In the 1800s, most missionaries who worked in the Muslim world worked among the ethnic Christians of the region. The theory was if these spiritually-dead ‘Christian’ communities were reawakened and genuinely came to faith in Jesus, then the gospel would flow from them and penetrate the majority Muslim community. Sadly, this compelling theory proved to be completely wrong. The historic animosity and barriers between the minority Christians and the majority Muslims instead prevented the gospel and church plants from flowing from one community into the other. This was true even though the minority community was fluent both in their native Christian languages (Armenian, Syriac, etc.) and in the language of the Muslim majority (Persian, Turkish, Arabic). There were encouraging exceptions now and then, but largely, the original theory was based on a wrong assumption, that missionary engagement with a minority language group would lead to the majority language group also being reached.
Today, a kind of reversal of this story is taking place. Many are assuming that our unengaged minority people groups can be reached by missionaries focusing on the majority language groups.
Specifically, the unengaged people groups of our region keep getting passed over by both large organizations who want to ‘maximize their impact’ as well as by the small number of specialized missionaries explicitly trained to learn two languages in order to church plant among such minority groups. On paper, it makes sense. Most, if not all, of the members of our area’s minority language groups can clearly understand the gospel in one of the more dominant regional languages. This is because they have grown up as minorities needing to be fluent in a national or regional language in order to go to school, do business, and navigate government processes. Were someone from these minority groups to come to faith, the thought is that they could then join a church that worships in one of the majority languages that they know.
With this kind of bilingualism or trilingualism being the long-term situation on the ground, our minority language groups get categorized as having access to the gospel – and therefore not as urgently in need of missionaries as those minority groups that cannot clearly understand the gospel in the languages of their neighbors. There is a clear logic to this ‘triage of lostness’ that I do not completely disagree with. Those who can understand the gospel in another language because they are bilingual or trilingual are not in the same situation as those who cannot currently hear the gospel in any language they can understand.
However, I believe there is a faulty assumption that comes along with this valid distinction. And that assumption is that because the minority group can speak the majority language(s), the gospel and even church plants will then actually flow from the majority group and into the minority communities. Essentially, the assumption is that fluency or near-fluency in a dominant language means the primary barrier to the gospel for these minority groups has been removed. So, if missionaries are present planting churches in the majority language, then the outworking of this assumption is that this is sufficient for passing over these minority language groups. They will be reached, eventually, through the dominant languages.
It’s a sound theory, but alas, it doesn’t hold up on the ground. At least not in our corner of Central Asia. I wish this weren’t the case. But we must work with the lost as they are, and not with the lost as we wish they would be, nor as we thought they would be back when we were in training.
Unfortunately, the witness of decades of gospel work here has shown that apparent access to the gospel through majority languages itself doesn’t remove the necessary barriers keeping churches from taking root among these minority groups. It removes one barrier, yes, but there are apparently other barriers in place that keep the gospel from penetrating these minority groups in a significant way. This means that the ability to clearly understand the gospel in a majority language should not be used as the only or primary filter for considering whether certain groups should receive missionaries who learn their language or not.
What will it take to reach these minority groups? The same thing it has taken to plant churches among our focus people group (itself a minority group in its country, but big enough to be a dominant language group compared to these smaller language communities I’m discussing). What is needed is a long-term commitment to engage a people group in the language that is closest to its identity. This helps answer the objection that some of these groups are functioning as if they have two heart languages. Sure, they may be fluent in two or three languages. But only one of them bears their name. And for most of these members of minority language groups, the language that bears their name is still the language they dream in, talk to their spouse in, curse in, and pray desperate prayers in.
The missionary who does the hard thing and learns that tongue (often in addition to learning one of the majority languages – probably 6-8 years of labor) will find himself doing ministry with greater power, skill, and trust than were he to simply do ministry in the majority language. Yes, to learn someone’s mother tongue when no one from the outside has ever learned it before gives you serious power in conversation, and I use that term intentionally. This is a natural power in communication that the Spirit can then also infuse with spiritual power when he sees fit. If you have ever learned even a phrase or two in a minority tongue then you know what I am talking about (or if you’ve ever been stuck in a foreign land and experienced the immense relief that comes over you when someone addresses you in good English). Along with power comes skill, the ability to speak clearly and compellingly in the intimate language a person uses with their parents, their lover, and their children. And with all of this comes trust. After all, by learning this tongue no one else will take the time to learn you have led with an incredible display of honor, respect, even love – and that for a language that is usually ignored, suppressed, or mocked. The locals will come to trust you and share their secrets with you in a different way than if your relationship was only in the majority language. You have learned their heart language, so they’re more likely to entrust their heart to you. This is simply the way humans work.
So, what are the barriers preventing the gospel from naturally flowing from our majority language groups to our minority language groups? Well, as we’ve established already, it’s not the lack of a shared language. The minority groups are fluent in the majority languages. Rather, there seems to be a complex web of factors that prevent our good theory from working in reality, that prevent the gospel and churches from taking root in these communities. These interlocking barriers would be things like majority-minority identity preservation, distrust and animosity between communities, and the fact that seeing a church in your neighbor’s language and culture might not actually convince you that this Jesus thing is actually an option for people like you.
