Many of us assume that we have a lot to teach the materially poor about God and that we should be the ones preaching from the pulpit, teaching Sunday School class, or leading the vacation Bible school. We do have much to share out of our knowledge and experiences, but oftentimes the materially poor have an even deeper walk with God and have spiritual insights and experiences that they can share with us, if we would just stop talking and listen. (location 1700)
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.
Here are some suggestions for avoiding “spiritual paternalism.”
Create an inter-cultural conversation—conducting an exchange program between churches or ministries, by which leaders teach on both sides of the partnership.
When preaching or teaching in the host culture, invite dialog from your respective partners; simply expect that you will learn much more than you teach. Avoid the necessity of having the last word.
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?
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)
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.
You can take a quantum leap in understanding your cross-cultural ministry partner by understanding the five basic culture scales. Today’s focus: Individual/Group.
Peterson’s Five Basic Culture Scales
“If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together.” –African proverb
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. In this post, we are looking at Individual/Group, which refers to the degree to which people identify themselves as independent individuals versus interdependent members of a group.
determine their identity through group affiliation,
make decisions as a group,
put team or group ahead before the individual,
conform to social norms, and
keep group membership for life.
An example from Scripture: Moses (the individual) pleads with God to enter the Promised Land, but is forbidden because of his identification with the rebelliousness of God’s people (his group).
The story begins in the book of Numbers. God’s people are at Meribah in the Wilderness. They desperately need water. Frustrated and angry because of the incessant grumbling of the people he was leading, and desperate for God’s provision, Moses hears from God:
“Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle.” (Numbers 20:8 ESV)
But Moses does not simply speak to the rock in obedience to God.
And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock. (Numbers 20:11 ESV)
Moses’ disobedience carried a heavy consequence.
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.” (Numbers 20:12 ESV)
Instead of obediently speaking to the rock in order to get water, Moses was guilty of striking the rock (twice!) with his staff. Water came out from the rock, but Moses had failed to obey God. The English Study Bible states, “As the prime mediators of God’s laws to Israel, Moses and Aaron had to be exemplary in their obedience. Their failure to follow the divine instruction exactly led to their forfeiting their right to enter Canaan.”
Now let’s go forward several years in the story to the book of Deuteronomy. The point in the story is just prior to Moses’ death and the people of God being led into the Promised Land by Joshua. Moses describes an encounter with God that is connected to the happenings in Numbers 20.
23 “And I pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying, 24 O Lord GOD, you have only begun to show your servant your greatness and your mighty hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as yours? 25 Please let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and Lebanon. 26 But the LORD was angry with me because of you and would not listen to me. And the LORD said to me, Enough from you; do not speak to me of this matter again. 27 Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and look at it with your eyes, for you shall not go over this Jordan. 28 But charge Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him, for he shall go over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land that you shall see. 29 So we remained in the valley opposite Beth-peor.
(Deuteronomy 3:23–29 ESV)
When I read this passage recently, I was struck with God’s immediate rejection of Moses’ request. Of course, God was re-affirming what he had told Moses in the first place. But considering the overall faithfulness of Moses to God, and the tremendous burden Moses bore in leading God’s people for 40 years through the Wilderness—it seemed to me God was harsh.
However, let’s look at Moses’ words more closely. Moses said, “But the LORD was angry with me because of you and would not listen to me …” (v26). This indicates that God’s anger at Moses was not simply the result of Moses’ disobedience in Numbers 20; God’s punishment toward Moses the individual was also a result of the stubbornness of the group of people he was called to lead. You can observe this dynamic at work—that group responsibility is just as significant as—and at times more significant than—individual responsibility.
What about the cultural value of honor and shame?
Moses’ honor before a holy God was compromised—both by his individual disobedience to God—AND by the stubborn sinfulness of the group he was leading. This profound sense of identification of the individual with the group is widespread in the Scriptures. For just a few examples:
The covenant blessing of God to Abraham and his descendants was not to individuals, but to groups: “… and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3 ESV). The word “families” in the Hebrew is the word, “mishpahoth … This is used for smaller groupings, like those referred to by the English words clan, family or sometimes also lineage.”[2]
The prophet Isaiah acknowledged … “And I said: Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; … ” (Isaiah 6:5 ESV). Isaiah was likely the most righteous man in the land but saw his own uncleanness profoundly connected to the uncleanness of God’s people.
