InContext

Muslim-Christian Relations, 10 years after 9/11

2011-08-24T11:57:00.000-04:00

This article - which quotes several of my friends - highlights the challenge of Christian-Muslim relations in our post-9/11 world.

There are lots of strong and different opinions on all sides of this critical issue. Personally, I see the matter - how we relate to the "different others" - as a test of faith, reflecting on the quality and nature of our faith, and the God we believe in. How are we who claim the name of Jesus doing, in reflecting His example of loving our neighbors and even our enemies?

Culture Post of the Day: "Christian Terrorism in Norway?"

2011-08-14T06:01:00.000-04:00

Joseph Cumming, Director of the Reconciliation Program of the Center for Faith and Culture at Yale Divinity School, reflects on the recent "Christian" terrorist attack in Norway. He refers to Breivik's distinction between "religious Christianity" and "cultural Christianity," and the challenge that a "tribal" approach to Christianity poses to Christians of faith (and to our relations with others in the world).

Culture Quote of the Day - different views of God, more likely to fight?

2011-08-09T11:10:00.000-04:00

“...the more different the gods worshipped by various peoples, the more likely, all other things being equal, that their respective worshippers will come into conflict and the less likely that they will find peaceful resolution of conflict”

“The claim that Muslims and Christians worship radically different deities is good for fighting, but not for living together peacefully.”

Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response

I'm not sure.

Volf's book is excellent, and I agree with most of his arguments and his main points. I'm not sure, though, that I agree that there is a correlation between how different peoples' conceptions of God are, and their likelihood of experiencing conflict.

Some thoughts:
1. I wonder if closeness in concept of God may be even more of an irritant, at least in some cases. Take (at least in certain times and places) different groups of Christians, e.g., Catholic and Protestant. We're talking about the same God, or at least a fairly close conception, and yet, plenty of conflict.

2. It seems to me more significant, whether a group's concept of God is one that tends toward peace and forgiveness and peacemaking or not. E.g., Jesus teaches us to forgive, to make peace, to love our neighbors and even our enemies. Regardless of whether Muslims or anyone has a close conception of God to mine, as a follower of Jesus, I should - if I follow the teachings of Jesus - do everything possible to live in peace with those others.

On the second quote, I think that the correlation is that in times of tension (like those between Muslims and Christians, post-9/11), both communities are more likely to emphasize different concepts of God, in a knee-jerk reaction to push away those different others that they are in conflict with. One could also say (reinforcing my point #2) that the view of God of the extreme Muslims, is a violent view, and leads them to their violent actions. But their view is considered by the vast majority of Muslims to be extreme and not representative of the true teachings of Islam.

In any case, I recommend Volf's book as a good and critically important read in these days of Muslim-Christian tensions.

Culture Blog of the Day - should Christians "evangelize"?

2011-07-27T07:35:00.000-04:00

Should Christians "evangelize"? Should we try to get people to convert to "Christianity"? Should we call ourselves "Christian"? Friend Carl Medearis talks about these issues in this interesting CNN blog piece. Check it out, as well as all the comments.

Culture Quote of the Day - Questions God Can't Answer

2011-07-25T07:28:00.000-04:00

"Can a mortal ask question which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask – half our great theological and metaphysical problems – are like that."

C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

I guess what strikes me about this is that in our human, cultural, world-building endeavors, in which we construct views of reality, and ways of dealing with reality, we do quite a bit (within what we consider our "religion") that amounts to constructing "answers" to questions which may be (from God's perspective) mostly nonsense. We spend so much time and energy, it seems, on what is tertiary, building groups and institutions around minor points of difference, "straining gnats but swallowing camels" (as Jesus said).

Culture Quote of the Day - ambiguity in religion

2011-07-17T18:22:00.000-04:00

“Ambiguity in religion is no vice. Those who possess absolute truth are too often those who seek to impose their version of the truth on others. Those who struggle, who see the complexity of faith, are typically far more tolerant of diversity and dissent. For religious minorities such as the Jews, there is an undeniable appeal to finding themselves in the midst of a mature and conflicted majority religion.”

David Brog, Standing With Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State

Culture Quote of the Day - Stuck in ruts or seeking truth? (Maimonides)

2011-07-16T15:13:00.000-04:00

"Men like the opinions to which they have become accustomed from their youth; they defend them and shun contrary views: and this is one of the things that prevent men from finding the truth, for they cling to the opinions of habit."

Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed

This is so true. How do we overcome this tendency? How do we escape the inertia of living with our customs, habits, traditions, patterns, in short, with our ethnocentrism? How do we escape the tendency to recoil from anything that is new and different and strange to us? How do we develop an orientation toward getting out of our territory, our "bubble," and setting out on a search for truth that leads us into the "territory" (literal and figurative) of others? Can we develop the ability to see the tendency that Maimonides puts his finger on, and to work against it?

Culture Quote of the Day - God the great iconoclast

2011-07-11T13:50:00.001-04:00

Images of the Holy easily become holy images – sacrosanct. My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself. He is the great iconoclast. Could we not almost say that this shattering is one of the marks of His presence?

Not my idea of God, but God.

C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

How true this is. This is human nature, to create images of God, and then to focus on, I would say to exalt, and in the worst of times, to idolize (i.e., to worship, to commit idolatry) those images.

I love the image of God as the “great iconoclast.” And often, he uses other people – sometimes, the very Other, e.g., people from a different religious tradition altogether – to shatter our images.

May God “show up” (as some people put it) and shatter our images of Him, whenever and however necessary.

Christ-Centered Patriotism? (Celebrating the 4th)

2011-07-04T13:31:00.003-04:00

On the occasion of the 4^th of July, I find myself reflecting on Christ-centered patriotism.

I'm reminded of my friend Pastor Jin Kim's concept of being “penitently Presbyterian,” and the idea of applying this to being American, i.e., being “penitently American.” The idea is, to embrace my identity as an American, but in a humble, penitent way. Rather than being “proud to be an American,” might I be “humble to be an American”? Humble both in light of the fact that I did nothing to “earn” my American citizenship (thanks, mom, that you gave birth to me in the U.S.), and in light of the fact that we have our faults, our share of bad history, etc.?

I am glad to be American, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't trade my citizenship. I think the U.S. is an amazing country, still a land of freedom and opportunity. Everywhere I have lived, I have met people who would give all that they have for American citizenship and the opportunity to try to make something of themselves in the U.S. I may be wrong, but my guess is that if you threw the world wide open and allowed people to move and live anywhere they wanted, more people would choose to live in the U.S. than any other country (is that just my American bias showing?).

Through our 28+ years living mainly outside of the U.S., my attitude toward the U.S. has changed. I have become more self-aware of how others view the U.S. (in particular, how they view American foreign policy). I have come to see the world, and American actions and policies, through the eyes of others, and this has tempered my views and my patriotism (has helped me become, I hope, more humble / penitent in my American identity).

We were in Tunisia during the Gulf War; we were in Egypt on 9/11 and during the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We heard the critique and the criticisms, often were a sounding board for the frustrations of our local friends. During the (first) Gulf War, in particular, I often found myself in arguments, as my perspectives on what was happening clashed with those of my Tunisian friends. I found myself justifying and defending American actions, but then walking away feeling that the discussion had been fruitless and aggravating.

I found myself reflecting on the fact that I was not in Tunisia (or elsewhere) to represent and defend the U.S. and its interests (note: I have never worked for the U.S. Government). On the other hand, the New Testament teaches clearly that all Christians are “Ambassadors of Christ,” called to represent him and his “ministry of reconciliation” to all people we meet, anywhere and everywhere. We are called to be “good news,” to be lifting up Jesus. I had more than one conversation about American policy and practice, at the end of which I walked away wondering whether the person I had been talking with was closer to or farther from Jesus, than before we talked. And I realized that, for me at least, arguing a political (or other) point, from the American perspective, was not near as important as sharing the blessings of life in Jesus.

While I am glad to be American, I have become somewhat less attached (in a good way, I think) to my American identity. I am more ready to listen to criticism of America and American policy (though remember that peoples' points of view are just that, points of view, and not necessarily “true” in an objective sense).

As I have written elsewhere, I have also drifted, somewhat, toward becoming culturally “marginal,” not totally fitting in anywhere. Is this a good thing or not? It doesn't always feel good. But then, the New Testament also teaches that we who experience life through Jesus are (like Abraham and so many others of God's people) “pilgrims and strangers” on the earth, with our “citizenship in heaven” and looking forward to “a city that is to come.”

So to my fellow American Christians I say, enjoy celebrating the 4^th of July. Thank God for the privileges and blessings we enjoy in the U.S. But let's not idolize our country, our people, our nationality. Let's not look down on others or consider ourselves better (more good New Testament advice). And let's remember that we are “pilgrims and strangers” on this earth, here to represent and lift up Jesus (not our President or our nation's actions or politics) and to pass on the blessings of life in God to all others. “Blessed to be a blessing” (another Biblical theme) – may this be true of us as Americans as well as in our identity as Christians.

Christ-Centered Patriotism? (Celebrating the 4th)

2011-07-04T13:31:00.001-04:00

On the occasion of the 4^th of July, I find myself reflecting on Christ-centered patriotism.

Allah: A Christian Response

2011-07-01T10:08:00.001-04:00

I have read many books (and answered many questions) related to the question of whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. This is the best book I have read on the subject, and it is particularly helpful and interesting because Volf addresses the broader context, including ways in which God and religion serve as identity markers and contribute to conflict between groups. His discussion of the views of some key historical figures (including Martin Luther) on the question is very helpful. And a significant part of the book is the discussion of whether Christians and Muslims can find a way to work together for the "common good" (rather than trying to destroy each other).

I highly recommend this book, for Christians and Muslims alike. But to benefit, you have to approach it with an open mind...

Building Hope: The Final Statement

2011-06-26T09:01:00.000-04:00

Here is the Final Statement from the 10-day Building Hope Conference of the Reconciliation Program at the Center for Faith and Culture at Yale Divinity. It was a significant, transformative, "intercultural" and "interreligious" time.

Cross-Cultural Friendship Revisited

2011-06-24T07:30:00.000-04:00

I think my previous post, "Is It Possible to Be Friends With Someone of Another Culture or Religion?" may have come across that it was hopeless. I didn't mean to leave it that way, just to raise the question, to reflect on the fact that building friendship with someone from a different culture or religion can be tricky, can present surprises and challenges along the way, because of our different expectations about friendship and ways of approaching friendship.

I know, for example, that I have disappointed Arab friends at different times. Americans tend to be quickly "friendly," with people we barely know; but as individualists (culturally), and due to various factors, we have boundaries around the expectations between friends. Even a good friend, for example, might call and need help, but will accept various excuses if it doesn't work out; an Arab, though, in general, would never not help a friend, even if it were very inconvenient.

That's the thing. Friendship, I think, is about how deeply you can share with another person. It's about trust. And it's about what you can depend on, what you can expect. It's about loyalty, who will stick by you, and through what? At the very least, a cross-cultural or cross-religious friendship takes time, perhaps (?) longer than one with someone culturally and religiously closer. (And for me, there are levels or degrees of relationship, of friendship, or perhaps circles.)

So to conclude, I made some new friends this past week at the "Building Hope" Conference - some new Christian friends (American and other), some new Jewish friends (mostly Orthodox, and from different countries), and some new Muslim friends (from America and from both Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority lands). But I use the term carefully - we were "friendly" with each other, and we began sharing stories (some of them deep, profound, very personal); we began (at least some of us with some others) talking about our "personal" lives, our families. We began...we laid a foundation. But it will take time for the relationships to go deep, to get to know each other well, build trust. And we'll probably have to pass through periods/areas of Miroslav's "non-understanding."

And to return to Tunisia, I do have strong Tunisian friendships. I lived there for 12 years, and spent thousands of hours with many different people. I know several Tunisian friends who I absolutely can count on - if I showed up in Tunisia, homeless (or not), and in need (of any kind), they would take me in (no questions asked), give me money or whatever I needed, and make sure I was all right. They would treat me (in my book) as if I were family. And that's partly the beauty of the Tunisian (Arab, Muslim) cultural way of treating people you have spent much time with.

Deeply Committed Yet Open to The "Other" - Jews, Christians and Muslims Seeking the Common Good

2011-06-23T09:51:00.002-04:00

The “Building Hope: Muslims, Christians and Jews Seeking the Common Good” conference has come to an end. What an amazing time.

Normally, “interfaith” activities tend to attract more “liberal” or “progressive” people, in any of the faith traditions. Because of that, many of the more “conservative” people in each of the faith traditions tend to look on these gatherings and activities with suspicion – suspicion that the participants are acting as if “all roads lead to God” or all religions are the same or everything is relative; i.e., that we are “giving away the farm.”

In a way, at the heart of this conference was the question, can we as people of faith be deeply committed to our own faith, but yet relate to others – equally committed to their faith – with respect, and even beyond that, build relationships where we understand each other, can discuss our differences (even deep ones) frankly, and even become friends (in spite of our differences)? Can we experience transformative relationship with “the Other” - transformative, not in that we lose our own faith or distinctives, but in the sense that we grow as human beings with “large hearts,” able (like God) to embrace others whether they agree with us or not, to care for them as human beings, and to work together to seek the “common good” (the good of humanity), and not just look out for our own interests (hmm, that makes me think of the statement in the New Testament, “do not just look out for your own interests” - could that possibly include people of other faiths?).

For me as an Anthropologist, this is very much about what I often write about, growing from an Ethnocentric perspective on life, the world, faith, God – i.e., where the worldview and ways of my people are the only one I know – to an Ethnorelative (or Ethnosensitive) experience, recognizing that there are other worldviews and ways, and being able to enter into the life, the world, the perspectives of others, and learning to appreciate them as they are (different from me). This does not mean losing oneself, but rather, growing, expanding.

I think this conference was a smashing success. I am astounded, really. We were Christians (including evangelical, Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox, and several different countries), Jews (mainly Orthodox, but including Reform and Conservative, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, and again from different countries including Israel), and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite, and from different countries) – all deeply committed, the kind of people you might expect to clash. And yet, from the start, there was respect, a desire to know and understand, an openness to listening and learning and changing, in the context of sharing with each other our deep commitments, and asking each other some hard questions.

A highlight, which I've written about, was visiting each other's places of worship. For many of us, it was the first time in one of the settings (or both). And everyone, as far as I heard, considered it a deeply meaningful and impactful experience. Openness to “the Other.” Wow.

Another highlight, probably the heart of the time, was the meals together and the opportunity to just “hang out,” getting to know each other. We all discovered, I think, the great power of personal relationship to transform our experience and perspectives. We tend to live with stereotypes of “the Other.” Only through relationship with real people can we break those strereotypes. (Something else that helped us greatly was humor – I'm not sure I knew that Orthodox Jews and Muslims could be so funny! Maybe we should start a new comedy tour?)

Last night as we reflected back on the 10 days, we used the metaphor of seeing through different glasses. I would probably sum up this experience for me by saying, developing new friendships with other Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, has helped me to see Jesus more clearly. I am more thankful than ever, personally, for who he is and what he has done and daily does for me, for the fact that he came to give life and freedom.

I look forward to continuing to develop the relationships with my new friends, learning about myself, others, and God along the way.

For more reflections, from a perspective of Peacemaking, see http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/.

Culture Quote of the Day - Through the Eyes of the Other

2011-06-22T10:10:00.002-04:00

“if we are to move forward [e.g., in better relationships between Christians, Jews and Muslims], we need to understand what the world looks like through the eyes of another person”

(participant in the Building Hope Conference)

This pretty much applies to every in every domain, whether Muslims, Jews and Christians toward each other, or men and women, or whites and people of color, or different nationalities, etc.

Culture Cartoon of the Day - "Anthropologists!"

2011-06-21T14:19:00.001-04:00

On the lighter side, one of the challenges facing Anthropologists, in our search for true understanding of other cultures:

"Christian Worship"?

2011-06-19T20:49:00.000-04:00

I used the phrase "Christian worship" in my title the last two days, re. my experiencing of worshiping God in the context of attending Friday (Muslim) prayers, and an Orthodox Jewish Shabbat service.

Let me return for a moment to that title. More accurately, I would have titled the postings, "A Christian Worshiping..." (at or in the context of, these other settings, or among these other worshipers in their faith context). "Christian worship" might imply that there is something organized, objective, a structure and approach, a liturgy, etc., that I mean. And how could you do that at a masjad or synagogue?

To me as a Christian, though, worship is not about - and doesn't require - liturgy and a specific place, qualified religious leaders, etc. Worship is about connecting with God in one's heart and mind and spirit. It's about being stirred to love him and respond to him, to see and respond to his glory and majesty, to offer one's heart and life to him in service (in Arabic, service and worship are one and the same word).

Jesus said, "a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

Note that he said this to a Samaritan woman. As a Rabbi, it was questionable that he took his disciples through Samaria rather than the long way around, and downright scandalous that he spoke to a woman. And given that the Samaritans had what to the Jews was a false religion, it is powerful that he did not argue religion, or compare them, etc., but simply took the discussion to a new level.

I just wanted to clarify that, for someone who might think it odd to talk of "Christian worship" in a masjad or synagogue.

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

I am thankful that this weekend, I had opportunity not only to worship God in a church setting, but also in a masjad and a synagogue. It made for a rich weekend.

Christian Worship in a Synagogue?

2011-06-19T10:20:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I had the opportunity for the first time, to attend an Orthodox Jewish prayer service. I found it very interesting, in every respect. I found myself wondering about the role of women in Orthodox Judaism, and about the shape/form of "feminist" movements in that context. I was struck by the reverence, the sense of the sacred, especially toward the Torah - the way it is kept in a special place, the way it is treated, brought out, walked around the room, the obvious reverence and respect the worshipers have for their sacred book.

