Spiritual Profiling: Missionary Toolbox #8

According to leading strategy trainers within the International Mission Board of the SBC, one of the best ways to understand an unreached people group is by building a Spiritual Profile. This happens to be the final tool in the missionary toolbox for creating a people group profile. Here are some good questions to ask:

1. What is the predominant religion of your people? when did it start? how did it start?

2. What calendar events does this religion influence?

3. What are the life events celebrated through this religion? how?

4. Is religion a choice or coerced?

5. How does this religion view family? outsiders?

6. Who is in leadership within this religion? How did they get there?

7. How does this religion interact with Christianity? how many Christians are there?

8. What is the ration of Christian churches to the population?

9. Do the people have access to the Bible? gospel presentations in media? mission organizations?

10. Are the people oral learners or literate?

11. What has been the growth of evangelism within this people group in recent years? why?

Economic Profiling: Missionary Toolbox #7

Now that I'm back in from the SBC in Houston, I wanted to pick back up with the 7th tool in the Missionary Toolbox, as adapted from IMB's Profile Method that strategy coordinators are taught: Economic Profiling. Here are some questions that might help:

1. What are the most common jobs among your people group?
2. Is the economy based on agriculture or industry, or both?
3. Where do people get their money?
4. What is an average monthly wage?
5. What products do your people produce? What determines their price?
6. Who does business with your people?
7. Who controls the financial institutions, public institutions?
8. What is the influence of free market economy, capitalism, socialism, communism?
9. What is their current health care status?
10. Describe their homes, their neighborhoods/villages, their cities.
11. What do your people eat regularly?
12. How costly are utilities?
13. What constitutes proper clothes? Who has "wealthy" clothes?

The biggest insight here might be this: once you answer the questions above, describe your own economic lifestyle. How different is the way you live from the way they live? Is this a barrier to the gospel & planting new churches?

Interactive Conversation with missionary author Kevin Greeson of The Camel Method

Last year, I published a book review on Kevin Greeson's The Camel Method. In recent days, Kevin has responded with some insights about several issues I raised in that review. I invite you to look again at this article and see the dialogue that follows in the comments section:

http://buckburch.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/buck-burch-review-of-camel-method-of-evangelizing-muslims/

Technological Profiling: Missionary Toolbox Part 5

Whenever you start to consider evangelistic access to an unreached people group, it helps to think in terms of current technological platforms. When IMB's Dr. Bob Brown (name changed for security purposes) taught us to study people groups, he used the analogy of the "visible invisible envelope." These questions are helpful in constructing an accurate picture of the current technological status of your people:

1. What technologies are accessible?
2. Who has which technologies: (rich or poor)
     a.  electricity
     b.  telecommunications
     c.  media
     d.  dvd, cd, etc.
     e.  cell phone coverage
     f.  computer/internet

After you have determined which categories the varied technologies apply to your people group, look at your own usage of technology.

1. How does your use of technology differ from theirs? Is yours reproducible for 2nd generation believers?
2. How would varied technologies be useful for: access to the gospel, gathering believers, planting churches, leadership development?
3. What bridges or barriers exist from what you've seen in varied technologies?
4. How would this affect the way a New Testament church looks among your people group?

Social Profiling: Missionary Toolbox Part 4

Socially, people can be studied within two subcategories: family units and preferred affinities. To understand the culture's valued family unit, there are several questions that should be asked.

1. What constitutes a family? Is it biological or by choice?
2. What are the individual roles within the family? Are there different roles that each gender plays? How does age affect these roles?
3. Describe death, marriage & separation within the family unit. How do these events change the family?
4. Who gives permission in the family? Who forgives? Who defends?
5. How is information passed through the family on to future generations? Is it written or oral?
6. Describe inheritance in the family unit.
7. What defines marriage rites and sexual guidelines within a family?
8. What laws exist that govern families?
9. What special traditions or holidays do families observe?

To understand the culture's social structure, there are also these questions:

1. Describe the rite of passage to become an adult.
2. What social rights do males or females have within the community?
3. How is leadership gained or lost?
4. What is valued? What is taboo? What is traditional? What is considered beautiful?
5. How are individuals educated about the culture?
6. What is the expected dress code?
7. What are the social stigmas on dating or courtship, engagement or promise, marriage and divorce?
8. Describe the responsibilities of the youth in your poeple group.
9. What problems do youth encounter?
10. How does your UPG view itself?
11. Are they corporate or individual in their decision making processes?
12. How do they define time? What do they do to honor chronological events on the calendar? what about life happenings (births, deaths, marriages)?

How does this information help you to understand what a New Testament church would look like within your people group?

Demographic Profiling: Missionary Toolbox Part 3

Last summer I gave an example of a narrative demographic profile when I interviewed our neighbors in Moscow and asked specific questions related to their world view. Those posts can be found here, here, here, and here. One really great tool in a missionary's toolbox is a demographic profile of his/her people group. Based on Dr. Bob Brown's* Profile (name changed for security purposes), the International Mission Board has long used specific questions to better understand a unreached people group (UPG) or even an unengaged unreached people group (UUPG) overseas. These same questions can be used anywhere, even in urban settings throughout North America:

1. Where is the UPG located?
2. What is their total population in within geographic boundaries? Are they concentrated in a country or is there also a diaspora?
3. Can you identify smaller homogenous segments within the UPG?
4. Are there any similarities between this UPG and another?
5. What do they look like physically?
6. What percentage live in urban centers? How rapidly are they moving into cities?
7. What is the birth & death rate?
8. How long do they normally live?
9. What is the leading cause of death?
10. How many attend school? How many are youth? Children?
11. Describe a college graduate job in this culture.
12. What is the published literacy rate? What is the real rate?
13. What is the culture's view of education?
14. Are they oral learners?
15. What are the leading written publications of this UPG?
16. What is the primary language in government institutions? Secondary?
17. What is their heart language? How many youth speak in the heart language?
18. What jokes or proverbs describe the people group?
19. What jokes of proverbs does the UPG use to describe outsiders?
20. How might this data above help you identify barriers or bridges to the culture? How might it affect the way a New Testament church is planted within this UPG?

Review of CAMEL Method of Evangelizing Muslims

I was asked again just the other day about the CAMEL method for evangelizing Muslims. I tried to explain that the CAMEL method is a bridge, but just like any man-made bridge, it has some spots that might need repair. A bridge is useful to cross a barrier, but traffic flows both ways. The materials used to build that bridge will either stand the test of time or they will succumb to the elements. Therefore, it would behoove any bridge builder to give great care in how he builds such an instrument.

Kevin Greeson describes the bridge that the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has tailored for work among Muslims in his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. In this work, Greeson argues for the use of an old Muslim proverb and one particular Quranic text, Al-Imran 3:42–55. According to the book, there is much frequency in God granting supernatural and revelatory dreams about himself, but Greeson claims that God is using this conversational method more than any other means for bringing Muslims to Christ. This method opens the door for controversy as to how much credence a Christian can give an extra-biblical text, especially that of another world religion, to be utilized for evangelism. Questions of both Christology and biblical authority can be raised.

