Details

Volume 18, No. 4

Social Ministry and Missions in Ukrainian Mega Churches: Two Case Studies

Catherine Wanner

Religious Pluralism

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a commitment to religious pluralism was incorporated into the very idea of the Ukrainian nation, at a minimum to accommodate the various Orthodox churches and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, all of which claim to be indigenous national institutions. The various splits and divisions among the three competing Orthodox churches in Ukraine—the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church—mean that no single “national” church can lay claim to a state-protected, privileged status. As a result, a comparatively tolerant legal and political climate has emerged in Ukraine toward minority religious communities and foreign religious organizations, allowing them to establish a formidable presence.1

Government Support for Religious Values

Many mission organizations have even made Ukraine their base of operations in the former USSR. From small bureaucratic concessions, such as eliminating the need for foreigners to obtain visas, to allowing religious organizations to receive and distribute humanitarian aid directly, the Ukrainian government has consistently demonstrated an atmosphere conducive to developing and strengthening religious institutions. Legislation in 2006 paved the way for religious-based instruction in all levels of education from preschool to higher education, claiming instruction in religious values will produce “highly moral and spiritual citizens, which will further the spiritual revival of the Ukrainian nation.”2 This 2006 law is one of many initiatives that have been adopted after 74 years of state-sponsored promotion of atheism.

A Missionary Sending Nation

Since the collapse of Communism, Ukraine, unlike other former Soviet republics, has become a center of publishing, seminary training, and missionary recruiting for a multitude of faith groups.3 Currently, hundreds of Ukrainian missionaries travel to Russia and throughout the former Soviet Union annually to evangelize.4 Ukrainian believers possess the cultural capital to elude state policies designed to stem the flow of foreign missionaries of “non-traditional” faiths proselytizing former Soviet citizens.

Analyzing the social ministries and mission activities of two transnational mega-churches that have firmly established themselves in Ukraine will illustrate how churches are revitalizing religious life in a highly secular society. A profile of these churches and their activities also begins to suggest what it means for believers and governments in Eurasia to have Ukraine develop as a base for missionary and clerical training.5 Both of these churches are committed to the twin goals of reversing the rampant secularism they perceive in Eurasia and alleviating social suffering, inequality, and violations of biblical understandings of justice as they understand them.

Global Networking

The international ties and activities of these two churches illustrate the interrelated dynamics of saving souls from Communist atheism in the east as well as from European secularism in the west. Most religious communities in Eurasia are barely able to sustain themselves financially, let alone finance missionaries and social ministry. Thus, Western funds underwrite most charitable activities in Eurasia. In this way, Ukraine has become a global hub for these two churches, and for a multitude of others, linking Ukraine to international networks of religious organizations, and through its churches’ mission outreach, to Eurasia and beyond.

Cultural Orthodoxy

Religious identity in Orthodox countries largely hinges on who one is, more so than on what one does. That is to say, in Eastern Christianity cultural, linguistic, national, and territorial identities frequently coalesce with confessional identities, synthesizing into a single national-confessional identity. This approach creates a nominal allegiance to Orthodoxy that is more a matter of cultural identity than spiritual conviction.

Nominal allegiance is most vividly manifest in a multitude of survey and ethnographic research that illustrates the often paradoxical categories that individuals commonly have used to describe their religiosity: Orthodox non-believer, Christian pagan, and, as Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko infamously has declared himself an Orthodox Communist.6 These categories demonstrate an allegiance to the Orthodox Church based on a recognition of and respect for its contribution to national, historic, artistic, and intellectual achievements. An embrace of Orthodoxy often does not include religion. Although allegiance to the Church is often real and heartfelt, it often has little to do with religious practice. One does not have to do anything, not even believe, to consider oneself Orthodox. In other words, the relevance of Orthodoxy over time has become gutted of its religious content without diminishing the popular reverence for the achievements of those associated with the church. Hence, much to the frustration of social scientists, survey data are routinely peppered by responses of individuals who self-identify as “Orthodox” and “non-believer” in the same breath.7 Such respondents understand Orthodoxy to encompass culture, community, a particular sensibility, and worldview It was in the midst of this context of nominalism and 70 years of state hostility to faith that the two churches profiled below were founded. Following the collapse of Communism, these two churches have thus far met with remarkable success in revitalizing religious and social life.

