Born in Taiwan but left when I was 8y.o., lived in 5 different countries by 18y.o., Christian, full-time General Practitioner in Eastwood! Loves travelling&adventures. Master of Divinity graduate.
台灣出生，八歲出國，十八歲時已經長期居住過五個國家，基督徒，道學碩士，在澳洲依士活作全職家醫科醫生，喜歡旅遊探險。
The
original sin occurred in the Adam and Eve narrative in the book of Genesis,
which led to the downfall of humanity. The book of Genesis teaches that the
nature of sin is related to the unbelief in God’s commands and promises, and
human pride. It also teaches that sin affects all dimensions of one’s
relationship, with oneself, with God, with each other, and with the rest of the
creation, and physical death will come as an inevitable consequence to all.
Furthermore sin spreads like wildfire and has a tendency to become more severe as
it spread from a personal to a community level. God’s acts of judgment were
always related to a particular sin, and punishment became increasingly more
severe with the increasing spread of sin. The general pattern seemed to be a
movement from human sin to divine punishment to divine forgiveness or
mitigation of the punishment[1].
On an individual who sin, as in ‘The Fall’ and Cain, God’s dealing could be
highly personalised, where they were punished for their sin but were partly
relieved of the severity of their punishment, as Adam and Eve did not die
immediately and God had put a mark of protection on Cain when driving him out. But
where a whole community’s relationship with God was involved, the operation of
justice in punishment can sometimes be undifferentiated, as in the ‘Sons of
God’ episode, where all humanity’s life-span became shortened because of the
sins of the ‘Sons of God’. When the vast majorities sinned and were punished as
in the Flood narrative, there was the near annihilation of mankind with
mitigation taking effect only for one man and his family. In the Tower of
Babel, all of those who have sinned were punished with ‘dissolution of
mankind’s unity’ and there was no direct mitigation[2].
For more details about this essay I wrote, please see http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/what-does-book-of-genesis-teach-about.html
Globalisation:
In the patriarchal narratives, we
see the theme of a line of seeds arising from Eve that will crush the head of
the serpent and become a channel of blessings to all nations on earth. We can
also see hope even in the imperfect characters whose lives became greatly
transformed and blessed by God when they recognized divine action previously
hidden from their eyes, as in the case of Judah.
The punishment for the Tower
of Babel incident was ‘dissolution of mankind’s unity’. Personally, I think the
process of globalisation is part of the mitigation for this ‘dissolution of
mankind’s unity’. In other words, a reversal of what happened in the Tower of
Babel. It is an extremely difficult but inevitable process which produces devastating
conflicts. With globalization, the whole world is connected, whether we like it
or not...
Morphing - The Face of the Future:
I suddenly remembered an interesting photograph on the cover
page of my high school biology textbook. This author used 16 photos of the
students from my high school and morphed them together. This face illustrates
the likely product of several generations of inter-racial marriages.
This job was done for the Biology textbook Patterns of Life
by Meg Bayley (published by Addison Wesley Longman New Zealand, 1998). The
brief was to create a composite portrait. To quote from the text:
The face in the large picture was formed from one-sixteenth
of each of the sixteen girls shown at the top. Brian Donovan of the Audio
Visual Centre at Auckland University created it for us. We gave him 16 photos
of girls at Diocesan School, selected to reflect the ethnic distribution of New
Zealand's population today. Brian then paired up the photos and linked each
pair together at approximately 100 key points around the face and hairline (a
very time-consuming process!). A morphing program then 'mixed' the pairs of
photographs together. So, the pictures in the second row are composed of half
of each of the two photos above.
'This was then repeated with each new photograph until we
got the final face: one-sixteenth of each girl. We added some hair, and there
she was.
'This process mimics the mixing of genetic factors down five
generations or 150 years ignoring the fact that each photo is of the 'daughter'
of two girls! Of course, rather than particular features coming through (as
might happen in real life) we have ended up with a girl who is an average of 16,
but we hope you get the general idea.'
Note the increasingly smooth complexion in each
'generation'; if minor facial characteristics such as freckles, lines and other
marks are regarded as 'noise' and the major features - the shape of the face,
eyes, eyebrows, nose, cheek lines, and mouth - are regarded as 'signal' then
the signal-to-noise ratio is increased with each successive transformation.
The notion of a composite photographic portrait is not new:
in the late nineteenth century in England, the statistician Francis Galton
pioneered a technique for making such composites (to illustrate human types
among other things) by successively copying registered portrait prints onto a
single photographic plate. The exposure for each individual was determined by dividing
the total exposure by the number of prints in the sample. Among his experiments
were averaged criminals, mixtures of family members, and composites of heads on
ancient coins such as Alexander the Great, Nero and Cleopatra. If Galton had
expected the composite of Cleopatra to reveal her legendary beauty he was to
disappointed; still, he wrote, it was better than any of the individual
components, none of which gave any indication of her reputed beauty; in fact,
her features are not only plain, but to an ordinary English taste are simply
hideous.