The CAMEL Method

Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mnemonic device for remembering the words chosen, announced, miracles, and eternal life when exegeting Al-Imran 3:42-55. It would be similar to using the Southern Baptist acronym for FAITH (forgiveness, available, impossible, turn, and heaven) in evangelism. In this passage from the Quran, Greeson claims that it is possible to find a message about Jesus Christ. Almost tongue in cheek, he also employs an old Islamic proverb about only a camel knowing the last of the hundred names of God. He insists that the Quranic passage speaks about Jesus (Isa) as holy, as born of a virgin, as victorious over death, and as having knowledge of the way to heaven. The book places a great deal of stock in the conversion results that have occurred from using this method. Greeson’s thesis is that this method which he learned from a Muslim-background believer (MBB) is best program for finding a man of peace among Muslims (p. 13). He insists that “reaching Muslims for Christ is not the ultimate goal” in this method (p. ii). Instead, the method is to be a useful tool for finding the man of peace.

            In his book, Greeson cites Paul’s message at the Areopagus as biblical proof that Christians should use non-Christian cultural texts in building a bridge for establishing communication that can turn toward evangelism. He claims that Paul quoted Greek poets as sources for what immediately communicated the gospel message and later became biblical text itself. He sees this biblical precedent as no different from a modern missionary or MBB using the Quran for expressing truths about Jesus Christ.

            Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mere bridge for sharing the gospel. He then takes great great pains in the opening chapter to reiterate that it is only a bridge and should not be a parking lot. Throughout the book he reveals that method itself is potentially dangerous if not abandoned early enough in the evangelistic conversation.

Observations and Criticisms

Although the book has some strong points about engaging Muslims with their own cultural texts and perhaps even disarming the traditional animosity by citing their holy scriptures, Greeson’s book reveal some areas for potential criticism. Greeson claims that the Quranic texts reveal truth about Jesus Christ that can be cited for a gospel presentation, but the question immediately arises as to what kind of Christology can be formulated from the texts of a non-Christian religion. This in turn raises questions as to the authority that can be granted to non-Christian texts as well as the possibility of syncretism.  Yet another question is the semantic nature of Christian terms.

Greeson admits openly that a Christian theology cannot be formed from a Quranic understanding of God. However, he toys with this premise by saying that these Quranic verses can be used to communicate truth about Jesus Christ. The very verses that are employed in the CAMEL method may communicate that the Islamic Isa is holy also may communicate that he is “one of those who are near to Allah” (vs. 45), thus contradicting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. They also communicate that Isa was a man who was created (vs. 47) as opposed to being God himself. These verses, by implication, formulate a Christology that denies the divinity of Christ.    

            The dialogue used to converse with a man of peace might not be easily abandoned. The use of Quranic verses for finding a person of peace among Muslims might be akin to using the lyrics of Black Sabbath or AC/DC for finding a person of peace among head bangers. At some point the person of peace must come to understand that the very words used to attract him to an evangelistic conversation are in reality anti-Christian and therefore must be denied for his conversion. And yet the question remains as to whether the verses or lyrics used ever held any authority at all.

            Greeson seems to imply that the Quran, albeit having no authority for salvation, still is a source for salvific truth. When Greeson poses the question, “May I show what I have found about peace and salvation in the Koran?” (p. 48) he is in essence still granting some semblance of authority for finding God and salvation through that Islamic text. In yet another place, Greeson tells a story which posits that the Quran’s translation “into all the languages of the world” provides the means for which we can “know what God wants us to do and believe.” Although he quantifies his statement with a clarification as to truly understanding God through further means, his implication is that the Quran is still useful for being introduced to Jesus Christ. The question arises as to conversion through this conversation, namely at what point a convert, if ever, renounces his former religion.

            This problem is exacerbated by his instruction to “make some vocabulary changes” (p. 58). The word for God should be replaced with Allah, the generic name for a higher deity in the Muslim world. Jesus should be identified as the Isa of the Quran, and thus followers of Jesus would be called Isahi instead of the historical term Christian. In fact, Greeson admits that the term Christian carries a very negative and immoral connotation. The word church becomes jamat, and instead of having identification with the Christian churches of the western world, they are seen as specialized branches of Islam giving preference to following Isa. 

Missiological Considerations

These aforementioned observations carry some huge missiological implications. The question of biblical authority must be addressed at some point. Questions about Christiology and soteriology also must be clarified. Moreover, the issue of Christian identification is at stake.

Whatever tool employed to reach the lost becomes, by necessity, an instrument for ongoing discipleship. This has been seen historically in the western church as more and more elements of non-Christian culture have become staple forms for worship and entertainment among modern Christians. Extra-biblical texts and songs become forms of communication by which gospel truth as well as personal discipleship is passed on. Thus, any texts, lyrics, or speeches from extra-biblical sources are open media for communicating God’s truth, but they must be judged as to their ongoing value for growth in Christ.  

Is it possible to exegete the Book of Shadows from the Satanic Bible or other non-Christian texts to witness to a Satanist? The question is the basis for general verses special revelation. Are there other ways outside of the Christian Scriptures useful to make a person wise unto salvation? Are dreams, visions, and other non-biblical sources truly valuable for missiological purposes? Greeson seems to believe they are.

Albeit attractive, these same sources can produce a faulty Christology and a heretical soteriology. Greeson seems to indicate that these Isahi have truly left Islam and have identified themselves with Christ alone. It could be argued though that building a Christology on such extra-biblical parameters has in reality created a new sect, one that arguably is more syncretistic than biblical. The missiological test of any church planting is the openness to not only identifying with Christ himself but also the universal Christian church. Anything less would be unhealthy.

Greeson places a great emphasis on this bridge, perhaps too great an emphasis. He is to be commended in identifying this method as a possible means for which to initially relate to persons of peace. His book has value as it opens a dialogue for further discussion about the ways for communicating the gospel to Muslims. Missiologically, it is a pioneering work in that it opens the door for dialogue about the means for gospel communication using cultural texts in an unprecedented way.

            Unfortunately, there are theological grounds for rejecting the CAMEL method that Greeson fails to answer in his text. He also does not completely address the reaction of Muslims to his prooftexting of their sacred writings. It would be interesting to read a Muslim’s reaction to Greeson’s book. If Greeson’s purpose is to be simply descriptive of a possible method for reaching some Muslims through a nonbiblical text, the book has missiological warrant. However, it seems that he wrote the book to describe the method as normative and prescriptive, as a valid method to be indiscriminately employed. If this is the case, then at best the book is reckless.

Review of Neill's A History of Christian Missions

One book that has become a staple in Missions History classes in seminaries and bible colleges is Stephen Neill's A History of Christian Missions. Stephen Neill is an ecumenist, so his book has to be understood as a historical account from an ecumenical perspective. It is a part of a trilogy on colonialism in missions. It brings out the historical fact that missions began as an overflow of the church’s activity but then quickly turned into an expansion of ideology across geographic boundaries. Neill’s book highlights those areas of expansion.