The elements of the service, from my observation, were prayers, the bringing out of the Torah, a very long section (the longest) where the Torah is read, and a brief message.

During the Torah reading, seven of the male participants read sections. Everything was in Hebrew, of course. We had copies of the Scripture in Hebrew, with an English translation, and with rabbinic commentary in English. I found it fascinating to read both the text - translated slightly differently, in places, than the Old Testament in our Christian Bible - and the commentary.

I have determined to get myself one of these copies of the "Old Testament," to study the Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures. It has just hit me, for the first time, that what I have is a Christian understanding of Judaism, and I would like to supplement that with the Jewish understanding of their faith. I expect it will be an eye-opening and enriching study.

As in the case of my time observing the Friday prayers, I found myself deeply stirred and worshiping God, in the Jewish prayer service. One point of connection, obviously, was that we were in a shared text, one that I have read all my life. But I was also stirred, through being in the Jewish Scripture, and thinking of their understanding of God in that context (apart from the New Testament and Jewish), to reflect on God, his holiness, his relationship with his people in times past, and whether I revere and honor God as deeply as what I observed among a people who will not even speak his name, but refer to him as "the Name" (Hashem).

Thank you, God, for stirring my heart and my faith in my journey among "the other."

An Imam, A Rabbi, and Hearing from God

2011-06-18T21:31:00.000-04:00

"Pray this prayer as if it were your last" (Imam Dawood, at Friday prayers yesterday)

"Repentance allows us to live with the consequences (of our actions), closer to God" (Rabbi Slotnik, at an Orthodox Jewish prayer service today, commenting on Numbers 14 and following).

I find, if I enter into another's context, and listen carefully, try to understand and appreciate their vision, their faith, their actions, in their context, and ask God to speak to me, he does - he speaks to me, through the other. I'm not going to theologize about this, but I have experienced it. Yesterday and today, God has touched my heart through Muslim and Jewish prayer (worship). And I am thankful. (Tomorrow we all participate in a Christian service.)

Christian Worship in a Masjid?

2011-06-18T09:20:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, as an activity of our "Building Hope" Conference, I attended Friday prayers at the New Haven masjid. The speaker was one of our participants, Chaplain Dawood from Dartmouth. I appreciated his message. He was articulate, intermingling Arabic (Qur'anic quotes, Hadith, and Arabic expressions) with English. He had a several point message, focused on 10 things people can do in a minute, to stop and focus on God, to keep from getting too caught up in the busy-ness which afflicts us in modern America.

I was struck by the fact that if you took out the Islamic references and Arabic, and transposed the specific content from an Islamic framework to a Biblical one, you could give the message in a church. The issues are the same - how can we remember and keep focused on God, in the midst of a busy daily life? How can we stir our hearts, strengthen our faith, stay "warm" toward God?

Chaplain/Imam Dawood connected with his audience, and he connected with me. I found myself praying as he spoke, asking God to help me (through Jesus) to apply the points he was encouraging us to (in my faith context, my relationship with Jesus).

It is an interesting experience, trying to enter into and understand another faith context, on its own terms, but at the same time, finding a personal connection, bringing something back into my context, and receiving personal benefit.

I felt, as I left the masjid, that I had worshiped and fellowshiped with God.

Is it Possible to be Friends With Those of a Different Culture or Religion?

2011-06-18T08:40:00.000-04:00

I remember a time, perhaps 3-4 years into my Tunisia sojourn, when I wondered if it was a realistic goal to have deep or close friendship with people of a different culture and religion (specifically, at the time, for me, with Tunisian Muslims). I was doing well in Arabic, able to communicate, and spending a lot of time with Tunisian "friends." But then we kept running into surprises, where people let us down in some way or another, e.g., where ulterior motives came to the surface ("can you get me a visa to America?") or taking advantage of us, etc. I realized that expectations are very different in different cultural settings, and also, that in the case of a different religion, there is a different set of allegiances. So what can you count on, what depth of trust can there be?

My perspective changed over the next few years, as I came to the point of having Tunisian friends that I felt I knew fairly deeply and could count on.

But this week, here at the Building Hope Conference at the Center for Faith and Culture at Yale, as we have been focusing on building relationships - and we have talked about friendships - between Christians, Jews and Muslims, I have been thinking about this again.

I had a rather surprising "incident" the other day, on the second or third day here. On a break, I was talking with a Muslim from the Middle East, but who has lived for a number of years in the U.S. We were chatting, and I asked if he is married? if he has kids? how many? (we were interacting - I was sharing about myself, too) do his kids go to public school in the U.S., or a private Islamic school?

And then the surprise - he said, "you're asking a lot of questions." I said I was sorry, didn't mean to, was just chatting. He said, "well, you ask about kids, but then whether they're in an Islamic private school? - that's personal."

This interaction took me aback. We could attribute it to an intercultural faux pas (e.g., generalize that middle easterners are more slow to share personal information, which I know), but there are other factors involved:

1. I know Middle Eastern culture, interact with Middle Eastern Muslims all the time, and feel that I have a sense of how the interaction is going. I often get into discussion, in Jordan where I live, with people I meet even for the first time, about our families.

2. I didn't think of the topic as particularly sensitive. I'm interested in the education question because of my interest in the immigrant experience, as well as that of how religious people in general relate to the question of public vs. private religious schools. It seemed to me a "normal" topic.

3. We're here at a conference whose explicit purpose is building relationship, and we have been encouraged, beyond that, to seek friendship. We had been together for a couple of days, and I had already had this kind of interaction with several participants, with no sign of getting "too personal, too quickly."

So what to conclude from this? It may be something personal to this individual. Perhaps as a Muslim in post-9/11 America, he has had too many non-Muslims asking too many personal questions, and is suspicious (I don't blame him). Or perhaps he is a private person. Or there may be some other explanation all together.

Whatever the explanation, I find myself thinking again about the nature of friendship, and what I can expect, or hope for, in building relationship with those of a different culture and/or a different religion.

"The Hijab Hurdle in Sports" - how does "culture" need to accomodate religion?

2011-06-17T22:35:00.003-04:00

Here's an issue for you, that is both a cultural and a religious issue: rulings on the participation of Muslim women in sports events, based on their wanting to compete wearing the hijab.

Culture Cartoon of the Day: Ethnocentrism 101

2011-06-17T09:04:00.002-04:00

Which side are you on?

Building Hope Through Building Relationship - Friendship is Key

2011-06-16T22:00:00.001-04:00

Hanging out for 9 days with Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews from the U.S., Turkey, Iraq, New York, Israel, and elsewhere; with Sunni Muslims from various countries including the U.S., and a leading American Shiite Imam (from Iraq); and with Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Christians from Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, and the U.S. - presenting, asking questions and discussing; eating meals together; going on outings; and just becoming friends?

Let me say, very clearly – sharing our beliefs and practices and talking about all of the issues is significant and meaningful; but spending time building relationship with different others is by far the most significant aspect of this time at the “Building Hope” Conference.

As the Arab proverb says, "if you are ignorant of something, you are at enmity with it (or with him/her)." The person we do not know, that we fear, is the person we need to seek out. Relationship changes everything (if we are open to being changed).

Quotes of the Day - Jewish, Christian and Muslim texts re. Who is my Neighbor? and What does it mean to love my Neighbor, including the poor?

2011-06-16T21:51:00.003-04:00

Some quotes from today (we're talking Orthodox Jews, committed Muslims including a Shi'ite Imam, and committed Christians from all main branches, talking together about our faith and issues like love of neighbor, peacemaking, and more):

"We're not talking about Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but about Christians, Muslims and Jews, and how we're going to live together; and we have to live together with Sikhs, Hindus, and others."

***

A gentile approached Shammai and said to him: "Convert me but teach me the entire Torah as I stand on one foot." Shammai, feeling that he wasn't serious, chased him away. This gentile then approached Hillel with the same request but was met with a very different reaction--Hillel agreed. The entire Torah on one foot that Hillel taught him was "what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the entire Torah while the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."

Talmud [Shabbos 31A]

Do not hate a fellow Israelite [your brother] in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

When foreigners reside among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigners residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

(Leviticus 19:17-18; 33-34)

***

“Whoever believes in Allah (S.W.T.) and the Last Day, let him treat his neighbor well...” (Bukhari and Muslim) According to a report given by Bukhari, he (s.a.w.s.) said: “Whoever believes in Allah (S.W.T.) and the Last Day, let him not harm or annoy his neighbor...”

***

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

Jesus (Luke 10:25-37)

***

“My concern is not that we don't love our enemies, but that we don't love anyone; that we just love ourselves and those who it is convenient to love. … In the West, now, we are lacking even a sense of community, what it means to have literal, actual neighbors. … What would it look like for us to take our literal neighborhoods seriously?”

“in order to love anyone, you not only need empathy, but you also need a great deal of forgiveness”

“if the religious leader is the leader of community organization, it doesn't last – need to get it to the grassroots level”

“We all have poor neighbors. We live with them as if they don't exist.”

Amos 5:24, “let justice fall down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty flowing stream”

"we are to love our neighbor, but sometimes I don't love my wife"

“If poverty were a man, I would have killed him,” and “every time a poor person starves, it is because of the accumulation of wealth by the wealthy” (Imam Ali; i.e., poverty is not from God, but is a human problem).

“Don't claim to believe in me [Muhammad], when you sleep with a full stomach, while your neighbor is hungry” (Hadith) - “social justice and helping the poor is considered a primary responsibility for every Muslim.”

“the best image of love is the image of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples” - “love does not look down, but looks up (from a position of humility)”

“charity for those in your community, and justice for all” - “there has to be room in our bigger world for particularism”; “we are all human beings created in the divine image, and every human being has worth and dignity, but how do you put that into a program? Do you make no distinctions?” Or do you take the view that “you exist in a world of concentric circles of obligation” (family, neighborhood, tribe or caste, etc., country, and world)? “But is this model satisfying? Doesn't there need to be room for giving charity to our own people first?”

*****

You can see that interacted over some very heavy and significant issues, among them, the question of “who is my neighbor?” and “what does love of neighbor mean?” spilling into particularism versus universalism, i.e., the question of whether we are right in looking to some extent after the needs of our own community first, and then for others, or whether we need to be practicing love of neighbor (including charity) to all people equally.

Let me say, very clearly – talking about all of these issues is significant and meaningful; but spending time building relationship with different others – in my case, with Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews, with Sunni and Shiite Muslims from different nations, and with Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Christians – is by far the most significant aspect of this time at the “Building Hope” Conference.

Who do we love? Who do we do good to? What is our mandate?

2011-06-16T09:16:00.003-04:00

An interesting question came up yesterday, as we were talking about peacemaking and tolerance in our (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) traditions.

A Jewish presenter shared the text,

The reason Adam was created alone in the world is to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had destroyed the entire world; and whoever keeps alive a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had preserved the entire world.

But someone pointed out that there is another version,

FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL,³⁹ SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.⁴⁰

This raises the question, are Jews encouraged not to destroy / to save, Jewish life, or all life?

Similarly, a Muslim presenter shared the Hadith,

"None of you truly believes (in Allaah and in His religion) until he loves for his neighbor what he loves for himself,"

but another pointed out that this is "weak," that the "strong" version is

"None of you truly believes (in Allah and in His religion) until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself,"

with the understanding that "brother" means fellow Muslims.

And for Christians, does Jesus' teaching to "lover your neighbor as yourself" mean fellow Christian, or all others? (Note, for example, that in Matthew 5:23-24 it says, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to that person; then come and offer your gift." - does "brother or sister" mean fellow Christian, or everyone?)

I do not approach this from the position of arguing what Islam or Judaism teaches (e.g., some Christians argue that Islam teaches only love of Muslims). One question is what the texts say; another is, how do we interpret and apply them, what do we emphasize.

My perspective is that in any of our traditions we are faced with the question, how do we relate to people (The Other) outside our tradition, outside our community? What are our commitments? Are we committed to doing good to all people, loving all people, saving the life of all people? The potential is there, in each of our traditions, for inclusivity or exclusivity, for narrowness or breadth.

As a Christian, I believe that our mandate, from Jesus, is to love all people. After all, when he taught that the second great commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself,” the example he used to illustrate this (to his Jewish listeners) was the dispised, “half-breed,” “false religion” Samaritan.

Culture Cartoon of the Day: Universal Truths All Religions Agree On

2011-06-15T22:55:00.000-04:00

So what's your view of The Other?

Concerned About Understanding and Peace? Familiar with the Common Word?

2011-06-15T22:51:00.000-04:00

Do you desire better Christian-Muslim-Jewish understanding, and peace between these communities? (If not, why not?) If you are, are you familiar with the Common Word initiative - http://www.acommonword.com/ - and the Christian response that issued from the Yale (the Center for Faith and Culture at the Divinity School) - http://www.yale.edu/faith/acw/acw.htm? This is the kind of initiative that is needed, if we are to have better relations between Christians, Muslims and Jews in the world today, and more peace. If you are a person of religious conviction (or not), I would encourage you to look at and think about this (and other) initiative.

To Protest on the Sidewalk, or Eat Falafal in the Mosque?

2011-06-15T16:46:00.000-04:00

One of our Muslim speakers talked about an American Christian leader who brought a group of Christians to protest outside his mosque (protesting against the Muslims wanting to "take over America and impose Sharia."

The Muslim leader invited the Christian leader, rather than sitting outside on the sidewalk, to come into the mosque, eat falafal with them, and talk. The Christian leader, he said, refused. "He was not interested in talking - he just wanted to protest" (and, when asked what his idea was of Sharia, didn't have any idea - he was protesting what he did not know).

This strikes me as a believable but sad comentary on Muslim-Christian (though it could include anyone) relations in these days. And again we are forced to consider, would I rather react and protest, or am I willing to step out of my comfort zone, enter the mosque (or whatever the space), share a meal, and get to know The Other?

Understanding, Image, and Self-Awareness - the impact of Interfaith Relationships

2011-06-15T14:17:00.000-04:00

We are talking about a wide range of fascinating topics, at the "Building Hope" Conference. We have started out with all three groups - Muslims, Jews and Christians - sharing about our beliefs and practices, with questions and discussions.

A theme, so far, that I find myself thinking about, is that of understanding and image.

More than one person has said something like, you (the other two groups) have a certain image of us. I would like it if you would let me explain myself (our group, our beliefs, etc.), and replace your image of me (us) with our image of ourselves (i.e., see us as we think we are).

This, of course, makes total sense, but how easy it is to forget. How easy it is to relate to others based on my image of them, rather than learning to know them as they are (this movement, I would say, is at the heart of what it means to move from relating to people ethnocentrically to relating to them ethnorelatively or ethnosensitively).

But an issue arises, of course - to what extent can we really understand "The Other"? Someone pointed out an author (I forget who), who said that we really can't fully/deeply/truly understand other peoples' religious faith. I seem to remember Wilfred Cantwell Smith saying something of the sort. This could be true not only between religious communities (how can I as a Christian, for example, know how a Muslim feels about the Qur'an, or the depth of the impact of saying the Shahada, in/on his or her mind, heart, soul?), but also within a religious tradition (can I really know the reality of another person's faith, what's going on in their heart and mind and spirit?).

Of course, we can work in the direction of understanding, but we need to observe, ask questions, listen carefully, and push ourselves to go deeper, not to stop at the surface. It strikes me how often our relationships with and understanding of each other, remain relatively superficial, either assuming we "know" the other, or perhaps not even thinking about it.

One other thing - self-awareness comes, in part, through coming to understand how others perceive us. If a Muslim or a Jew tells me as a Christian, "honestly, I tend to think of you Christians as polytheists," that can be a cause for interesting self-reflection, learning about myself as well as the Other. I find myself thinking, for example, what really is monotheism? what does it mean to worship God monotheistically? and how can I express my conviction of the fact that I am monotheistic, in a way that can make sense to Muslims and Jews in light of the different understandings we have of God?

I'm reminded of a classic statement of anthropological experience, that we "journey into (or among) the other, only to returned changed to ourselves" (to find ourselves, to know ourselves, in a new light).

Muslims, Christians and Jews on the path to understanding?

2011-06-14T21:55:00.000-04:00

The "Building Hope" conference has begun.

There is too much to reflect on coherently at this time, but a couple of thoughts about how to relate to the Other, in a way that might lead to something positive:

* We were encouraged last night that for deeper understanding, we must go beyond study of texts (history, etc.), and focus on developing friendship with others (the others we might be suspicious or afraid or ignorant of, in conflict with, etc.). In fact, that's why 30 of us - Muslims, Christians and Jews - are spending 10 days together, sharing life, sharing meals, sharing faith, and discussing difficult issues.

* We were also encouraged that the path to understanding usually leads through times of non-understanding. If we think we "understand" the Other from the start, what we really understand are just our own stereotypes of the Other, relating to an image rather than reality.

* Today, one of the Jewish speakers reminded us that Muslims and Christians both tend to think they understand Judaism, but what we really understand are our own versions of Judaism, based on our textual traditions. If we really want to understand Judaism (and Jews), we need to let them speak, and listen, to come to know them, and their version. The challenge, the speaker pointed out, is to hold our texts and images in one hand, and to create space for understanding Judaism on its own terms, at the same time.

What we experienced, today, was Muslims and Jews sharing about their beliefs and practices, and significant question and answer times (that were too short, but very significant); and lots of relational time, as well, over meals and breaks, interacting, getting to know each other, and - I hope - moving toward more of an understanding of Each Other as we really are (not as images).

And we still have 8 more full days of this! I'm hopeful...