If none of your ancestors have ever believed in Jesus, then this last barrier often requires a peculiar kind of demonstration. Often, it requires a Jesus follower from the outside entering into your language and culture and awkwardly attempting to model all this for you. “God knows your language and he knows and loves your people, my friend,” they will try to tell you in your mother tongue, while probably butchering the grammar of that sentence. This, believe it or not, can have a similar effect to having witnessed some kind of miracle.
We may feel like we can cross minority language groups off the list if they can hear the gospel in the majority languages of their country. But at least for our area of Central Asia, this would be a tragic mistake. These groups have been bilingual or trilingual for hundreds of years and not lost their distinct ethnic and linguistic (and sometimes religious) identities. They aren’t going away anytime soon. And they aren’t being reached ‘downstream’ from the work being done in the majority languages. No, it’s going to take something much more proactive, intentional, and downright stubborn for churches to be planted among these minority groups.
We need gospel laborers. We need trailblazers. Those who are willing to question missiological laws and ask the hard questions about why solid theories aren’t actually proving true on the ground. Eight years of your life to learn two languages is totally worth it if it means churches planted among a language group that has never before had gospel witness in its own culture and tongue.
Unreached language groups can be reached. But the best way to do this is by preaching the gospel to them in their own language, not in the language of their more powerful neighbors. This is true even if they are bilingual and even if they say you don’t have to. Learn that unknown tongue. See what the Lord does with that sacrificial labor. It will be so hard. And it will be so worth it.
If you have been helped or encouraged by the content on this blog, would you consider supporting this writing and our family while we serve in Central Asia? You can do so here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
In 1799, Ward and Marshman arrived as teammates for William Carey. They quickly formed a local church together in the city of Serampore. Later, when Krishna Pal became the first local believer, he also joined this small church plant, eventually serving there as a deacon. The instinct of this pioneer missionary team was, first, that they themselves needed to be part of a local church even while they labored hard to reach the locals. No local church yet existed, so they formed one. Notice that they did not wait until a local came to faith to form a church. Nor did they set up some kind of parachurch structure for themselves for weekly worship while retaining their church memberships back in England.
Fast forward to today. A missionary team from Latin America serves in our region of Central Asia. Before they were kicked out and moved to our current city, they served several years in a difficult and conservative town up in the mountains. During their time there, they asked their organization to send them a Spanish-speaking pastor who would live in their city and provide pastoral care for their families. This team, like those in Serampore 225 years ago, instinctually pursued a local church structure for themselves (an in-person pastor, though not a full fledged church), even while they labored hard to reach the locals and plant churches among them.
I point out the instincts of these Serampore and Latino teams because they are not the instincts of your average Western missionary on the field today. Rather than forming a local church for themselves or joining one, the most common approach of today’s Western missionary is to bypass local church in favor of what I’ll call Weekly Missionary Chapel.
The Blindspot
What is Weekly Missionary Chapel? Essentially, it is when a missionary team or missionaries from partner teams gather weekly to fellowship, pray, worship, and engage God’s word together through teaching, preaching, or group discussion. These missionaries most often retain their membership in their sending churches back home, so Weekly Missionary Chapel provides a vital place for their weekly in-person Christian encouragement. It is flexible, efficient, simple to pull off, easily reproducible, and can be done as long as necessary while missionaries remain on the field.
Sounds great, right? What could be wrong with busy missionaries gathering weekly for something encouraging and so quintessentially Christian like this? I myself had seasons of deep encouragement as a single on the field in this very kind of context. Well, as our locals say when they have to be the bearers of bad news, “chuffed by a pot of grape leaves ‘astuffed.” I’m convinced that the dominance of Weekly Missionary Chapel as a model for missionaries is actually doing a good deal of harm – and that it is one of the greatest blindspots of Western missionaries today.
This is, perhaps, a surprising claim. But what follows are nine dangers that I and a minority of other concerned missionaries see when our friends on the field bypass the local church in favor of Weekly Missionary Chapel.
1 – Weekly Missionary Chapel does not constitute a biblical church, even if it sometimes feels like one. Though Christians may differ on what exactly constitutes a local church according to the Bible, serious believers should agree that 1) there is a line somewhere that separates a group Bible study from a legit church, and 2) that line should be determined by the Bible. Missionaries are not always required to wrestle with the Bible’s ecclesiological minimum (the point at which the minimum ingredients are in place for a group to cross the line whereby it can biblically be called a church), but they should be. Especially if they are church planters. How are we going to start something healthy for the locals if we can’t even define it and name it according to the Bible ourselves?
Instead, far too many missionaries use the house churches of the New Testament to cover for the fact that they really can’t really define what a church is. “We do team worship because they did church in homes in the New Testament.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully convinced that contemporary house churches can be biblical churches. But to do this, they need to do more than gather weekly for fellowship, prayer, worship, and time in the Word. Rather, Christians have long held (and I agree) that the New Testament requires the right administration of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism to qualify as a local church, as well as some kind of sacred mutual identity, commitment, and accountability to one another (often summarized as covenant and membership).