The Embassy of God

The Blessed Kingdom of God for People of all Nations, or the Embassy of God as it is known to its followers, has 25,000 members, making it the largest evangelical mega church in all of Europe. Founded in 1994 by Sunday Adelaja, a Nigerian self-taught Pentecostal pastor, the Embassy of God now has 38 churches in Ukraine and 18 abroad, including five in the U.S., four in Russia, two each in Belarus, Germany, and Holland, as well as others in the United Arab Emirates and India. Although the church faces serious political challenges, it still is very much of a force driving social change.

Hillsong

The second church is a daughter congregation of Hillsong, the largest church in Australia with 20,000 members. After creating a base in London, Hillsong opened a church in the center of downtown Kyiv in 1992 with the hope of using it as a gateway to Eurasia and particularly to Russia. Since opening the Kyiv church, Hillsong has planted a church in Paris and on 1 March 2007, its newest European church opened in Moscow.

Shared Characteristics

The Embassy of God and Hillsong share several features. Both are charismatic Pentecostal churches that feature expressive, even ecstatic, forms of worship. Doctrinally, they advocate belief in an inerrant Bible as the literal word of God, and they adhere to basic tenets of Pentecostal theology including prophecy, faith healing, and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. Both are led by husband and wife “preaching teams.” Both, as well, now have a plethora of Ukrainians, both men and women, serving in a multitude of leadership positions. In contrast to almost all Soviet-era churches, including Pentecostal and Orthodox, they support a relaxation of the general suspicion of worldliness. In particular, they do not follow the strict codes of personal morality and ascetic lifestyle that characterized believers and their religious communities in Ukraine and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Yet, these two churches retain an overall conservative slant on a variety of social issues, especially homosexuality.

Both churches also promote a belief that financial and professional success is a sign of God’s favor.8 Indirectly, such a principle endorses the virtues of neoliberal economic values by encouraging commitments to individual responsibility, initiative, and charitable giving. Both churches masterfully exploit the media to advance and spread their visions for personal and social transformation. In sum, both churches offer much more that a set of religious beliefs. They foster self-conceptions that celebrate empowerment and fulfillment.

Race and Class Differences

Among the differences that separate these communities, however, are the important ones of race and class. Both churches display their foreign influences, associations, and connections in their names. However, when the Nigerian founder of the Embassy of God speaks of “peoples of all nations,” he signifies that this church is particularly receptive to minorities, immigrants, and people of color.9 Caribbean and African-American visiting preachers are interspersed in a steady stream of visiting white evangelical Americans. Miles Monroe from Jamaica as well as Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar from the United States, all strong proponents of prosperity theology, have been guests at anniversary celebrations. At nearly every service foreign delegations visiting the Embassy of God are presented to the congregation.

Use of Media

One of the reasons the Embassy of God is so widely known is that Sunday Adelaja is so adept in the use of media. He originally came to Soviet Belorussia in 1986 to study journalism, which convinced him of the power of modern means of communication. His church has its own publishing house where Adelaja’s more than 40 books have been published (some in English), and its own television studio, which allows the church to use televangelism as a source for attracting religious seekers. He also can be seen preaching every week on TBN, the largest Christian broadcasting network in the U.S. F

Editor’s note: The concluding portion of this article will be published in the next issue of the East-West Church and Ministry Report 19 (Winter 2011). This article is published from a presentation given by Dr. Wanner in Edinburgh, Scotland, 30 May-2 June 2010, at the second research consultation of the Center for the Study of World Christian Revitalization Movements, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.

Notes:

1 U.S. Department of State, “International Religious Freedom Report 2002,” www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71415.htm for Ukraine and www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71403.htm for Russia; accessed 26 March 2007. Myroslaw Tataryn, “Russia and Ukraine: Two Models of Religious Liberty and Two Models for Orthodoxy,” Religion, State and Society 29 (September 2001), 155-72.

2 See www.risu.org.ua, 16 February 2007; accessed 26 March 2007.

3 Evangelical groups have become particularly prominent. For example, Kyiv alone currently has four Baptist and three Pentecostal seminaries, all of which have internet-based distance learning programs. See Catherine Wanner, Communities of the Converted: Ukrainians and Global Evangelism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007).

