Ministering Cross-Culturally

            Well I just returned from another successful short-term mission trip to Mexico with my two daughters. Thank you to all of you who took the time to pray for us. God did many amazing things! In light of our most recent experience, I wanted to share with you a review and teaching about ministering cross-culturally. Now most of you might think that “cross-cultural” means and different country where they speak a different language. But that’s not necessarily the case. “Cross-culture” can be within your own neighborhood. Let me give you some examples: A White-collar office professional exists within a different culture than a blue-collar factory professional. Now add to that, differences in race, religion, gender, and nationality and you have the ingredients for a cross-cultural encounter. Nevertheless, missions work in another country is by definition cross-cultural. Therefore, I’m writing this from that particular perspective, but all cross-cultural encounters share many of the same distinctives.

In their book, Ministering Cross-Culturally, Lingenfelter and Mayers attempt to identify and resolve the tensions and conflicts typically associated with cross cultural missions in different cultural and social contexts. Lingenfelter utilizes an interesting values-based questionnaire that assess a person’s proclivity in the areas of: time vs. event orientation, dichotomistic vs. holistic thinking, crisis vs. non-crisis orientation, task vs. person orientation, status vs. achievement focus and concealment of vulnerability vs. willingness to expose vulnerability. Lingenfelter insists that until we understand the culture to which we have been sent to serve and share the Good News of Jesus Christ, we will be unable to properly implement the method he identifies as the means by which cross-cultural ministry will be most effective. That method, according to Lingenfelter, is to become incarnate within the cultural context where we have been sent. Lingenfelter makes a compelling argument for his incarnational model through his application of Philippians 2:3-7 where Paul writes,

Philippians 2:3-7

“ ³ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. ⁴ Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. ⁵ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: ⁶ Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

This incarnational model, according to Lingenfelter, is essential to being able to relate within any cultural context we find ourselves. We become incarnate within our own culture through the natural process of life. However, the values learned within our own context do not necessarily translate to other cultures. Lingenfelter writes,

“The communities we form include some and exclude others. These social arrangements become an important part of our shared culture. We include those people who reaffirm our values and relationships, and we exclude those who in some way do not measure up to our standards or do not fit within our prescribed sphere of social relationships. This pattern of inclusion and exclusion often prompts us to fear and even reject the very people we are sent to serve.” (pp. 21-22)

I have had the opportunity to witness this dynamic first hand. For the last thirteen years I have traveled, along with my two daughters, to Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico to build houses in some of the poorer rural communities. Because my girls and I have participated in this particular missionary venture for so long, we are inevitably in a position of working with groups who have never been outside their particular cultural context. The most common misconception of these first-timers is the belief that local Mexicans are simply uneducated and lazy which is why they are poor and destitute. Clearly, this is a gross over-generalization. No doubt there are always those in every culture who lack personal initiative. However, it is ignorant to assume that there are no political or socio-economic factors that contribute to poverty in any culture. Yet it is understandable when the American, middle/wealthy class value system that equates success with intelligence and hard work is applied to the Mexican culture. Thankfully, however, first-timers are usually able to reorient their way of thinking to at least consider that there is a different value system at work in the Mexican culture. Because of the limitation of time in short-term mission ventures, becoming significantly incarnate in a new culture is not truly possible. However, for most, the process begins to take place by the end of the trip. I am convinced that all those who participate in any missionary venture must pay heed to Lingenfelter when he writes,

“The practice of incarnation…is the first essential step toward breaking the pattern of excluding others. Missionaries, by the nature of their task, must become personally immersed with people who are different. To follow the example of Christ, that of incarnation, means undergoing drastic personal reorientation. They must be socialized all over again into a new cultural context. They must enter a culture as if they are children—ignorant of everything, from customs of eating and talking to the patterns of work, play and worship.” (pp. 22-23)

Two other illustrations serve as further support for Lingenfelter’s position. As a general rule for some mission ventures to Mexico, participants are instructed to avoid consuming local food or drink that is not pre-packaged and conversely not to share their food or drink with the local community. This particular instruction has some very real and practical medical implications. Nevertheless, during one particular year, the family for which we were building a home prepared a complete meal for everyone in our group. The group was at a crossroad. The group leader instructed us to participate in the meal based on conscience. Some were fearful of the real possibility of becoming ill and graciously declined while others took a risk and accepted the meal. Only later did we learn that the family expended a month’s worth of food to show their gratitude for our service. Additionally, the family, who regularly interacted with everyone in our group earlier in the week, no longer interacted with those who refused their meal offer. Although none of us who ate the meal got sick, the possibility was very real and it is difficult to harshly judge those who refused to participate in the meal. Nevertheless, the results of those decisions underscore Lingenfelter’s point that we are not effective in our mission to reach those we are sent to serve if we are unwilling to become incarnate in their culture—and sometimes that involves real risk.