There are central things that constitute the minimum for a group to be a church, and to be called such. It might not be a healthy or mature church yet, but once it has these core ingredients it can now appropriately make the linguistic shift from group to church. It might not have elders yet, it may not have missions yet, it may not have organized systems of giving or membership or discipline. But I believe it can legitimately be called a church if it has the characteristics of the newborn church in Acts 2 – word, prayer, fellowship, baptism, Lord’s supper, evangelism, discipleship, caring for members’ needs, and the necessary inside-outside distinction required to be and continue as an actual spiritual family – “the Lord added to their number day by day” (Acts 2:41-47).
Weekly Missionary Chapel, on the other hand, does not have some of the basic Acts 2 ingredients, the bare minimum necessary components to count as a local church. In particular, these weekly gatherings on the mission field often lack the Lord’s supper and baptism. And they almost always lack the sacred self-identity/mutual commitment piece. In fact, many are intentionally aiming not to be a local church.
When Weekly Missionary Chapel replaces the local church for missionaries, it’s not unlike a couple that decides to live together without getting married. Quite a few of the functions and benefits of marriage are there, but without the sacred commitment that comes along with real marriage as recognized by God. Something very important and honorable has been skipped. Sadly, Weekly Missionary Chapel is the kind of blindspot that causes the same evangelicals who plead with their relatives to get married rather than cohabitate to then themselves do something similar with the bride of Christ in their own mission field community.
This first danger is important to point out because there is no class of Christian who is justified in remaining voluntarily separate from the local church (Heb 10:25). But when missionaries attend Weekly Missionary Chapel long-term rather than forming or joining an actual local church, they are doing just that – ignoring a form of weekly obedience required of all believers everywhere, regardless of calling, gifting, or ministry. When it comes to the need to be united to the local church, missionaries often act like we are an exception to the rule. We are not. Whenever possible, we need to be joined to an actual local church. If one doesn’t exist, then, like William Carey and his team, we need to do that most basic of missionary activities and form one.
2 – Weekly Missionary Chapel does not model what locals should do. Whenever possible, missionaries should be visible examples for locals of faithful Christian living. This includes both how we live as individuals as well as how we live in community. But when missionaries sidestep the local church in favor of Weekly Missionary Chapel they find themselves in the awkward position of modeling one thing for the locals even while they try to train them to do something else.
Every aspect of biblical church missing from a given Weekly Missionary Chapel is another aspect of Christian life that the locals will not see modeled by their missionary mentors – if they are allowed to see anything at all (see more on this below). Without seeing it lived out, it’s far more difficult for locals to obey what they are being taught from the word. This is true even if the locals trust the missionaries so much that they are willing to do what they say, but not what they do.
The Bible is clear. Ministry by example is the norm for faithfulness to transfer from one generation of disciples to the next (Phil 3:17). If missionaries want the locals to be faithful members of local churches that then go on to plant other churches, then they should be modeling this themselves.
This modeling principle is so fundamental to missions that it’s hard to understand how this disconnect exists for so many missionaries. But exist it does, hence why I use ‘blindspot’ for this issue. Again, here it seems that we missionaries feel that we are in a special category and that we don’t need to consistently model on the field what we teach – at least when it comes to church.
3 – Weekly Missionary Chapel does not provide adequate pastoral care. In most Weekly Missionary Chapels, there is no team of pastors or elders. Instead, different missionaries share the leadership responsibilities for the different activities that take place. While a missionary may sign up to preach a sermon or to lead worship, or be part of a planning team, none of them view themselves or are viewed by others as the spiritual shepherds of the other missionaries who participate. If the team leader is put in that role, then this is another problem, one we’ll address below. In Weekly Missionary Chapel, the missionaries involved don’t tend to wrestle with the weight of having to give an account for souls entrusted to them. Instead, everyone participates as an individual believer. Yes, there is often voluntary spiritual care for one another that takes place, but there’s also plenty of room to stay out of messy investment in other expats because after all, “we didn’t come here for the foreigners.”
In addition to this, many missionaries are not wired and gifted to be pastors. Missionaries tend to be evangelists, visionaries, strategic thinkers, risk-takers, pioneers, and starters. These are amazing gifts, but they are not the gifts of a steady, long-term shepherd whose eyes are first for the sheep entrusted to him and only after that for the lost sheep scattered out on the mountainsides. Missionaries committed to Weekly Missionary Chapel usually have their eyes primarily on those lost sheep and not the other foreigners they worship with. This can change, and missionaries can at times serve as faithful pastors to one another, but it requires an intentional commitment and formal organization that most missionaries would rather not be burdened by. They feel that have enough ministry on their hands without this added load.
But what about getting pastoral care from the sending church? Missionaries might tell themselves that they can get adequate pastoral care via the internet from their pastors back home, but this is wishful thinking. While helpful as a backup, pastoring through a computer screen will never compare to the kind of life-on-life shepherding possible from a man who is called and gifted to pastor God’s people. Video calls are an amazing technology, but they should not replace face-to-face spiritual family.