4 Patrick Johnson and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Publishing, 2001), 644-45.

5 Currently, one-third of the world’s Christians are either Pentecostal or Charismatics. See Martyn Percy, “The City on a Beach: Future Prospects for Charismatic Movements at the End of the Twentieth Century” in Stephen Hunt, Malcolm Hamilton, and Tony Walter, eds., Charismatic Christianity: Sociological Perspectives (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 207.

6 Larissa Titarenko, “On the Shifting Nature of Religion during the Ongoing Post-Communist Transformation in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine,” Social Compass 55 (No. 2, 2008), 237-54. The charged and judgmental nature of the category “nominally Orthodox” prompts me to suggest instead use of the term “culturally Orthodox” to

refer to those who have a hybrid form of allegiance to the Orthodox Church.

7 Irena Borowik, “Between Orthodoxy and Eclecticism: On the Religious Transformation of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine,” Social Compass 49 (No.4, 2002), 504.

8 Some of the risks in contemporary Ukrainian economic life and how they are understood and experienced are illustrated in Catherine Wanner, “Money, Morality and New Forms of Exchange in Ukraine,” Ethnos 71 (Winter 2005), 515-37.

9 Although many Ukrainians continue to outmigrate in search of economic opportunities, other immigrants are settling in Kyiv, creating unprecedented levels of diversity as Ukraine emerges in the post-socialist aftermath as an immigrant sending and receiving country. See Blair A. Ruble, Creating Diversity Capital: Transnational Migrants in Montreal, Washington, and Kyiv (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).

Catherine Wanner is associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania.

Details

Volume 18, No. 4

Home Visitation Vital

Perhaps the most important single activity for Millet church believers to stem defections is to visit the homes of people who have missed one or two meetings. Those interviewed reported that such gestures from fellow believers were the most important factor in shoring up the faith of those who were tempted to leave the church. Visits, encouragement, and prayer led many of those who had temporarily stopped coming to return. Churches that organize teams to regularly visit lapsed members and those known to be in difficulty should expect positive results. Where possible and relevant, material help from the church may be a powerful, tangible expression of care.

Believers also need support when they work abroad. According to many interviewees, the experience of being alone while away from home led people to grow cold in their faith. On the other hand, those who went abroad to work who gathered regularly with other Millet believers shared that they grew in their faith. Two strategies could be employed to prevent the loss of members working abroad. First, believers who decide to go abroad to work should be encouraged to go as a group with other believers and to find accommodations together or to join believers who are already in another country. Second, pastors could train believers who are planning to go abroad to lead worship meetings and to provide pastoral care for Millet working away from home.

An authoritarian leadership style, which characterizes many ethnic Bulgarian churches, appears to have been adopted in all of the Millet churches under study. This, in turn, has led to leaders acting in an overbearing and insulting manner toward church members. Patterns of decision-making in Millet society, in contrast, tend to be much more consultative, with a high degree of group participation. Alternative patterns of leadership in Millet churches should be explored. My observation is that plural leadership characterized the early phases of many Millet churches, whereas the emergence of a single male leader has often led to tensions and envy among other men in the church. The leadership model of the Millet extended family, which involves plural leadership combining several of the oldest members, including women, and one or two middle-aged spokespersons (men and women), should be considered.

New structures for gathering and supporting one another as believers – indeed for being church – seem to be emerging. A fruit seller shared that after 16 years of being a believer, he had discovered the true meaning of church. He and a small group of believers had been meeting in a home for more than a year and had found the support of this small house church invaluable. “We really care for each other, and are constantly on the phone to each other,” he said. This small group structure may lead to greater commitment and fewer defections by increasing the intensity of social interaction and expressions of care for one another, what Rodney Stark and Roger Finke call the density of the social network.5 A small group structure like this, whether in the form of house churches, a cell church structure, or home groups of a larger congregation have great potential.

Rigid denominational membership requirements led some regular attenders to leave churches following distributions of material aid to members only. This policy and the denominational requirement that church members tithe, tend to marginalize those who attend church regularly but who are not members. Such practices, which run counter to Millet cultural values, undermine rather than foster church loyalty.