            Divided into two parts, the book traces missionary activity from the beginning of the second century AD up until the time of the revolution in Russia. The first part deals with the specific time periods for reaching Romans in AD 100–500, the Dark Ages in AD 500–1000, European missions in AD 1000–1500, the Age of Discovery in AD 1500– 1600, Roman Catholic missions in AD 1600–1787, and reaching out to the New World in AD 1600–1800. The second part deals with the ideologies of European and American discovery in AD 1792–1858, the colonialist spirit that dominated in AD 1858–1914, the expansion of the Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church and Protestantism in AD 1815–1914, and the conclusions to be drawn since AD 1914. It is only in the very end of the book that any concept of God at work in missions or the fulfillment of Scripture comes into play.

            Perhaps Neill’s greatest contribution to missiology in this book is his highlighting the issues related to colonialist expansion, the compromise associated with political partnership and the underlying attitude of Western superiority. He adequately sums this up in his statement that “whether we like it or not, it is the historic fact that the great expansion of Christianity coincided in time with the world-wide and explosive expansion of Europe that followed on the Renaissance; that the colonizing powers were the Christian powers; that a whole variety of compromising relationships existed between missionaries and governments; and that in the main Christianity was carried forward on the wave of Western prestige and power” (p. 414). For whatever reason Neill makes this assessment, his book deals a painful blow to the missionary activity of the church that must be reconciled today.

            Related to colonialist expansion, it is true that 19^th century missions was largely concerned with extra-biblical requirements for cultures to become civilized prior to or at least concurrent with conversion. This is a blight on the history of missions. However, today missiologists are dealing with this historical blunder by employing a greater use of anthropology and sociology to draw distinctions between biblical and target cultures. They are attempting to place the sending culture in greater juxtaposition to the biblical message.

            In relation to compromise, missions agencies still wrestle with the issue of how much cooperation with national governments helps and how much hurts the endeavor. While too often western missionaries were accused of being agents of western governments because of their close interaction with federal humanitarian agencies, some areas might not have been reached without this partnership. Still, it leaves a big question as to how much is too much interrelation.

            Finally, his assessment that imperial attitudes have no place in missions is warranted. Although, as successfully shown, these attitudes abounded in all branches of Christianity, this should not be. And so much more could have been accomplished with an attitude of servanthood rather than superiority. 

Have you heard about T4T?

 Although the title T4T: Training for Trainers has been used for a wide variety of secular training programs including suicide prevention and human resource development, there are training materials that IMB has employed that have been widely published in several forms. Originally crafted out of a church planting movement environment in China, the training program is based on a practice for developing reproductive disciples primarily in literate cultures. Although there are storying versions of T4T and regional variations, the basic content of the material is the same. Even Dr. David Garrison has produced a new online training for using T4T. IMB's East Asia region’s original version was organized around eleven training points that exhibit both strengths and weaknesses in discipleship programs in general, but T4T is filling an innocent void in Christian discipleship.

T4T Program Summary

The goal of T4T is for each person who is led to Christ to become a trainer as immediately as possible. Initially this process is instigated by an outside source, like a missionary, but the program revolves around indigenous leadership training through small incremental lessons. When a person begins his walk with Christ, his trainer starts him on a practical training tract that demands immediate obedience and reproduction. Although there are other discipleship programs available, T4T boasts that it is not a leadership development tool nor a simple discipleship program as much as it is a specific training module for immediate implementation and duplication.

            Using 2 Timothy 2:2 as the biblical basis, the program insists that each person trained also becomes an active trainer. The creators of the T4T program acknowledge the fact that there will be some who will not successfully complete the trainer–trainee loop, but they insist that even thirty percent is an “amazing” result. One particular nuance to the T4T materials is that although the primary content of the program in written form is similar in different regions of the world, there are nevertheless some variances in supplemental sections that facilitate regional standards and cultural or linguistic limitations. For example, the Russian T4T version only slightly differs from an African version.

            The specific Church Planting Movement (CPM) version of T4T training distributed by the East Asia region of IMB consisted of eleven points to “build a trainer,” but that has been adapted to other cultures within 7 or 9 sessions. The first three training points lay a biblical foundation by drawing the trainer into interaction with the Bible itself. Macro themes like authority, commandment, will, and love are explored. The program teaches the trainer to hear four callings to witness, namely Jesus from above, hell from below, internal direction, and external pleas. The trainer takes a survey of Old Testament and New Testament texts to see the biblical basis for winning his own family to Christ and the biblical promise of power to do so. In order to be a faithful trainer, he must then develop himself through spiritual warfare preparation, praise, prayer, spiritual anointing, and godly attitudes. This is done to elicit boldness from the trainer as he actively engages his lost family and friends.

            In the fourth training point, the trainer surveys various ecclesiastical styles, but he is ultimately led to understand the CPM church model as the preferred model. Using six basic discipleship lessons, the trainer must begin to plant a new church through his own new converts. As people are saved, they are grouped and given the command to witness as well. The trainer also explains the four callings and the Father’s will to reach his family. They are taught how to apply the armor of God, how to develop a CPM church, and how to witness. They must list their own prospects and learn their testimony to share with them. When sharing the testimony, a plan of salvation is included. Sometimes this is accomplished through incorporation of the Four Spiritual Laws or another personally developed tract, while at other times the trainer may show movies or tell stories.

After the first lesson, any conversions are directed to lesson two while those who reject will continue to hear more testimonies. Those who become new believers during the testimony sharing time will begin another strand of training, forming a new church and multiplying further. The first three lessons relate to accountability to God through prayer and bible study, but each lesson demands that the learner begin to teach it to someone else accordingly. Lessons four through six continue to model ministry as the new group forms into a separate church. A graphic representation of this process is included in the training materials.

Training points five through seven allow for introspection. They address the source of a Christian’s joy by linking it directly to this training. They address failures to share testimonies as misunderstandings of the target or the method. They also outline specific steps to begin the testimony sharing process by asking the trainer to create a prospect list of at least twenty unsaved friends.

Training point eight consists of the actual six discipleship lessons the trainer must use when he leads someone to Christ. These lessons begin with assurance of salvation and move into prayer, quiet times, church attendance, God’s paternal relationship, and witnessing. The witnessing lesson is both a repetition of the four callings the trainer has already learned and a new direction to start a house church.

Training points nine through eleven serve as a guide to develop further steps the trainer himself will customize. Point nine is a guide for using inductive Bible study methods. Point ten helps the trainer establish numerical goals for training other trainers. The final point is a checklist of twenty-one CPM principles that, if facilitated, work to write Acts 29 or the ongoing history of the expansion of the New Testament church. These principles include holistic prayer, finding persons of peace, broad seed-sowing, immediate follow-up with instant obedience, new church planting, local and shared leadership, a high level of accountability, on-the-job training, participative small groups, the Model-Assist-Watch-Leave (MAWL) approach, reproducible methodology, and resources being in the harvest. The T4T program reiterates that the goal is not to create disciples but trainers, so the expectation of spiritual reproduction is high.