For
years, the missionary was the axis by which one understood and did global
mission. They described and interpreted the country to those of us “at home”
through the lens of their own experience. Everything was brokered through them.
This has all changed. The missionary has been decentred and is in the process
of being dethroned due to a shrinking world and greater global access. We have
many angles and perspectives from which to choose. Each of them presents a
different view. Media feeds us with daily images of the global world. Travel
and immigration brings the world to our door.[1]
Globalisation is experienced on a daily
basis. We can no longer assume that “our way” of looking at things is the “only
way”. For example, for many Europeans and North Americans, Pearl Harbor and
D-Day lie at the centre of that time in history. For the Chinese their stories
contain events such as the “Rape of Nanjing.”[2]
The experience of Peter in Acts 10 is an example of this shift of paradigm. His
worldview and his understanding of God was shaped around cultural and national
identity. The invitation to visit and share table fellowship in the home of
Cornelius required Peter to examine fundamental issues of his identity. Living
in a global world necessitates a constant questioning of our assumptions and
our prejudices.[3]
The Western churches might need to ask themselves this question: If our methods
of ministry and mission are so effective, why are the Western churches in
decline and the church in the Global South growing?[4]
Christianity is flourishing wonderfully among the poor and persecuted while it
atrophies among the rich and secure.[5]
This is not to suggest that everything about the church in the South is good,
but simply to suggest that they have much to teach to the West about their
nominalism and stagnation.[6]
The centre of Christianity has moved to the Southern world.[7]
The churches in the South read the Bible in ways much different from those that
Western missionaries taught as their readings and reflections emerge from their
experiences. Jenkins goes on to muse about “who should be missionaries to
whom?”[8]
Six basic shifts to understanding are
required of missionaries, churches, denominations, and mission agencies that
wish to offer faithful service to God at home and in distant lands. 1) Our
basic framework of mission: from an exclusive to an inclusive understanding of
God’s mission. In the traditional paradigm, mission is understood as the task
of the church to bring God, in Christ, to the “unreached” peoples. This
understanding is what is called Noah’s ark model of mission (Genesis 6-8). Like
the ark of Noah, the church is composed of people who are plucked out of an
evil world that is set for damnation and who need to be safeguarded to enter
their heavenly abode. As those who are rescued, it is now their task to prevent
people from jumping out of the ark, and to rescue a few others who may be
drowning.[9]
An inclusive understanding of mission is based on the affirmation that
Christians are in mission because God is “already present and active” in the
world, bringing it unto himself. God’s mission, which God carries out in many
different ways, includes the creative and healing activities happening in the
world even though these actions may not always be under the umbrella of the
church. Mission takes place through God’s participation in the sufferings of
the world. This inclusive understanding of mission therefore places the loving,
caring, judging, and compassionate presence and mission of God in the heart of
all human affairs, despite all its ambiguities. 2) Goal of mission: from
conversion to transformation. The traditional approach is to set conversion as
the ultimate goal of mission. However, aggressive models of evangelism have
increased mistrust, animosity, and tension between religious communities.
During the rehabilitation and relief work being done to and for the victims and
survivors of the December 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, the efforts of some
Christian groups were severely criticised. They had intentionally compelled
orphaned children of Muslim families to accept the gospel message within the
context of Christian orphanages. Mission today challenges the narrow notion of conversion.
Conversion is the transformation activity of the Spirit in the lives of
individuals and communities, leading them to a life orientated toward God and
their neighbours.[10] 3) Community of faith: from majority to minority. The traditional model of conversion
is an imperialist and colonialist aspiration for church growth and development.