The almost complete lack of youth and children in Millet church meetings, and the lack of separate meetings for them, suggest that youth do not find church appealing. Pastors interviewed, as well as sociologists including Rodney Stark,6 have identified inadequate socialization of youth as a major cause of church decline. One solution would appear to be meetings for children and youth that are more inviting.

Problems with leadership were the most frequently cited explanations offered for defections. Therefore, strategies aimed at improving the quality of pastors are crucial, not only in preventing decline, but also in fostering the health of the Millet church movement. Specific steps should include improved leadership selection stressing character traits essential for successful ministry. Leadership development for Millet church leaders is extremely limited, especially for those whose first language is Turkish. Opportunities for Turkish-language pastoral training should be increased. In addition, non-residential programs will be necessary because the majority of pastors are not able to leave their homes for long periods of time. Training done in groups, with more than one pastor from each multi-congregation neighborhood, is likely to help foster positive relationships among leaders and may help overcome some of the conflicts among pastors. Trainers also need to emphasize conflict resolution, together with mentoring. Finally, ongoing support and encouragement of pastors is sorely needed because most have no access to a mentor or other trusted person with whom they can share their struggles. The development of peer mentoring may be one way to address this need.

Implications for Other Mission Contexts

Those who leave churches, especially if they have stopped participating in church life for several years, are often assumed to be apostates who have given up both attending and believing. However, the finding of this study is that almost all Millet defectors still believe in Jesus and still hold positive views of the church Therefore, it should not be assumed that defectors are apostate; many may still believe. In turn, it may be possible to develop ways of drawing lapsed Millet believers back into fellowship with other believers in existing or in new churches. F

Notes:

1 Unless otherwise noted, direct quotations are taken from Hibbert’s dissertation survey research without attribution.

2 John Taylor, interview with author, combined with Excel file of church attendance with notes on 2001 developments, 2008.

3 David Richards, phone conversation with author, August 2006.

4 Thomas O’Dea, “Five Dilemmas in the Institutionalization of Religion,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 1 (1961), 30-39.

5 Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).

6 Rodney Stark, “How New Religions Succeed: A Theoretical Model” in The Future of New Religious Movements, ed. by Rodney Stark (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987).

Richard Y. Hibbert is director of the School of Cross Cultural Mission, Sydney Missionary and Bible College, Croydon, New South Wales, Australia.

Edited excerpts published with permission from Richard Y. Hibbert, “Stagnation and Decline Following Rapid Growth in Turkish-Speaking Roma Churches in Bulgaria,” Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity International University, 2008.

Details

Volume 18, No. 4

Cross-Cultural Issues Facing American Evangelical Missionaries in Romania

Andrew LaBreche

Editor’s note:

Andrew LaBreche has served as an American missionary in Romania since 1997. Former field director for Greater Europe Mission in Romania and Moldova, he works with a team of 15 fulltime workers and scores of short-term missionaries each summer. He describes his theological orientation as “low-key dispensational.”

In addition to published missiological and anthropological literature, Labreche based his investigation of cross-cultural issues affecting American missionaries serving in Romania upon the survey findings of the third European Values Study (1990 and 1999-2000), the World Values Survey (2003- ), and his own firsthand surveys. The author administered questionnaires to 66 American evangelical missionaries and 43 Romanian Evangelicals in 2004-05. For background on the European and World Values Studies see Wil Arts, Jacques Hagenaars, and Loek Halman, eds., The Cultural Diversity of European Unity: Findings, Explanations and Reflections from the European Values Study (Leiden: Brill, 2003); www.europeanvalues.nl; and www.worldvaluessurvey.org or www.wvs.ir.umich.edu.

In the mid-twentieth century Bible translator Eugene Nida pointed out that the greatest problem in missions is often not the message, but the messenger.1 For this reason the problems messengers face – or cause – on the field deserve serious attention. One particular challenge American evangelical missionaries face is their ethnocentrism.

Missiologist Miriam Adeney relates the story of a Mali Christian named Daniel Coulibaly describing how Mali believers sometimes feel working with American missionaries:

Elephant and Mouse were best friends. One day Elephant said, “Mouse, let’s have a party!” So they did. Animals came from near and far. They ate and drank and sang and danced. And no one partied more exuberantly than Elephant.