Consider Apostle Paul’s teaching about the body of Christ: “As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you, nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it” (2 Cor. 12:20–24 ESV). It appears that community trumps individuality in the body of Christ—and that God wants our desire for individual honor to be in balance with—if not in submission to—the unity of the community.
What are some applications to cross-cultural partnership? It is vital for Christians from western lands to understand that most of the peoples of the non-western world hold the value of the group in MUCH higher esteem than the western value of individuality. Therefore it is likely that western and non-western partners will confront situations where this collision of values will cause confusion and sometimes conflict. Here are two examples.
Because of the high value of individuality in the west combined with an expectation to get things done fast, western Christians may expect non-western leaders to make decisions quickly—and without need for much input from their community. But decisions in non-western communities are made much more slowly—there’s a need for consultation with more people; this takes time.
Principle: Western Christians leaders should expect decisions will be made much more slowly by Christian leaders in the majority world. They will need to learn to suspend judgment, and exercise patience in these cross-cultural relationships.
When taking a team cross-culturally for a mission trip, there is an amplified need for your team work in unity. If on your team there is an individual who is loud, displays high individuality in the way they dress or act, or challenges the consensus of the group, your non-western partners may view that individual and the group leader with suspicion.
Principle 1: Invest extra time to prepare your team to respect leadership and one another, and to serve in a spirit of humility and Christian unity.
Principle 2: Be willing to exclude ‘prima donnas’ fromyour mission team—people who are “regarded as egotistical, unreasonable and irritable, with a rather high opinion of themselves not shared by others.”[3] (Note: Even though this attitude is clearly un-Christian, God only knows how many western Christians show up in non-western lands with precisely this attitude.)
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 Individual/Group. 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.
Christ Healing the Withered Hand, by James Tissot, showing the public nature of Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees
This post is a follow-up to my last entry concerning the five basic culture scales. Our focus here is on the culture scale of Direct/Indirect. My explanation of Direct versus Indirect communication is contained inside of an analysis of a passage from Matthew 12. Since I am trying to explain the basic culture scales through the lens of honor and shame, I also introduce in this post something called the “honor game of challenge and riposte.” I am concerned that this post overlaps several ideas which may be new to you, and therefore may be difficult at first to understand. So read previous posts about honor and shame if you have not already, and read this one with care. I trust it will be worth your while. –wm
Most, if not all, of the interactions recorded in the Gospels between Jesus and the Pharisees—were conducted in public. These interactions, when seen through the cultural lens of honor and shame, follow the rules of the ‘honor game,’ also known as challenge and riposte. (The word ‘riposte’ comes from the sport of fencing; it means “a quick return thrust following a parry.” Socially speaking, a riposte is “a quick clever reply to an insult or criticism.”) According to Jerome Neyrey’s brilliant book, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, there are four steps to this protocol or social code of “push and shove:”[1]
claim of worth or value,
challenge to that claim or refusal to acknowledge the claim,
riposte or defense of the claim, and
publicverdict of success awarded to either claimant or challenger.
In the following example, you’ll see … Jesus’ claim of worth or value … the challenge by the Pharisees to Jesus’ honor … the riposte by Jesus in defense of his claim … and the public verdict. You will also observe that the riposte by Jesus consisted of both direct and indirect communication—in addition to a healing miracle.
For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?—so that they might accuse him. He said to them, Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Then he said to the man, Stretch out your hand. And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known … And all the people were amazed, and said, Can this be the Son of David? (Matthew 12:8–15, 23 ESV)
1. Claim of worth or value: Matthew 12:8 is a claim by Jesus concerning his worth and value. Verses 1–7 of this chapter describes the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning the disciples plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath. Verse 8 is the verdict—“For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
2. Challenge to that claim or refusal to acknowledge the claim: Verse 10 displays the challenge by the Pharisees to Jesus’ claim. “And they asked him, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?—so that they might accuse him.”