Faith and Culture: a Conservative Muslim "fighting for freedom," but not like the Tea Party

2011-06-12T19:21:00.001-04:00

A Yale University PhD student who is wildly popular among the world's most conservative Muslims? Raised, educated, and at home in America and Saudi Arabia alike? A "pacifist Salafi"? Working out conservative Islam in the American context (and being against the "hijacking" of Islam by terrorists)? Receiving a death threat for shaking a woman's hand? Talking openly about "the J word" (Jihad)?

For a fascinating example of the interplay of faith and culture, see this article about one of the most famous "conservative" Muslims in the world, Yasir Qadhi:

It is something of a curiosity that Qadhi, who was raised in Saudi Arabia, Islam’s birthplace, now lives in a landscape marked by church steeples and “What would Jesus do?” bumper stickers. But the American South seems to agree with Qadhi, who often preaches on the Islamic principle of polite conduct. He takes to the gentility of his students at Rhodes, who call him sir. There is no better place to be Muslim than in America, he says, because as a minority “you feel your faith.” At times, he seems oddly Pollyanna-ish about his future in Tennessee, where someone tried to torch the site of a planned mosque last year. Qadhi concedes that living someplace like Saudi Arabia might be easier, but “it’s not my land at the end of the day,” he said. “I am an American. What else can I say?” Some of Qadhi’s followers find his ease with American culture perplexing, even suspicious. Yet it is his unapologetic comfort with America — his assertion that Muslims belong here as much as anyone — that has also made him a point of pride for many young Salafis. “We need to make sure that our children can live freely, and we’re going to fight for that freedom,” he told me one afternoon. “And every time I use that word, I need to make a disclaimer — I don’t mean ‘fight’ in the Tea Party sense of overthrowing the government.”

Building Hope - Muslims, Christians and Jews Seeking the Common Good

2011-06-10T09:24:00.000-04:00

Can Muslims, Christians and Jews - especially those with deep faith commitments, and who are more "conservative" within their respective traditions - work together for the common good? What might it take? What barriers must be overcome? This is where I'll be, the next two weeks. We'll see what happens.

Culture Quote of the Day - don't assume, don't project

2011-06-09T10:42:00.000-04:00

"The first step toward becoming more culturally intelligent is to become more aware of our own cultural identity.... We have a universal tendency to think that other people do things for the same reasons we do them. After all, we learned to do what we do by observing others around us. But as we become more aware of our own culture and its values, we're less likely to project our values onto the Other. Understanding our own culture protects us from assuming the actions of the Other mean the same thing as when we act that way."

David Livermore, Cultural Intelligence

Culture Quote of the Day - self-awareness

2011-06-08T08:30:00.000-04:00

"The inward, transformative journey of cultural intelligence involves a heightened understanding of our own cultural background. In what ways are we shaped by the cultures of which we're a part? How does our cultural background shape the way we think, see, and love? ... This kind of understanding about our own cultural background...plays a significant role in helping us move forward in the journey of cultural intelligence."

David Livermore, Cultural Intelligence

Does the Bible Support (should Christians embrace) Ethnorelativism?

2011-05-28T05:57:00.001-04:00

I think it’s worth asking the question of whether the Bible supports Ethnorelativism, because people of faith tend to be skeptical about “secular” models, and about the concept of “relativism.”

This time, I would like to reflect from a different angle, asking whether New Testament teaching supports Bennett’s Ethnorelative stages of Acceptance and Adaptation.

(1) Acceptance

It seems to me (from personal experience and observation) that there is (or can be) a tension between faith conviction, and accepting those who are different. I suppose the tension comes partly because in talking about faith in God, we are in the realm of seeking to know and live by truth, which connects with the idea of living in the “right” way. But what easily happens, it seems, is that we handle our understanding of truth in an ego-centric and ethno-centric way – i.e., we begin to act as if we are “the people,” we are “right” and everyone else is wrong, we are “better,” etc. I’m not saying that all people of faith act like that toward everyone, or all the time, but that it’s a tendency I’ve noticed, and a danger that we need to be aware of.

My point is, there seems to be some reaction against or tension between having truth convictions, and the idea that we should accept other people.

The Teachings of the New Testament

Which is what leads me to ask, does the New Testament encourage us to accept people who are different?

Consider these verses:

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you… (Romans 15:7)

Show proper respect to everyone… (1 Peter 2:17)

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:18)

Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. (Romans 12:10)

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior. (Romans 12:16)

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. (Romans 14:13)

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble and oppressed." (1 Peter 5:5)

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

At the top of this list are commands to accept and to respect others. These are traits that Bennett lists prominently as characterizing the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance.

Note some of the other statements: “honor one another”; “live in harmony”; “do not think you are superior”; “stop passing judgment”; “live in peace”; “bear with each other”; “love one another.” All of these traits are central to accepting others who are different. If we practice them, we will be growing in acceptance. And I would argue that accepting others, in their differences – letting them be themselves, not trying to force them into my mold – would be central to living out what Jesus said is the overarching command, to “love our neighbors as ourselves.”

But a question arises in my mind, as I reflect on these and other New Testament teachings about relationship. Who is the “one another” referring to? Is it referring to others who are members of the family of those who believe in Jesus? Given that much of the New Testament was written to groups of Christians, and is teaching how they should relate to each other in community, it seems reasonable to conclude that this is the main emphasis. But where would this leave us (believers in Jesus) in relationship to outsiders? Do we owe them acceptance and respect, too?

The 1 Peter 2:17 reference exhorts believers to “show proper respect to everyone,” which is broadly inclusive.

In Romans 13:7 we are encouraged to “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” I would argue that the Bible teaches that all men and women are created in the image of God, and worthy of respect as such.

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 it says, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? … God will judge those outside.” The Bible teaches that judgment belongs to God, not to us; and by implication, we should treat others as given freedom of choice by God, with God alone holding them accountable for their choices. Whether we agree with others or not, we owe them respect.

Jesus illustrates the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” by using the example of a despised Samaritan, who Jews viewed as half-breed idolaters. Not to mention the fact that he even commanded us to “love our enemies.” And given that love includes accepting and respecting others, it seems easy enough to extend this teaching to cover accepting people in their cultural difference.

Finally, Galatians 6:10 exhorts us, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…” I hope it is obvious, given what I have previously written on Ethnorelativism, that accepting and adapting to difference is a form of “doing good” to others.

Beyond those specific teachings, I would look to the example of Jesus, and to the Jewish-Gentile issue regarding how to properly follow Jesus.

The Example of Jesus

Did Jesus accept different others? I would say so. Take, for example, his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4). Not only did he pass through Samaria (Jews would take the long way around, because they despised the Samaritans); he talked with a woman… Not only did he talk with a woman; he accepted her – talking with her, in itself, was a way of showing acceptance. And in talking with her, he didn’t focus on her culture, ethnicity, or religion (all of which, the Jews of his day looked down upon), or to try to get her to abandon her religion to become Jewish; rather, he sought to draw her attention to God, and how to truly worship. But by truly worshiping God, he did not mean, “do it my way, our way, the Jewish way, and not your corrupt, inadequate Samaritan way” – rather, he changed the focus away from the Jewish way vs. the Samaritan way, regarding the outward form of worship, declaring,

… a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. … a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

(John 4:21, 23-24)

Jews and Gentiles

Take, as a final example, the case of Gentiles coming to faith in Jesus (Acts 10 and following). At the time, the Jews who had come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, thought that He was Messiah (life-giver, savior) only for the Jewish people. They still saw the Gentiles as outsiders, far from God, unclean, etc. Then God sent Peter to the house of Cornelius, over his objections; Peter told Cornelius and his household about Jesus; and the Holy Spirit “fell” on them – they were given life, “saved,” if you will, to the amazement of Peter and his fellow Jews.

Immediately, once the Jewish followers of Jesus saw that Gentiles, too, could know Jesus as the Messiah and receive life through him, they decided that to rightly follow Jesus, the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.

There arose a controversy over this, a meeting was held (Acts 15) between the leaders of the church and the apostles (Paul and others), and it was decided that Gentiles did not need to “become Jewish,” i.e., be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses, in order to know life through Jesus.

I would argue that what we see here, among other things, is that God “accepted” the Gentiles, as Gentiles – Peter himself said to Cornelius that he had learned from God that “God does not show favoritism but accepts people from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34-35) – and commanded his people to do the same, stating that they did not need to outwardly change to become culturally or religiously Jewish, in order to be acceptable to God.

The clear message, in my opinion, is that we also should be people who accept others as they are, who do not try to change them outwardly to conform to our image of being human (including our ways of responding to God), but who embrace them as fellow human beings, created in God’s image and loved by Him (however different they may be).

(2) Adaptation

I would argue that the New Testament commands to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do good to all people, should lead us to seek to adapt to them in their cultural difference – to enter into their world, seek to see life from their point of view (to empathize), and to live in a way that does not cause unnecessary offense. I see this approach to people rooted in the examples of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

The Example of Jesus – the Incarnation

Jesus is the supreme example of love in the Bible; and I would characterize the Incarnation as the ultimate example of adaptation.

We are told, about Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8)

We are told that Jesus is the Word of God, one with the Father, the source of life and light – and that in the Incarnation the Divine essence took on human flesh, entered into our (human) life, so that we could be touched by the life of God. Because of love, Jesus left his position, “made himself nothing,” came into the human setting as a Jew in First Century Palestine, was born as a baby, learned language, and grew up in a particular sociocultural setting, adapting the cultural practices and living within the religious and political context of the day.

I cannot think of a greater example of adaptation, than this. And Jesus said to his followers, “as the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21).

The Example of Paul – “all things to all people”

The next great example I see of adaptation is that of the Apostle Paul. Consider his teaching and example:

Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake—the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

(1 Corinthians 10:23-33)

The key points, in Paul’s teaching (here and elsewhere):

he, and other followers of Jesus, are free;
this freedom includes the freedom to eat or drink anything, and by implication, to adapt to different situations and circumstances (Paul taught elsewhere that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” [Galatians 5:6] and “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” [Galatians 6:15]);
the principle to not cause anyone to stumble, goes even further – the point of adaptation is to not cause a roadblock to people knowing Jesus, through the outward patterns of living (forms, traditions, etc.) – and the “Jews, Greeks or the church of God” is comprehensive, covering religious people, irreligious people, and other Christians;
Paul’s motivation is that people would come to know and receive life through Jesus; he advocated any outward adaptation that would facilitate this.

This is taken even further in another passage:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

When Paul is talking about “winning” people, he is not talking about converting them from one religion to another; i.e., he is not talking about “winning” them to “Christianity” (which did not exist as a concept then) or to Judaism. He is clearly talking about “winning” them to Jesus Himself, to life in God (through Jesus). And for this, he felt free to adapt in outward practices (which I would call, “cultural” practices) – eating, drinking, circumcision (or not), following the Jewish religious law (or not), etc.

In a famous example of adaptation, Paul when speaking in Athens at the Areopagus, quoted pagan writers and referred to an altar “to an unknown god,” in looking for ways to make his message about Jesus understandable in their frame of reference (Acts 17:18-34).

There are plenty of New Testament teachings, as well, that clearly state that outward forms are not essential, from God’s perspective – these include circumcision (central to the Jewish law and custom), keeping one day as the/a Sabbath, food and drink, and other practices.

I would conclude, therefore, that we should adapt to others based on the law of love (the highest law binding and guiding followers of Jesus); that we are free to do so, based on the example of Jesus, the example of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament teaching about essence and outward form; and that we are exhorted to, based on Paul’s teaching and example, for the sake of people coming to know Jesus as their life (but not for the sake of converting them in outward form to our way of life, our way of following Jesus, or our religion).

As a follower of Jesus, I not only do not see a problem with embracing a goal of intercultural sensitivity (becoming ethnorelative); for me, my faith demands that I seek to grow in this direction.

Culture Quote of the Day - the basis for ethical choices

2011-05-27T02:09:00.001-04:00

“The third assumption of this model [the “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity”] is that ethical choices can and must be made for intercultural sensitivity to develop. However, these choices cannot be based on either absolute or universal principles. Rather, ethical behavior must be chosen with awareness that different viable actions are possible.”

Milton Bennett, “Towards Ethnorelativism”

So how does this fit with Bennett’s idea of developing a “meta-ethic” (based on “life itself”)? Isn’t he saying, here, that ethics are only and totally rooted in a sociocultural context?

How do I as a person of faith in God, respond to this statement?

To a certain extent, I agree with Bennett. I think he’s probably right that if you take a wide spectrum of people, from different cultural backgrounds, you will not be able to reach agreement on “universal” ethical principles. One dividing line is that between people who believe in God and those who don’t. Those who don’t, admit that they have no “absolute” or outside-a-human-context basis for ethical values, whereas those who do, believe that there are ethical values rooted in the existence and nature of God. (I think that among people who do believe in God, it may be possible to come to some agreement on “universal” ethical principles.) To talk about ethical choices, among people who are from different backgrounds, we must take into account the fact that we will have different perspectives based on our different backgrounds.

On the other hand, I believe that a person can be ethnorelative / interculturally sensitive, and believe in ethical values that are rooted outside of human culture, e.g., in the existence and nature of God. Jesus, for example, taught that the guiding principle of life is love – love of God and love of neighbor. If God exists, and if Jesus came from God, that would be an “absolute” or “universal” principle, whether people recognized it as such or not (though how it is worked out, would depend on the context, and would be shaped by worldview, culture, etc.).

In other words, I don’t believe it is an either/or choice – either you accept cultural difference, an ethnorelative perspective, and Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity, or you believe that ethical values and choices can be rooted in absolute principles. For Bennett to insist on this choice, is to extend his model beyond its limits (and he himself points out, at the end of the article, that there is growth beyond the model, and that the model itself is only one more construction of reality).

Culture Quote of the Day - towards a "meta-ethic"

2011-05-26T05:28:00.001-04:00

"And if there is ever to be a 'meta-ethic' (Barnlund 1979) that can restrain the worst excesses of cultural value conflict and guide respectful dialogue, it must come from those whose allegiance is only to life itself."

Milton Bennett, "Towards Ethnorelativism"

For the most part, I like Bennett's model, and think it is full of insight into the process of experiencing cultural difference. At some points, though, I find his worldview falling short. Like in this quote. Bennett is limited by his apparently "secular" worldview, seeing nothing beyond the human, the cultural, dimension.

Developing a "meta-ethic" (i.e., one relevant to people of different cultures) by having an allegiance "only to life itself"? What does this mean? I don't think Bennett knows. This sounds nice, but it seems empty (to me).

To develop a "meta-ethic," applicable across cultures, we're talking about having an ethical framework that people of different cultures can agree to. This means finding something shared, "universal."

I would find this "meta-ethic" rooted in Jesus. Jesus, in fact, presented himself as "life itself" ("I am the bread of life"; "I am the resurrection and the life"; "I have come that you may have life"; "the person who has the Son, has life").

Could Jesus be the source of the "meta-ethic" Bennett refers to? Not the "Christian" Jesus or the "Muslim" Jesus (and are there others?), but the Jesus of history, of the New Testament?

I have found that Muslims and Buddhists and unchurched people, and others (and E. Stanley Jones would say, Indian Hindus), are interested in, fascinated by, the person, life, teachings of Jesus - as long as they can meet him unencumbered by a particular group's way of "packaging" him. Jesus, as a historical figure, you could say, a historical reality, is not a product of human culture (though our images, our "packaging" of him, is, to one degree or another). And if Jesus is who the New Testament presents him as, and who Christians through the past 2000 years have understood he is, the Incarnate Word of God, one with the Father, the source of life, then he certainly exists outside of (as well as within) human sociocultural contexts.

Can we construct a "meta-ethic" that peoples of different cultures agree to? I don't know, the challenge seems daunting. But in my mind (and experience), we'd have a better chance starting with Jesus, than starting in a secular vacuum.

Culture Quote of the Day - faith at a metalevel

2011-05-25T06:10:00.001-04:00

"I will argue here that marginality describes exactly the subjective experience of people who are struggling with the total integration of ethnorelativism. They are outside all cultural frames of reference by virtue of their ability to consciously raise any assumption to a metalevel (level of self-reference). In other words, there is no natural cultural identity for a marginal person. There are no unquestioned assumptions, no intrinsically absolute right behaviors, nor any necessary reference group."

Milton Bennett, "Towards Ethnorelativism"

I have experienced the marginality that Bennett is talking about, in the faith context. Growing up within a particular faith context (a Swedish Baptist denomination in Minnesota), my original faith experience was ethnocentric, in the sense that what I "knew" of being Christian was only what I experienced in my setting. I was not aware that there were different interpretations of certain Biblical teachings, different ways of doing theology, different practices. I did not know that groups of Christians had different views of women in ministry (e.g., "complementarian" vs. "egalitarian"), or different interpretations and practices regarding drinking alcohol, the working of the Holy Spirit, observing the "Sabbath," baptism, church government, not to mention activities such as dancing, playing cards, and going to movies.

Over time, as I began meeting Christians from different churches (ranging from Lutheran to Catholic to Pentecostal to Methodist to Anglican to Orthodox to Quaker), I became gradually aware of the range of difference of interpretation, theology, practice, lifestyle, etc. I was often "shocked" at first, by what other Christians (who I initially often thought of as "so-called 'Christians'" - how's that for breaking the exhortation to "judge not, lest you be judged"?!), but over time, as I got to know people, saw the depth and strength of their faith in Jesus and the quality of their life, I came to realize that there was a much wider range of working out "being Christian" than I had been aware of.