Strengths and Weaknesses

This leadership training model exhibits some strengths and a few weaknesses. Because T4T was born out of an actual CPM context, the program materials fit neatly within CPM methodology. Perhaps this is why the program is so transferable from region to region even though the written material is altered somewhat to suit the needs of the location. One thing that never seems to change at all is its insistent reliance on Bible teaching. Apart from the Scripture references in the six discipleship lessons, the program has forty-four verses to learn for ongoing guidance.  Regardless of the translation, the Bible message itself does not change. Since this program seeks to be a biblical approach to making disciples that make disciples, it has a universal quality with cross-cultural application.

            Regardless of the strong foundation in Scripture, it could be argued that the reduction of discipleship to six very brief lessons is too simplistic at best, and at worst it sets an unprepared trainer up for potential failure and discouragement.  Even though the program is designed to keep the trainer one step ahead of his trainee, the dynamic nature of spiritual warfare in the Christian life might warrant some other variation in lesson planning. Unfortunately, the lesson structure is rigid and allows for only one option.

The program boasts of turning every convert into a trainer. In the Second Timothy foundational passage, the Apostle Paul included the adjective “reliable” as a prerequisite for training. However, this is something that T4T does not appear to take into consideration. Perhaps this is why a thirty percent success rate would be “amazing.”  

Different people have different learning styles. Some are visual learners, others are auditory learners, and yet others are more tactile in their approach to processing new information. Some cultures are more oral, while others are more literate.  However, a marked quality of T4T is its deference to the literate learner. When graphics appear in the material, as in the case of the explanation of models for ministry and developing groups, they are very helpful. For the most part, however, the material is almost void of graphics. This might be intentional so as to make the material more reproducible, so this could be a positive aspect. Nevertheless, the material is so blatantly biased in favor of literacy that an entire “Storying” version has also been produced for illiterate cultures.

The infusion of western ideology is also pervasive throughout the training as well. Apart from the linguistic factors, there are consistent references to biblical concepts as seen through a western hermeneutic. Even though the authors point out that the church is not a building, they still persist in questioning the trainer’s commitment to church as a location. In stark contrast to CPM mentality, the discipleship lesson four questions the trainer about “attending church” instead of congregating with other believers as the church. Imagery of western legal documents like birth certificates and legal contracts also appear throughout the discipleship material, as the new believer is issued a spiritual birth certificate and must sign the devotional commitment. It is also doubtful that western traffic laws governed by red, green, and yellow lights are universally understood (in Russia, for example, the lights change in a different order). The issue of storehouse tithing makes sense to most westerners, but there is no instruction as to how this is handled in a new house church with six-week-old believers. They are simply told that it must be done.

Although the materials are useful for immediate follow-up with new believers and can be useful for equipping soul-winners, it may be doubtful that the materials by themselves are strong enough to produce true trainers beyond an elementary level. For that reason, the materials could be seen as an initial step to developing leaders or even as supplementary materials. Because the strongest aspect of the program is its insistence on obedience to Scripture, the materials never claim to be exhaustive, only preparatory. Instead of being a published guide for the Christian life, it is an introduction to the Holy Spirit’s work as lifelong companion. Perhaps this is the naïve, innocent approach to obedient Christianity that Jesus referenced when he said we must be like little children in the Kingdom.  

Creeds, Economics & Politics as Seen by Typical Russian Family

In a simple dining room with open pizza boxes, Russian culture can be dissected into observable slices. It is interesting to reflect my interaction with Olga Ivanovna, Andre Michaelovitch and Daria Andreevna, because hidden within some of the answers to my questions were deep emotional concerns about the future of Russia and an expressed love for this country. Both Andre and Olga gave typical answers for middle-aged Russian adults, but at certain points the questions generated a cause to pause and reflect on what their answers might mean. Daria, of course, is young, and her answers tended to be more flippant, also typical of a Russian girl.

            However, the answers viewed in a larger context provide more than a simple glimpse into three lives. They stand as cultural cues for all of Russia. Olga, Andre and Daria describe a Russia that is still trying to understand itself. Albeit with so many black and white answers, Russia still teeters on the brink of becoming. A love for family and country runs strong through their veins, and the caution in answering the questions so as to present a positive light on Russia speaks perhaps louder than the answers themselves. Truly for me, their answers were revolutionary.

Social Creed

There is a list of individual rights listed for Russian citizens. Too numerous to name, most of them are identical to America’s Bill of Rights, except for the practical application of those rights. Russian citizens cannot privately bear arms without registration and strict control. Their freedom of expression is also limited to whatever the government decides is appropriate. Families and clans have no rights above that of the individual. Interestingly, the state’s rights trump any individual rights.

Education is highly valued in Russian society and the official literacy rate is over 99%. With a number of public schools, the government provides education for children from grades 1 through 11. At that point a child either chooses a vocation or higher education. Higher education upon invitation used to be free, but now higher education has largely been privatized and now is quite costly. Almost all educational venues are secular, although the Russian government recently introduced mandatory Bible classes and classes on the subject of Russian Orthodox history in public schools.

The most respected job for a Russian is politician. They may not be the highest paid, but they are the most respected. Teachers are almost minimum wage workers. Olga said she desired for her children to become architects or veterinarians. Andre said the most traditional job is to be an engineer, but that did not mean you would get paid much. 

Russian law is severe and controlling in Russia. If ever accused of a crime, a person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Even in the courtroom the accused must sit behind bars in his attempt to prove his innocence. Police run the local scenes, while judges run the courtrooms.

The Russian government guarantees medical benefits, but it really does not work without paying additional monies to get what you need. There are hospitals with waiting lines and many people are turned out because they cannot pay for services.

Economics

According to Andre, Russia can be described as an oligarchy with capitalistic tendencies. He compares it to what America must have been like in the early 19^th century in the wild, wild west. Olga sees a mixture of capitalism and socialism still at work in today’s society. Oil tycoon Khordokovsky is still trying to make appeals for his imprisonment for damages to the stability of the country through tax evasion.

With economic and vocation categories on par with American counterparts, Andre still sees an oligarchy with the majority of the country’s wealth in the pockets of a few. These few, he claims, are those who have been favored by the Kremlin and have given their support to president Putin.

Although the Russian society is supposedly a free market economy, oil has driven much of the wealth of the last decade in Russia. The central bank exchange rate has also been a major factor in the prices of food and commodities. Andre half-heartedly jokes that any average Russian keeps his savings not in banks but under his mattress. The flight of capital out of Russia over the last ten years has led some to question just how much monetary savings is being kept in Russia at all. These issues are a serious problem for a country that has somewhat successfully pulled itself through a financial crisis in 1998 and is currently experiencing another economic downturn this year. Prices have remained high, but salaries have not been commensurate.