The resurgence of denominationalism and the emphasis on church planting and
church growth reminds us there is still a triumphalist desire to become the
Christian majority: as if strength is measured by size or number. But churches need
to relearn how to be at home as a minority community whose life is rooted in
God, and whose life is lived in, for, and on behalf of the world. God will call
us to account, not simply about numbers, but about how faithful we were in
working for the transformation of the world to reflect God’s values of justice,
love, and mercy. 4) The content of mission: from doctrinal debates to spiritual
concerns. Traditional mission paradigms have often focused on Christian
apologetics, trying to convince others that our theological framework is
superior to others. The result has been rivalry and animosity both within the
Christian traditions and among different believers. Peace, reconciliation, and
freedom from violence and oppression are deep spiritual longings. These
spiritual concerns that transcend religious or denominational labels should
help define the content of our mission today.[11] 5) The practice of mission: from tokenism to genuine partnership. What is being
done today in mission promotes a “recolonization of mission.” Missionaries
arrive with money, buy land, and build churches and schools. They declare a
desire to cooperate with national partners, but their actions too often create
socioeconomic enclaves of independent behaviour. In some countries, missionaries have gone as business people setting up
factories, taking advantage of cheap labour and resources. How can there be
genuine partnership between people who are unequal right from the start? To be
in solidarity is to stand alongside one another. It shares deeply the pain and
hurt of the other, and requires sharing the burden of the other as if it were
one’s own.[12]
6) Finality of
mission: from liberation to reconciliation. Liberation and reconciliation share
similarities: both are concerned about overcoming oppression and place the
pursuit of justice at the heart of their activity. Both presume God acting in
our history here and now and actively seek the opportunity to bring hope for
better humanity by reference to the great biblical narratives. They also
acknowledge the need to attend to the structural dimensions of oppression and
conflict. However, reconciliation emphases on God’s role in healing and
restoration and builds a framework for the future.[13]
Good stories entertain and inform. They
stick with you for a long time and pop into your consciousness at strange
moments. Shared stories play an important role within social movements. They
unite people around common values and create a unifying vision of social
transformation.[14]
There
is a critical need to shift attitudinally form seeing mission as “doing
something” to mission as discipleship formation. This discipleship framework
considers all involved in the mission activity of God in the world as sisters
and brothers in Christ. It demands a willingness to move toward mutual
partnership models in which all partners learn from each other. If agencies and
organisations working in the same areas simply “do their own thing” without
talking to each other, there will be potential for duplication of resources and
unhealthy competition for loyalty. When we reduce mission to what we can
accomplish, we can miss the call of God on each of our lives, the call to
become his disciples.[15]
While much has been written about the professionalization of mission, “good”
mission emerges out of genuine and authentic living. Better techniques,
strategies, and practices will never replace humble human living. The witness
of the church is always strongest when authenticity and powerlessness are its
characteristics, when people live in the tension of faith and doubt but still
act on what they believe. In Matthew 28:18-20, we are told that we will not be
alone in our being sent by God, as God will be with and will empower the
activity. Missional discipleship is a faith internalised and formed so that,
while we fling ourselves into the world to make a difference, the difference is
made by the One who sent us.[16]
It takes great faith to be a disciple, because it is only the presence of
Christ that will make obedience possible. Disciples cross cultural boundaries.
We are to make disciples of all “nations”. “Nations” means cultural peoples or
ethnic groups that are distinct and different. This means, the good news of the
Gospel will transcend ethnic barriers and be translatable in a variety of ways
culturally. The Gospel will be able to speak to all cultures because of its
unlimited translatability. It will shape the church’s mission within the
culture in which it is located.[17]
[1] Gary V. Nelson, Gordon W. King, and Terry G. Smith, Going Global: A Congregation’s Introduction
to Mission beyond Our Borders (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011), 10.
This essay is ‘A biblical and theological
self-reflection upon Livermore’s four dimensions of Cultural Intelligence’. David
Livermore (2009) outlines four dimensions of cultural intelligence (CQ), each
of which, he argues, should be motivated by ‘love of the other’. I made biblical
and theological justification on why ‘love for the other’ as the motive increases
the effectiveness of cross-cultural communication and engagement using the
passages on the great commandment, Paul, discipleship and the great commission
as examples. I did a critical self-reflection on my attempt to develop
increased competence each of the four dimensions of the CQ, which increased on
the second test. This could be due to increased knowledge and self-confidence
gained from doing the cross-cultural communication unit, and my trip to Israel
could have increased my curiosity and motivation for more cross-cultural
encounters. However, although a useful self-evaluation resource, there is a
lack of biblical and theological illustrations for the four dimensions. It will need regular
revisions if we take into account the rapid changes in modern society.
a. A
biblical and theological justification of ‘love for the other’ as the
transformative motivation towards more effective cross-cultural communication
and engagement.
Livermore[1]
believes that cultural intelligence is essential because it is rooted in a
theology of God’s incarnation through Jesus. And Jesus is made incarnate today
through the church. As Christians, our ultimate desire is to communicate
Christ. To do so in a cross-cultural setting requires us to be effective in intercultural
communication.[2] Therefore,
we cannot fulfil our God-given mission to love others without contextualising
ourselves through a pathway like cultural intelligence. Livermore[3]
and Jones[4]
believes the great commandment from Matthew 22:37-39, ‘love your neighbour as
yourself’, should be the motivation to serve cross-culturally. Michaels[5]
observes that one of the central goals for all Christians in cross-cultural
settings is to develop healthy relationships with people of the new culture,
which is at the core of partnership in the gospel.