Missionaries are still Christians. And Christians need to live under the care of pastors whenever possible. Missionaries show that they instinctively know this by submitting again to the leadership of in-person pastors whenever they’re on furlough, even if they tend to live differently while on the field. Once again, we missionaries assume that because this access to face-to-face pastoral care is sometimes not possible for us (in pioneer church planting situations or high security areas, for example), we have now become exceptions where we should avoid it even in the many places where it is possible. And even if we are willing to become temporary pastors for locals on the field, rare is the missionary who will be willing to do this for other foreigners.
4 – Weekly Missionary Chapel excludes outsiders along unbiblical lines. If you want to make many a missionary squirm, ask them if your local friend who is studying the Bible with you can participate in team worship this week. This is because many Weekly Missionary Chapels are closed meetings open only to a specific missionary team. In this case, membership in a team has become the qualification for the weekly gathering with God’s people. Others might be open only to those who work for the same NGO or who are part of a group of partner teams. Often, the stated or unstated rule is that this is a gathering only for the missionaries, not for the locals.
What exactly is the biblical basis for excluding other believers (or genuine seekers) from the weekly gathering of believers based on team, occupation, or ethnicity? If the answer is that Weekly Missionary Chapel is not a local church, then we are back to point one. Why are these missionaries not obeying Jesus by being part of a local church? If it is meant to be a church, then there must be a mechanism for welcoming in outsiders, even in the most security-sensitive areas. A church that will not welcome in other believers or genuine seekers is a mutant thing, like some kind of body grown in on itself. The New Testament knows of no such gatherings (1 Cor 14:23-24). But the mission field is full of them.
But what about the language differences and the need for locals to form their own churches? Language is indeed a valid reason to form separate churches. But often, Weekly Missionary Chapels remain a missionary-only affair long after those missionaries are proficient in the local tongue. What is the reason for this? It’s not language. And while the end goal is indeed for locals to form their own churches, then why if one does not exist is it the common default to leave the local isolated while the foreigners have their own encouraging weekly get-together without them? As our locals say, there’s a hair in that yogurt, something is off here.
5 – Weekly Missionary Chapel reinforces blindspots and lopsided gifting. I really enjoy hanging out with other missionaries because we have so much in common. Few people can understand where I’m coming from like another missionary. But that’s also the same reason why I don’t want to be in a church only made up of other missionaries, whenever possible. We think similarly, we live similarly, we even dress similarly (If you doubt this last point you need to start paying better attention in international airports. There is a demographic ‘uniform’ of sorts and once you see it you can’t unsee it).
The fact is, when I am in a room made up of only other missionaries, that is a room of lopsided gifting and shared blindspots. We may all love evangelism, but that might also mean we’re all weak in the kinds of gifts that make a good deacon. For every overlap in our strengths, there’s a corresponding overlap in our weaknesses. A normal local church balances out the gifts of the body (1 Cor 12). But a church made up of only missionaries is like a hand with 5 thumbs – something unnatural.
There is a reason so many missionaries on the field have no issues with doing Weekly Missionary Chapel for years on end without ever joining or forming a local church together. We all think alike. And this means we are handicapped in our ability to see our shared blindspots, let alone challenge them. Missionaries are great at seeing the blindspots of their home culture and the culture they’ve come to serve. But we have a very hard time seeing the blindspots of our own missionary culture. For our own spiritual health, then, we need to be members of local churches with those who are not like us.
6 – Weekly Missionary Chapel creates unhealthy systems of accountability. Say a missionary is having a tense disagreement with his team leader about a missions strategy decision. That is a team/work issue. But what happens when the team leader is also functioning as the undefined spiritual authority of the Weekly Missionary Chapel and seeks to make it a spiritual church-ish issue also? And what if the missionary has retained his membership in his sending church back home and his pastors back there disagree with the team leader’s call?
It’s easy to see how quickly the complex lines of authority that every missionary deals with get even more muddled when there is not a healthy distinction between team and church, employment and church membership. Weekly Missionary Chapel departs from the clearer lines of spiritual authority that are present when a believer is a member of a local church. It introduces vague and therefore unhealthy overlapping systems of accountability between missionaries on the field.
This all means that missionaries and organizations on the field are prone to overstep their spiritual authority – and to do so in inconsistent and unpredictable ways – because Weekly Missionary Chapel creates a vacuum of clear spiritual leadership. By refusing to become an actual local church, the Weekly Missionary Chapel has set itself up for lots of messy and muddled conflicts.
7 – Weekly Missionary Chapel leads to conflict on the field. Building on the previous point, Weekly Missionary Chapel contributes to the stunning amount of hurtful conflicts between missionaries on the field. I continue to be amazed at the kinds of fallings-out that missionaries have with one another. Part of this is spiritual warfare – but part of it is also a structural issue.
By opting for Weekly Missionary Chapel, missionaries are trying to be everything for one another. And no matter how healthy our little team or network of missionaries is, it’s not a strong enough structure to take that kind of pressure. Missionaries are coworkers with one another and professionally accountable and dependent on one another. But we are often also one another’s functional family and friend group while on the field. We do holidays and birthdays together and are ‘aunts’ and ‘uncles’ for one another’s kids. Add to this that we are often colleagues working together at a platform – English teaching or medical professionals, for example. Then we want to add that we should be church for one another, but without the strength of any kind of covenant commitment. This is a recipe for disaster.