The Kremlin tends to place tight controls on the flow of money in Russia. It is illegal, for example, to make transactions in any other currency than the Russian ruble. Anyone caught breaking these laws can expect huge fines. But the problem of corruption has deep-seated roots throughout every level of government. Therefore, the controls placed on financial transactions are often unnecessarily burdened with bribes. President Putin did a good job in fighting the widespread corruption in the government, but as a result he also reversed privatization in many areas.

Banks in Russia are controlled largely by the federal government. There are some private banks, but none of them are as strong and influential as the public institutions. Due to the economic crisis, a number of private institutions have recently been reclaimed by the federal government to protect the investment of their stakeholders.

Russia is a two-class system. For the last few years, sociologists have attempted to locate the emerging middle class in Russia. Historically, there has been a very large lower class or peasant class. After the fall of communism in 1991, there emerged a significant wealth controlled by a select few. Olga believes this wealthy class is the same group that held control under communism as well. Andre laughs at the idea of a middle class in Russia. He says it simply does not exist. He believes there was a true middle class under communism, but when asked for details he describes the masses that were the working class. Under communism there was no lower class.

Bartering may exist in some locations throughout Russia, but it is not a significant factor in the Russian economy. All the more so, it has become illegal to make transactions in Russia without reporting those transactions. This also applies to bartering, so transacting purchases without the use of currency has no real value in this society. In an attempt to control financial transactions, the Russian government has refused to allow legal bartering.

Russia wants to relate as an economic equal in the world, but in many ways it cannot. Andre believes the country is too unstable to be a key player in a world economy. Without a stable banking system and one that does not have its primary assets fixed to the volatility of oil production, Russia will not be able to succeed. Still, Russia has entered the 21^st century as a new global player in economic summits. And, as Olga points out, Russia is still the mediator in many cases between the west and the east. China may relate better to Russians than to Americans. That is clearly the case with Muslim countries like Iran and Afghanistan. Ukraine and a few of the other countries from the former Commonwealth of Independent States have recently suffered economic hardship and resource shortages due to their aversion to Russia’s new position in the global market.

The Russian government makes an intentional nod at social security, but this has caused a great deal of civil response in recent years. Andre’s mother receives a meager social security check each month that barely covers her utility bills. Because the federal support is so low, many elderly have taken to the streets to beg for money or have their children provide extra income for food. Granted the government provides housing, basic medical care and free transportation for the elderly, many are still unable to buy clothing and monthly household supplies. More specialized medical care is nonexistent, as most providers have become privatized in the past decade.

Some nongovernmental agencies are attempting to provide relief, but lately they also have been met with a swift and firm code of restrictions. The Salvation Army was expelled from Russia, as they were considered a threat to national stability. Many protestant churches, which have traditionally been open to social ministries, are also being closed for expanding their evangelistic work into what is considered government business. Therefore, options for finding additional social support have become more limited in recent years. Both Andre and Olga find this disconcerting, while at the same time they support the political crackdown on nongovernmental organizations.

National Politics

Russians are who their country says they are. Whatever place the country occupies in the global market also defines the individual in Russia. Although it might not have always been the case, Andre sees no real difference these days between local politics and national politics. He believes it is being enforced from the top down.

            As a people group with a strong political identity, Russians see themselves as a key player in the world’s economy and politics. Olga believes the fall of communism did much to hurt Russia’s place in the world, but she also believes it was a necessary event. The world, in her opinion, had to change. As such, Russians are still trying to define who they are or perhaps who they will be in the world. Russians find an inner pride in being the first in space with Yuri Gagarin’s flight, but the fall of the Mir space station a few years ago really hurt national pride.

Conclusion

         My interaction with my neighbors was both enlightening and disturbing. If I only cared about politics, I might find some nuggets for debate. If I only cared about sociology, I might be left with more questions than answers. But I cared about Andre, Olga, and Daria- a typical and yet unique Russian family in the middle of a changing urban center. Perhaps this is where evangelism should begin. A love for Jesus must somehow intersect the Russian love for family. A love for God must somehow be displayed within the chaotic conflict of hope and despair. The struggle to survive on this earth should be the market for a free exchange of ideas, and within that exchange there should be the message of salvation. This anthropological probe is only the beginning, but the gospel can find contact points with each interpersonal dialogue. 

Typical Russian Urban Family Views on Religion

Although the term cult sometimes carries negative religious connotations, our present use of cult refers to mainstream religious practice within a cultural unit. The terminology is often linked “to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream” (see Wikipedia on "Cult"). However, there are also a varied religious practices that can fall under that same category. Both religious structures and the communication within those structures make up the definition of cult in this sense. In Russia, anything outside the spectrum of the official Russian Orthodox Church was considered a "sect" or a "cult," so I wanted to find out more about how Andre, Olga and Daria thought through these issues (see previous posts to get up to date about this interaction in our home).

Religious Structure

Andre said he considered himself to be a staunch Russian Orthodox. Olga said she was Orthodox but was more open to other religions. Daria had no thoughts on the issue, but Andre wanted her to show her adherence to the faith. When I asked Andre about Moscow's religious structures, he said the biggest religious system in Russia is Russian Orthodoxy, but Islam is growing very rapidly. In Moscow now, Muslims make up about 25% of the population, according to some statistical studies (which are often unbalanced because they don't take into consideration the masses of unregistered illegal residents of Moscow). Even though Russian Orthodoxy is a predominant religious system, many people are Orthodox in name only. Many of them are not practicing Orthodox. Some of them only go to a temple on a holiday.

Andre helped me understand that the Russian Orthodox Church is led by a Holy Synod with the patriarch as a permanent member located in Moscow. This head of the church is the equivalent to a Roman Pope, but of course Eastern Orthodoxy does not accept the Pope’s papal authority. This patriarch infallibly leads the church as an apostolic leader, but his authority is one of leadership and not necessarily revelation. All revelation to the church is validated by councils and accepted by 135 million adherents. Large cities have other authority figures as well, like metropolitan archbishops. Smaller cities also have bishops who render rulings on local matters. The churches are governed by priests. Andre was quick to point out that the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox might have been a thousand years ago, but Russians have long memories.  

Russian Orthodoxy’s primary document is the Bible, with Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. Having equal authority with the Bible are the writings of the church fathers. In regard to its dogma, Russian Orthodoxy uses liturgy, icons, and candles even in homes as well as temples. Olga said that there was a special place for the monastic order in the Russian Orthodox Church, as they helped to build the beautiful cathedrals in the forests and glens throughout old Russia. These traditions, as they are called, make up the generally accepted dogma of the church. Accordingly, they are as infallible as the Bible itself.

Russians are religiously paradoxical. It is interesting to note that most Russians might accept that Jesus is God’s Son, but at the same time they may doubt the existence of God. According to Andre, about half of the population is atheist and accept a scientific explanation for man’s origin, while the other half hold to a creation story. Religion, for Olga, is a way to help children live better; salvation is a secondary question. There is a deep spirituality throughout Russia and a wide acceptance of evil spirits at work.