1Corinthians 9:19-23 demonstrates the
Christian purpose to communication. We see that Paul freely admits his social
behaviour differed according to setting (Jew or Gentile)[6],
all for the sake of the gospel[7].
In fact, he regular used the word “servant/slave” to speak of his own ministry,
as Jesus himself is the paradigm for such servanthood. Paul became all things
to all people so as to win more. In this context Paul’s becoming slave of all
is to be understood in light of the subsequent passages, thus referring to his
willingness to accommodate himself to whatever social settings he found himself
in, so as to “to win” as many as possible.[8]
This passage has been looked to for the idea of “accommodation” in evangelism,
of adapting the message to the language and perspective of the recipients.[9]
In fact, to change someone's worldview, you need to understand theirs first[10],
so you can explain it in a way they can understand! Eg. To share the gospel
with a Muslim, we have to understand and take into account the Islamic
worldview. Much of our communication is intended to influence the thinking,
feeling and/or acting of other people. We then endeavour to convince/persuade
our hearers of the significance or value of what we say.[11]
Hesselgrave[12]
states that our Scriptural mandate requires that Christians are to “preach,
teach, witness, proclaim, evangelise, exhort, rebuke, reprove, beseech, warn,
persuade.” He cites 2Corinthians 5:11-21 and Acts 26:28 as examples, whereby
Paul is an ambassador persuading people to be reconciled to God, and even
trying to persuade King Agrippa.
But the word persuade also have negative
connotations: compel, cajole, force, or coerce.[13]
People who comply and accept the proposed conditions under threat, force,
manipulation or coercion will only make superficial changes and comply out of
fear. These changes will only last as long as the external force applies.[14]
Verwer[15]
describes the dangers of ministering without love as the motivation, “I am
convinced that in certain countries some people are gathering up workers who
have no call from God, by paying them a small salary to do Christian work… They
often don’t have enough training and their lives are often out of control…
These are things that we cannot afford in this great task of world evangelism.”
For those on the receiving side of Christianity, the method by which it is
spread is interpreted as the message itself.[16]
Furthermore, there is a constant temptation for people in ministry to abuse power
for personal gain: how many times have elders and worship leaders used their
legitimate positions for their own ego gratification?[17]
Yet, a servant leader does not seek to gain power over others but use power to
empower others.[18]
From this, we can see the importance of ‘love for the other’ as the
transformative motivation towards more effective cross-cultural communication
and engagement.
In 1Corinthians 2:4, Paul demonstrates that
the use of technique is not a substitute for reliance upon the Spirit.
Successful servants of the Lord have relied on the work of the Spirit, being
led by the Spirit so as to influence people to want to transform their lives
and communities.[19]What Paul
is rejecting here is not persuasive preaching; rather it is the real danger in
all preaching: self-reliance.[20] Missions agencies tend to be pragmatic problem solvers, seeking
effective ways to motivate, enlist, organise, and replicate success in
ministry. It is easy for these ways to be reduced to techniques: follow these
specific steps and you will succeed.[21]
There is also a disturbing ethnocentric notion that technological, financial,
and material “progress” is the hallmark of a truly civilised society.[22]
Therefore, the attempts to improve the social conditions of those outside the
West have distracted from the goal of making disciples.[23]
While techniques and material progress can be helpful in the short-term,
life-changing ministry requires much more. Character is solid and consistent
and requires consistent effort over time to develop. Artificial techniques of
ministry may have a reasonable beginning point, but disciples move beyond
techniques to grow, under the Lord’s mighty hand, solid character traits which
are expressed through everything we think, feel and do.[24]
Nelson[25]
sees a critical need to shift attitudinally from seeing cross-cultural ministry
as “doing something” to cross-cultural ministry as discipleship formation. This
discipleship framework considers all involved in the mission activity of God in
the world as sisters and brothers in Christ. It demands a willingness to move
toward mutual partnership models in which all partners learn from each other. This
requires love and patience as we do not see results rapidly. When we reduce
mission to what we can accomplish, we can miss the call of God on each of our
lives, the call to become his disciples. While much has been written about the professionalization
of mission, “good” mission emerges out of genuine and authentic living. Better
techniques, strategies, and practices will never replace humble human living.
The witness of the church is always strongest when authenticity and
powerlessness are its characteristics, when people live in the tension of faith
and doubt but still act on what they believe. Matthew
28:18-20[26]
talks of the great commission, whereby we are to make disciples of all nations,
and God will be with us in empowering the activity. Missional discipleship is a
faith internalised and formed so that, while we fling ourselves into the world
to make a difference, the difference is made by the One who sent us.[27]
We are to make disciples of all “nations”. This means, the good news of the gospel
will transcend ethnic barriers and be translatable in a variety of ways
culturally.[28]
Concurrently, growth in Christ produces a growth in love, which reduces
cultural conflict as we together grow away from our various conflicting
cultures and toward a more Godly culture.[29]
b. A
critical reflection on your attempt to develop increased competence in one new
dimension of knowledge CQ.