3. Riposte or defense of the claim: Jesus’ riposte, or defense, is in three parts.
First, Jesus uses indirect communication. “He said to them, Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! … ” (v11–12). Jesus paints a picture of a sheep in desperate need rescued by its shepherd—a picture that goes beyond reason to connect heart-to-heart. Jesus answers their challenge indirectly.
Second, Jesus adds a declarative direct response. Jesus says straightforwardly, “So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (v12).
Third, Jesus adds to his words an action—he performs a miracle: “Then he said to the man, Stretch out your hand. And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other” (v13).
This three-part riposte to the Pharisees’ challenge was so powerful that “the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him” (v14). Why were they so enraged? Because their honor and standing in the public sphere took a huge hit, while at the same time, the honor and renown of Jesus was skyrocketing. This led to …
4. Public verdict of success awarded to either claimant or challenger. “And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known … And all the people were amazed, and said, Can this be the Son of David?” (v15, 23). The public verdict of increased honor for Jesus is represented by the words, “And many followed him” and “all the people were amazed.”
What does this understanding about direct and indirect communication mean for the practice of cross-cultural partnership?
The majority of westerners, including Christians, are more comfortable with direct communication.Americans hold people in high esteem who can quickly ‘get to the bottom line’ …who do not ‘beat around the bush.’ Business executives respect employees who are ‘brutally honest.’ Americans often believe it takes too long to tell a whole story to make a point. Just make the point!, we contend.
In contrast, non-western peoples are often more comfortable with indirect than direct communication. Indirect communication includes the practice of storytelling and the use of poetic forms of speech. Indirect communication also means a hesitancy to give bad news. From an honor and shame perspective, this makes perfect sense. The beauty of indirect communication allows individuals to save face when giving bad news. Indirect communication saves face of the one bearing the bad news as well as saving face of the person receiving the news.
Here are some suggestions for western practitioners of cross-cultural partnerships:
Slow down and be extra generous with your time. If you expect to work through an issue of your partnership in 20 minutes, triple it and plan for an hour. Expect indirect communication, and it will take you at least two or three times longer to thoroughly discuss the issue.
Learn to be a good storyteller. Storytellers are highly respected in non-western cultures. If you are a good storyteller, you will use a form of communication that is indirect, and gain favor with your cross-cultural partners and with the individuals and families in their community.
Be gentle when communicating directly. Of course, direct communication is still needed for effective cross-cultural partnerships. But you can communicate in an overbearing manner, or in a gentle, effective manner. Choose the latter by the grace of God.
Use written documents. A written document or partnership agreement is usually a form of direct communication. This can be a helpful tool to review the logistics of the partnership, along with expectations and goals. At the same time, do not use the document as a “hammer” to enforce behavior; instead, use it as a guide that serves your vision to bless the peoples served by the partnership for the glory of God.
Take a quantum leap in understanding your cross-cultural ministry partner by understanding the five basic culture scales. Today’s focus: Direct/Indirect.
Pictures taken on the evening of the story below
A story of indirect communication in an honor and shame culture
We were driving in a large Arab city in the Middle East earlier this year. My dear friends (and Mission ONE ministry partners) Fahim and Karima (not their real names), were in the front. I was in the back seat. It was about 7:30 at night and we were looking for a certain neighborhood where we could find the proper evening accommodations for me. In order to get directions, we stopped at a parking lot in front of a shop where some young Arab men were standing around and talking. Fahim asked them for directions; one of the young men answered how to get to the neighborhood we were looking for. We drove away, proceeding according to his directions.
We soon discovered that these directions were misleading. As we continued driving around, not able to find the place we were looking for, I suggested from the back seat that maybe it was an example of the “honor and shame” culture at work. We ended up going in circles, and a few minutes later, Fahim, said, Yes, I think you are right about this honor and shame in our culture. We ended up in the same neighborhood in front of the same Arab guys; Fahim, himself an Arab, yelled at them in mild disgust.
Eventually, we found our destination through trial and error.
What happened to us? Here’s my explanation using the cultural lens of honor and shame.
Generally speaking, non-westerners, including Arab men, are committed to avoiding shame. While shame avoidance is a powerful motivation in all cultures including the west, this need to avoid shame is of another order of magnitude in eastern cultures; one might even say it as strong as the need to breathe. Maintaining one’s honor is simply vital in the truest sense of the word.