Now, to get back to Bennett's quote, I tend to see questions of "being Christian" at the metalevel he speaks of. I cannot hear someone say, "the Bible teaches," or "Christians must" or whatever, without thinking at the level of how other Christians might interpret the texts or teachings in question, or work out the practice. I am fine with a community of Christians saying, "we have decided that in our community, we will not drink alcohol" or “we do not have women as pastors” (or “we have women as pastors”), as long as they don't base their practice on "the clear teaching of the Bible," acting as if anyone who reads the Bible or claims to be Christian will necessarily agree with them. And the same can be said of baptism (whether to baptize infants or adults, etc.), how to do worship (what music to sing, what instruments to use, etc.), and so on.

The upside is that I can feel fairly comfortable almost anywhere, appreciating opportunities to see different ways of Christians living out their faith in Jesus, love for God and love for others. The downside is that nothing is as simple or straightforward as before, it is harder to feel comfortable with Christians who are (ethnocentrically?) strongly self-confident in their interpretations and practices (this is an area in which I am still working at growing in “acceptance”), and it is harder to find a people to settle in with, because I appreciate and even long for the breadth of diversity that I have found to breathe life into my faith.

The thing I have found most positive, in encountering different Christians and being challenged to reevaluate my understanding of the Bible's teachings and of what it means to be Christian, is that I have been pushed to distinguish "cultural baggage" (which we all have - we can't escape being cultural) from the essence of being Christian (which I mean not in the religious or cultural sense, but in the sense of being of Jesus). That is the great treasure I have found in my “journey among different Others.”

Culture Quote of the Day - becoming different people

2011-05-24T15:38:00.000-04:00

"Most of our behaviors are habitual. We grow up acting and speaking in a certain way as a reflection of how we've been socialized to see the world. So there's little hope we can deal with our cross-cultural behavior in any kind of sustained way unless we actually become different people. As we think about relating to the Other with love and respect, we have to get beyond behavior modification approaches wherein we appear culturally intelligent and respectful and move toward actually becoming more multicultural people who genuinely love, respect, and appreciate the Other and his or her differences."

David Livermore, Cultural Intelligence

The key question is, how do we change? How do we become different people, in how we relate to the different Other?

Do Muslims & Christians worship the same God? 5 perspectives

2011-05-24T03:44:00.001-04:00

Here are five articles addressing the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God:
http://middleeastwindow.com/node/1373

The brief articles are by a Jew, a Muslim, and 3 Christians, including one of African and one of Asian background.

Culture Quote of the Day - the limits of cultural relativism

2011-05-23T13:00:00.001-04:00

"Anthropologists continue to express strong support for cultural relativism. One of the most contentious issues arises from the fundamental question: What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity... [But] the cultural relativists' argument is often used by repressive governments to deflect international criticism of their abuse of their citizens.... I believe that we should not let the concept of relativism stop us from using national and international forums to examine ways to protect the lives and dignity of people in every culture.... When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, anthropologists should choose to protect and promote human rights. We cannot just be bystanders."

Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, quoted in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

"If you believe human rights are a reality, then it makes much more sense that God exists than that he does not. If you insist on a secular view of the world and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world your intellect has devised and the real world (and God) that your heart knows exists. This leads us to a crucial question. If a premise ('There is no God') leads to a conclusion you know isn't true ('Napalming babies is culturally relative') then why not change the premise?"

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

The challenge of the interface between the "relative" and the "absolute." It is heartening to see an Anthropologist wrestle with this issue.

On the one hand, there is the issue of ethnocentrism, seeing things (only) from our point of view, not realizing that there may in fact be different visions of good and right, at work in different cultural contexts. The role of women in society, for example, is a challenging one. What one group considers "repressive," another group finds rooted in their understanding of God and His ways for them. And I'm not talking (only) about Muslims, from a Western perspective. Even in the West, Christian groups differ on issues about the role of women (e.g., whether women should be allowed to be in positives of church leadership or not), not to mention the difference in perspective between Christians and secularists. We can argue over whose perspective, whose interpretation, is "right," but the problem is, we can't agree...

This relates, too, to the area of law, because ultimately, laws are passed based on an idea of what people should not be allowed to do (e.g., rape women, murder people, steal others' belongings, produce child pornography, go nude in public, etc.). There is no society without a code of ethics and morality, without law. But societies do differ in what is prohibited (and prescribed). Western societies prohibit a man from having more than one wife; Islam allows up to four. Many societies ban homosexual marriage; some societies it. There is no end of the examples we can come up with, where what is morally wrong for one group or society, is considered fine by another.

The question arises, when societies differ, what do you do about it? Does one nation or group have a "right" to intervene and enforce their moral code or view of law or right? Who decides? Where is the "line"? (And note that this may look different if you are on the "giving" or the "receiving" end - no group or society likes another group or society stepping in and enforcing their morality.)

And then another dimension of the issue raised in the above quotes: in the U.S., law used to be based on the Bible, which gave it an "absolute" foundation (allowing for the differences in interpretation and application of the Bible). A change eventually took place, and law was "cut loose" from its biblical foundations, and now rests on what the society (majority, or Supreme Court) determines to be the guidelines. Keller points out that in a secular worldview, with no absolute (God, or the Bible), there is really no firm basis for believing in rights. And Fluehr-Lobban's quote shows that even Anthropologists (I'm not sure if she's "secular" or not) struggle with understanding what is "true" or "right."

I wouldn't say that people who believe in God or in Scripture have the right to impose their understanding on others (add in the question of whose God or vision of God, and whose Scripture); God himself does not impose His will on people, but gives us choice (for which he will one day hold us accountable). But the question of who does have the right to intervene, in what circumstances, by what guiding principles, is a critical one.

Should we seek to prevent child pornography, sexual slavery and other forms of abuse of women and children (and others), ethnic cleansing, etc.? Absolutely. But when we move away from the extremes (which most people will probably agree upon), it becomes harder to navigate the boundary between what is culturally relative and what is not. As a person of faith, I need to admit that the cultural dimension needs to be taken into consideration; and Anthropologists need to admit (as Fluehr-Lobban does) that it's not so simple as to say that everything is culturally relative - it's fairly easy to show that everyone has a core of what they believe to be "true" or "right," and a sense that some of those values at least have reality outside of (across) cultural boundaries.

Culture Quote of the Day - "the real culture war"

2011-05-23T01:36:00.001-04:00

“There is no way out of this conundrum. The more we love and identify with our family, our class, our race, or our religion, the harder it is to not feel superior or even hostile to other religions, races, etc. So racism, classism, and sexism are not matters of ignorance or a lack of education. Foucault and others in our time have shown that it is far harder than we think to have a self-identity that doesn’t lead to exclusion. The real culture war is taking place inside our own disordered hearts, wracked by inordinate desires for things that control us, that lead us to feel superior and exclude those without them, and that fail to satisfy us even when we get them.”

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

Is Ethnorelativism Compatible With Faith?

2011-05-22T02:07:00.001-04:00

It is time to address an underlying question that arises for people who believe in God, regarding Milton Bennett’s "Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity" (DMIS) that I have been reflecting on. The question could be framed in different ways:

Are people of religious faith bound to be ethnocentric?

Are people of religious faith bound to reject ethnorelativism / Bennett’s model?

Is faith compatible with ethnorelativism (and vice versa)?

I will look at several statements from Bennett’s “Towards Ethnorelativism,” and attempt to address these fundamental questions. I do so for myself as a person who is both an Anthropologist, and as such, committed to understanding culture and growing in intercultural sensitivity and competence, and as a “Christian,” a person who believes in the New Testament teaching that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God and the source of life to all who receive him. So in a way, for me the question is, can my faith in Jesus be reconciled with my Anthropology? But I offer these reflections for people of any religious faith, be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any other. I think the issue is common for all of us.

Bennett’s statements, which I want to consider:

“The ethnocentrism of transcendent universalism is nevertheless evident. The principle or supernatural force assumed to overlie cultural difference is invariably derived from one’s own worldview. I have yet to hear anyone at this stage say, ‘There is a single truth in the universe, and it is not what I believe.’ [emphasis mine]

“A more pernicious manifestation of ethnocentrism based on transcendent universalism is derived from any of a variety of aggressive conversion activities. Whether the conversion sought in another culture is religious, political, or economic, it rests on the assumption that there is a single truth, or best way, and that with sufficient education all people will discover this truth within themselves. These overtly ethnocentric conversion efforts may be accompanied by a high degree of interest in cultural difference, perhaps with the rationale that knowledge of difference is necessary to implement conversion effectively.” [emphasis mine]

“Fundamental to ethnorelativism is the assumption that cultures can only be understood relative to one another and that particular behavior can only be understood within a cultural context. There is no absolute standard of rightness or ‘goodness’ that can be applied to cultural behavior. Cultural difference is neither good nor bad, it is just different… One’s own culture is not any more central to reality than any other culture….” [emphasis mine]

“a state of ethnorelativism does not imply an ethical agreement with all difference nor a disavowal of stating (and acting upon) a preference for one worldview over another. The position does imply, however, that ethical choices will be made on grounds other than the ethnocentric protection of one’s own worldview or in the name of absolute principles.” [emphasis mine]

I think that Bennett is guilty of reducing everything to an outworking of culture (though I would like to talk with him face to face about this, to see if I am understanding him correctly). In my view, Anthropologists who do this, especially when talking about matters of faith/religion, tend to do so because of imposing their own secular worldview on reality, and on others (which would seem to be a violation of ethnorelativism).

(Ninian Smart points out that “a science must correspond to its object,” and that those who study religion and religious people must take seriously what religious people believe exist, what they are responding to – God, the sacred, etc.; thus, any approach to matters of religious faith that proceeds on the assumption that God does not exist is seriously lacking. Wilfred Cantwell Smith is another scholar of comparative religions, who does a good job of creating a framework for understanding religion, that takes seriously what religious people are responding to.)

I remember Clifford Geertz talking about the dimensions of culture as “model of” and “model for” reality. I would point out the “of reality” part of this view. In other words, it is assumed, taken for granted, that “reality” exists – there is something “there,” that people are responding to, talking about, etc. Granted, as human beings we are culture-bound; we deal in models of reality, because we can only perceive, respond to, talk about reality, through the media of our senses, language, thought categories, etc. But there is a reality out there, which we do perceive and respond to, and can talk about, etc.

A parallel would be the realm of maps and mapping. Maps are human creations, they involve an understanding and vision of the world, and a certain way of portraying reality. But they do represent something that is “there,” that exists – or they would be pointless. You can compare different maps and talk about the degree to which they adequately represent reality (and maps have changed over time, with an increase of knowledge and an improvement of mapping techniques and technology). You might not agree – especially if we are dealing with different cultures’ ways of mapping the world – but you can have the conversation, and the conversation assumes that reality exists, and that’s what we’re talking about, trying to understand.

Take Jesus, for an example. If he exists, he is not simply a creation of one or another culture. We must admit that there are different images, understandings, you might say constructions of Jesus, “Christian” and other (including Muslim); but all of the ideas about Jesus, all of the workings out of who he is and what his impact is on us, are based on the assumption that he exists, and can be taken back to historical records like the New Testament writings, with eyewitness accounts of his life, teachings, miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension.

Take the Bible, as another example. Christians throughout history have believed that it is in some way the “word (or communication) of God,” revealed or inspired by Him, through different authors using different languages. If God does exist, it is possible that He would be able to speak to and through people, to communicate things about reality, about how we should live, etc. God, and his word to us, would be somehow different from our human culture and cultural context, though he and his word would only be known to us within our cultural context (this is parallel to the “incarnation” – to Jesus, the living Word of God, “becoming flesh and dwelling among us”). Granted we have issues of reading and understanding the Bible, and we/our culture gets wrapped up in the mix; but again, we have a sense of referring to, touching on, thinking and talking about, something which exists apart from ourselves and our culture.

With all of that said, let me return to elements of Bennett’s quotes.

First, the statement in the third paragraph above, One’s own culture is not any more central to reality than any other culture….” If culture is the product of people living together in society, their rules for behavior, worldview, model of reality, etc., then I agree. And at the same time, if there is “reality” outside of human beings – for example, the existence of God, including the existence of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God, alive today and working in the world – then this reality is different than (has an independent existence from) cultural models of it, etc. (the same could be said of the physical world, the universe, laws of nature, viruses, microbes, etc.).

Ethnocentrism exists, and is a danger for people of religious faith, or in the realm of religious faith, more than in other realms, because when we’re talking about the claims of God on human lives, we have a tendency to end up deifying our cultural understandings, assuming that our (ethnocentric) understandings and practices (for example, that a particular way of understanding and performing the Sacraments, or of organizing the church) are the Biblical way, the way revealed by God (people of faith have to come to grips with the fact that we have readings of sacred Scriptures, not direct access to truth). But it is possible for people of religious faith to grow beyond ethnocentrism in relating to other cultures, without losing the essence of their faith (though we may need to recognize and deal with “cultural baggage” along the way, and our faith may change significantly in the process – I think E. Stanley Jones in India is a good example of this.)

Then, the statement in the first paragraph, “The principle or supernatural force assumed to overlie cultural difference is invariably derived from one’s own worldview.” This is shortsighted of Bennett, and reductionist. If God exists, He exists outside of human culture, and we may (we must try to) distinguish between the reality of God, and our cultural formulations, models, practices, etc.

In the second paragraph, Bennett says “Whether the conversion sought in another culture is religious, political, or economic, it rests on the assumption that there is a single truth, or best way, and that with sufficient education all people will discover this truth within themselves.” There is certainly a danger here, which he rightly highlights in his Minimization stage of ethnocentrism (and which I have discussed elsewhere). Ethnocentrism exists, and it presents a barrier to interacting effectively with people who are culturally different. It is quite likely that any conversionist model is ethnocentric and needs to be challenged (for the sake of those of us who believe in whatever it is we are trying to convert people to – I believe that ethnocentric religious practices are not healthy for people of faith, or for those we relate to; but note that the conversionist tendency that Bennett is talking about is not limited to religion).

On the other hand, suppose that God does exist, and that He has plans and purposes for people? We may conclude as religious people that we should not seek the “conversion” of others, because we are likely to be attempting to recreate others in our image. And that we might talk with others of different cultures or faiths about what we understand of truth, without trying to “convert” them to our view or experience (leaving that up to God – which, by the way, plenty of religious people practice; I remember the first time I heard Father Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Maronite Priest, speak – he said, “my job is to live the life of Jesus in relation to everyone I meet; it is God’s business to ‘convert’ people”).

In the fourth paragraph, finally, Bennett says, “The position does imply, however, that ethical choices will be made on grounds other than the ethnocentric protection of one’s own worldview or in the name of absolute principles.” I agree that being ethnorelative means that we will not make ethical choices on the grounds of the ethnocentric protection (or projection) of our worldview – and coming to this point, I think, is important for people of religious faith.

I don’t think I agree with the second half of this statement. I suppose it depends on what Bennett means by “in the name of absolute principles.” All Christians, Muslims, and Jews, I think, agree that there are absolute ethical principles – e.g., not to murder, commit adultery, etc. We might not totally agree on what they are, or on how they are worked out. For example, people of religious faith (within the same faith or between traditions) disagree as to whether “do not murder” includes war, capital punishment, or abortion at various stages of pregnancy. But I believe one can be self-reflectively ethnorelative in our belief in absolute ethical principles, i.e., in tune with the cultural dimension of one’s faith, and the fact that what we assume to be “real” and obvious, may turn out not to be, as we interact with other Christians or others of different faiths.

In other words, I believe it is possible to be an ethnorelative person of religious faith; i.e., to be culturally sensitive, to be working through, working out of, the ethnocentric stages of Denial, Defense, and Minimization, and to be growing in relating to other cultures through the experiences represented by Bennett as Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration. It is possible to accept, adapt to, and even integrate cultural difference, relating to those who are culturally different in an ethnorelative way, and yet to believe in, to know, to live in relation to, God. I don’t know that Bennett would understand this; I do appreciate his challenging us to think through these questions, even if I conclude that he is not totally right in his views; and I think that his model is critically important for religious people, as we consider the reality of culture and how to relate positively to cultural difference.

I don’t know if this is clear, or if I have made my case in a compelling way. I presume there is always more to think about and to talk about, for (even though I believe I know something of reality as well has having some cultural self-awareness) as the New Testament teaches, “we see through a glass darkly.”

Note to any reader: if you have other thoughts either on Bennett’s quotes or my reflections on them, I would love to hear them.

Culture Quote of the Day - avoiding being "fluent fools"

2011-05-21T01:06:00.005-04:00

“To establish a more fundamental intercultural understanding, the foreign partner must acquire the host culture language. Having to express oneself in another language means learning to adopt someone else’s reference frame. It is doubtful whether one can be bicultural without also being bilingual.”

“Without knowing the language one will miss a lot of the subtleties of a culture [e.g., humor] and be forced to remain a relative outsider.”

Pedersen and Hofstede, Exploring Culture

“If we view languages only as communication tools – sets of words that can be exchanged for other sets and yield the same meaning – we court the role of ‘fluent fools’ as we translate words without their original cultural context. Language serves as a tool for communication, but in addition it is a system of representation for perception and thinking.”

“Americans, like everyone else, recognize that differences in language must be dealt with in cross-cultural situations. But since most Americans speak only one language, they are usually dependent on finding English speakers or translators. Once they success in their search, Americans are likely to believe that the problem of language is solved. They assume that words alone are conduits for conveying meaning and tend to ignore the more subtle role of language in communication.”

