jesus Christ. Suggestion: When spending time with peoples of the majority world, learn to listen and observe how the granting of honor, the pursuit of honor, is core to their way of life—and to their way of glorifying God. You may be surprised at how this may positively influence your own walk with the Lord.
What do you think? What examples can you share to illustrate tensions that can develop in partnerships because of the dynamics represented by the culture scale of Risk/Caution? Please comment.
Note: If you want an assessment ofyour own personal cultural style, go to Brooks Peterson’s web site: accrosscultures.com. Select the link, Begin the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator. You will be able to compare your own cultural style to the general cultural style of the nation where you are engaged in a cross-cultural partnership. There is a fee of $50 for this assessment, but I think it’s an excellent investment in your understanding of the contrast in cultural styles and the adjustments which people on both sides of your partnership may need to make—in order to achieve greater understanding and a more effective partnership.
You can take a quantum leap in understanding your cross-cultural ministry partner by understanding the five basic culture scales. Today’s focus: Task/Relationship
Peterson’s Five Basic Culture Scales
According to Brooks Peterson in Cultural Intelligence: A Guide to Working with People from Other Cultures, there are five basic culture scales. They are: 1) Equality/Hierarchy, 2) Direct/Indirect, 3) Individual/Group, 4) Task/Relationship, and 5) Risk/Caution. Previous posts focused on the culture scale of Equality/Hierarchy … and Direct/Indirect … and Individual/Group. In this post, we are looking at Task/Relationship, which refers to the degree to which people focus first—on getting work accomplished (Task)—versus building trust between people (Relationship).
move straight to business—relationships come later,
keep most relationships with coworkers impersonal,
sacrifice leisure time and time with family in favor of work,
get to know co-workers and colleagues quickly but usually superficially,
use largely impersonal selection criteria in hiring (such as resumés or test scores), and
allow work to overlap with personal time.
A relationship style means people prefer to
define people based on who they are,
establish comfortable relationships and a sense of mutual trust before getting down to business,
have personal relationships with co-workers,
sacrifice work in favor of leisure time and time with family,
get to know co-workers and colleagues slowly and in depth,
use largely personal selection criteria (such as family connections) when hiring, and
not allow work to impinge on personal life.
An example from Scripture: Jesus praises Mary for sitting at Jesus’ feet
The classic text for comparing a task-oriented person to a relationship-oriented person is the story of Martha and Mary in Luke’s gospel. Martha is doing the expected work of a woman in her culture; Mary, however, is sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning from him.
Jesus visits Martha and Mary, by Otto van Veen, 1597 (public domain)
38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me. 41 But the Lord answered her, Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.
(Luke 10:38–42 ESV)
There are several things we can observe from this passage using the lens of honor and shame. Jesus Christ was honored by Mary; Martha was not. Several things are plain:
Mary sat at the Lord’s feet. Her humility is evidenced by her posture. She physically expressed her recognition of the honor of Jesus. In the economy of honor and shame, feet have a particular meaning. Feet are among the least honorable parts of the human body—in contrast, for example, to the right hand. This honor/shame contrast is contained in Psalm 110:1—“The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The meaning in Mary’s action of sitting at Christ’s feet was profound and plain in their honor-shame culture—and surely was clear to Martha.
Mary was listening. Mary gave honor to Jesus by doing nothing except listening in humility to the Savior. The sacredness of her attention fittingly corresponded to the sacredness of the One in the room.
“Martha was distracted with much serving.” Martha was serving, getting stuff done. In defense of Martha, one could say that it was Mary who was the one distracted; it was Mary who should have been serving and getting work done. But Jesus praised Mary, and critiqued Martha.
Martha was preoccupied with herself. Note what she said: “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” Could it be that Martha’s service was a smokescreen for her preoccupation with herself? No wonder Jesus said, “Mary has chosen the good portion.”
In the end, Mary was the one willing to give honor to Christ by her humility, and as a result, was praised by Jesus. This overturns one of the classic features of the honor and shame culture, namely, that honor and shame is a “limited good” … or “zero-sum game.” What does this mean, that honor is a zero-sum game? Simply this: It is the belief that “everything in the social, economic, natural universe, everything desired in life: land, wealth, respect and status, power and influence exist in finite quantity and are in short supply.”[2] In other words, If you gain, I lose … And if I gain, you lose. It is the belief that we cannot both increase in honor at the same time, because it is ‘a limited good,’ there’s only so much land … there’s only so much wealth … there’s only so much honor. Here in the story of Mary and Martha, it is Mary who willingly ‘loses’ self-honor by giving honor to Jesus—and yet, in the end, instead of losing, she gains a compliment from Jesus: Mary gains honor from the Lord.
Using Peterson’s words, above, might we say that Mary was someone who prefers to “define people by who they are,” while Martha was someone who prefers to “define people by what they do?” Can we say that Mary did not try to impress Jesus by her service, and Mary gave immense honor to Jesus by sitting at his feet, listening and learning attentively, affectionately?
What are some applications to cross-cultural partnership?
Understanding that most of the peoples of the non-western world hold to the values of relationship as opposed to task, it is likely that western and majority-world partners will confront situations where this collision of values will cause confusion and sometimes conflict. Here are some suggestions for task-oriented Christian leaders in order to avoid these conflicts:
We are very familiar with the relational style of networking. In networking, people often consider first what they can gain from the other person. For some, this is their primary relational style. Ultimately, this is a task-oriented, rather than a person-oriented relational style. At its worst, networking tends to “objectify” people into categories of what they can do, rather than to simply honor who they are. Christians can get sucked into this kind of superficial relational style. Unfortunately, partnership with national missionaries can have this dehumanizing edge, because sometimes westerners think of the cost-effectiveness factor above all else. Principles to consider:
Networking has its place in the Christian community. But when spending time with your cross-cultural partners, leave your networking style behind.
Be intentional to focus on the person who is your ministry partner—his or her life, family, story, struggles. Share your story, too. Focus on honoring the one you are with in the present moment by listening with your heart. Ask open-ended questions and learn. Listen … Listen … Listen! (Check this blog for other posts on empathic listening.)
Give honor; avoid flattery. Flattery is giving pseudo-honor in order to get something. Can you imagine sitting at the feet of your cross-cultural partner—perhaps not physically—but spiritually? Are you willing to wash the feet of your cross-cultural ministry partner? There is simply no substitute for the spirit of Christlike servanthood.
When visiting your cross-cultural partner, plan for informal time together. If you are on a seven-day mission, consider spending one day together, leader-to-leader, family-to-family. Just talking and praying and laughing as friends. This must be intentional. Consider … just being together as friends … accomplishing nothing … simply honoring one anothers’ personhood in Christ. The honor you will give to your cross-cultural partner will be immensely appreciated. The trust you build will pay huge dividends later on.
Obviously, there are tasks to accomplish. Jesus Christ has commissioned us with the magnificent, enormous task of discipling the nations. But let us remember, Jesus taught us that this “task” is first and foremost a relational journey: “… And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20 ESV).
What do you think? What do you find to be helpful in bridging the gap between cultures relative to task and relationship? Your comments are most welcomed.