Women especially are open to this strong adherence to both religious dogma and strong male leadership in the church. The Orthodox Church draws upon this to dominate the active role over women who must in turn accept a supportive role. Although the Orthodox Church does not allow women leadership in the church, it does offer its blessing to women leaders in the secular society. When asked about the potential of having a woman serve in an elected leadership position, Andre was favorable, but Olga was against it.

Russian Orthodoxy plays a huge role in society both socially and politically. It is a blended relationship between state and church whereby government functions are blessed by the church and church functions are governed by the state. As such, many do not see the difference between the two.

Religious Communication

The year 2008 was named the "year of the family" in Russia. As such, the Orthodox Church placed a big emphasis on family health last year. Priests offer family advice. Churches offer books and other resources to help families grow together. Public radio and television announcements by the church also encourage family togetherness and fight abortion.

The role of the individual is downplayed in the religious structure, perhaps because the church is reflective of the society. In the East, corporate decision outweighs any individual desire. Individualism is lost in the masses. Accordingly, the church sees itself as a corporate gathering of true church worshippers, both past and present.

Russian Orthodoxy can be accused of syncretism at some points. When Prince Vladimir made Russian Orthodoxy the country’s only accepted religion in AD 988, he made a blanket imposition of Christian beliefs upon a pagan people group. Accordingly, some Russian priests and bishops allowed for some concessions in relation to old superstitious and even barbaric beliefs. These became mixed with Christian elements to form what is Russian Orthodoxy in praxis, although at its deepest roots Orthodoxy claims to be pure religion passed down from the early church.

For both Andre and Olga, religion is a deeply personal thing and at the same time a deeply corporate expression of nationalism. This dichotomous mental model was even more firm in the way that Andre described creeds and beliefs (I'll post more on that later).

Personal Cross-cultural Insights from a Typical Urban Russian Family

The following is an excerpt of insights from our wonderful interaction with some great people in Moscow. Hopefully it may serve useful to those interested in communicating cross-culturally with the great ethnic group called Russians.

          On a cold Sunday evening back in February of 2009, we sat in our little apartment on the 20^th floor of a large high rise building in Moscow, Russia, to share a meal of Papa Johns pizza and salad with our neighbors. Because Moscow is a megacity, its residents tend to come from an urban background and with a global perspective. Andre was a 40 year old man native to Moscow, working in a small company that grounds the electrical systems in buildings in the city. Typical of a Russian man of that generation, Andre is the head of household and is registered to the apartment. Although private ownership of real estate in Russia is still rare, Andre does own a dacha or summer house and a car. Andre finished college with a degree in engineering and has a stable vocation in Moscow. His wife Olga was a 35 year old woman, originally from a city in Siberia, but she was now a homemaker in Moscow. Olga also typifies the women of her generation in her ideas and thoughts. She has a degree in engineering from a Russian technical college, but she has chosen to not work outside the home. Their daughter Daria was 12 year old at the time and in the 5^th grade. Generally a straight A student, she did admit to making a B before. Daria dresses mostly in Russian clothes, but with Moscow’s openness to the West, she came to our apartment in Levis bluejeans and an American rock group sweatshirt. After the meal conversation, made up of small talk about family, the week’s activities, and a brief survey of differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Russian Orthodoxy, our conversation turned to a series of questions about themselves and what they considered would be typical answers for most Russians their age. 

          We talked about the concept of "community" and "family." The family in Russia is monogamous by law. Most families are established by legal weddings early in life (around the age of 18 – 20). Because property is so scarce, the family typically comes to live with an older relative until either property can be passed on or additional property can be applied for and received from the Russian government. Most families do not own their own properties, and in many cases, multiple families still live in one apartment, sometimes in one room.

Families in Russia are patriarchal according to Andre and Olga. The father in the home played the formal head of household role up until the 1990s, but after 1991 many homes dissipated into a fatherless home. Drinking plays a role in this, but with a divorce rate of 70% and now many people waiting to get married until their in their 30s, homes see less of a patriarchal leadership and more of a grandmother-led home. Andre, specifically, finds this repulsive and seemed ashamed to admit the figures.

From 12-year-old Daria's perspective, the main decisions are made by the husband but with a joint consultation with the wife. However, when asked to whom she would go to seek forgiveness, she responded very quickly with “Mama”. It seems that the father gives final approval on things, but the mother is the source of forgiveness.

The typical Russian home today is made up of a grandparent at least 25 years older than the parent who is likely 25–30 years older than the child. Usually there is no grandfather, since the statistical age of death in Russia for men is 54 years old. Most relationships internally are congenial with most fighting occurring between families who live in the same house. Most arguments are settled legally by police.

           There are ways to identify cousins and distant relatives, and most Russians consider even fifth cousins to be close relatives. These relatives, although, they may live in distant cities, try to visit each other and call frequently. According to Daria, families are supposed to support its members, and that should include distant relatives.

Traditionally, families support themselves by both husband and wife working. Olga is not typical in that she stays at home with her husband able to make a living for the entire family. In such non-traditional homes, the father is expected to be the bread winner while the mother may or may not work. However, both Olga and Andre acknowledge that almost every adult works in Russia today.

Death, marriage and other life changes are seen as natural parts of the life process, so it is really more of an adjustment to the change that is required. If a grandmother dies, the property is reregistered and the family begins a religious ritual of prayers for her soul for the next 3 months. If a breadwinner like the father dies, then the family adjusts by reallocating responsibilities and perhaps another higher-paying job is sought. This is not the way it used to be a few years ago, in that the government of the past played a larger role in the social care for families. Today, though, much of these adjustments are handled in house with the family.

Andre mentioned that the family and country are so closely connected that it is the responsibility of the family and school to teach a child his heritage. This is understandable when you consider that a child typically spends up to 12 hours per day in some type of government schooling. Andre said the main two elements of heritage today are a love for parents and a love for country.

One interesting story that Andre told was how his mother passed along her family religious heritage to him even under communist repression. During a time when religious expression would bring down swift governmental punishment, Andre’s mother passed along her Orthodox faith to him privately at home. He was told that whenever he passed an Orthodox building, as was the custom of devout believers, he must take off his hat, bow and cross himself with three fingers. She told him that even though he could not do this in front of anyone, he must do it internally.

Daria said she typically received outside news from her father. Perhaps this is because he works outside the home, but Andre said fathers are the ones who discuss the larger topics of politics and societal change with other men. Women tend to deal with smaller topics like religion and home.

Inheritance in Russia is almost nonexistent. Properties are not owned but are allowed. If a parent dies, the child will apply for that property to be registered in his name. If the child doesn’t do so in a timely manner, the property reverts back to the state’s ownership. Smaller items like clothing or appliances are usually handled with government intervention, but if there is a large estate, the government will intercede with the distribution of those items. It has been only recently that families could privately own apartments, a shift from the days of the communalka where multiple families were forced to live in one apartment.