Knowledge CQ is the understanding one has
about cross-cultural issues and differences.[30]
I grew up as a ‘third culture kid’. I was born in Taiwan, but being the
daughter of a diplomat, I have lived in five different countries long term by the
time I turned 18 years old. I would classify Mandarin as my ‘mother tongue’.[31]
I left Taiwan at the age of eight. Despite living in English speaking countries
for the majority of my life, I maintained a high level of competence in my
Mandarin speaking skills and written Chinese. My mother gave me Chinese
textbooks from Taiwan to study when I was primary school so that contributed to
building a more solid foundation in this language. I visit Taiwan annually
which, in addition to keeping in touch with relatives, gave me a reasonable
degree of understanding about Taiwanese culture. I personally believe it is
important to maintain competency in my ‘mother tongue’ as the Taiwanese
nationality is part of who I am.
Apostle Paul is a good role model to learn
from. From Paul’s life, we see he was a cross-cultural disciple. He was raised
in a Jewish home and into a Jewish heritage, but because his father was a Roman
citizen, Paul lived in two divergent cultures. He preached the gospel, trained
leaders, wrote instructive letters, and established a seminary in Ephesus for
the training of pastors. He travelled and taught throughout Asia Minor,
Macedonia, Greece, and Rome, going first to the local synagogues but moving
from there into marketplaces and stadiums.[32]
Indeed, being competent bilingually gives me access to a broader range people.
Even though my own values tend to be more Western, I can also understand the
perspectives of those from my country of origin. Having lived in so many
different countries has made me aware that even though my language competencies
gave me access to more people, there are vast cultural differences between
different English speaking countries. There are also vast cultural differences
between people of Chinese ethnicity from different regions.
Another words, I still have a lot to learn
despite being bilingual. At the same time, being bilingual makes it easier for
me to learn about different cultures, because as Moreau[33]
puts it, as one cannot learn the insider’s perspective on the culture without
first learning the language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis[34]
tells us that the nature of a particular language influences the habitual
thought of its speakers and the language itself is usually derived from the
environment of the people who speak it. Rah[35]
believes language acquisition is often seen as a key element of cultural
intelligence. This is extremely important in the development of my knowledge
CQ: Knowing the spoke languages helps me relate socially, because as Storti[36]
writes, “Those who cannot speak the language of the country where they reside
and whose inhabitants can’t speak theirs can never feel altogether at ease.”
Knowing the written languages allow me to explore more deeply into the
literatures to gain an even more in depth knowledge of the cultures.
c. A
critical reflection on your attempt to develop increased competence in one new
dimension of interpretive CQ.
Rah[37]
believes the power of story is the power to change how we view the world and
our place in it. Some say that in our day the art of storytelling has been
lost. The advent of mass media, especially the proliferation of truncated
communication such as text messaging and Tweeting, has meant that storytelling
as a means of communication has become greatly devalued. Aristotle stated,
“When storytelling goes bad, the result is decadence.” Society and culture
cannot progress and be transformed without real, honest, and powerful stories.[38]
The best stories will inspire change in the listener.[39]
Stories have the power to communicate elements of our faith in ways that a
lecture cannot.[40] As
a part of this unit’s assessment, we had to do an oral storytelling exercise
where we tell a story from the Bible in an oral, Islamic cultural context. To
do this, I had to research into the Islamic worldview in order to move away
from my ethnocentrism[41]
so I can talk about my faith appropriately in this cross-cultural setting. This
research helped me develop my interpretative CQ as I have to monitor my
internal thinking process as compared to the thinking processes of people from
other cultural contexts.[42]
I made interesting discoveries about their
views of Christianity and Jesus. For example, the Muslims are fiercely
monotheistic, therefore the biblical teaching of the deity of Jesus Christ is
thus polytheistic and blasphemous.[43]
So to suggest the deity of Jesus at an early point of evangelising a Muslim
would provoke an undesirable reaction. Interestingly, the Muslims revere Jesus
as a genuine prophet and messenger of God, and many expect his return at the
Last Day. They even accept his virgin birth and his miracles. So we can encourage
Muslims to read and reflect on the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life.[44]
Another important point to note is that the Muslims regard the Koran as
infallible. They believe the Bible was originally an authentic revelation from
Allah, but has become altered and corrupted in the process of transmission. Just
saying ‘Bible’ can start an argument, so another important aspect in talking
about my faith in this setting is to stop using the word ‘Bible’, and use
traditional category names such as Torah, Prophets, Psalms and Gospel.[45]
Interestingly, the Koran does not seem to
contain any significant expressions of agape love.[46]
Islam is built heavily on legalistic observances intended to prepare a person
for future judgment. Muslims have no definite assurance of salvation until they
reach that final day. When Muslims learn of Jesus’ life of love and
forgiveness, and come to know him as a living, personal Saviour, he is
irresistible.[47]
Hesselgrave[48]
believes that the difficulty in communicating the Christian faith to Muslims
does not lie in a difference of worldviews. Rather, it is the fact that
Christians and Muslims do not meet as strangers, nor do they meet as friends.
