The challenge of "answering that of God" in a different cultural setting

“Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them. Then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone.” (George Fox, at the Friends Meeting in Ramallah)

I love this quote, which I first came across at the Friends Meeting House in Ramallah.  I admire George Fox and much of what I have heard and read of Quaker teaching. I appreciate the spirit of this quote, and would have to say that from all I’ve seen, in Palestine and elsewhere, Quakers seem to do a good job of connecting well with people in other cultural contexts. Part of it, I think, must be the humble spirit that seems to characterize Quakers – those who enter into another context as learners always get along better than those who rush in thinking they know what’s going on and what they have to offer to people in the new place. Part of it, I think, is the Quaker conviction that “that of God” is in everyone, and can resonate with “that of God” in us (this is particularly helpful, I think, in relationships between people of different religions, where there is a natural tendency to deny that the different others have anything of God in them). And part of it may be what seems to be the Quaker default of listening rather than speaking – listening until one has a sense of God speaking, being careful not to speak too quickly or out of one’s own inclinations. (I think it’s fairly obvious that for most of us, in going into a different cultural setting, we will be better off if we listen more and speak less.)

With all of this said, I want to question whether it is sufficient, in going abroad, to simply seek to live one’s life (as a pattern, example), and to “answer that of God”? I think that it’s a safer starting point than thinking one can enter into another setting and begin leading, teaching, or changing people. But I would suggest that it is only a starting point, not a place from which to have the most full and positive intercultural experience.

For the most positive experience of another culture, of people who are different than we are, we need to actively seek to enter into that cultural context as a learner, embracing the fact that these others – while sharing a common humanity – are different than ourselves; accepting the difference, that is, and then adapting to it.  (See Bennett’s “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity,” in which the ethnocentric stages of Denial – Defense – Minimization are followed by stages of Acceptance – Adaptation – Integration.)

The nature of cultural difference is such that one person’s “example,” i.e., their way of living out their relationship with God (their faith, their religion), does not readily translate into another cultural context, is not readily interpretable or understandable. Modesty, for example, arguably an inner reality in a person’s attitude toward self, God and others, is worked out very differently in different cultural contexts. And therefore, one may be truly modest in one’s own context, but not be seen as an example of modesty by others in a different context (we experienced this when we moved from the U.S. to live among Arab Muslims). Ways of showing hospitality, ways of showing respect and honor, and on and on, differ significantly from culture to culture.

To truly, ultimately be a positive (rather than negative) "example" to those of another culture, we must learn to translate the inner reality of our lives into the outward expressions of the different cultural setting. And this will be different from setting to setting.