Indirect communication is part of avoiding shame; it protects the honor—both of the one speaking and of the one hearing. This is true for oneself and for one’s family, group of friends, or clan. Honor is established and maintained in public, face-to-face.
One of the characteristics of honor/shame cultures is the social ‘game’ of challenge and riposte. It may also be referred to as the honor game, or push-and-shove. This honor game is ubiquitous in eastern cultures; that is, it’s everywhere, all the time, for everybody. It is simply taken for granted as a normal, essential part of social interaction. And it is crucial for westerners in an eastern culture to understand that in public social situations, this ‘honor game’ is being played—constantly.
From the perspective of the Arab guys who were hanging around, our car drove up to them; they were asked a question which posed a challenge. Would they have the ability to provide the information needed in order for the people in the car to get to where they wanted to go?Would they know the answer? Would they satisfy the need of the people in the car who were lost? Would they be able to help? Would they pass the test?
This “test,” however small to the western mind, nevertheless constituted a genuine challenge to their honor. The young Arab man who answered us felt obligated to respond in such a way that everyone’s honor would be protected, and no one would be shamed—especially he and his friends.
In order to preserve their group honor and individual honor (which are inextricably linked), the Arab man invented an answer and gave us information which at best was incomplete, and at worst, completely contrived and wrong. However, while the answer was not accurate, it was given confidently; thus, their honor, individually and collectively, was preserved. Furthermore …
In the moment when the Arab guys answered the question, the honor of those in the car—my friends and me—was also preserved. How so? Because we did not have to experience the disappointment/shame of being told, No, we do not know and we cannot help you.
This story represents a social dynamic called “saving face,” because honor is established and maintained in public, face-to-face. In eastern cultures, saving face is as common as breathing—an example of indirect, as opposed to direct, communication.
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. Last week, this blog focused on the culture scale of Equality/Hierarchy. In this post, we are looking at Direct/Indirect, which refers to the degree to which people communicate directly or indirectly.
According to Peterson[1], the culture scale of Direct versus Indirect has the following features:
This second culture scale relates to the way people communicate and interact with one another in face-to-face verbal and nonverbal communication and in written communication.
A direct style means people prefer to
be more direct in speaking and be less concerned about how something is said,
openly confront issues or difficulties,
communicate concerns straightforwardly,
engage in conflict when necessary,
express views or opinions in a frank manner, and
say things clearly, not leaving much open to interpretation.
An indirect style means people prefer to
focus not just on what is said but on how it is said,
discreetly avoid difficult or contentious issues,
express concerns tactfully,
avoid conflict if at all possible,
express views or opinions diplomatically, and
count on the listener to interpret meaning.
Using Peterson’s words to add understanding to my story above, we could say that the Arab men who gave incorrect directions were “discreetly avoiding difficult or contentious issues” … “avoiding conflict if at all possible” … “expressing views or opinions diplomatically” … and perhaps, “counting on the listener to interpret meaning.”
In the next post, we will look at an example from Scripture of the use of direct versus indirect communication, and then consider some implications for cross-cultural partnership.
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: Equality/Hierarchy.
What I plan to do in this series of posts is to explain these one at a time, and further, to enhance our understanding of them through the lens of honor and shame. I also hope to clarify this through biblical illustrations.
Let’s start with Equality/Hierarchy. According to Peterson:[1]
A style based on equality means people prefer to:
be self-directed,
have flexibility in the roles they play in a company or on a team,
have the freedom to challenge the opinion of those in power,
make exceptions, be flexible, and maybe bend the rules, and
treat men and women in basically the same way.
A style based on hierarchy means people prefer to:
take direction from those above,
have strong limitations about appropriate behavior for certain roles,
respect and not challenge the opinions of those who are in power because of their status and their position,
enforce regulations and guidelines, and
expect men and women to behave differently and to be treated differently.
Equality: Where employees are granted the power to take initiative even if they don’t have a position or title after their name.
Hierarchy: Where the manager is expected to take control and make the decisions.