Therefore, missionaries to Muslims must win a hearing by demonstrating
Christlike qualities. This is the part where the role of empathy comes in. The
fullest expression of awareness occurs when we move beyond simply understanding
what lies beneath the behaviour of the people of other cultures to entering in
and empathising with them.[49]
Muslims are very accustomed to vigorous debate with missionaries. Any display
of temper or arrogance on the part of the Christian communicator will
overshadow any advantage that might be gained.[50]
It is more helpful to be a good friend, a good co-worker, a good neighbour. Let
God’s love flow through you, and offer help when needs arise.[51]
d. A
critical reflection on your attempt to develop increased competence in one new
dimension of perseverance CQ.
Perseverance CQ refers to our level of
interest, drive, and motivation to adapt cross-culturally.[52]
To better understand another culture, Rah[53]
suggests that it is helpful as a group to visit the actual site where key
events, whether of suffering or triumph, have occurred or are happening. It is
also essential that one hears firsthand accounts and stories, hearing those who
were there.[54] I
have always enjoyed travelling abroad, with the most recent travel being to
Israel during my mid-semester break. This was a group of 140 people organised
by The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) Taiwan, consisting
mostly of Taiwanese nationals who desires a deeper connection with Israel
through visiting various Biblical sites and to do prayer and worship at these
sites. We had Mandarin speaking local Kaifeng Jewish guides, and visited
Messianic Jewish Congregations to hear the local pastors talk about their
experiences. For example, Pastor Daniel Yahav described how their congregation
used to meet at a location but the Orthodox Jews kept throwing stones breaking their
windows, spitting on the people, and putting newspaper ads about how the
Messianic Jews are worse than Nazis because they believe Nazis only burn the
Jews physically but the Messianic Jews make Jews burn in hell. Then they had to
leave the place they were renting and the next day an Orthodox Jews broke in
and burnt the whole building! Then they had to meet under trees and be a
homeless fellowship. Finally they are now able to find a fixed place to rent
where they are protected from persecution.[55]
Our group was very large so it was
subdivided into smaller groups of nine people, with a team leader in each
group. Our small group decided to get a closer look at the life of the locals by
going to the local markets via monorail and trying out local foods. Biblically,
food is important: The power of table fellowship is the power of hospitality.
An invitation to the table is an invitation to fellowship. A multicultural
church needs to eat together.[56]
For most of the history of the church, hospitality was understood to encompass
physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of human existence and
relationships. It meant response to the physical needs of strangers for food,
shelter, and protection, but also a recognition of their worth and common
humanity.[57] The
Scriptures testify that the church is the household or family of God. Cultural
intelligence requires a movement from simple hospitality to becoming a
household. The church is not merely a place where we tolerate strangers; it is
a place of grace and acceptance that comes from being a family.[58]
Although this visit to the market was still pretty far from table fellowship
and hospitality, I see it an important step increasing my perseverance CQ because
the enriching encounters I had in this trip actually increased my curiosity and
motivation for more cross-cultural interactions.
e. A
critical reflection on your attempt to develop increased competence in one new
dimension of behavioural CQ.
Behavioural CQ is the extent to which we
appropriately change our verbal and nonverbal actions when we interact
cross-culturally.[59]
During my trip to Israel, our group attended the ICEJ Feast of Tabernacles
conference, where thousands of Christians from many nations come up to
Jerusalem each year to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.[60]
Thus, attending this event gave me exposure to a large number of different
nationals, and we are expected to greet or shake hands with them when we enter
the conference stadium. We also marched in the annual Jerusalem March. In this
joyful three hour march, we marched alongside with people from many different
nations, greeted the Israeli onlookers and handed out flags to the Israeli
children.