One interesting point of discussion was the American acceptance of marriage between distant cousins. This is not the case in Russia. By law, a man from a small village cannot even choose a wife within that village but must travel to another village to have a legal wife. Most children experiment with sexuality at the legal age of consent, which is 14 in Russia. At some point there will be a time of living together in a parent’s home, but interestingly, many who marry choose to continue living in separate parents’ homes. This is to secure rights of registration once the parent dies so that there will be a claim to property and residence. 70% of all marriages in Russia end in divorce. Another interesting note is that women consider it a necessity to have a son by the age of 25-30 so that there will be a man to take care of them in their old age.

Corporal punishment is allowed in Russia, but most of the time families use words instead of hands. There are no laws against spanking, but most families use shame as a motivation for obedience rather than spanking. This is the same in schools as it is at home. Discipline is still seen as a public responsibility, so strangers may deride or humiliate others’ children. They also will sometimes praise their works, but usually this is seen as a potential source of pride and would therefore create a bad omen.

Families in Russia observe religious and government holidays, which are very frequent. The main religious holidays are Christmas on January 7 and Maslenitsa (before Lent) and Easter in the spring. New Year’s Day is a big holiday as is International Women’s Day on March 8, Victory Day on May 9, Russia Day on June 12, Unity Day on November 4, Fatherland Defense Day on February 23. Families typically will visit friends or visit museums on these days. Andre had just taken his children to a museum presentation of the Samurai of the Far East right before this interview was conducted.  

According to Olga, the father’s authority in the family is "falling away." Because of alcoholism, many father figures are disappearing. 2008 was named the year of the family in Russia, but this is only a government attempt to deal with the declining population in Russia. Andre says it is because of democracy in Russia that the family is in decline. "Under communism, fathers were not allowed to abandon their families," he said, "but now in Russia we even have gay rights. It is a shame." Andre also says that the American mass media has affected the moral standards of the former USSR. Over the past 10 – 15 years, ideas about individual success, education and career have replaced societal bulwarks such as country, collectivity and progress. This is seen as a detriment to the family in Russia.

Families today usually care for an animal in the home. Olga says that people today tend to care more for their animals than they do for their children. Also interesting was both Olga’s and Andre’s evaluation of “the typical Russian family.” Under socialism, there was a typical family stereotype filled with morality and patriotism. Now, a typical Russian family does not exist. The nation has swelled to 30% Muslim population, so the old Soviet family in Russia has disappeared. Under the Russian Empire, there was a National Country; under Communism, there was the International Country; today, it is unknown what kind of country exists. Because country and family are so closely related in so many spheres, Andre blames America and "the Jewish influence" in Russia.

Generational Contextualization in Russia

In the latest Journal of International Affairs (Spring/Summer 2010), pp. 1-18, Dr. Jeffrey Mankoff wrote “Generational Change and the Future of U.S.-Russian Relations.” He is the associate director of International Security Studies at Yale University. In this article, he explores the potential influence the first post-Soviet generation will have on Russia’s self-identity. What is truly insightful, though, is the useful categories he defines for Russian generations.

For Americans, it has almost become second-nature to see the categorization of generations as Baby-boomers or busters, generation X, or post-moderns. These categories, and their respective American perspectives, do not apply to their Russian counterparts. I often hear American volunteers quip that “Russian youth are so much more mature than our youth” or “they seem so stoic and stiff; they need to learn to relax a little.” What many Americans do not understand is that although Russians do have their own ways of relaxing and “letting go,” they view life quite differently than the American of the same age.

Although Mankoff’s essay is not about sociological demographics per se, he finds the following categories useful in the discussion about Russia’s political perspectives:

1.      

1. Shestdesyatniki (children of the 1960s): They are now in their 70s and 80s (born in the 1930s). These would include people like Mikhail Gorbachev. They “found their political identity during the period of cautious liberalization undertaken by Nikita Khrushchev” (p. 5). These were the guys who sought the rebuilding of Russia and explored new ideas to do so. Although these are also the folks who long for what they once had, they still express openness to Western dialogue instead of Cold War tactics.

2.       

2. Oligarchs (generation of capitalists in the 1990s): They are now in their 50s (born in the 1940s). These are the ones who “seized many of the USSR’s more valuable assets during the breakdown of state control” (p. 5). This is the generation currently in charge of most private assets in Russia today and generally believed that the more they could personally acquire from a dying state, the better. This generation sees western relations as a means to an end, namely financial.

3.      

3.  Reformers (generation of Putin & Medvedev): Now in their late 30s & early 40s (born in the 1960s). Putin was actually born in 1952 while Medvedev was born in 1965. Medvedev’s age group was in their twenties during the fall of communism. This generation has high hopes for Russia as a reemerging world power. It is this group that is seeking to fight both internal corruption and external western influence in Russia’s emerging identity.

4.      

4.  Modern Youth (born in the late 1980s and 1990s): “tend to believe that their actions can make a difference both in their own lives and the life of the country as a whole” (p. 6). They have a high degree of political activism, a positive view of the oligarchs as successful heroes, willing to travel and live abroad, and nevertheless trust Putin’s brand of politics to reawaken Russia’s role in the coming world order. They are “generally unsympathetic to the West and increasingly beholden to a narrow conception of Russian nationalism” (p. 13).

The question that stands out, then, is how can a presentation of the gospel be contextualized for each of these age-groups? Although there are naturally some variations and diversity with each category, how could a holistic plan of salvation be shared that shows both eternal atonement and current transformation? I would be interesting in your ideas and experiences.

Ways to Contextualize

As we continue to explore the subject of contextualization, a blatant question stands out: How do I contextualize my message here among European Russians? It is this question that makes this whole conversation move from the theoretical to the practical. So this week, I wanted to share something with you I found that is a great example of contextualization among Russian speakers in Latvia. It is a contextualization attempt to bridge the gospel to the lost in Orthodox societies.

John writes, “We have a new resource that connects to the Sunday liturgy Gospel reading of the Orthodox lectionary cycle. We took a cue from [another missionary] in Poland who came up with something like this for the Catholic lectionary cycle. We use the specified Gospel passage and ask three sets of questions (observation, interpretation and application). We previously did a small-scale 6-month trial with Orthodox calendar materials. Then I asked [my wife] to write up the 60 or so weeks needed for a full, long-term resource. Russian Orthodox use a one-year lectionary cycle, but some things change each year due to different Easter and holiday dates. We have the materials translated. We also have a web functioning to serve the pages on a schedule.”

This set of bible study materials in Russian can be found on the web site he recently set up: radost.lv. John says that “although we are still adding to this web site, the ‘Sunday reading’ resources are already available. There are a myriad of ‘evangelistic’ web sites for Russian language folks. We are only focusing on serving the Sunday reading resource, our Genesis 1-22 study, then later Colossians and eventually a Hebrews-based resource.”

John believes that this series is a good step toward contextualization. “From a contextualization perspective, we are becoming more and more convinced that we need to be connecting people to Scripture narratives and not just popcorn bags of selected verses. We need try using ‘Bible narrative videos’ (narratives with words) in lieu of physical icons and themed collages of scripture snapshots. The Sunday readings are often little narratives. Our questions invite people to look at Scripture regardless of their denominational identity.” I would agree with John wholeheartedly! If you have a chance to read the book, Light from the Christian East by James R. Payton, I would strongly encourage it. The way that our Eastern friends understand truth has been influenced by different historical factors than the West, so it’s helpful to know how to properly frame a contextualized presentation of the gospel. Click here for the “Prologue” and “Historical Perspectives” chapters in .pdf files.