A stronger, clearer, and frankly, larger structure is needed to handle the enormous amounts of pressure and stress that missionaries live with. When missionaries join local churches, then this broader and more diverse community can help bear their burdens far better than a Weekly Missionary Chapel. Many of us missionaries know the value of friendships with other missionaries who are not with our own organization, how this kind of relationship can be a vital pressure-release valve. What we don’t realize is that the local church can do an even better job of this. Weekly Missionary Chapel, on the other hand, cannot take the pressure. With its overwhelming degree of overlap and its lack of covenant commitment to one another, it’s simply not strong enough. The conflicts of an intense life-on-life ‘marriage’ of sorts are there, but none of the promises. No wonder messy break-ups keep happening.
8 – Weekly Missionary Chapel prioritizes short-term efficiency over long-term effectiveness. There are times when our choices as Westerners expose our underlying worldview and culture, when we bend over to do some heavy lifting and the metaphorical underpants start showing. This is very much the case when Western missionaries choose Weekly Missionary Chapel over joining or forming a local church. Western missionaries are nothing if not goal-oriented, efficiency-loving, time-saving, project-accomplishing ninjas. This is why we’re so busy. It’s also why so many locals on the field feel like they are our projects, rather than our friends. This cultural wiring comes with some real upsides, but the downsides and blindspots are very real also.
Sadly, this mission-driven part of our wiring sometimes causes us to bypass crucially important things when we feel they take up too much time. This is often what is going on with Weekly Missionary Chapel. Missionaries have an enormous task on their hands that includes language learning, local relationships, government red tape, and the messiness of trying to plant local churches. Their time is precious. So, in order to protect their effectiveness to reach their goals, they cut out meaningful membership in a local church. Weekly Missionary Chapel, on the other hand, asks very little of the missionary. It feels like a far more efficient structure in a season where there’s not enough time and relational capacity to go around.
Weekly Missionary Chapel promises to protect the missionary’s laser-focus on his task by not asking him to be a part of members meetings, by not asking him to build relationships with other believers not connected to his goal, and by not asking him to serve in children’s church. The assumption is that these are all good things for normal Christians, but for the missionary they are distractions keeping him back from his higher calling.
The problem is many missionaries don’t understand that the slower path of meaningful investment in a local church while on the field actually leads to greater long-term effectiveness. We will be more effective long-term because we are not bypassing the Lord’s means of grace for his people, the weekly assembly full of diverse brothers and sisters. We will be more effective long-term because we will be modeling and living that faithfulness is not just about the end, but about themeans as well. We will be more effective because our posture will be one of continually honoring the bride of Christ, even when it’s costly. And we will be more effective because God will always honor that investment in his bride in unexpected and delightful ways.
Right now my family is building a friendship with a family from Zimbabwe that are members at the international church. They are here because the husband is an accountant and we’ve hit it off in part because our kids are becoming such good friends. At this point, I have no idea how investing in this friendship will come back around to help our work with Central Asians. But I trust that, somehow, it will. It would not be unlike God at all to use my African brother the accountant to unlock the key to breakthrough here.
9 – Weekly Missionary Chapel is often cloaked in a false belief that Westerners contaminate Indigenous churches.I’ve written about this in detail before, so here I’ll just summarize. Many missionaries feel they should not do church with the locals because by their very presence they will contaminate everything and ruin the possibility of contextual multiplying churches. In fact, these fears are an over-reaction that comes out of our unique position as Westerners in a post-Colonial world. It sounds and feels humble, but this posture actually prevents the Westerner from doing the kind of direct ministry by example that is so needed by his local friends – and that is commanded in the Bible.
We need to watch out for how our fears and the right goal of planting indigenous multiplying churches can serve as a smokescreen for sidestepping the local church.
The Lord Will Provide
Like Carey, Ward, and Marshman in 1899, our instinct should be to form or join a local church as soon as we can on the mission field. The choice of so many to do Weekly Missionary Chapel instead is not a neutral decision. It’s causing harm, both to missionaries and to the locals they are seeking to reach. It’s time we raise the alarm and help the global missionary community be able to see this pervasive blindspot.
Weekly Missionary Chapel may not be a local church, but it can very easily become one. All it requires is some biblical clarity, some intentionality, and some investment. Yes, investment is necessary, both on the front end and for the long-term, whether forming a new church out of our missionary team or joining a local church that already exists. But don’t be afraid of that. God will provide whatever resources you feel you don’t have so that you are able to honor and invest in his church.
Dear brothers and sisters on the mission field, you have risked so much for the sake of Jesus’ name among the nations. Now, do it again. Leave the seemingly-safe investment in Weekly Missionary Chapel and instead risk again by starting or joining a local church. Trust the great rewarder with whatever costs you incur. And then see what he does for those who risk for his bride.