When it was over, Elephant exclaimed, “What a party, Mouse! Did you ever see a more wonderful celebration?” But there was silence. “Mouse?” Elephant called. “Where are you, Mouse?” Then to his horror Elephant discovered Mouse – crushed on the floor, stomped into the dirt, trampled to death by the enthusiasm of his friend Elephant. “Sometimes that is what it is like to work with you Americans,” said Daniel. “It is like dancing with an elephant.”2

One significant problem that seems to arise among American evangelical missionaries working in Romania is their assumption that Romanian Evangelicals are not really that much different from themselves. Even if one concludes that the differences are relatively small, compared to American-Asian cultural contrasts, for example, one can still profitably argue that “cultures somewhat different from one’s own may in fact pose more problems for the culture crosser than those that are wholly different.”3

Almost any honest discussion with Romanians will lead to the oft-heard complaint of an American superiority complex: they think they have “all the answers,” “come with their own agenda,” and are “proud and arrogant.” Subtly and almost unknowingly, through both secular and religious culture, many American missionaries are imbued with a sense of triumphalism. Americans are eager for results that can be reported back home. They are captured by a “closure theology” that drives them to finish the job quickly. Missionaries, then, become teachers before learning the observational skills of good listeners. Too quickly they become the center of ministry activity rather than empowering those they have come to serve. As a corrective, my goal is to help American evangelical missionaries better understand themselves, know how they are perceived by Romanian Evangelicals, and ultimately learn how to better navigate Romanian culture for the sake of the gospel.

Many American evangelical missionaries working in Romania do not understand that they hold cultural values significantly at odds with those of Romanian Evangelicals. One significant reason for this ignorance is the missionary assumption that American values are the norm and universal to all cultures. Naïve ethnocentrism, which this sentiment reflects, amounts to “thinking one’s own group’s ways are superior to those of others.”4 Generally, people do not think about their value systems. They simply take for granted that their values are right. In fact, if they did not think they were right, they would not be held as values in the first place.

A Superiority Complex

The problem is not simply ignorance—assuming one’s own culture is the only culture. Nor is the problem belief in the good qualities of one’s own culture—all cultures have both good and bad elements, as Richard Tiplady has pointed out.5 The problem arises when people become aware of others’ values and reject them out of hand. This is true ethnocentrism.

At least since the 15th century the West’s technical, economic, and military advantages have resulted in such overweening pride and arrogance that the West came to assume it possessed a superior culture as well. Americans, for example, are beset today by feelings of superiority which constitute one of the greatest barriers to American missionary participation in the spread of the gospel.6 Thus, if an American missionary refuses to discuss, does not appear to know, or is not interested in the Orthodox contribution to Romanian culture, then this narrowness amounts to another instance of Western arrogance and ethnocentrism. Sadly, it is true that while many missionaries would agree with the need to understand the historic faith of Romania, in practice very few make any effort to take either formal or folk Romanian Orthodoxy seriously.

American missionaries should first of all be learners. Unfortunately, this is a maxim rarely followed. Because of ethnocentrism and the strong culturally derived passion to “fix things,” too many American evangelical missionaries come to Romania with “all the answers” before they even have any idea of what questions should be asked.

Because of ethnocentrism, American Evangelicals often mistakenly equate their cultural values with biblical values, not seeing any difference between their understanding of a biblical world view and their own American evangelical world view.

Problems arise not when other cultures and their values seem strange, or perhaps even irrational; rather, problems emerge when missionaries judge values different from their own to be fundamentally wrong and biblically deficient. The result has been that “missionaries have succeeded in bringing a biblically informed world view, but one that is thoroughly contaminated by their culture.”7

Both for Westerners in general and for Americans in particular, it is very easy to confuse what is biblical with what is cultural. Punctuality, for instance, which Americans treasure, does not seem to be addressed in Scripture. American missionaries should also remember that although the gospel is meant to bring change, this change must not be equated with adoption of Western or American values.