Stewart and Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

Culture Quote of the Day - learning to love

2011-05-20T03:35:00.004-04:00

"What do you do when you encounter someone who isn't like you? How do you feel? What goes on inside you? How do you relate to him or her? ... Few things are more basic to life than expressing love and respect for people who look, think, believe, act, and see differently than we do. We want to adapt to the barrage of cultures around us while still remaining true to ourselves. We want to let the world change us so that we can be part of changing the world. And we want to move from the desire to love across the chasm of cultural difference to the ability to express our love for people of difference. Relating lovingly to our fellow human beings is central to what it means to be human..."

"The billions of us sharing planet Earth together have so much in common. We're all born. We all die. We're all created in the image of God. We eat, sleep, persevere, and care for our young. We long for meaning and purpose, and we develop societies with those around us."

"But the way we go about the many things we have in common is deeply rooted in our unique personalities and cultures. So although we have so much in common, we have as much or more about us that's different. Asian. European. Tattooed. Clean-cut. Male. Female. Old. Young. Pentecostal. Emergent. Republican. Democrat. Suburban. Rural. Urban. These points of difference are where we find both our greatest challenges and our greatest discoveries. And as the world becomes increasingly more connected and accessible, the number of encounters we have with those who are culturally different are growing daily. Most of us are more comfortable with people like ourselves. But seeking out and loving people of difference is a far greater challenge. Therefore, learning how to reach across the chasm of cultural difference with love and respect is becoming an essential competency for today's ministry leader."

David Livermore, Cultural Intelligence: Improving Your CQ to Engage Our Multicultural World

The world is shrinking. Even areas of the world which were traditionally "homogeneous," with little diversity of any kind and little contact with "foreigners," have changed and are changing. Diversity is everywhere. When I grew up in white, middle class, suburban Minnesota, I experienced very little diversity (cultural, racial, ethnic, religious). Now, several decades later, when I visit Minnesota I encounter people who are different than "my people" on every hand - Lebanese at the grocery store; Arab, Indian, Vietnamese and many other restaurants and delis; a Tunisian woman working in the coffee shop of the university I attended; a second hand shop we frequent, in which I now hear Spanish more than English; Jordanians, Lebanese, Indians, and more, in my brother's suburban neighborhood; Somali and Ethiopian taxi and shuttle drivers; and more.

As Livermore points out, we have a sense of sharing much in common with other people; but the similarity is clothed in some deep cultural difference, which tends to make us uncomfortable. I remember Tom Brewster, who taught language learning and cultural adaptation, saying "people like to hang out with people of their own ethnicity." And so the question becomes, how will we respond to the difference around us, which is increasing "bumping into" us? Will we seek to run and hide from it, or will we learn to engage "different" people in constructive ways?

I like Livermore's emphasis on love. For those who have Jesus as a model and guide in life, love is the great imperative (and remember, the example Jesus gave to illustrate his command to "love our neighbor as ourselves," was the despised religiously and ethnically/racially different Samaritan, people that the Jews of Jesus's day would avoid at all costs).

Indeed, as Livermore concludes, "learning how to reach across the chasm of cultural difference with love and respect is becoming an essential competency" - for all of us.

Culture Quote of the Day - developing an intercultural worldview

2011-05-19T16:18:00.001-04:00

"The crux of intercultural adaptation is the ability to have an alternative cultural experience. Individuals who have received largely monocultural socialization normally have access only to their own cultural worldview, so they are unable to experience the difference between their own perception and that of people who are culturally different. The development of intercultural sensitivity describes how we gain the ability to create an alternative experience that more or less matches that of people in another culture. People who can do this have an intercultural worldview."

Milton Bennett, "Becoming Interculturally Competent"

Beyond Ethnocentrism (3) – Integrating Cultural Difference

2011-05-19T07:28:00.002-04:00

“A new type of person whose orientation and view of the world profoundly transcends his indigenous culture is developing from the complex of social, political, economic, and educational interactions of our time.”

Peter Adler, quoted in Bennett, “Towards Ethnorelativism”

(I wonder why he didn’t also say “religious” interactions? But that’s another subject…)

According to Adler, the “multicultural person” is one whose “essential identity is inclusive of life patterns different from his own and who has psychologically and socially come to grips with a multiplicity of realities” (quoted in Bennett).

Bennett refers to such as person as having developed to the ethnorelative stage of Integration.

At the stage of Integration, a man or woman has come to be culturally marginal, existing on the periphery of two or more cultures. One is no longer straightforwardly at home in his or her original culture, neither has s/he assimilated to a different culture. The “integrated person” is not particularly affiliated with any one culture, but “can function in relationship to cultures while staying outside the constraints of any particular one” (all subsequent quotes, unless noted, are from Bennett).

People at the stage of Integration are living in the realm of what Bennett calls “contextual evaluation” – i.e., behavior is determined to be appropriate or not depending on the context (he asks the questions, “Is it good to take off my clothes?” and “is it good to refer directly to a mistake made by yourself or someone else?” and answers both by, “It depends on the circumstances” or context), and have the ability to choose from a range of different cultural responses, to given situations.

“These people see their identities as including many cultural options, any of which can be exercised in any context, by choice. They are not so much bound by what is right for a given culture (although they are aware of that) as they are committed to using good judgment in choosing the best treatment of a particular situation. … They are conscious of themselves as choosers of alternatives…”

Bennett points out that marginality “describes exactly the subjective experience of people who are struggling with the total integration of ethnorelativism.”

“They are outside all cultural frames of reference by virtue of their ability to consciously raise any assumptions to a metalevel (level of self-reference). In other words, there is no natural cultural identity for a marginal person. There are no unquestioned assumptions, no intrinsically absolute right behaviors, nor any necessary reference group.”

For a personal example of what Bennett means, I enjoyed listening to the interactions of my daughter (a TCK who grew up in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon, and has also spent significant time in Jordan, besides attending University in the U.S.) with my brothers, all of them pastors or theologians. I would hear one of them make a statement about something (anything), including a phrase like, “the Bible says…” I would listen for my daughter’s response, and inevitably I would hear something like, “that’s one way of reading the Bible; but there are Christians who interpret that statement differently…” That, in a nutshell, is the perspective of a person who is living in the ethnorelative, marginal realm of Integration – they are always able to see things from different perspectives, and from outside of any one framework or cultural setting.

There are two possible phases of marginality, within Integration. At first, one might experience what he calls “encapsulated marginality,” “where the separation from culture is experienced as alienation,” and “constructive marginality,” “in which movements in and out of cultures are a necessary and positive part of one’s identity.” I have seen these two kinds of marginality with TCKs (third culture kids, i.e., people who grow up in a cultural setting that is different than their passport culture). For TCKs at the point of encapsulated marginality, the question, “where are you from?” may trigger an identity crisis – “I don’t know where I’m from; I don’t know who I am; I don’t know where I belong…” But for those who have developed to the point of constructive marginality, they may have come to have a positive sense of identity as a TCK – “I can go anywhere; I can adapt; I can fit in – I’m a TCK!”

Can we integrate difference?

Bennett concludes that “constructive marginality can be the most powerful position from which to exercise intercultural sensitivity,” and points out that “Cultural mediation could be accomplished best by someone who was not enmeshed in any reference group, yet who could construct each appropriate worldview as needed.”

Given the ever-“shrinking” world, with peoples traveling and migrating from and to just about everywhere, there is a desperate need for people who have learned not only to adapt to cultural difference, but to internalize different cultural frames of reference and to live on the cultural margins. Such people can function as “bridge” people between different groups who are different, not just for mediating conflict (for which there is ample need), but also for mediating understanding and interaction.

For more detail, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.” In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.

Culture Quote of the Day - "God does not give a fig for Christianity"

2011-05-19T02:43:00.007-04:00

These words are worth coming back to, letting them stand alone for our consideration:

“It is as Christians’ faith in God has weakened that they have busied themselves with Christianity; and as their personal relation to Christ has virtually lapsed that they have turned to religion for solace.”

“One has even reached a point today where some Christians can speak of believing in Christianity (instead of believing in God and in Christ); of preaching Christianity (instead of preaching good news, salvation, redemption); of practicing Christianity (instead of practicing love). Some even talk of being saved by Christianity, instead of by the only thing that could possibly save us, the anguish and the love of God.”

“A Christian who takes God seriously must surely recognize that God does not give a fig for Christianity. God is concerned with people, not with things. We read that God so loved the world that He gave His Son. We do not read anywhere that God loved Christianity.”

W.C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion

I would also add that the Bible does not say that "God so love the world that He gave us Christianity." God gave us Jesus, and life through Him.

Smith is a great scholar in the field of comparative religion, the one whose ideas I have found most helpful; and he is a “believer.” His book traces the development of the idea of religion, and of what have come to be known as specific religions – Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (More details another time.)

Notice that Smith, in response to a process of reification and distancing of people from immediate experience to reflection on it (from a distance), is calling those who consider themselves “Christian” back to the immediate, experiential, essence of faith – believing in God and in Jesus Christ, preaching good news, salvation, redemption, practicing love, realizing that the anguish and love of God is what saves us.

Is Christianity "Transcultural"?

2011-05-18T13:51:00.010-04:00

“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place…”

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

Two questions arise in my mind, as I think about this quote.

1) Should he (we) be talking about “Christianity,” or something else?

2) What might be the nature of “transcultural truth” and how would it relate to culture (the human sociocultural context)?

Are we really talking about “Christianity”?

Here are some definitions which I found online at various sites, of “Christianity” (feel free to substitute your definition):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Khristos, "Christ", literally "anointed one") is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianity

The religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christianity

The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.

These definitions call “Christianity” a religion based or founded on the life and teachings of Jesus or derived from Jesus based on the Bible.

My question is, where did it come from (either the concept of “Christianity” or the content of what we see as “Christianity,” or both)?

If people of faith are concerned with God – knowing Him, worshiping Him – then I presume we want to know what He has in mind for us, for humanity. Thus, I ask, did “Christianity” come from God? Is this what the New Testament is about, revealing a religion?

It seems to me that the essential message of the New Testament is that people can have life through Jesus (or, you might say, reconciliation to God through the forgiveness of our sins, based on faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus – but that is simply the detail of what it means to have life through Jesus). As I read it, the New Testament is not calling anyone to a religion, but to receiving life through Jesus, and learning to love God and love our neighbor, as we live in and through Him. (You can say more, but this is the heart of it.)

The Meaning and End of Religion

If you want a detailed discussion of the history of the ideas of “religion,” “Christian religion,” and “Christianity,” I recommend Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s excellent book, The Meaning and End of Religion. Here are just a couple of statements Smith makes, relevant to whether we should be talking about “Christianity”:

“It is as Christians’ faith in God has weakened that they have busied themselves with Christianity…”

“God, we have said, does not reveal a religion, He reveals Himself; what the observer calls a religion is man’s continuing response.”

W.C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion

(Can you understand, and if you consider yourself a “Christian” can you accept, what Smith is saying?)

So what should we (or Keller) be talking about, if not “Christianity”?

To address that question, let me ask, from the perspective of the New Testament, what might we say is “transcultural,” i.e., existing outside of and unbound by human culture? It seems to me that the answer must be God Himself; and given the New Testament teaching that Jesus is the incarnate Word of God, one with God (and the Spirit), I would add, Jesus. (The New Testament teaches that Jesus is alive today, that He lives in us and gives life to us; that He transforms our life as we follow Him. An implication of New Testament teaching is that He enters into different human (sociocultural) contexts, and impacts them from within.) We might also consider the Bible (or its message), as the inspired word of God, “transcultural,” with an origin and substance outside of or in some way apart from human agency.

This would be the essence, the content, the transcultural – God Himself, Jesus as one with the Father (the incarnate Word), and the message of God as revealed in the Bible.

In my opinion, the working out of the life of faith, e.g., the particulars of how we worship God, meet with other believers, even how we celebrate “Communion” or practice Baptism, how we organize community life (the church), etc., are cultural rather than transcultural – they are our working out of our life of following Jesus, in our sociocultural context (i.e., they are what we might call our “contextualization” of the life of God, as we follow Jesus).

Let me try rephrasing Keller’s quote,

“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that [Jesus Christ and His teaching, or you could say the message of the Bible] is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that [Jesus or Jesus’s teaching or the message of the Bible] would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If [Jesus or Jesus’s teaching or the Bible] were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place…”

The danger of the term “transcultural”

Finally, let me return to the idea of the transcultural. From an anthropological perspective, I am somewhat hesitant to use the phrase “transcultural,” because as I’ve heard people use the phrase, I have often heard it used to describe phenomena which are essentially cultural, but which are being promoted as being somehow outside of culture.

To be human is to be culture-bound, and one of the issues we face, I believe, as people of faith, is that we experience that which is of God with our human selves and context, and tend to deify what is of us (our understanding of God, of life, of the church, of how to live out aspects of faith like baptism or communion, etc.), proclaiming that what is our way of seeing and doing things, is “from God.” This is a constant danger, I think (look at what is done to others in the name of God), which we must guard against.

Nevertheless, if we believe in God, God Himself is obviously outside of human culture (though our understanding of Him is within our minds and language and thought forms and context).

People who do not believe in God might take issue with this idea of what they might see as “religious faith” (which they might see as a human construction) being “transcultural”; and they might deny the idea of the transcultural. In that, they are promoting a different view of reality, than that which people of faith experience. But to try to bridge the gap of worldview, I think a parallel could be other “reality” that we might think of existing outside of human culture, e.g., nature, and natural law. The “law of gravity,” for example, might be considered transcultural. Whatever people called it, or even if they didn’t acknowledge or talk about it, it would exist “out there” in reality. Peoples’ ways of talking about science and scientific principles and natural laws might vary (and thus, be connected to a cultural context), but the essence being understood and talked about could be seen as being transcultural.

To come back to Keller’s quote, then, I agree with the heart of what he is saying and aiming at (as I understand him), but think we need to be careful in our use of terms, and that talking about “Christianity” is misleading and does not help people to connect with what they really need to connect with, the reality of life in God through Jesus.

Culture Quote of the Day - how does Jesus impact our religious identity?

2011-05-18T05:52:00.005-04:00

"I have learned that when telling this story, I have to explain that I have not converted to Christianity. Yes, Naim Ateek had brought Jesus's message to me, and it was to my Jewish identity that his words spoke. I saw Jesus, in the words of theologian Marcus Borg, as 'a social prophet like the great social prophets of Israel' (1999, 72). After my return from Palestine and Israel that summer, I returned home one Sunday afternoon following a presentation to a church group. It was one of a string of appearances and meetings that month in churches and with Christian groups. My wife turned to me, and, only half joking (after thirty years of marriage she has learned to expect the unexpected), asked, 'Are you becoming Christian?' I had not been prepared for the question. But the answer was right there. I said, 'No, I'm becoming Jewish'."

Mark Braverman, Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land

This quote is interesting, and the book is fascinating, the gripping story of an American Jew (the grandson of a fifth-generation Palestinian Jew) and his quest for his personal identity as a Jew, in light of becoming aware first-hand of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

One of the interesting things about Braverman and his book, is that he has ventured out of the (ethnocentric) Jewish context of his early years, and the corresponding view of Zionism and Israel, to a much broader (ethnorelative) perspective and experience, in which he has gone - in his words - more deeply into his Jewish identity, but in the context of connecting with Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and different perspectives on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In his book, he quotes a wide range of authors and refers to a wide range of friends and acquaintances - a range that could leave the reader not certain of what exactly Braverman's identity is.

And in this particular quote, I find it interesting that time with Christians and exposure to (a Christian perspective on) Jesus, has had the impact in Braverman's life of a new, deeper, more full experience of being Jewish.

Culture Quote of the Day - "Christianity Isn't Culturally Rigid"

2011-05-17T13:55:00.001-04:00

“Christianity is also reputed to be a cultural straitjacket. It allegedly forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold. It is seen as an enemy of pluralism and multiculturalism. In reality, Christianity has been more adaptive (and maybe less destructive) of diverse cultures than secularism and many other worldviews.

“The pattern of Christian expansion differs from that of every other world religion. The center and majority of Islam’s population is still in the place of its origin – the Middle East. The original lands that have been the demographic centers of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have remained so. By contrast, Christianity was first dominated by Jews and centered in Jerusalem. Later it was dominated by Hellenists and centered in the Mediterranean. Later the faith was received by the barbarians of Northern Europe and Christianity came to be dominated by western Europeans and then North Americans. Today most Christians in the world live in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity soon will be centered in the southern and eastern hemispheres.

[The author then gives two “case studies,” the growth of the Christian population of Africa and in China, and quotes Lamin Sanneh as to the appeal of Christian faith in Africa.]

“Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures? There is, of course, a core of teachings (the Apostle’s Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments) to which all forms of Christianity are committed. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of freedom in how these absolutes are expressed and take form within a particular culture. For example, the Bible directs Christians to unite in acts of musical praise, but it doesn’t prescribe the meter, rhythm, level of emotional expressiveness, or instrumentation – all this is left to be culturally expressed in a variety of ways. Historian Andrew Walls writes:

Cultural diversity was built into the Christian faith…in Acts 15, which declared that the new gentile Christians didn’t have to enter Jewish culture…. The converts had to work out…a Hellenistic way of being a Christian. [So] no one owns the Christian faith. There is no ‘Christian culture’ the way there is an ‘Islamic culture’ which you can recognize from Pakistan to Tunisia to Morocco…

“Contrary to popular opinion, then, Christianity is not a Western religion that destroys local cultures. Rather, Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths. It has deep layers of insight from the Hebrew, Greek, and European cultures, and over the next hundred years will be further shaped by Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Christianity may become the most truly ‘catholic vision of the world’ [A.J. Conyers], having opened its leadership over the centuries to people from every tongue, tribe, people and nation.”

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

Yes, this quote is long, and so will be my response to it.