If you have been helped or encouraged by the content on this blog, would you consider supporting this writing and our family while we serve in Central Asia? You can do so here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
One month into our return to Central Asia and we’re still able to see some of those things that are quite different from living in the US. This ability will not last forever. Day by day our senses register everything around us the new normal and we stop noticing the differences almost altogether. That is, until some member of a short-term team points them out to us.
One of the things that has jumped out at me recently is the variety of things that block the streets here in our corner of Central Asia that you’d be hard-pressed to ever encounter on a major road in an American community. But for our new/old location of Caravan City, these things are actually quite normal. So, without further ado, I present The Things That Block the Streets.
Winter kerosene distribution. The other day I was driving to the park when I noticed that the road up ahead was completely blocked by a crowd of men waiting with pickup trucks, motorcycle carts, and metal barrels. Eventually, when a large smelly tanker pulled up, I realized what was going on. The crowd was waiting for the annual government kerosene distribution. For several decades now, many local families have relied on the government to provide them with one barrel of fuel for their kerosene heaters that is meant to last them through the coming winter. This is viewed locally almost like a human right, especially for those who are poor or working class, something that no legitimate government should ever ignore. After all, in an oil-rich country, why should anyone not be able to afford some basic kerosene heating? It’s important enough to the civil servants and the citizens that the routes of daily commuters are of no concern when it’s time to distribute this year’s winter fuel. Time until road is open: an hour or two.
Funeral tents. Countless times we’ve been driving through neighborhood streets when we make a turn and are suddenly faced by a large black tent that spans the width of the street, packed on the inside with stackable plastic chairs. This means someone who lived on that street has just passed away. For several days, the street now belongs to the funeral tent and its constant traffic of friends, neighbors, and relatives coming to sit and pay their respects and listen to a Mullah-for-hire occasionally chant the Qur’an. You are welcome to enter the tent on foot and participate in the funeral ritual, but there is no way your car is getting through. Time until road is open: three or four days.
Election time vehicle parade mobs. Our region’s parliament is holding elections soon and I narrowly avoided getting sucked into one of these metal mobs just the other night. You’ve probably seen images or videos of Trump vehicle convoys in the US. Well, put that on steroids. And instead of a single line of pickup trucks, picture instead a multitude of all kinds of vehicles, with people hanging out the window, waving flags, and honking horns, taking up the entire width of the street. Sometimes they camp out in one spot as they celebrate and try to outdo the other vehicle parades in their enthusiasm. One year we got stuck in one of these for two hours. Time until road is open: fifteen minutes to two hours.
Spontaneous lane creation. Lanes painted on the road are optional recommendations here. Especially when traffic is heavy, three lanes may suddenly turn into six as all the local drivers try to inch ahead with margins that make any Western visitors deeply distraught. This usually works out, amazingly, without anyone’s car scraping along the side of someone else’s. But occasionally the locals do get just a little too aggressive in their spontaneous lane creation and the whole thing ends up one big traffic knot. Thankfully, locals – who really are quite gifted drivers in tight spaces – can usually undo this knot without too much trouble. Time until road is open: five to fifteen minutes.
Herds of sheep, goats, cows, or geese. This one is more common on the outskirts of the city or while driving through smaller towns or village areas. Turns out shepherds and cowherds are quite patient people, which is no doubt a good characteristic for their line of work. But this also means they’re in no hurry to get their livestock across the road and happy to let their herd saunter past the growing line of vehicles on either side. Time until road is open: two to five minutes.
Protests. Government not paying your salary on time? Receiving even less electricity than usual? Take to the streets! This is more common in Poet City or in village areas than here in Caravan City, where the locals are more submissive. And of all the things that block the streets, this one is the most dangerous. Not because the protestors themselves are violent – but because the government response might be. It’s not uncommon for tear gas canisters and even bullets to begin flying when a decent-sized protest is blocking the road, so our policy has long been to stay as far away from protests as possible. Time until road is open: depends on how quickly the trucks full of men with AK-47s arrive, but usually an hour or so.
We’ve learned that there is no wisdom in fighting against these things that block the streets. These blockages and delays are simply part of what it means to be a driver in our corner of Central Asia. The best response is to relax, trust God, and to try to find a way around. Or, to turn off your engine and settle in for a good conversation. Who knows? You may even have time to get out of your car, drink a quick shot of chai, and buy some sunflower seeds for munching while you continue to wait in your vehicle. You may have planned your day and your route like a Westerner, but you are in Central Asia now. The things that block the road come with the territory. Rest in God’s plan to make you more patient and maybe even more Central Asian. And eat those sunflower seeds. Seriously, the seeds really do help.
If you would like to help us purchase a vehicle for our family as we serve in Central Asia (only 2k currently needed!), you can reach out here.
Our kids’ Christian school here in Central Asia has an immediate need for a teacher for the combined 2nd and 3rd grade class. An education degree and some experience is required, but the position is salaried, not requiring support raising. If interested, reach out here!
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
“I’m worried about us local believers,” a new local friend said to me yesterday as we sat in a cafe dating back to the 1880s, sipping a brew made from wild tree nuts.