Being exposed to such a wide range of
different nationals was quite overwhelming at times. I did not have the time to
read up on how different nationals behave. Moreau[61]
describes the first phase of cross-cultural relationship as “initial
uncertainty”. Everyone has a certain level of anxiety in developing new
relationships. One early goal of any relationship is to reduce that anxiety
through developing shared communication patterns with the other person.[62]
So the best I could do was to try and mirror each
national as we greet. These interactions were rather brief so there I did not
encounter any instance where I am pushed to behave in a way that is beyond my
own acceptance. In fact, in my past experiences, if there was pressure for me
to behave in ways beyond my comfort zone, I usually do not try to adapt. Livermore[63]
believes that adjusting to the behaviour of the other culture is a double-edged
sword, so this is indeed a tricky area. Some level of adapting to communication
types cross-culturally is usually viewed positively because it leads to
perceptions of similarity. However, extensive mimicry will be seen as insincere
and possibly deceptive. In fact, Livermore[64]
believes that the most important way to nurture behavioural CQ is to nurture
the other three CQ elements, and, by contrast, trying to change our behaviour
itself is the least effective way to nurturing CQ. Sometimes things can turn
quite confusing when there are large numbers of different nationals present at
once. For example, during the Jerusalem March, the leader of a group of
nationals suddenly started cutting in front of our group. We tried to
communicate to them about not cutting but they did not respond so there was not
much we could do about it.
f. A
practical and theological assessment of the extent to which Livermore’s
dimensions of CQ were helpful in your efforts to achieve increased levels of
CQ. (500 words)
As part of this Unit, I was required to complete
Livermore’s CQ assessment during week one and repeat it in week ten. In my
initial assessment, my overall cultural intelligence score was 102 (average),
Knowledge and Interpretive CQ 57 (excellent), Perseverance CQ 18 (red alert)
and Behavioural CQ 27 (moderate). Although my cultural strategic thinking was
good, I lack the motivation to mingle cross-culturally. At the end of the
semester, my overall cultural intelligence score was 126 (excellent), Knowledge
and Interpretive CQ 66 (excellent), Perseverance CQ 33 (red alert) and Behavioural
CQ 27 (moderate). There was improvement in my cultural strategic thinking and
motivation to mingle cross-culturally, therefore improvement to the overall
score.
I believe the following factors played a
role for the score increase: As this Unit is on the study cross-cultural
communication, the additional knowledge gained from this subject, especially
the activity on storytelling in a cross-cultural setting, improved my cultural
strategic thinking. It could also be an increase in self-confidence from doing
this subject that led me to tick more of the “expert/knowledgeable” type of
answers. So a weakness of this test is that it does not differentiate between a
self-perceived increase vs. an actual increase in knowledge. My travel to
Israel during the mid-semester break had been a very positive experience, which
may have contributed to an increase in my motivation for more cross-cultural
experience. However, I am sceptical about Perseverance CQ, because I think this
dimension can fluctuate greatly with mood. I was exposed briefly to a wide
range of nationals which aroused my curiosity, hence increased my motivation
for more cross-cultural experience. However, I believe if I had a closer
encounter leading to an unpleasant experience, it would reduce my motivation.
Or if my closer encounter led to friendship formation, it would increase my
motivation. Furthermore, introverts are likely to score lower in this area than
extroverts because of a lack of desire for social interaction in the first
place whereby even social interaction with people of similar cultural
background can be a challenge.
In fact, with globalisation and rapid technological developments, there
are rapid changes to the way people interact. For the first time in human
history, those crossing into new cultural and geographic settings can electronically
bring family and friends with them through social media and instant messaging. This
is a double edged sword. If your e-connections enable you to have your
emotional relationship needs are met electronically, there will be little
motivation to go through the difficult task of forming friendships across
cultural boundaries.[65]
Yet, at the same time, vast amounts of information/knowledge are easily
accessible and there is opportunity to interact with people around the world
through the internet, which is very different from face-to-face encounters. Although
the CQ assessment scores are helpful resources for us to see where we are at in
cross-cultural interactions, it will need regular revisions if we take into
account the rapid changes in modern society. Furthermore, I agree with Holdsworth’s[66]
suggestion that ‘Livermore’s discussion of the motivation of love reads more as
an introduction to Cultural Intelligence
than an in-depth attempt to establish a theology for engagement with the CQ
model.’ In fact, I think Livermore should incorporate more biblical examples
for each dimensions of the CQ in his book.
Jerusalem March
My perspective
A reporter's perspective
The Israeli audience's perspective
Bibliography:
Colville,
Graydon. “Introduction to Worldview.” Lecture Notes, Morling College. July 23,
2015.
Feast of
Tabernacles. “About.” Accessed October 25, 2015. http://feast.icej.org/about
Fee, Gordon.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.
Grace
Communion International. “Sharing Your Faith… With a Muslim.” Accessed October
25, 2015. https://www.gci.org/gospel/sharing/muslim
Hesselgrave,
David. Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally:
An Introduction to Missionary Communication. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1991.
Jackson, Darrell.