This website and bible study series is being rolled out in several places in eastern Latvia, and according to John, “People seem to like it. We try to equip believers to take God's Word to family, relatives and friends. I just had a call from one of my Riga partner pastors asking to use this resource. It was a God thing, as he was following up on some example materials I shared during the previous trial period.”

This contextualization approach is very user-friendly. John explains, “If you need to print one of the lessons: (1) Go to the individual page for that day, then (2) Print the page from your web browser. The print format should be okay without any changes. You might want to turn off the print page "header" and "footer" information which your browser inserts. The web server already has pages loaded for several months. The web server releases a new page 10 days before the Sunday it is to be used (on Thursday night at 01:00).” People can use the "Kontakt" page to send comments and feedback.

Contextualization & Glocalization

I thought Columbus settled this question several hundred years ago, but Thomas L. Friedman is convinced that The World is Flat. If you’ve not read this prize-winning book from 2005, then it may surprise you why Friedman makes such a seemingly medieval statement. Apart from the sociological data that are interspersed throughout twenty-first century business statistics, the author also has something to say about CONTEXTUALIZATION. Using the pop-term “glocalization” (to describe a culture’s ability to absorb “foreign ideas and global best practices and meld [them] with its own traditions” p. 411), he is convinced that countries that are more open to cultural change end up succeeding in today’s business market. To be glocal is to be simultaneously locally contextualized and globally connected. In short, culture is “nested in contexts, not genes, and as those contexts, and local leaders, change and adapt, so too can culture” (p. 415). Bob Roberts took the glocalization concept and ran with it from a Christian perspective, even to the point of saying that the Eastern Church is now a bigger player in world evangelism than the Western Church. Interesting, huh?

We often think of contextualization as a mono-directional activity. We think in terms of how the gospel message must be altered to somehow become meaningful for the host culture. Or we think that the host culture must somehow assimilate our presentations and do self-contextualization so as to become worthy of the message. What we often fail to do is figure out which parts of our own cultures are necessary hardware to be who we are and which parts are just accessories. If I mistakenly think that I cannot be changed, or if I don’t want to, then I cannot become the disciple Christ has planned. Paul talked about this in Phil. 3:12-17 when he said, “I’m still changing. Now you guys model me as I keep changing.”

So what does that mean for us as international workers? How can a Baptist church glocalize? Is there something that I could learn from local leaders that might make me a better and more glocalized. Since our appointment almost 12 years ago, I have moved on a sliding scale between rural South-Georgia culture and megacity Russian culture. The biggest help in this change process has been the dialogue between local Russian believers and other globally-minded internationals. We’ll never understand Russia from a textbook or even a series of tourist trips; it takes time to move beyond superficial small-talk into a trust level wherein a Russian friend can be honest about what else needs to be contextualized in our lives. Do you have a national friend who can truly be honest with you about your American cultural accessories?

Contextualization

Since the latter part of the twentieth century, missiologists have been talking a lot about indigenization and contextualization. Contextualization is a broad theme that has varied applications, and to be quite honest it can be politically loaded, even in our SBC. If understood in relation to communication, contextualization is the process whereby a message is crafted and encoded in terms that can best transmit the sender’s intended meaning and be most easily decoded for proper application within the recipient’s context. But this is more than a simple communicative diagram. It involves both message and meaning of symbols as well as communication of intentions and applications. Therefore, contextualization can be applied to lifestyle, verbal cues, and social constructs. Quite truly, we as missionaries have to contextualize our way of life, our communication patterns, a presentation of the gospel message itself, and church structure. But we have to expertly balance on a tightrope between relevance and syncretism.

Contextualization, by necessity, means change or conformity. So what really changes when we contextualize? Does the good news change? How should my lifestyle change since I’m not living and working in rural South Georgia now? Should my language change? I mean, other than speaking Russian language, how should my language patterns change to better adapt to Russian mentality? What about my sleeping patterns? Should they change to conform to Russian ‘chronos’ or is Benjamin Franklin’s adage about getting up early and going to bed early still hold true? Really, what has to change? Can I truly change enough to clearly present a biblical message, or will I always be “the American”? Perhaps questions like these are why the issue as to what extent the message can truly be altered or contextualized is the subject of great debate among theologians and missiologists alike. David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen argue that it is possible to contextualize the gospel message and indeed that it must happen, but they believe there are certain parameters for achieving authentic contextualization.

I’d highly recommend your reading Hesselgrave’s and Rommen’s Contextualization: Meaning, Methods, and Models. They survey the historical development of contextualization as well as to analyze modern proponents of the concept from the standpoint of five disciplines, namely philosophy, theology, anthropology, hermeneutics, and semantics. It’s interesting that Jesus incarnated the message, and Paul molded his presentation to each new audience. Neither of them backed away from the scandal of the truth. But they also didn’t add unnecessary baggage to its acceptance. Paul lived like a Jew with Jews and like a Roman with Romans, but he never said, “for the sake of the gospel, I’ll accept sexual sin or moral perversion.” He never lowered his standards that he passed along to churches (ie. qualifications for being overseer), but he also never built a little Jerusalem among the Gentile Churches he planted. No, he contextualized professionally.
It was in the Middle Ages that the church began to issue “apologetic disputations” and the “confrontational approach” that we still see today in some areas. Some people still do the whole “in-your-face” evangelism. Is this cultural? Sadly, some contemporary Christians have taken the other extreme so as to become so culturally acceptable to lost friends or so noncommittal on moral standards so as to not offend that they have consequently lost any savor of saltiness. Consequently, even today conservative evangelicals are still wrangling with the concept and yet have not constructed a cohesive evangelical model of contextualization.

Simple but not trite, Hesselgrave and Rommen sound a clarion call for both authenticity and effectiveness. The key insight that the authors provide is that both the gospel message and the recipient’s culture must play active roles. They say that this calls for “persons who are experts in the cultures and languages involved, who understand cultural dynamics and who are themselves bicultural” (p. 211). In essence, contextualization is not for amateurs.

So, what should I contextualize in Russia? Does it matter if my clothes change? Does it matter if I learn to sit through several hours of Russian theater, poetry readings, classical music concerts, art viewings, or worship services? Does it matter whether I learn to eat something besides pizza and hamburgers? Does it matter how well I speak the language? Does it matter if I have national friends in my home and me in theirs? What of this helps to communicate trust and truth? I guess it only matters if the message matters.

For a great article that may help sort through these questions, click here. It is an article by Paul Washer in HeartCry Magazine, a ministry of FBC Muscle Shoals, AL. I found it quite helpful as I continue to evolve in our dynamic role in Russia as we relate to national church leadership and together define “contextualization”.