“We don’t know how to be steady. We are concerned with so many things and get upset so quickly and leave the church.”
“That’s not too unusual for new believers,” I responded. “And it points to one way the foreigners can help in this season. We model stability until, slowly-slowly, the local believers can also become stable.”
The ironic thing is that missionaries are some of the least stable and most transient people I know, at least in terms of physical presence. We move constantly. We take a lot of trips in and out of the country. We get uprooted by family needs or leadership gaps or security crises. At first glance, we may seem to make poor examples of being “steadfast, immovable.”
And yet one of the most important roles for missionaries in places like Central Asia is that of the stabilizer. We may be familiar with the concept of a foreign agitator, some kind of spy whose presence is meant to stir up discontent and division among the locals. Well, when it comes to our posture among the local believers, I am more and more convinced that we are to be foreign stabilizers – especially in terms of spiritual stability. To put it in terms of being on a journey, when surrounded by our younger brothers and sisters who want to sprint, grumble, fight, go off trail, give up, or go back, we simply keep plodding and modeling the “long obedience in the same direction.” We are, or should be, a lot like faithful, stubborn turtles.
When it comes to the believers from our particular region, there really is for a good many years a restlessness, a spiritual and emotional flailing around, a great struggle with steady commitment and contentment. Many stumble over the simplicity and repetitive, quiet nature of true spiritual growth, whether that’s the growth of an individual or that of a local church. Like adults with traumatic childhoods, some internal part of them tends to freak out and go on the attack when finally offered true stability – even when that’s what they most desperately long for and need.
Now, add into this mix Westerners’ expectations of speed and results and their fear of wielding spiritual authority and you get one very destructive brew. The very last thing my local friends need is a foreign missionary who himself is restless because he’s overcome by the immensity of the lostness, or, who is terrified of ‘contaminating’ the locals with his culture. Or, even worse, those willing to turn to money to catalyze some kind of ‘movement’ because they’re doing the math and realize unhappily that at the rate of fifteen believers after five years they won’t ever reach their goal of one million believers they’d set back when they were fundraising in America.
No, what will truly serve my local friends is if we set our course for faithfulness – and simply keep going whether they join us or not. In order to really help them, we must be honest appraisers of the lack of stability that is currently there, while at the same time being incredibly hopeful about the fact that Jesus really will eventually create the needed spiritual steadfastness in them. We must not depend on them when it comes to our own initial role of modeling faithfulness and healthy church, while also constantly reminding them that it is our heart’s desire that someday we will depend on them completely. We must ourselves be the stable core of the local church plant that will, Lord-willing, one day, fully thrive without us.
This kind of posture may be offensive to other missionaries. After all, it places the foreigner at the visible beating center of the work, sometimes for a good long time. In the short run, it may draw accusations of paternalism or building one’s own kingdom or not trusting the Spirit. But if the missionary takes on this role of foreign stabilizer for the sake of loving his currently unstable brothers and sisters, then time will show that this kind of foreigner-leading-by-example-as-long-as-it-takes model is actually the one that best raises up locals in the long-run. Missionaries are afraid to take charge like this because it looks bad. But good missions work should always be less concerned with optics and more concerned with what’s actually most loving for others.
This sort of model is not without its dangers, of course. But the alternative – attempting to stay in the background and using salaries to prop up locals prematurely – is far, far more dangerous. Ministry salaries follow spiritual and emotional maturity. They cannot create it.
The traditional analogy for missionaries is that we are like scaffolding – temporary, only present until the permanent structure of the indigenous Church can be built. This is a great analogy in many ways. But at least for our context, its focus on external support doesn’t communicate well the necessity of the missionary’s central stabilizing role. A better analogy might be that the missionary is like some kind of planet orbiting a star that by nature of its own gravity pulls other renegade space rocks and moons into, first, its own orbit, and then eventually into that of its sun. I’m not very good at science illustrations, so if this would never happen in the real universe, you’ll have to forgive me. But I think you see my point.
I don’t presume that every unreached context will need the same thing. Due to differences in how common grace has been dispersed, some people groups will not have the same kind of radical spiritual instability that ours do. But I do presume that there are other contexts out there a lot like ours, where missionaries have been told they are not supposed to be front and center, that this would be taking a step backward as it were, who are now confused because being the stable center seems to be the most loving and effective way forward.
If this is you, then my encouragement would be to forget what it looks like. Love your local friends by being the stable example they need. Teach, preach, lead, counsel, worship, rebuke, gather, host, visit – do the work of the ministry in a steadfast, immovable fashion. Your local friends can eventually ‘catch’ Christian stability by observing you. So, be the kind of steady believer they have never seen before. Be an example, and thereby, a foreign stabilizer.
If you would like to help us purchase a vehicle for our family as we serve in Central Asia (8k currently needed), you can reach out here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
I just learned this one this week and I’m so glad I did. Allegedly, it’s a saying all our locals know well. However, it does require some explanation.
In our Central Asian culture, there are a lot of honorable and repeated refusals of generous offers of hospitality. Now, when these offers are made in the honorable-hypothetical way, turning down an invitation is exactly what you are supposed to do. But when it’s a genuine offer from a friend, something clearly good and helpful, or something you would simply be foolish to refuse, that’s when this saying comes out.