Areas of Agreement

I agree with Keller on what I see as the heart of his argument – the adaptability (Sanneh uses the phrase “translatability”) of Christian faith, and that Christian faith (and Jesus himself) is not the enemy of pluralism or multiculturalism (that’s a topic for another post).

Corrections

His representation of Islam is not strictly accurate. Islam, like the Christian faith, spread over the centuries from its heartland to the “ends of the earth.” Islam, like the Christian faith, has had different peoples and cultures who were dominant in the worldwide community over time, from the Arabs to the Persians to the Turks and many others. Only perhaps 15% of the world’s Muslims are Arab. The largest Muslim nation today is Indonesia. The Muslims of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh comprise 30% of the world’s Muslims. It is not correct to call “the Middle East” the area of Islam’s origin – the area of origin was clearly the Arabian Peninsula, and the expansion to other linguistic and cultural areas changed the Muslim community in significant ways over time.

Islam vs. Christian Faith

Having said that, I see some significant differences between Christian faith and Islam. I think that Muslims would agree that there is something of a “Muslim culture” – or at least there was, or there were significant elements of a culture, in the Shariah, which was understood as prescribing a total way of life, in all the details. I agree with Keller that there is no such thing as a “Christian culture.” This is one of the ways in which Christian faith differs from Islam. (Having said this, it is important to acknowledge that Islam, too, has adapted culturally in different regions of the world – the ethos / “feel” of Muslim life, though marked by similarities from one place to another, is also colored by local cultural flavor.)

As I read the New Testament, following Jesus is about inner transformation which works itself outwardly, but not through prescribed ways of living. The great commandment is to love God and to love one’s neighbor. The heart of Christian faith is thus relational – relationship with God, and relationship with others. What is prescribed is essence, not form – kindness, goodness, patience, honor, purity, etc., which can work themselves out in different ways, in different cultural contexts.

From a Muslim perspective, the Qur’an is defined by content and form – it is only truly the Qur’an in Arabic. A translation is typically referred to as “the meaning” of the Qur’an, but not as the Qur’an itself. Christians believe, in contrast, that the Bible is about content or essence, which can be translated into any language; and that God is able to speak to people through a translation in any language. This belief is partly rooted in the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), in which God did speak to people in their native languages. And it is also rooted, I believe, in the fact that the parts of the Bible were revealed through different languages, i.e., Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Thus, it was never bound to one particular language.

This is just to say that when it comes to Christian faith, it lends itself to a process of an inner essence being worked out in different contexts (what some refer to as “contextualization”).

Are we talking about “Christianity” or about something else?

Finally, I can’t avoid getting into the issue of whether what we’re really talking about is “Christianity.” I think not. Muslims do believe that God revealed the religion of Islam, that it exists, and that Muslims (and all people) are meant to know and follow the religion (though scholars like Wilfred Cantwell Smith will talk about the origins of Islamic religion the same way they talk about the origins of Christian religion, with a starting point of faith in God and belief in certain precepts and truths, and the gradual growth of the religion over time).

Do Christians believe the same about “Christianity”? I.e., do we believe in the existence (in the mind of God, I would suppose) of a religion, that was revealed to mankind through Jesus (and perhaps clarified by the Apostles and the early church)? I can make the sociological and historical argument for Christianity as a religion, but do we make the faith argument for it – that this was the intention of God? Or to put the question another way, did Jesus intend to start a religion? As a believer in and follower of Jesus, I don’t think so.

So, then, what are we talking about, if not “Christianity”? That, too, will have to wait for another post…

Culture Quote of the Day - helping other cultures be like us?

2011-05-17T04:13:00.001-04:00

“Cultural, political, economic, and religious ‘missionaries’ are particularly inclined to accept cultural evolution. Even if adept at intercultural communication, they may nevertheless use those skills to further their own ethnocentrism by helping other cultures to be like them. The point here is not that there is anything wrong with cultural, social, and economic change but that the assumptions about how these changes should take shape are too easily derived from the values of foreigners.”

Stewart and Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

What Stewart and Bennett are getting at here is the phenomenon of people going abroad with their cultural, political, economic, religious, and other plans and programs, but in a way that is insensitive to the different cultural settings they are entering. Having found what "works" for us, we may easily assume universality, and be blind to the ways in which what "works" for us is bound up with our own cultural patterns. When we are operating from an ethnocentric perspective, we inevitably work to help others to be like us - because that's the way that what "works" for us will "work" for them.

Note that Stewart and Bennett are not opposing change (they mention cultural, social, and economic change, but don't specify 'political' or 'religious,' which they do mention earlier in the quote - is there a significance to this?), but the way in which we attempt to bring it about.

What, then, would be a less ethnocentric way to go abroad, to be involved in change? By the DMIS model, moving into the stages of Acceptance, Adaptation and finally, Integration, we would hopefully encounter people of others cultures

realizing that our ways are probably not as universal as we think they are, and not in the way we think they are,
being aware that there will be significant cultural difference in another setting, regardless of what we might find to be the human similarities,
pursuing knowledge of the cultural differences, i.e., seeking to understand,
respecting cultural difference as we encounter it,
adapting to the other setting, learning to see the world as they see it, and changing our behavior appropriately
believing and acting on the belief that our purpose is not to change others to be like us, not to give them our “cultural baggage,” but to interact and exchange (a two-way street, in which we are likely to gain as much as we give), to offer what we have discovered (in whatever realm), and to allow those we are visiting to do what they like, in their context, with whatever they decide to receive from us.

For those who are confident in what they “have” (as Americans from the U.S. tend to be, but also many others in the world), it is hard to make this adjustment, to accept that our programs and insights and plans, etc., are not as universal as we think they are; to humbly enter another cultural setting as learners, listening, observing, and adapting as we go; and to allow others to accept what we bring – or not – and in accepting, to adapt whatever it is to their setting.

This is difficult, but if we want to have positive, effective intercultural relationships, and to benefit from going abroad, we need to grow out of our ethnocentric ways. And that’s one of the reasons that I spend so much time reflecting on Bennett’s DMIS.

Culture Quote of the Day - What is Christianity?

2011-05-16T07:39:00.002-04:00

In talking about the relationship between faith and culture, or about what some call "contextualization," i.e., how does a person of faith live out that faith in a particular context, we inevitably get into defining the faith we are talking about.

I am within the Christian tradition. It has a long history, and a wide range of phenomena which come somehow under that broad ("Christian") heading. In talking about a particular person or group of people, one might ask, "what does it mean for me (us) to call ourselves 'Christian'?" And another question which inevitably arises is, "what is 'Christianity'?" (I'm somewhat surprised by the degree to which Christian authors refer to "Christianity," but they do, and thus the question arises.)

Here is one author's attempt to address that latter question:

"What is Christianity? For our purposes, I'll define Christianity as the body of believers who assent to these [the Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian] great ecumenical creeds. They believe that the triune God created the world, that humanity has fallen into sin and evil, that God has returned to rescue us in Jesus Christ, that in his death and resurrection Jesus accomplished our salvation for us so we can be received by grace, that he established the church, his people, as the vehicle through which he continues his mission of rescue, reconciliation, and salvation, and that at the end of time Jesus will return to renew the heavens and the earth, removing all evil, injustice, sin, and death from the world.

"All Christians believe all this - but no Christians believe just this. As soon as you ask, 'How does the church act as vehicle for Jesus' work in the world?' and 'How does Jesus's death accomplish our salvation?' and 'How are we received by grace?' Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians will give you different answers. Despite the claims of many to be such, there are no truly 'generic' nondenominational Christians. Everyone has to answer these 'how' questions in order to live a Christian life, and those answers immediately put you into one tradition and denomination or another."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

A couple of reflections on this quote:
1. I find the use of the term "Christianity" awkward. I still find myself thinking that I don't believe in such a thing as "Christianity." Perhaps - and this would fit with the second paragraph above - it would be more appropriate to speak of "Christianities," i.e., the various working out by different people calling themselves "Christian," through the ages. I myself do not see "Christianity" as something which descended from heaven, i.e., which exists in the mind of God, a religious system that has been given to mankind to follow, etc.

2. Keller himself immediately switches from "Christianity" to "Christians," and talks about what Christians agree on and where they differ. I think, both from an anthropological perspective and from a faith perspective, that this is more productive.

3. I would be more happy talking about "Christian [or Christ-centered] faith" (by which I would mean the faith of people who follow the Bible and specifically the teachings of Jesus), than "Christianity" (which, again, smacks of religion or a religious system); or, of Biblical faith, which takes us back to a specific reference point, the Bible, and what we find in it.

All of that aside,
4. This is an interesting attempt to show what you might see as the "essence" or heart or core of Christian faith (the faith of those calling themselves Christian), and how that essence might be worked out in different human (sociocultural, historical) contexts.

5. Note that in choosing the Creeds, he is defining Christianity by belief. One might argue for other definitions, e.g., defining Christians by relationship with Jesus (Jesus himself said, "if you love me, you will obey my commands," and talked about "following" him and other relational and behavioral terms, in addition to talking about believing in him). Is this, then, a comprehensive and adequate definition?

6. I also wonder, would all Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians agree with this definition? Some of the language sounds distinctly Protestant, perhaps even evangelical. And I'm not sure it expresses the essence of Jesus' teaching and mission completely. For example, take the phrase, "Jesus accomplished our salvation for us so we can be received by grace." What is meant by "salvation"? I know of Christians who might say something more like, "Jesus came to usher in the Kingdom of God, offering 'life' to those spiritually 'dead' to God - a life that begins now, as we experience the transforming work of God's spirit, and that continues on after death..." Is this just another way of saying "accomplished our salvation for us," or is it something more? It's difficult, it seems, to concisely define the essence of Christian faith / Jesus's teaching; and it is certainly impossible to escape our cultural vantage point and perspective, in attempting to do so.

But perhaps that's what makes it so interesting to think and talk about...

Do Muslims & Christians worship the same God? a Muslim perspective...

2011-05-16T01:58:00.003-04:00

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same god? Here are some reflections on that question by a Muslim woman, which Christians might find a bit surprising. Not only does she argue that Muslims and Christians worship the same god, she presents the Christian understanding of the Trinity in sympathetic (empathetic?) terms, and comes to the conclusion, "it is hard not to be convinced that the Quran and the Bible are consistent in their perception of the person of Jesus."

In my experience, Muslims and Christians both tend to "read" the other through their own frame of reference (i.e., ethnocentrically), and rarely "get inside" of the other's perspective, to understand it. Christians try to explain to Muslims that we do not worship three gods, but the explanation generally seems to fall on deaf ears. But this Muslim seems to definitely "get it."

Read them and see what you think.

http://ifeldp.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/a-christian-response-to-muslims-allah-and-the-trinity/

http://ifeldp.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/commonalities-worshipping-a-monotheist-god/

http://ifeldp.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/trinity-christian-doctrine-in-islamic-context/

And then, here's an interesting piece by a Christian theologian, explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to Muslims (posted by the Muslim who wrote the above articles, on her blog site):

http://ifeldp.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/volf_ccallah-trinity_2011-3-81.pdf

Beyond Ethnocentrism (2) – Adapting to Cultural Difference

2011-05-15T12:09:00.001-04:00

“One of the ways people inevitably increase their awareness when learning about other cultures is to move from thinking ‘My way is the only way’ toward thinking ‘There are many valid ways’ of interpreting and participating in life. And the process involves more than changing your thinking; it also involves adjusting your behaviors.”

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence (emphasis mine)

“The essence of ethnorelativism is respect for the integrity of cultures, including one’s own. In acceptance, the framework for appreciating cultural difference was established. At this stage, adaptation, skills for relating to and communicating with people of other cultures are enhanced.”

Milton Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism (emphasis mine)

As we spend more time living and interacting with people in another cultural context, we may experience growth from Acceptance into Bennett’s next phase of intercultural sensitivity, Adaptation.

Acceptance (the previous phase) may have to do mainly with a change in perspective and attitude toward cultural difference (seeing it more positively, realizing it is there, being curious about and respectful toward difference), with an initial behavioral dimension of taking action to discover, understand, and learn about difference. It is possible to grow in accepting cultural difference, without living deeply or constantly in the midst of difference.

To grow into the phase of Adaptation, though, we need to be living in the context of cultural difference, and developing the skills for effective adjustment. This adjustment is comprehensive, involving cognitive, affective, and behavioral change over time. Cognitively, one begins to understand and see the world from the perspective of the people in the other culture. Behaviorally, one learns to adapt to do things in a way that is appropriate in the other setting. Affectively, one’s emotions are impacted over time, as feelings associated with the new worldview and cultural practices, and the value judgments associated with them, are internalized.

For example, through our years in Tunisia, we learned how Tunisians do hospitality. When someone you know shows up at your door, you don’t stand and talk with them at the door (unless you are male and the visitor is female, or vice versa, and no one of the other gender is at home with you), but welcome the visitor in (to stand and talk in the doorway implies you don’t want the visitor in your home). You must serve something, at least something to drink, and probably at least some kind of snack, if not a meal. You do not ask, “would you like…?” because such a request will be politely refused. Rather, you simply bring out the drink(s) and food, and serve them up. If you are eating a meal, you insist your visitor join you. If it is near a meal time, you plan on the visitor staying and eating with you (and insist that they do). In the Tunisian setting, rather than “a man’s home is his castle,” the guiding motto is, “my home is your home.” Rather than the honored one being the guest being received, in Tunisia, it is the host who is honored by the visit (hosts will say to visitors, “we have been visited by blessing”). A different way of viewing the world, people, social interactions, hospitality…

After living for years in Tunisia, and adapting to the Tunisian way of doing hospitality, we were often (emotionally) uncomfortable in hospitality situations in the U.S. For example, we were at my family’s eating one evening, and a couple of visitors dropped by unexpectedly. They were invited in (they were a sister-in-law and her friend; if they had been less close, perhaps they would not have been invited in), but we sat and continued eating, while talking with them. No one even offered for them to join us. (The expectation, in the U.S. setting, was that they had “interrupted” us in our plan or schedule, and would not have expected plans to be adjusted for them.) The fact that we felt uncomfortable shows that we experience adaptation even at the affective level, over time.

Note that adaptation, in Bennett’s model, is not assimilation. You don’t give up your culture, but experience an extension of your cultural repertoire.

“In adaptation, new skills appropriate to a different worldview are acquired in an additive process. Maintenance of one’s original worldview is encouraged, so the adaptations necessary for effective communication in other cultures extend, rather than replace, one’s native skills. The key to this additive principle is the assumption that culture is a process, not a thing. One does not have culture; one engages in it.”

One of the key skills in Adaptation is the ability to “look through the others’ eyes,” to construct reality that is nearer to their reality. Bennett contrasts this “empathy,” with the “sympathy” of ethnocentrism.

Can we adapt to the different other?

“…I have contrasted empathy to ‘sympathy,’ where one attempts to understand another by imagining how one would feel in another’s position. Sympathy is ethnocentric in that its practice demands only a shift in assumed circumstance (position), not a shift in the frame of reference one brings to that circumstance; it is based on an assumption of similarity, implying other people will feel similar to one in similar circumstances. Empathy, by contrast, describes an attempt to understand by imagining or comprehending the other’s perspective. Empathy is ethnorelative in that it demands a shift in frame of reference; it is based on an assumption of difference, and implies respect for that difference and a readiness to give up temporarily one’s own worldview in order to imaginatively participate in the other’s.”

Adaptation takes time. And it changes us. As we live in another cultural setting, and adapt to the behavior, worldview, and even the value judgments and emotions accompanying sociocultural experience, we change. Even though this is not a process of assimilation, of exchanging our culture for the other, we become different people through the process. One author has called such people, “150% people.” And Bennett talks of becoming “marginal,” in the sense of becoming a person who is not straightforwardly “at home” in any cultural setting. When I returned to Minnesota after years in Tunisia (which used to be “home” but now no longer seems to be – for us know, “home” is wherever we are living), I could recognize my native culture, but I felt as if I was seeing it through different eyes. And indeed, I was. I had not become Tunisian, but I was no longer Minnesotan in the way I had been.

Coming soon… Beyond Ethnocentrism (3): Integration

For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Culture Quote of the Day - Needed: Interplanetary Travelers

2011-05-12T09:57:00.000-04:00

“The European or American who has come to Islam...stands astride the oldest frontier in the world, the frontier that has separated Islamic civilization, first from Christendom and later from the post-Christian world, for some thirteen centuries. This is in many ways a strange position to occupy because the frontier runs between two areas of reciprocal incomprehension, and to be at home in both is, in a sense, to commute between two different planetary systems. The Westerner’s inability to understand the Muslim is matched by the Muslim’s incapacity to understand the Westerner. Those who stand astride the frontier find themselves obliged to act as interpreters between two different languages and must themselves speak both with adequate fluency.”

Charles Le Gai Eaton, Islam and the Destiny of Man

The challenge of Muslim-Christian understanding, so well stated by Eaton (a Swiss convert to Islam), is really what the challenge of growing from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism is all about - growing in ability to enter into another world and learning to understand and adapt to that world, and then to be one who can stand astride cultural frontiers, frontiers of reciprocal incomprehension, and act as interpreter between those in the different systems.

The world desperately needs more such people, in these days of tension and conflict along the divide.

Elevating culture or discovering truth?

2011-05-12T00:47:00.000-04:00

Is it possible to believe in (or to know) truth, without being ethnocentric? This is a central question of mine.