You may note that while Peterson’s descriptions are framed in business language, they are highly applicable to the work of cross-cultural ministry partnerships; this outline simply describes the way our values of equality or hierarchy invariably influence the different ways we relate to and work with others.
An example from Scripture: David spares Saul’s life / 1 Samuel 24
The Scripture passage of 1 Samuel chapter 24 is part of a series of events in which Saul tries, directly and indirectly, to get rid of David. Understanding the cultural value of honor and shame brings much clarity to these events.
Let’s do a little review:
David gains great honor and public acclaim by defeating Goliath the giant Philistine (1 Samuel 17). David’s courage is in the context of defending the honor of God and the honor of God’s people.
And David said to the men who stood by him, What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God? ( 1 Samuel 17:26 ESV)
David’s victory resulted in a huge accrual for him of achieved honor.
In chapter 18, Saul becomes jealous of David. Notice how the achieved honor of David was publicly recognized by the women who danced and sang in celebration of David. Note also that Saul recognized that David’s achieved honor also seemed to be elevated by the women to a form of ascribed honor.
As they were coming home, when David returned from striking down the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments. And the women sang to one another as they celebrated, ‘Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands.’ And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him. He said, They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands, and what more can he have but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day on (1 Samuel 18:3–9 ESV).
It is easy for us to recognize Saul’s jealousy. But when you add to this the understanding that in an honor and shame culture, honor is a zero-sum game, the power of this value to influence behavior is raised to another order of magnitude.
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.
From an honor and shame perspective, King Saul saw that his ascribed honor as king was threatened by the achieved honor of David. Saul’s very personhood, his total identity was threatened by David, and this caused him to rage with jealousy and seek David’s demise. Saul’s honor was at stake, and I believe he considered it the equivalent of a mortal threat. Naturally, Saul became obsessed with finding a way to kill David.
After a series of attempts by Saul to kill David (1 Samuel 18–23), chapter 24 finds David and his men in the innermost part of a cave, and when they go toward the entrance, they discover to their surprise that their mortal enemy King Saul is there sleeping. Some of David’s men say here’s your chance to kill your enemy, but David says no …
And the men of David said to him, Here is the day of which the LORD said to you, Behold, I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it shall seem good to you. Then David arose and stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. (1 Samuel 24:4 ESV)
Because of David’s loyalty to the position of the king who had been anointed by God—along with his obedience to the Spirit of God—David was committed to respecting the ascribed honor of Saul. Using the terminology of the culture scale of Equality/Hierarchy, this story illustrates David’s commitment to hierarchy as opposed to equality.
He said to his men, The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’s anointed. So David persuaded his men with these words and did not permit them to attack Saul. And Saul rose up and left the cave and went on his way. (1 Samuel 24:6–7)
David was displaying his commitment to God. To quote Peterson near the beginning of this post, David is an example of “taking direction from those above, having strong limitations about appropriate behavior for certain roles, and respecting and not challenging the opinions of those who are in power because of their status and their position.”
What are some applications to cross-cultural partnership? Understanding that most of the peoples of the non-western world hold to the values of hierarchy as opposed to equality, it is likely that western and nonwestern partners will confront situations where this collision of values will cause confusion and sometimes conflict. Here are some examples:
A westerner may be visiting the cross-cultural partnership and discover that he or she is treated with respect and honor that is unusual for western culture. This may make him or her feel uncomfortable, and one may want to refuse the honor given. But be careful: it can be disrespectful of their culture not to receive the honor they want to give you. Principle: A westerner should graciously receive the honor he or she is offered.
A westerner may want to display the attitude of being a servant-leader by doing things to serve others in an egalitarian manner. Like washing the dishes after a meal with your host family in their home. You may have a sincere heart in doing this but this can violate the hierarchical values of the home and society where you are serving. Principle: Don’t be a showoff.
A westerner may want to become friends or exchange email addresses with a member of the church family which is led by a nonwestern Christian pastor/leader. This may be viewed as inappropriate by the nonwestern leader because it displays an independent attitude which is not in keeping with the hierarchical values of their culture. It could cause conflict or suspicion between the western Christian leader and the majority-world Christian leader. Principle: Keep the primary relationship between leaders.
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 Equality/Hierarchy? 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.