“A missiology of love and CQ.” Lecture Notes, Morling College. July 30, 2015.
Jenkins,
Philip. The Next Christendom. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Jones, S.
The Evangelistic Love of God and
Neighbour: a theology of witness and discipleship. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2003.
Kay, P.
and W. Kempton. “What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?” American Anthropologist 86 (1984): 65-79.
Little,
Christopher R. Mission in the Way of
Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twenty-First Century. New
York: Peter Lang, 2005.
Livermore,
David A. Cultural Intelligence: Improving
your CQ to engage our multicultural world. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
Livermore,
David A. Serving with Eyes Wide Open.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006.
Michaels,
Timothy. “Friendship, Vodka, Money and the Gospel.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 45 (2010): 344-349.
Moreau,
A. Scott, Evvy Hay Campbell, and Susan Greener. Effective intercultural communication: a Christian perspective.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Nelson, Gary V. Gordon W. King, and Terry
G. Smith. Going Global: A Congregation’s
Introduction to Mission beyond Our Borders. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011.
Pohl, Christine. Making Room. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Rah, Soong-Chan. Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church. Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2010.
Singer, Marshall R. Intercultural Communication: A Perceptual Approach. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1987.
Storti, Craig. The Art of Crossing Cultures. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1990.
Tucker, F. Intercultural Communication for Christian Ministry. Adelaide:
Intercultural Communications, 2012.
Verwer, George. Out of the Comfort Zone. Waynesboro: OM Publishing, 2000.
Webber, Robert E. The
Younger Evangelicals: Facing the challenges of the New World. Grand Rapids:
Michigan, 2002.
Whiteman,
Darrell L. “Anthropology and Mission: The Incarnational Connection.” Missiology 31 (2003): 397-415.
Yount,
William R. and Mike Barnett. Called to
Reach: Equipping Cross-Cultural Disciples. Nashville: B & H Publishing
Group, 2007.
[1] David A. Livermore, Cultural
Intelligence: Improving your CQ to engage our multicultural world (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 32.
[2] A. Scott Moreau, Evvy Hay Campbell, and Susan Greener, Effective intercultural communication: a
Christian perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 227.
[3] David A. Livermore, Serving
with Eyes Wide Open (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 174.
[4] S. Jones, The Evangelistic
Love of God and Neighbour: a theology of witness and discipleship
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003).
[5] Timothy Michaels, “Friendship, Vodka, Money and the Gospel,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 45
(2010): 344-349.
[6] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 434.
[7] Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 467.
[8] Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 471.
[9] Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 477.
[10] Graydon Colville, “Introduction to Worldview,” (Lecture Notes,
Morling College. July 23, 2015), slide 11.
[11] F. Tucker, Intercultural
Communication for Christian Ministry (Adelaide: Intercultural
Communications, 2012), 18.
[12] David Hesselgrave, Communicating
Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 87.
[19] Tucker, Intercultural
Communication, 20. “My message and my preaching were not with wise and
persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power”
[20] Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 102.
[21] William R. Yount, and Mike Barnett. Called to Reach: Equipping Cross-Cultural Disciples (Nashville: B
& H Publishing Group, 2007), 9.
[22] Terry LeBlanc, “Compassionate Community… or Unchecked Greed?” Mission Frontiers 22 (2000): 21.
[26] Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ
Cross-Culturally, 82. Cf. Mark 16:15 directs it to all the world/ all
creation. Cf. Luke 24:46-49 directs it to all the nations beginning from
Jerusalem. Cf. Acts 1:8 says Jerusalem, all Judea, Samaria, and even to the
remotest parts of the earth.
[31] My first language was Hokkien, which I already forgot. The national
language in Taiwan is Mandarin, therefore Hokkien is not used in schools. So
for the purposes of this essay, I would classify Mandarin as my ‘mother tongue’.
[55] It would have been interesting to listen to the perspectives of the
Orthodox Jews and Arabs, but accessibility was difficult, due to the
instability of the region. In fact, during the trip we witnessed some conflicts
happening such as police throwing expulsion bombs to chase away Arabian
protesters and the monorail stopping for ten minutes because of suspicions
about a bomb ahead. The conflicts escalated greatly after we left the region.
[65] Moreau, Campbell, and Greener, Effective
intercultural communication, 241. To compound this further, in our everyday life, our social circles tends to be with people from similar cultural backgrounds. For example, people in my family are Taiwanese. I work in Eastwood, an area where >90% of the clients in my workplace are Asian. I attend a Chinese congregation at church. Asian culture is, in of itself, already very diverse. I have to make extra effort if I build non-Asian networks.
[66] Darrell Jackson, “A missiology of love and CQ,” (Lecture Notes,
Morling College. July 30, 2015), 3.