To an American missionary the message of the Bible may be clear. At least an American understanding of it may be clear. “Missionaries are often unaware of the cultural biases of their own Western ways of doing theology, which have been influenced by a Greek world view that stresses highly rational systems of thought. But this emphasis on detailed systematic theologies is foreign to many societies.”8

This emphasis upon detailed theology at times is more than just foreign; American insistence upon definite and precise formulations of faith can be a source of cross-cultural conflict, especially in contexts or cultures that do not value precise formulations.9 Romania is a case in point, where Orthodox Romanians stress an apophatic theology (defining what God is not), rather than the precision and rationality of Western and especially Protestant theology.10

This Western desire for a precise, logical understanding of faith also derives from the 18th century European Enlightenment which stressed strictly empirical reasoning and logic. With this outlook came the conclusion that more intuitive, less systematic thinking patterns in non-Western cultures were not only illogical but inferior.11 Rather than interpreting Scripture from a single cultural, and thus limited, perspective, a biblical hermeneutic must begin with the Scriptures, which stand in judgment of all cultures, affirming that which is good and condemning that which is evil. Such a hermeneutic must proceed with a well-informed knowledge of both one’s own and others’ cultures.12

Enormous potential for cross-cultural conflict exists at this point. American evangelical missionaries passionately cherish the Bible, and second, their interpretation of it. At the same time, Romanian Evangelicals do not always read the Bible in amanner identical to the typical American evangelical missionary working in Romania. For instance, in many Romanian churches—unlike American evangelical churches—women keep their heads covered, remain silent in church, and do not wear jewelry, all with biblical precedents. Equating Western cultural behavior as automatically “Christian” behavior seriously undermines the witness of Western missionaries.13

An ethnocentric attitude of cultural superiority among American missionaries also emanates from the supposed experience and age of the evangelical churches in America compared to, for example, the relative youth of the evangelical church in Romania (Baptists since the mid-nineteenth century, Pentecostals since the 1920s) completely disregarding the fact that Christian churches existed in Romania more than 1,000 years before Europeans set foot on the North American continent. Related to this attitude is the paternalistic idea that in some sense the American evangelical church is the “mother” or sending church. Apart from the fact that even the evangelical church of Romania for the most part did not have historical ties to the American church, the Bible makes no distinction between “old” and “young” churches. Romania’s Baptist churches are the descendents of German, not American, missionaries. Likewise, its early Pentecostal churches are the result of other non-American missionaries. Nowhere in the New Testament are the churches of Palestine treated as separate entities, distinct from those of Asia Minor and Greece. “Nowhere is there any question of any authority which the older churches exercise over the younger. Throughout the entire New Testament the church is referred to as a living whole, a unity growing out of a single root, and built upon a single foundation.”14

The danger of this overly “protective” attitude of missionaries is well known. J. H. Bavinck gives common yet unfortunate results of this attitude of superiority. First, “the young church is kept artificially immature.” Second, “the missionary himself begins to consider himself indispensable to the work.”15 As missiologist Sherwood Lingenfelter aptly notes, “Missionaries all too often appear as benefactors rather than as servants. This attitude grows not from an inherent carnality but rather is derived from the position of economic power that they so often have in relation to their national co-workers.”16

Western paternalism often is reinforced by the sometimes intense desire of Romanian Evangelicals to adopt Western church practices. Although other factors such as financial gain can come into play, uncritical acceptance of all things Western can also be seen in the tendency of some younger Romanian churches to adopt all things that might be considered characteristically American: its evangelical music and choruses, printed church bulletins, use of overhead projectors, sermon summaries, and the promotion of small group fellowships. As far as these cultural practices are helpful and meaningful in Romanian churches, they are fine. But are they always helpful?17 Should churches, instead, be planted that look and feel more Orthodox and less American? Or something different? These are questions for Romanian believers themselves to answer.

Of course, Romanians, as well as Americans, suffer from bouts of ethnocentrism. Romanian Evangelicals generally are unaware of the broader historical and cultural influences upon them. They tend to view their total way of life as biblical and also indigenously Romanian rather than as indebted to any foreign influence. Years ago a fellow missionary related to me a conversation he had had with a Romanian believer about the hymns sung in church. My colleague asked if the translations of the hymns they sang “sounded Romanian.” The Romanian stated that of course they did. They were all Romanian melodies, including that famous Romanian hymn, “A Mighty Fortress is Our God,” written by that famous Romanian song writer, Martin Luther.