Here is a quote I posted yesterday, with some reflections:

“Many of the difficulties with intercultural communication can be traced to the obstacles created by ethnocentrism, which means, literally, ‘centrality of culture.’ When one’s own culture is considered central to all reality, the values, assumptions, and behavior norms of that culture may be elevated to the position of absolute truth. There are several implications of this definition. First, ethnocentric beliefs about one’s own culture shape a social sense of identity which is narrow and defensive. Second, ethnocentrism normally involves the perception of members of other cultures in terms of stereotypes. Third, the dynamic of ethnocentrism is such that comparative judgments are made between one’s own culture and other cultures under the assumption that one’s own is normal and natural. As a consequence, ethnocentric judgments usually involve invidious comparisons that ennoble one’s own culture while degrading those of others. With these costs, ethnocentrism establishes identity and belonging in the context of culture.”

Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

One of the key statements here is the second sentence: "When one's own culture is considered central to all reality, the values, assumptions, and behavior norms of that culture may be elevated to the position of absolute truth."

Ethnocentrism, and the problems between people of different cultures, has to do with the elevating of the values, assumptions and behavior norms of a culture - i.e., of what is particular to a given people at a given time and place - to the position of absolute truth.

This - ethnocentrism, and elevating our culture to a position of absolute truth - is a tendency of all people.

One of the things I am trying to navigate, as a person of faith, is the way between what you might see as two ends of a spectrum. On the one end is the cultural relativism of the non-believing anthropologist, who would see everything as human, cultural, relative. On the other end is ethnocentric religious faith, where in the name of God and truth, people of faith have confused what is of them (human, culture, relative) with what is of God (e.g., assuming that certain ways of worshiping God and of living, which are peculiar to them, are universal). What I am looking for is a balance, a way of life, that is centered on knowing truth, but in a non-ethnocentric way.

In other words, is there a way to know, to discover, truth, but not relate to other people of other cultures, in a way that elevates that which is of us, of our culture, to the position of truth?

Putting other cultures in perspective (articles by a gametrekker)

2011-05-11T09:18:00.001-04:00

A positive experience of other cultures, what Bennett calls "ethnorelativism," has a great deal to do with perspective - being able to see things from different perspectives (than your own, native perspective), being able to under the perspectives of others, etc.

Some of the best travel writing I've seen, from an anthropological (appreciating other cultures) perspective, is written by someone (who happens to be my son) who majored in Physics, taught English in Korea, does web and game design, and now calls himself a "game trekker" (you can check out the website for what that means). Three excellent examples of adapting the kind of perspective, in visiting other cultures, that allow you to have a positive rather than a negative experience, are these:

http://www.gametrekking.com/blog/malaysia-from-bird-to-bieber-and-facebook-signs

http://www.gametrekking.com/blog/cambodia-like-no-place-ive-been

http://www.gametrekking.com/blog/vietnam-yin-and-yang

This anthropologist father is proud!

Culture Quote of the Day - "centrality of culture"

2011-05-11T02:20:00.001-04:00

Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

Culture Quote of the Day - Cultural Intelligence

2011-05-10T07:26:00.003-04:00

“Cultural intelligence is the ability to engage in a set of behaviors that uses skills (i.e., language or interpersonal skills) and qualities (e.g., tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility) that are tuned appropriately to the culture-based values and attitudes of the people with whom one interacts.”

“Successful interaction with people from other cultures is the heart of cultural intelligence. Knowing facts about another culture is helpful, but your approach can’t be only academic or intellectual; you need to know how to interact successfully with people.”

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence

Cultural intelligence would be at the heart of moving into / living in the realm of what Bennett (DMIS) refers to as ethnorelativism, i.e., the ability to have a positive experience of and adaptation to cultural difference.

Are science and medicine culturally relative?

2011-05-09T10:32:00.000-04:00

I would like to consider two non-religious examples, medicine and science, to see whether it is possible to be ethnorelative (Bennett's term) but believe that something is true.

In Tunisia, there was what they called "Arab medicine," which is how they referred to traditional Tunisian medical concepts, meds, etc., and what they called "French medicine," by which they meant Western or modern medicine.

To be ethnocentric toward Tunisian "Arab medicine" might be to discount it (as stupid, false, irrelevant, superstitious, backward, etc.) without understanding it, not to see it in its broader cultural context, etc. - i.e., to judge it from an outside frame of reference (that which I as an American know to be "true" in regard to medicine).

To be ethnorelative would involve understanding Tunisian "Arab medicine" within its cultural context, which could include understanding something of the history (how and why certain concepts or practices arose), cultural connections (including religious and other belief systems), contexts in which someone would use "Arab medicine," and how they would use it, etc.

"French medicine" came into Tunisia from outside (as has been common with the spread of modern technology, scientific and medical knowledge, etc., in modern times - don't forget, though, that at one point the Muslim world represented the high point of medical, scientific and other knowledge in the world). It has fit in, and functions within the system, alongside the traditional "Arab medicine" (within the society, the culture).

You can "prove" the "truth" of much of modern medicine, e.g., that bacteria and viruses exists, the effects of antibiotics (or the lack of using them) and other meds on various conditions, etc. (note, however, that modern doctors don't know everything, can't always figure out either what is wrong or what to do about it, and meds don't always "work" - there's an awful lot of guesswork and experimenting to see what effect a certain treatment has).

Is it ethnocentric for someone who is non-Tunisian to believe in the truth of modern medicine, and to bring it into Tunisia ("we bring you true medical knowledge and medicine")? I would have to say, that depends on the person's attitude and their interaction with Tunisian society and culture. It would certainly be possible to enter Tunisia as an outsider, with your modern medical knowledge and meds, in a way that trampled on the local people, treated them as ignorant, ignored their culture, etc., and acting as if everything modern or western was superior, etc. (I have heard Tunisians complain of the way certain Westerners have lived in Tunisia, in how they viewed and treated Tunisian culture). If your goal was to have a positive impact on Tunisia, through bringing modern medicine, you might well fail, if you came in an ethnocentric way.

On the other hand, it would be possible, I would think, to believe in the "truth" of modern medicine, and to introduce it to Tunisia in a non-ethnocentric way - if you cared about the local culture (and sociocultural context), sought to understand local medical beliefs and practices (as well as the broader culture), learned to adapt to the culture and relate well to the people (to see the world from their perspective), etc. You might offer modern medicine not in a "we are the civilized people and you are the ignorant barbarians" way, but in a "we have something that we have discovered, that might be of use to you, and we'd be glad to share it with you if you're interested" way, and (as mentioned) with an understanding of how things actually work culturally in Tunisia. (Note that the history of aid and development is littered with projects which failed because of lack of cultural understanding.)

Being ethnorelative rather than ethnocentric in introducing something like medical practices that you believe to be true, to another culture, means seeking to share the knowledge, practices, etc., without your own cultural "baggage," allowing those you give the info and practices to, to adapt them to their own cultural context in their own way.

I think the same would apply with scientific knowledge or truth, in various areas of science.

The other thing I'll say, at this point, is that in medicine and science, as in the "softer" areas of life, human beings "see through a glass darkly" - e.g., throughout history we have been certain of scientific and medical "truth," only to have our knowledge challenged, undermined, and changed at a later point in history. This has been true in all areas of knowledge, all areas of "truth." And this is one of the reasons that when it comes to relating to people who have other knowledge and experience, we should not be too quick to judge either the inferiority of their "truth" or the superiority of ours (or who are the "civilized" and who are the "barbarians").

Culture Quote of the Day

2011-05-09T03:59:00.000-04:00

“The core difficulty in cross-cultural interaction is – simply stated – a failure to recognize relevant cultural differences.”

Stewart & Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

Overcoming this failure (in order to have better relationships across cultural difference, i.e., with people from a different cultural background) has two sides to it:

a. we have to become more aware of our own culture, and
b. we have to become more aware of the culture of others.

The key steps are, realizing the need, and then figuring out how to become more culturally aware...

Culture Quote of the Day

2011-05-05T08:55:00.000-04:00

“There is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problems are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function.”

Edward T. Hall

This is what we are talking about, when we talk about cultural adaptation - adapting to another people's entire way of life...

Beyond Ethnocentrism - Further thoughts on Accepting difference

2011-05-04T02:58:00.003-04:00

In light of Keller's statement about religion and ethnocentrism, I have been thinking more about the nature of both ethnocentrism and whatever is beyond it (Bennett calls it ethnorelativism), especially from the perspective of religious faith.

I would like to reflect a bit more on Bennett's first ethnorelative stage, Acceptance, from my personal journey. As I wrote yesterday,

"I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of 'Christian' that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be 'Christian' was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of 'Lutherans' around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a 'confirmation' class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade 'Catholics' flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were 'Christian,' but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly 'right' as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, 'those people aren’t good Christians,' and 'those people don’t know what they’re talking about,' and 'they don’t read the Bible correctly,' and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that 'Christian' was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong..."

My ethnocentrism – again, speaking here in relation to other Christians – was further challenged when I moved overseas, and began meeting Christians who were further beyond the range of my known boundaries of being Christian. These included Pentecostals and Anglicans, at first, and later Catholics and Orthodox (among others). Step by step, my boundaries, my ideas of the range of belief and understanding and interpretation and practice that could be “truly Christian,” were challenged.

Acceptance, for me, has meant respecting these other Christians as equally Christian. It has meant accepting that there are different ways of being Christian, including different interpretations and practices related specifically to Christian faith and church life (e.g., different ways of understanding and practicing baptism or the Lord’s Supper or church government or worship services or the working of the Holy Spirit), and different historical traditions, different ways of using language to talk about faith, etc. It has meant being curious to learn about the views and experiences and convictions, the uniqueness, of other Christians, rather than trying to defend my own way of being Christian.

The difference that growing into Acceptance has meant for me can be illustrated in my response to Brian McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy. At an earlier point in my journey, I am sure I would have reacted against this book, considering it to be “fuzzy,” blurring boundaries, soft on “truth.” I read it, however, after having worked through the issue of whether Lutherans and Pentecostals and Anglicans, and even Catholics and Orthodox, could be “truly Christian,” and when I read A Generous Orthodoxy, it was with an eagerness to expand my horizons further, to gain insight into some of the unique contributions of different “streams” (as Richard Foster calls them, in his book Streams of Living Water) of Christian faith in the world. A Generous Orthodoxy, in fact, represents an ethnorelative perspective on the Christian faith, an openness to understanding and learning to see the world from the perspective of the “different other” (in this case, the “other” being located within one’s extended family of faith).

Coming next… Adaptation

Is it ethnocentric to claim that claiming that one religion is right, is ethnocentric?

2011-05-03T07:07:00.009-04:00

"Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that our religion is superior to others. Yet isn't that very statement ethnocentric? Most non-Western cultures have no problem saying that their culture and religion is best. The idea that it is wrong to do so is deeply rooted in Western traditions of self-criticism and individualism. To charge others with the 'sin' of ethnocentrism is really a way of saying, 'Our culture's approach to other cultures is superior to yours.' We are then doing the very thing we forbid others to do."

"It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (name that all are equal) is right."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

I have various thoughts about this quote of Keller’s. On the one hand, I respect his reasoning, and I think his book is excellent.

On the other hand, I do not totally agree with this statement about ethnocentrism.

Yes, it is true – and good to think about – that it is impossible to escape our human situation. That is an irony of us trying to “step outside of” our situatedness, to develop a model like Bennett’s DMIS, discussing what it is to be rooted in one way of experiencing and seeing the world (what we call “ethnocentrism”), and what it is like to “grow” or “develop” to a point of knowing our own culture in the context of other cultures and worldviews, etc. (what Bennett calls “ethnorelativism”). Any model, as Keller indicates, is still rooted in a human tradition, a human vantage point, and is subject to critique.

But is Keller rightly using the term “ethnocentric,” and is he accurate in his critique?

Or put another way, might we distinguish between an ethnocentric and a non-ethnocentric way of believing that a religion (or a religious truth, or any truth) is right or true? (And is it the same to claim that your culture is best, as to claim that your religion is right?)

To be “ethnocentric,” at root, is to be bound by the perspective of your ethne, or people, in the “ethnic” / sociocultural sense of people; i.e., the people that one grows up among, lives in the context of, is socialized into. To be ethnocentric is to not realize that there are different cultures and worldviews, or to react against other cultures and worldviews, as we discover them, or to act as if they are basically some kind of subset of our own culture and worldview. It is obviously possible for someone who assumes and proclaims that their religion is true or absolute or best, to be doing so in an ethnocentric way – either ignoring others (Bennett’s Denial), denigrating them (Bennett’s Defense), or somehow seeing other peoples’ religion as subsumed under one’s own (Bennett’s Minimization). It is possible for Christians or Muslims or anyone to be “ethnocentric” (in one of Bennett’s phases) as a Muslim or a Christian in general (toward other religions), or, even toward those in their own broader religious community – e.g., to assume that a particular locally rooted expression of being Christian or Muslim is the only right or true version.

For example, I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of “Christian” that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be “Christian” was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of “Lutherans” around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a “confirmation” class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade “Catholics” flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were “Christian,” but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly “right” as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, “those people aren’t good Christians,” and “those people don’t know what they’re talking about,” and “they don’t read the Bible correctly,” and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that “Christian” was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong. This kind of ethnocentric thinking occurs within every group of people and every religious tradition. But is it inescapable? I would say no.

Setting aside the question of whether the truth claim of a given religion may in fact be right, responding to others from a standpoint of ethnocentrism has at least two problems for us as religious people / people of faith (I will proceed on an assumption that what I am saying may apply to any religious people). First, as I have argued previously, relating to people ethnocentrically is not loving, and thus falls short of what Jesus calls the second greatest commandment (after the command to love God; and I have read Jewish and Muslim authors that say that Judaism and Islam share these two great commandments with Christianity). In addition, living in and from ethnocentrism in our view of and relationship with others, is a crippled sort of living, in many senses – we do not truly know ourselves, we do not truly know others, and we do not have the deepest and most positive relationship with those who differ from us.

But perhaps the bigger question (if you will allow the above reasoning to stand) is whether it is possible for someone to believe in ultimate truth, e.g., the truth of a religious faith, and relate to others in a non-ethnocentric way?

One distinction that would apply at least to Christian faith and Islam, it seems, is that they are not tribal or ethnic religions, rooted in / bound to a particular people or place. Where is ethnocentrism, one might ask, if a mixed group of people from around the world, and who are fully aware of the existence and reality of various cultures and worldviews, and who might even have lived in different cultural settings and experienced the adaptation or integration that Bennett talks about as the final ethnorelative stages of experiencing cultural difference, make a universal truth claim about their religious faith (if by “their” faith we mean, not a locally rooted expression of Christianity or Islam, but what all or most Christians or Muslims might agree upon as the historical essence or heart of the faith)?

Does it make a difference, in regard to ethnocentrism, whether religious people are focused on external forms or on content / substance / essence? Again, it is easy enough to see the ethnocentrism in a particular group of Christians in a specific locale, who have little contact even with other Christians, arguing that a certain way of organizing their worship or doing church government, is the Biblical or Christian way (with the implication that all other Christians around the world and through history are wrong). But what if we “stripped down” the truth claims to content rather than form or structure? What if, looking across the breadth of ways of working out being Christian, through history and across the world, we emphasized what all might agree on, e.g., that it is about receiving life through Jesus and following him; that God is to be worshiped; that there are sacraments to be practiced (with the recognition that we might disagree on the number and on how they should be embodied in practice); etc. What if we practiced our best understanding of Christian faith, without judging other Christians as being wrong or less Christian than we are? Is it possible to imagine being committed Christians without being ethnocentric toward other Christians?

I would suggest that it is.

But what about between religions, then?

Bennett argues, in his model, that ethnorelativism entails adapting to another culture, learning to see the world from a different perspective, and to adapt behavior appropriate to that setting. It involves coming to see another cultural setting as viable, another way of being human. It does not involve assimilation, i.e., giving up one’s own culture for the other. And it does not involve losing one’s own sense of values, giving up value judgments.

So is it not possible for a Muslim, living in a Christian cultural setting, to remain a fully convinced Muslim, convinced that s/he is on the right path, that the Qur’an is the final revelation from God and that Muhammad is the final Prophet, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to/within the Christian cultural setting? Is it not possible for a Christian, living in a Muslim or some other (Jewish, Hindu, etc.) religious setting, to remain fully convinced that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord and Savior, the giver of life, the one who reconciles people to God, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to the culture of the other?

It would be ethnocentric for me as a Christian to look at Islam through a Christian framework (which is, I would suggest, where all Christians start out, in looking at Muslims or others). But what if I grow in ethnorelativism, in acceptance and adaptation and integration, entering into the world of Muslims, learning to understand their faith and practice (and broader culture) from within, to see the world from their vantage point, to see how it makes sense, how they interpret and generate behavior, etc.? But what if I still remain convinced that Jesus is the source of life, that he is the incarnate Word of God, that He gave his life to reconcile people to God, that He rose from the dead and will return again, etc.? What if I believe He is relevant to all people, offers life to all? What if I bear witness to that, to Him, to Muslims (without forcing anything on anyone, or condemning or judging anyone)?

Is it necessarily ethnocentric for someone of religious faith to live their faith, even to share it with others (in terms of “this is what I have found – perhaps you will find it relevant”), if done in a way that does not put down or judge the other, if there is respect for the other’s humanity and freedom and choice, if done with the realization that judgment belongs to God alone, and that we people always “see through a glass darkly,” may get one thing or another wrong, etc.?

I would suggest that if Bennett or any non-believing anthropologist claims that to have any sense of anything being ultimately true, is to be ethnocentric, in that case I would agree with Keller that that anthropologist (or whoever) is indeed being ethnocentric, imposing his/her secular social scientific worldview on the rest of us. And I would say, thank you, Dr. Bennett (or whoever), for the model and the concepts, but we are not limited by how you define ethnocentrism (or reality).

