Click the link for each video teachings per topic.  

CHALLENGES IN EVANGELISM AND DISCIPLESHIP

Introduction

This section will discuss the four intercultural conflicts or challenges that emerged based on my dissertation. Theser are, context (high or low contexts), time orientation, trust formation, and degree of interdependence (individualistic or collectivist).

High-Context and Low-Context Cultures

Personal story: The city of Seattle is my first long-term cross-cultural mission experience. I had no intercultural competency training before the move. The few times I visited Seattle were mainly to seek God’s confirmation for my life and if He was indeed leading me in this new direction after being a campus missionary in the Philippines for almost ten years. The city is known for many things, its environmental advocacies, activism, and clean air. The citizens are health enthusiasts; bikers and runners are a common everyday sight, and they are known to choose healthier options for food like vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, organic, and so on—a small piece of information I wished I knew then.

The concept “discipleship is relationship” is a well-known phrase and practice in the Philippines regarding evangelism and discipleship. This concept is lived, witnessed, modeled, and shared within Victory Philippines. When the participants were asked by someone from their context, “what is discipleship?” their immediate response was “discipleship is relationship.” If you ask them to itemize it for you, this is where the breakdown happens. For Filipinos and other nationalities who belong to high-context cultures, the knowledge came from lived or shared experiences. The epistemology of “discipleship is relationship” emerged from shared life experiences passed on to them. Before this phrase came to be, it was lived, modeled, heard, talked about, and witnessed for years. It was a cycle, a pattern that eventually became a lifestyle. So, to ask them, “what exactly is discipleship?,” the answer was embedded within a ton of references, contextual cues, nuances, and weight of experiences. It is unnecessary to say it explicitly especially if you are coming from the same context. Instead, they understand and know how to make disciples. When a first-generation Filipino missionary joins a leadership team with a low-context culture, an intercultural conflict may occur. Low-context cultures expect explicit, clear, and direct answers.

From the video lecture, Dr. Martin use an iceberg to illustrate the difference in understanding the epistemology and ontology of disclipleship. In your own words, write down or explain what your learned from the illustration.

 Iceberg Illustration Between High and Low Contexts

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trust and Relationship

Trust or Relationship, Which Comes First.

         Trust is a concept that “everybody understands, but few people can accurately define much less measure.”[1] Some words associated with trust are integrity, honesty, credibility, or perception. However, during the interview, I noticed how my participants use relationship and trust interchangeably, “we want to build a relationship in our community before we can share the gospel, and in building a relationship we need to build trust,” or “for them to trust us, we need to build a relationship with them.” It is a both/and concept, a significant Eastern pattern of thinking.[2] Therefore, it is evident to combine the two, trust and relationships, into this section. It is worth mentioning that in chapter four, most of my participants became part of the community first before they surrendered their lives to Christ. In that community, they served and witnessed lives transformed. They started attending classes with their friends in that community and strengthened their theology for this newfound faith.

Do you resonate with how trust and relationship are linked together? How?

         In business settings, Erin Meyer, author of Culture Map, pointed out two forms of trust: affective and cognitive. The more a culture tends toward task-based trust, the more they separate affective and cognitive trust, mainly relying on cognitive trust for work relationships. Inversely, the further the culture is towards relationship-based trust the more cognitive and affective trust are forged together.[3]

Meyer described the two categories as,

Task-based trust is built through business-related activities. Work relationships are built and dropped easily, based on the practicality of the situation. You do good work consistently, you are reliable. Therefore, ‘I enjoy working with you, I trust you.’ However, relationship-based trust formation begins in sharing meals, drinks, visits at the coffee machine. Work relationships build slowly over the long term. I’ve seen who you are at a deep level, I’ve shared personal time with you, I know others who trust you, therefore ‘I trust you.’[4]

How might you apply task-based trust in your new or current context?

How might you apply relationship-based setting in your new or current context?

Meyer also noted that the “center of gravity in the global business world has fundamentally shifted over the past fifteen years,” where the United States used to dominate most world markets. Today, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) cultures are on the rise in the global business, all positioned on a relationship-based, trusting scale. To be successful as an international manager in the global market is to excel in a relationship-based trusting scale—this same phenomenon mentioned in chapter one regarding a shift in the centrality of Christianity. Bringing in relationship-based orientation to task-based cultures might take a much longer time and patience to see the response, but it is long-lasting.

As a general rule of thumb, investing time in developing a relationship-based approach will pay dividends when working with people from around the world. This is true even if you both come from task-based cultures, such as the United States and Germany. Once an affective relationship is established, forgiveness for any cultural missteps you make comes a lot easier. So, when you work internationally, no matter who you are working with, investing more time in building trust is a good idea. But knowing exactly how to build affective trust may not always be so obvious. [5]

Does it matter if one is task-based or relationship-based, why?