If you were to travel to Mexico, it would become immediately obvious how important the game of soccer is. In some places of the city, you will see field after field after field filled with locals playing soccer. There is scarcely a community where groups of kids and/or adults are not playing soccer in the streets. Coming from a family of soccer players and having two daughters who play soccer, it was natural to get involved in whatever game happened to be going on in the community where we were building. The game put everyone on equal footing because it is played the same way everywhere and transcends all language and social barriers. During one particular evening, some of the locals who worked for the mission agency who sponsored and organized the mission effort invited their extended families to our camp for dinner. Not surprising, a soccer game broke out between “Mexican Nationals” and the “Visiting Americans.” It was one of the most spirited and exciting games of soccer I have ever been involved in. Initially, participation ranged from six year olds to sixty year olds. However, when the Mexicans realized that the Americans could hold their own, those younger and those older dropped off as the intensity of the game grew. There was no lack of banter, posturing and good natured pushing and shoving. Right in the middle of the game, the leader of our group (who wasn’t playing in the game) called a camp-wide meeting to discuss the events of the day and to worship. We implored him for more time to finish the game as the score was tied. To our dismay, the request for additional time was denied and we had to leave the game as it stood. We thanked our opponents and left for the meeting. They were completely dumbfounded. There was no way they would ever leave a game unfinished. It wasn’t so much because the score was tied, it was the fact that they weren’t done playing. Certainly, meetings and worship are important. However, I doubt it impressed those to whom we were sent to serve. Lingenfelter makes this point when he writes, “We need to develop a habit of evaluating our priorities, and we need to recognize that the tasks we think are so critical are not more important than the people God has entrusted to us.” (p. 85)

Although Lingenfelter wrote this book primarily from the context of informing those involved in cross-cultural ministry efforts, I couldn’t help but see a very relevant application for our churches and my own family.

I am generally a type “A” personality while my wife is not. Although I’m not an obsessive type “A,” I’m usually pretty organized. I put my car keys, wallet and cell phone in the same place every day when I walk in from work so I know where they are when I need them. My wife, on the other hand, doesn’t always do that. Sometimes it makes me crazy but I’ve come to realize that her priorities are different than mine. In the early years of our marriage, I often thought that her life would be much better if she did more things and valued things the way I did. Now, after twenty-seven years of marriage, I realize her values make her the person she is and why I love her so much. Lingenfelter writes, “One of the biggest problems in our families, churches, and missions is that we often insist that others think and judge in the same way we do. We do not accept one another in love; rather, we try to remake those around us into our own image. This tendency is the negation of the principle of incarnation, which requires that we learn to think in the style of our neighbor.” (p. 64)

To further illustrate this point, I am familiar with a church that I will describe as being analogous to membership in a country club. In other words, it’s ok to visit a few times or to be different, but at some point it becomes obvious that the only way you become an accepted member is if you behave, look and act in a way that is determined by some select few as being acceptable. Of course this behavior by the “inner circle” is all wrapped in the ornate religious idealism of presenting the members of the Church as sanctified and holy. However, with the passage of time and the opportunity to observe those attitudes and practices, I have come to understand that the real motivation is to exclude those who look and act differently from the accepted norm of the inner circle. In short, some are worthy of being accepted into the flock while others are not. Instead of serving one another, unnecessary divisions are created and impenetrable barriers erected. Lingenfelter makes the point when he writes, “Whereas human attempts to find identity and self-worth divide us from one another and results in humiliation and subjugation of the weak, the gift of God’s worthiness creates within us the servant attitude of Jesus, even to the point of giving our lives for others.” (p. 99)

In summation, Lingenfelter makes the point that Jesus was a 200% person—100% God and 100% man. Although we are not capable of being 200% people, he suggest that we should make an attempt to become 150% people. Not losing ourselves but becoming more fully incarnate within the cultures to which we have been sent to serve. Lingenfelter’s illustration of Jesus as a 200% person is clear, but for us to become 150% people is less clear. I understand Lingenfelter’s point but I’m not sure as finite, sinful humans that we can be any more than we are. I think the principle that may be more helpful can be found at the heart of Lingenfelter’s incarnational servant model—“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” (Phil. 2:3)