This reflection, though long, is just a beginning, just scratching the surface of a complex and I would guess controversial subject. If you have thoughts or questions or insights, feel free to post them. More will come from my side, as well.

And at the end of this long reflection, I’ll leave it to the reader to judge, am I agreeing or disagreeing with Keller’s statement about ethnocentrism?

Culture Quote of the Day - is it ethnocentric to talk about people being ethnocentric?

2011-05-02T03:04:00.002-04:00

I interrupt this discussion of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism to bring you a different perspective...

"Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that our religion is superior to others. Yet isn't that very statement ethnocentric? Most non-Western cultures have no problem saying that their culture and religion is best. The idea that it is wrong to do so is deeply rooted in Western traditions of self-criticism and individualism. To charge others with the 'sin' of ethnocentrism is really a way of saying, 'Our culture's approach to other cultures is superior to yours.' We are then doing the very thing we forbid others to do."

"It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

I will be commenting on this quote, but at this point will put it out for your consideration. Is he right? Does he accurately portray "ethnocentrism"? Is talk of ethnocentrism, itself ethnocentric? Is there possibly a difference between an ethnocentric and a non-ethnocentric way for people of religious faith to relate to others (i.e., to believe that a religion or belief system is true, but not being ethnocentric about it)?

Beyond Ethnocentrism – Growing in Love of Neighbor Through Growth in Intercultural Sensitivity (1): Acceptance

2011-05-01T03:00:00.008-04:00

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence

In Bennett’s DMIS (Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity), growth toward a richer, fuller, more positive experience of cultural difference, i.e., growth in intercultural sensitivity, is marked by a transition from ethnocentrism (with stages of Denial – Defense – Minimization) to what he calls ethnorelativism (with stages of Acceptance – Adaptation – Integration).

This growth is characterized by a shift from the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors (culture, worldview) as “just the way things are,” to the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors as one organization of reality among many viable possibilities (i.e., one’s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures) – as in the Brooks Peterson quote above. From being unknown, alien, absurd, threatening, insignificant, etc., the cultural difference of others becomes (or begins to become) known, real, comprehensible, respected, etc. This change involves a worldview shift – the world is seen and experienced differently, by a person who is becoming interculturally sensitive.

How do we respond to the "different other"?

The movement from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism is characterized by the development of cultural self-awareness, accompanied by a growing awareness of different others (i.e., of what makes others different, how they are different). (Note that in a different context, Stephen Covey points out that self-awareness is the key human gift, unlocking all other unique human potential, and that without self-awareness we cannot know others, because we treat them as if they were the same as us.)

Part of the growing awareness of others, and of cultural difference, involves beginning to see both the behavior and the values of people from other cultures, within a cultural context (i.e., as understandable within their cultural context).

“people begin to see alien behavior as indicative of profound cultural differences, not just as permutations of universal (and probably ethnocentric) laws”

“Alternative beliefs about both what exists in reality and the value which may be attached to those phenomena are respected as viable, at least as they are expressed in a cultural context.”

Milton Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism (emphasis mine)

Movement out of ethnocentrism also involves questioning the universality of our experience, our models, our ways of doing things (be it in education, economics, politics, development, leadership, the way we do church life, or whatever realm). One way in which I experienced movement from the “minimization” stage of ethnocentrism, into a more ethnorelative approach, was in realizing that the apparent fact that Egyptians I knew did not seem to live according to Covey’s 7 Habits might not mean that Egyptians are not effective, but that the “7 Habits of Highly Effective Egyptians” are different than Covey’s 7 Habits (i.e., that Covey’s 7 Habits might not be universal). This seems obvious in hindsight, but the idea that a model which works for us is universally applicable, has a powerful force which is hard to escape. Once we become more aware of the reality of cultural difference, anyone’s claim to have a “universal” model, approach, or solution, should cause us to see red flags and hear alarm bells.

Moving into Ethnorelativism: Acceptance

The first stage in the ethnorelative experience of cultural difference, in Bennett’s model, is Acceptance. Acceptance is characterized by curiosity about cultural difference, and a growing respect for difference. As one moves into Acceptance, s/he does not necessarily have a deep understanding of the difference which exists, but there is at least a realization that there is difference to be discovered, accompanied by a positive attitude toward exploring and discovering the difference.

Acceptance (in my words) involves…

letting go of the idea that reality is simply the way we “know” it to be
relating to people as they are, rather than as we would like them to be (or according to our image of them)
wanting to know people (i.e., in the reality and fullness of who they are)
not trying to change others, to be different or to be like us (which is the tendency of an ethnocentric experience of others)
accepting others as being as fully human (and as fully complex) as we ourselves are
being open to difference, and open to change (for we cannot grow in accepting others, without ourselves changing)
being open to the fact that “what works for us” might not work for others, i.e., that “what works for us” might not be “universal”

To continue my theme of evaluating Bennett’s paradigm from the perspective of Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves, I ask, does a movement to the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance represent a
growth towards love of neighbor? In other words, if we are people who take the command to love our neighbor as ourselves seriously, should we be motivated to grow out of ethnocentrism, into Acceptance and beyond? Will we be better able to love our neighbor, if we accept the fact that they are different than we are, respect that difference, and try to understand it?

I’ll let you answer that one yourself…

Coming soon… Beyond Ethnocentrism (2): Adaptation

*For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Culture Quote of the Day - the danger of assuming relevance

2011-04-30T01:57:00.002-04:00

“There are probably levels of ethnocentrism, moving from the narrow collectivism of my family, my village, to my clan, my state, my country or my race. There may be dozens of ever-expanding circles as the ripples in the pond expand outward.”

“...the ethnocentric leader has limitations. As pastors and missionaries reach out to the rest of the world, they will do so from the perspective of the leadership values of their own culture and assume that what they have learned about successful churches will apply to all cultures. This attitude can cause tensions with global church-to-church partnerships. Because of their limited perspectives, crosscultural workers assume that their cultural values are biblical and universal. The ethnocentric pastor of a megachurch in one culture will assume that the principles of success in his or her church are effective in any culture.”

James E. Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures

In Bennett's terms, what Plueddemann is identifying as the problem of ethnocentric religious leadership is located in the last of three ethnocentric phases in the DMIS model, minimization (see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-love-of.html). This seems to be a significant problem for people of faith, because in attempting to be true to God and the Scriptures, we can easily wrap up what is assumed to be "absolute" and "eternal" (i.e., from God) with our cultural ways and perspectives.

The question is, can we escape our ethnocentrism, move on to a different way of understanding and interacting with cultural difference, that will enable us to relate more positively, more effectively, with peoples of other cultures?

Culture Quote of the Day - Mac or Windows?

2011-04-29T09:59:00.001-04:00

This quote is a bit long, but addresses the question of whether we are (culturally) more similar or more different:

"Just like computers, we are all programmed. … humans have a ‘cultural programming’ they can’t operate without but that operates largely outside of awareness.

How important is our cultural programming?

Macintosh or Windows operating systems look similar at first glance. Both have monitors you look at, with a ‘desktop’ holding a few icons. Both use a mouse and keyboard for input devices. Both have cords and wires coming out the back of a plastic central box that is the core of the computer. Both use printers. Both accomplish the same tasks. You could argue that the two systems are basically the same, with the same ‘look and feel.’

In some ways, Mac and Windows systems can communicate well enough with each other, too. When I send e-mails from my Mac, I don’t have to be concerned about whether the recipients have Mac or Windows computers. They can use whatever system they want to open the e-mail at their end.

But try putting a Mac program into a Windows computer and you’ll get an error message, because at the programming level the operating systems are significantly different.

This analogy applies to humans. A lot of participants in my cross-cultural programs seem to think that people all around the world are basically the same, and at first glance we do indeed seem similar. For example, people basically look the same (we are all human), have the same concerns (health, safety, food shelter, etc.), and experience the same emotions (love, anger, fear, hatred, etc.). And, like computers, we are usually able to communicate, at least on the surface, across cultures. We send letters, faxes, and e-mails; we talk on the phone and sometimes communicate face to face.

But at a deeper level, people around the world do have significantly different cultural programming, just like computers do at the operating system level. Try to run an American-style business meeting (Americans will want to get straight to business, use people’s first names as though they’ve been friends for years, dress and speak informally, move quickly, take risks, etc.) with European partners (some Europeans may want to get to know one another a bit before talking ‘money,’ perhaps feel more comfortable using titles and last names or at least more polite ways of addressing one another, dress stylishly, move cautiously to avoid risks, even be given more historical grounding) and you’ll see that not everyone has the same ‘operating system.’

There are differences within cities, where each neighborhood can have its own feel, and growing up on the ‘other side of the tracks’ within a city can mean growing up in a totally different world.

If this is true, it must follow that daily life in Paris is probably not exactly like daily life in Calcutta. A resident of Calcutta is culturally programmed quite differently from a Parisian. At the surface level, it’s easy to see: East Indians and the French dress differently because they live in areas of different weather patterns; they eat different food, use different transportation, enjoy different leisure activities, and so forth.

Deeper down, they may define family or marriage differently, may have divergent religious beliefs, and may not share similar knowledge and opinions on a variety of topics.

Deeper still, they may have different core values: friendship, convictions that are very strongly held and may not change as long as they live (e.g., humility, face, self-reliance), and so forth. At even deeper cultural programming levels, they probably have what amounts to quite different worldviews. They may view time as abundant or scarce or assume that a god is in charge of their fate or that they determine their own destiny."

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence

Culture Quote of the Day - Similar or Different?

2011-04-28T02:36:00.003-04:00

“I don’t find it useful to minimize cultural differences. Nor do I find it useful to exaggerate them. The world may be drifting toward similarity in some ways, but it is certainly maintaining distinctness in other ways. I don’t find it realistic to talk about a ‘world culture,’ and I am horrified at the idea of cultural homogenization because I’m fascinated by cultural differences. So I recommend that internationally focused professionals expect, prepare for, and embrace cultural difference. Then it’s possible to be pleasantly surprised when encountering cultural similarities. This is far better than expecting only similarities and being shocked by unanticipated differences.”

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence

“It is dangerous, though, to overemphasize cultural differences. In the deepest sense, human beings are more alike than different. Physically we have similar DNA, blood type, bone structure, facial features and thousands of other characteristics. Socially we have similar needs for belonging, acceptance, security and fulfillment. Cognitively our differences are variations on a limited number of themes. Spiritually we are formed in the image of God, with the special breath of God. We have the ability to know and love God. The paradox is that all human beings are mostly alike, yet each is distinct.”

James E. Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures

Are people more alike, or more different? How do these two authors view the relationship between similarity and difference? Do they agree with each other?

Cultural difference exists. Everyone who is beyond Bennett's stage of "Denial" recognizes that (on "Denial" of cultural difference, see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/02/loving-our-neighbor-insights-from.html). But similarity also exists. The question is, are people more similar or more different? And how does one balance seeing similarity with recognizing difference?

In Bennett's framework for looking at how we experience cultural difference, the third and last stage of Ethnocentrism, "Minimization," is one in which people assume that similarity between people is greater than the difference. This stage is ethnocentric, though, and problematic (if not dangerous) for intercultural relations, because in minimizing difference we project our own culture onto others, assuming they are basically like us, and that what works for us will work for everyone else as well (see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-love-of.html).

The question is, what is it to move beyond an ethnocentric experience and view of difference (and similarity), to a deeper, richer, more positive (what Bennett calls ethnorelative) experience of difference? And how does the movement into a deeper appreciation of difference, affect our view of similarity between peoples, what people have in common?

Culture Quote of the Day - are you insular?

2011-04-27T10:04:00.001-04:00

“people rarely say, ‘Gee – I’m really closed-minded. I don’t know how to talk to foreigners, and I’m suspicious of almost everyplace in the world outside my own hometown!”

“The term insularity means ‘having a narrow, provincial attitude about anything unfamiliar or different’ – and implies wearing blinders.”

(Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence)

Culture Poem of the Day - "I Feel Sorry for Jesus"

2011-04-15T12:59:00.002-04:00

I'm going to repost this poem, shared by AmelMag in a comment, because it's worth thinking about.

I Feel Sorry for Jesus
By Naomi Shihab Nye

People won’t leave Him alone.
I know He said, wherever two or more
are gathered in my name…
But I bet some days He regrets it.

Cozily they tell you what he wants
and doesn’t want
as if they just got an e-mail.
Remember “Telephone,” that pass-it-on game

where the message changed dramatically
by the time it rounded the circle?
Well.
People blame terrible pieties on Jesus.

They want to be his special pet.
Jesus deserves better.
I think He’s been exhausted
for a very long time.

He went into the desert, friends.
He didn’t go into the pomp.
He didn’t go into
the golden chandeliers

and say, the truth tastes better here.
See? I’m talking like I know.
It’s dangerous talking for Jesus.
You get carried away almost immediately.

I stood in the spot where He was born.
I closed my eyes where He died and didn’t die.
Every twist of the Via Dolorosa
was written on my skin.

And that makes me feel like being silent
for Him, you know? A secret pouch
of listening. You won’t hear me
mention this again.

Culture Quote of the Day - Have we done something to Jesus?

2011-04-12T04:52:00.008-04:00

[Rewritten after further reflection]

“We have reduced ourselves to religions, to denominations, to confessions…instead of following my Palestinian compatriot from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.” (Elias Chacour)

“Once every hundred years Jesus of Nazareth meets Jesus of the Christians in a garden among the hills of

Lebanon

. And they talk long; each time Jesus of Nazareth goes away saying to Jesus of the Christians, ‘my friend, I fear we shall never, never agree’.” (Kahlil Gibran)

It is interesting that these two Arab Christians - one a Palestinian (Israeli) Melkite priest, and the other Lebanese - i.e., both from the area where Jesus lived his life on earth - should suggest that "we" (whoever we are, and I think this would include both Christians and Muslims, who have their own "take" on Jesus) have done something to or with Jesus, that has distanced our understanding (and experience?) of him from who he actually is.

To the degree that this might be so, I would suggest that it is at least partially due to the fact that as cultural beings, we understand and define reality in light of our sociocultural setting and existence and historical vantage point. Thus, there are different "Christian" perspectives on Jesus (currently and through history), ranging from Orthodox to Catholic to various Protestant (including evangelicals) to liberals.

I find myself wondering, though, is there really a problem (and what is it)? The New Testament teaching on the Incarnation – that “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” – indicates that Jesus (the word of God) came into this world in a particular cultural context (as a 1^st Century Palestinian Jew); and there is a basis for believing that Jesus continues to enter into different cultural contexts, transforming people and those contexts from within (e.g., E. Stanley Jones’ emphasis on Jesus walking “the Indian Road”; the fact in the New Testament that Gentiles did not have to change to become outwardly Jewish in order to follow Jesus – they could follow him in their cultural context; and the fact that in Revelation it pictures people from “every tribe and tongue and nation worshiping God,” apparently with their cultural distinctives).

I’m not suggesting that Jesus is whoever we define him to be, or that we should not keep reading the New Testament and talking with others who claim to know him, to grow toward a more clear understanding. And I’m not sure that I agree with Gibran that there is such a thing as “Jesus of the Christians.” There definitely is such as thing as Jesus as perceived by and conceived of by Christians (and by others), but this is to say something not about Jesus himself, but about us and our perceptions.

If Jesus does exist, and is who the New Testament pictures him to be (the living and life-giving word of God, come into this world, crucified but risen and alive today, and still present and at work in the world), he is quite capable of “taking care of himself,” manifesting himself in different cultural contexts and working through (and when necessary in spite of) the different ways people conceive of him.

Jesus does not belong to us, and is not contained in any of our boxes (one might say, he is not a Christian). I’m reminded of the statement in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, that Aslan “is not a tame lion.”

Where Will the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions Lead?

2011-04-11T10:51:00.001-04:00

I have recently visited both Tunisia and Egypt, two countries I lived in for a number of years. There are of course numerous differences between the two countries, in population (number of people, plus the fact that Egypt has always had a sizeable Christian minority), urbanization, literacy, religious practice, and other areas, but I was struck by an issue that popped up in both places, in the form of graffiti.

In both places, patriotism (in the form of lots of flags and graffiti highlighting the flag) was in prominent display. In addition, and more specifically, in Tunisia, I saw graffiti that read “Tunisian = Muslim + Christian + Jew":

Tunisian People = Muslim + Christian + Jew

In Egypt, a sign that read, “Don’t say we are Muslims, not Christians – we are all Egyptians” (unfortunately, I didn’t manage to get a picture of this one), and graffiti highlighting a close relationship between Muslims and Christians in Egypt:

The underlying issue that this graffiti is addressing is one of whether the emphasis coming out of the revolutions, in creating new governments, will be on religion – i.e., emphasizing the Muslim identity of the majority of the people – or on the nation / national boundaries – i.e., emphasizing common identity as Tunisians or as Egyptians, national unity, and downplaying religious differences.

One Nation .. One People (?)

This is a key issue, especially in Egypt (with a large percentage of Christians). The question for Muslims in both Tunisia and Egypt is, is it possible for them to create or emphasize or demonstrate a religious identity that allows them on the national level to embrace (be inclusive of) others who do not share their religion?

And for the record, this is not just a Muslim issue – it is easy to find examples around the world (including the West, and countries with a “Christian” majority) that illustrate the same tension between religious commitment and national commitment, and the same question, whether those with strong religious commitment are able to create and live out a religious identity that allows them on the national level to embrace others of other faiths (or none).

Given all the strife in the world today that is centered on religion, this is a critical question for all of us, whatever our religious faith and whatever our nationality. I’m hoping that the forces for unity in Tunisia and Egypt are stronger than the forces for exclusion.