[1] “Trust,” Communication Research Trends 39, No. 4 (2020): 3. Gale academic onefile), accessed Aprl 28, 2021, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/a646888170.

[2] Edwin Hoffman And Arjan Verdooren, Diversity Competence: Cultures Don’t Meet, People Do (Boston, Ma: Cabi, 2019), 206.

[3] Erin Meyer, The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business (New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2014) 163-170.

[4] Meyer, The Culture Map, 171.

[5] Meyer, 178.

Concept of Time

Chronos and Kairos

Hoffman and Verdooren classified chronemics, the study of time and communication, into two, the monochroneous and polychroneous.[1] Monochroneous societies value time as a limited resource. This may be expressed as “time is money” or “time is gold.” When frustrated, one would often say, “I just wasted my time.” In “Greek, Chronos means clock-time, and in pre-Socratic philosophy, Chronos is the personification of time, often referred to as the father of time.”[2] The father of time is depicted as an old man and with a long white beard. They operate in deadlines, precision, conciseness, and punctuality. Scheduled appointments are preferred rather than spontaneity. They usually suffer from a lack of time, and their pet peeve is waiting. Activities are filtered if it is worth their time or if it is time-consuming.

The second type of time orientation is polychroneous, time that becomes ripe with waiting. In Greek mythology, Kairos is the “personification of opportunity, luck, and favorable moments. He is depicted with only one lock of hair, easily seized upon arrival but once passed, no one could grasp him for the back of his head is bald.”[3] If the moment has passed, no one can bring back time, so one has also missed the opportunity. Societies in polychroneous time are very adaptable, flexible, and can multitask. Time is fluid, respected, and not something to be disrupted. Waiting for the right time is a value. For them, maintaining good social relations is essential for performing tasks.

Monochronic and Polychronic

What are the benefits when operating in Monochronic principles of time?

What are the benefits when operating in Polychronic principles of time?

Monochronic and Polychronic Time Orientations

Dawna Ballard, a professor at the University of Texas and scholar of chronemics, said, “Time is really at the heart of our quality of life.”[4] Furthermore, she mentioned Edward Hall (1914-2009), a well-known anthropologist and cross-cultural researcher, who asserts that, “Time is an invisible language. We send messages through time constantly, and we assume life will unfold according to a certain tempo, he observed, but that language and those assumptions change across cultures.”[5] Since the industrial revolution, time and punctuality, according to Ballard, became an adversarial and disciplining force, in that how you handle time is a measurement of virtue as a person.[6] When Filipinos value time differently from monochronic cultures, a potential intercultural conflict awaits. The hosting culture might perceive them initially as lazy. As simple as setting an appointment to “hang out” or “spend time” is already a challenge.

However, Ballard also pointed out that the clock is an organizing and coordinating tool to foster human relationships to achieve something together.

Allow me to highlight one of Ballard’s points in her article “Reclaiming Time”:

When we falsely see time as this external entity (or what the Greeks called Chronos), rather than something we create (Kairos), the fear of not being punctual can easily put us into fight or flight mode, sweating and becoming nauseated, or aggressive when we’re late for work or behind on a project. It’s not the wild animal that’s chasing us now, as it did our earliest ancestors, says Ballard. It’s the unforgiving clock. Just becoming aware that this ferocious beast is our own creation can be liberating.[7]

Low context cultures consequently value time in monochronic ways. They filter activities based on their assessment of time, and time is gold. Therefore, they usually operate in high efficiency with the shortest possible amount of time. It may affect their approach to evangelism and discipleship because, in reality, forming relationships takes time, and the reward for following Christ is not always measurable from an earthly perspective.

[1] Hoffman and Verdooren, Diversity Competence, 178.

[2] Hoffman and Verdooren, 178.

[3] Hoffman and Verdooren, 178.

[4] “Reclaiming my Time': Strategies From a Scholar Of Chronemics, The Study Of Time.”  Quartz, August 5, 2017. Gale academic onefile, accessed April 28, 2021, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/ a499919263.

[5] “Reclaiming my Time.”

[6] “Reclaiming my Time.”

[7] “Reclaiming my Time.”

Individualism and Collectivism

If you are from a collectivistic community, brainstorm some ideas on how you might engage an individualistic society.

If you are from an individualistic society, what are some of your tips for a collectivistic community on how they might engage your community?