Overcoming Ethnocentrism

An objective study of culture can at least raise one’s awareness of one’s own cultural traits and distinctives. Besides the limited gains from a textbook study of anthropology, the process of actual cross-cultural living itself can often assist in helping one to develop a better understanding of another culture.18 As for cross-cultural conflicts, understanding the other person allows one to recognize, for example, that what appears to be offensive behavior by a person from the “other side” may not be intended to offend, nor considered offensive in that person’s culture. Once the parties in a cross-cultural “incident” understand that no one meant to offend, misunderstanding can be avoided. Particular behaviors may still strike one side as wrong, rude, or unnatural, but chances are they will no longer judge the other culture quite so harshly.19

Some very simple and practical advice for gaining a better understanding of other cultures was given in the 1950s by Coptic Bishop Antonios Marcos regarding his church’s mission in sub-Saharan Africa. The cross-cultural principles he taught follow:

• Listen well and observe carefully before drawing any conclusions.

• Understand the mind of the people and their way of thinking before doing anything that may conflict with their customs and belief. This will avoid initial rejection.

• Learn their language. You will thus win hearts because people’s tongues are very dear to them.20

One’s Own Culture

One reason for the importance of knowing one’s own cultural assumptions is the fact that culture creates unconscious blinders that hinder one’s ability to understand another culture and value system objectively. The simple fact is that people do not act “naturally,” that is, in accordance with a universal value system, but in accordance with the cultural assumptions they have learned since childhood.21

That is not to say that one must abandon biblical principles or absolutes in the name of cultural relativity. But it is necessary to learn to adapt to new and different ways of perceiving reality and to realize one’s own cultural biases.22 These two abilities are very difficult to learn without understanding one’s own culture. “Once we have an understanding of who we are,” then it is possible to “investigate the values of others.”23 Nothing is wrong with having been brought up in a particular Christian context, whether American or otherwise. What is important is to realize and remember that context is local and not universal.24 F

Notes:

1 Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 251.

2 “Telling Stories: Contextualization and American

Report Missiology” in Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassu Dialogue, ed. by William D. Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 377.

3 Craig Storti, The Art of Crossing Cultures (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1995), 14.

4 For a website devoted exclusively to ethnocentrism see: www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/html. 5 “Let X=X: Generation X and World Missions” in Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassu Dialogue, ed. by William D. Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000). Richard Tiplady is president of International Christian College, Glasgow, Scotland.

6 J. H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterean & Reformed, 1960), 133.

7 Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 12.

8 Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 214.

9 Ibid.

10 Particularly helpful in understanding the concept of apophatic theology are Vladimir Lossky, “The Divine Darkness,” Chapter 2 in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976); Vladimir Lossky, “The Negative and the Positive Way,” Chapter 1, Section 2 in Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994); Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994); and Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 56.

11 Nida, Customs and Cultures, 6.

12 An excellent critique of Western theology and its deficiencies is found in Reginald Bibby, Fragmented Gods (Toronto: Irwin, 1987).

13 S. A. Grunlan and M. K. Mayers, Cultural Anthropology: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 56

14 Bavinck, Introduction to the Science of Missions, 192.

15 Ibid., 197.

16 Lingenfelter, Transforming Culture, 144.

17 Bavinck, Introduction to the Science of Missions, 105, 188, and 178.

18 Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 445-46.

19 Craig Storti, Americans at Work: A Guide to the Can-Do People (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 2004), 3-4.

20 Francis Omondi, “Coptic Community, Spirituality, and Mission” in Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassu Dialogue, ed. by William D. Taylor (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 512.

21 C. M. Arensberg and A. H. Niehoff, eds., Introducing Social Change: A Manual for Community Development, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Aldine, 1971), 208; Serena Nanda, Cultural Anthropology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), 27-28.

22 Marvin K. Mayers, Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Cross-Cultural Evangelism, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 241; David J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meaning, Methods, and Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 34.

23 Sherwood G. Lingenfelter and Marvin Keene Mayers, Ministering Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), 119.

24 Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), 235.

Edited excerpts published with permission from Andrew LaBreche, “Ethnocentrism. U.S.-American Evangelical Missionaries in Romania: Qualitative Missiological Research into Representative Cross-Cultural Value Based Conflicts,” Ph.D. dissertation, Evangelical Theological Faculty of Leuven, Belgium, 2007. Additional excerpts from this dissertation will be published in future issues of the East West Church and Ministry Report.

Details

Volume 18, No. 4

 Selected East European Cultural Figures