Hoffman and Verdooren listed six orientations on how people engage with one another.[1] In this section, I will only focus on how individualism and collectivism influence people’s interactions. This cultural orientation determines the “degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members.”[2]

Cultures with a collectivist orientation are strongly connected to others, dependent on one another, and loyal to their community.[3] It influences their decisions by what is better for the group rather than for the individual. Their focuses are in-group goals, the context more than the content in communication, and defining relationships as communal.[4] Their self-image is defined by “we” and “they take care of each other in exchange for loyalty.”[5]  For instance, a Filipino high school graduate decides what program to take in college, depending on what the parents suggest or decide and beneficial for the whole family. One would often ask oneself, “If I pursue this career, will it alleviate my family from poverty or bring honor to the family?” Such a practice is common among Filipinos and Asian families. Another specific example mentioned in the interview was when they decided whether they should go to full-time ministry. Many of them first considered how it would affect their family financially and relationally.

Individualistic-oriented cultures are motivated by personal concerns, freedom, and satisfaction.[6] They believe that as long as one is able to make decisions, they should be left to take care of themselves. One of the participants validated this observation as one of the shocking revelations she encountered in her context. She said, “Even though the person’s life is at risk, as long as the person is capable of making a decision, no one should intervene.”[7]

  Individualistic and Collectivist Cultures

If you are coming from a collectivist culture, what are some of the ways you can build your support system when you move to an individualistic society that would foster diversity?

Synthesis: Relational Evangelism and Discipleship

The intercultural challenges mentioned above point to a glaring realization in mission practice and strategy for first-generation Filipino missionaries, the relational aspect of evangelism and discipleship. Task-oriented cultures approach evangelism and discipleship differently. They embark on business-related activities and practicality. Meyer describes their approach to be short-term. Samuel Escobar coined this term as “managerial missiology”[8] and understands the gospel as a product to be marketed to the target group with measurable goals (i.e., how many people are saved, how many people are baptized, how many came to the outreach event) through a carefully crafted strategy.

Managerial Missiology is defined by the Missions Dictionary as,

The belief that missions can be approached like a business problem. With the right inputs, the thinking goes, the right outcomes can be assured. Any number of approaches have been hailed as the “key” to world evangelization or to reaching particular groups- everything from contextualization to saturation evangelization.[9]

Through this lens, the Christian mission is reduceable to a manageable enterprise. James Engel was one of the proponents of managerial missiology. “He published and co-authored many books in the areas of communication theory, consumer behavior, promotional strategy, proposed the ‘Engel Scale’ and led missiology in a ‘major leap onto

the secular stage of strategic planning (David Nett 1999).”[10]  Wan also critiques Managerial Missiology Paradigm (MMP) as a pragmatic mindset that leads to

targeting measurable success and quantifiable outcomes. This pragmatic orientation is in line with the research findings of Barna Group in 2010- one of the “six mega-themes” of American Christianity is “growing numbers of people are less interested in spiritual disciples and more desirous of learning pragmatic solutions for life” and at the same time, the Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate (i.e., another theme of the six).[11]

In his book, Engaging the Secular World through Life-on-Life Discipleship in the British Context, Mikeska observed something similar:

In the UK, there are two main tools in the church used to try to evangelize people: Alpha and Christianity Explored. Both Alpha and Christianity Explored are courses often taught in churches for people interested in learning more about Christianity and Jesus. These courses or programs allow people to explore, think, learn, and ask questions about Christianity and Jesus. While I am not particularly for or against these programs as a basis for enabling people to learn about Christianity and Jesus, I still believe the focus must be on relational disciple-making and not a course. Programs do work and people are being saved and discipled through them. My hope is that we as Christians also model and live out the gospel with people around us.[12]

Is it possible to be relational in a megachurch environment? If yes, how? If not, why not?

[1] The six orientations are collectivism vs individualistic, masculine vs feminine, division and of roles between men and women, hierarchical vs egalitarian, universal and particularistic, and specific vs diffuse. Hoffman and Verdooren, Diversity Competency, 220. 

[2] “Country Comparison,” Hofstede’s Insights, accessed April 29, 2021, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison.

[3] Hoffman and Verdooren, Diversity Competence, 221.

[4] Harry C. Triandis and H C Triandis, “Individualism-Collectivism and Personality,” Journal of Personality 69, no. 6 (December 2001): 907–924, accessed April 29, 2021, http://search.ebscohost.com.

[5] “Country Comparison,” Hofstede’s Insights, accessed April 29, 2021, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison.

[6] Hoffman and Verdooren, Diversity Competence, 221.

[7] “All interviews are confidential; the names of the interviewees are withheld by mutual agreement.” Interviewed by Ria L. Martin. Seattle. March 31, 2021.

[8] Wan, Diaspora Missiology, 112.

[9] Wan, Diaspora Missiology, 112

[10] Wan, Diaspora Missiology, 114.

[11] Wan, Diaspora Missiology, 114.

[12] Wan and Mikeska, Engaging the Secular World through Life-on-Life Disciple-Making in the British Contex, 69.