The logic of this saying is that, given the choice, everyone would rather sit and eat sweet juicy melons than go out into the heat of the late summer fields and pick them. A clearer way to phrase these sentiments in English might be, “Are you actually choosing to go out and harvest melons when I’m offering to serve them to you? I’ve already done the work. Why are you denying yourself something good that I’m clearly ready to bless you with?”
There are times when self-denial and refusing others’ service or help is good, right, and noble. And then there are times when it’s just silly – or even a form of pride. True humility not only avoids taking advantage of others’ hospitality and generosity but is also willing to receive it. Sometimes we need to swallow our pride and just enjoy that good gift that is being genuinely extended to us.
I can easily picture a Central Asian mama, hands on her hips, scolding her brother who’s come for a visit, but is for some reason refusing to sit and take a minute to rest.
“Don’t be dumb. It’s 111 degrees outside. Sit and eat some cold melon for a minute.”
While this is a more informal proverb, I’m curious if it might also work for those who object that the free gift of salvation in Jesus is simply way too easy. Many here feel that salvation through faith in God’s promises is not a difficult enough road for them. They would rather walk the anxiety-ridden path of works righteousness than rest in the free gift of salvation being offered them in Jesus. Why? Because the gift is all of grace – and therefore it means they can’t feel proud of themselves for having earned it.
Don’t be a melon picker. Be a melon eater. Receive the good gifts of God.
If you would like to help us afford a solid set of wheels for driving around our corner of Central Asia (11k needed), you can reach out here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
One glaring difference from one culture to another is how locals feel free or not to comment on various aspects of your physical appearance.
“You are looking a little fuller!” said one of our local friends, a former language tutor, when he saw my wife and I again the other day.
“Maybe you enjoyed a lot of Chick-Fil-A!” he laughed. Suddenly, he caught himself, remembering that he was talking to Americans.
“I mean… for us… this is a good thing. You know what our people say? Skinny people are useless! Ha!”
It’s true. Our almost two years of recuperating in the US did what my freshman year of college and all subsequent years had failed to do – provide me with an extra 15 pounds or so. Forget the freshman fifteen, this is the furlough fifteen, the kind of thing we MKs in Melanesian knew to expect anytime one of our adult ‘uncles’ or ‘aunts’ got back from furlough. It’s nigh impossible for an adult to move back to the West without it affecting their BMI. I think this has something to do with the paucity and price of fresh produce in the US, combined with the lack of the constant stomach issues that come from living in a foreign context.
More processed food + less diarrhea = a little bit more dad bod.
“Don’t worry,” my wife and I often said to one another during our long medical leave in the US. “Once we move back to Central Asia, we’ll get sick enough to lose whatever we’ve gained.”
Either that or we’ll just sweat it off. This week had days up to 111 degrees Fahrenheit. As the locals say, Mud of the world upon my head. Summer is not letting us go just yet.
On the other hand, there is a case to be made that a mid-thirties body that is healthy and not constantly racked by stress is a body that feels free to put on a reasonable layer of warmth for the coming winter. In that case, we’ll gladly take the fifteen if it’s a sign that we’re actually in a better place than we were two years ago. I think this is likely true of my wife. Mine, however, is much more likely to be the result of too many late night American snacks.
On the bright side, at least locals will think I’m a little less useless now. And they will stop judging my wife so much.
“Why is your husband so skinny?! Don’t you feed him enough?!”
Then there was the taxi driver the other day who told me I look like a Nazi. Yep, first time I’ve ever got that one.
“You look German!” he proclaimed to me, despite my black-brown hair and dark brown eyes.
“Like the Nazis!” he continued, “They were really great, weren’t they?”
“Um,” I countered, “No, they were really bad actually. They killed lots of innocent people.”
“They were against the Jews. That’s why they were great.”
By saying this, this taxi driver outed himself as more Islamic. In fact, our people group is quite divided when it comes to their opinions about Jews and Israel. The more nationalist and secular, the more pro-Jewish they are. The more Islami, well, the more they like the Nazis.
“No,” I countered, “They were against everyone who didn’t submit to their philosophy. Not just Jews, but Muslims also, and Christians too. Any pastor who openly opposed them was arrested. And some were even executed.”
Here I was thinking of men like Bonhoeffer, whom my kids had recently been introduced to through a good audiobook.
The driver then pivoted the conversation to the failure of the leaders of his own people, much more fertile ground for conversation than discussing his admiration of Hitler (a disturbing trait among some of our locals that only comes out by prayer and fasting and the new birth).
“I look like a Nazi?!” I asked my wife as we got into the elevator, hands full with our bags of groceries. She just laughed at me.
“At least you’re a little less useless now.”
“Let’s hope so!”
I certainly don’t mind looking a little less useless. But I do hope to not look like a fascist, if at all possible. Mud of the world upon my head…
If you would like to help us afford a solid set of wheels for driving around our corner of Central Asia (11k needed), you can reach out here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
Try as I might, I simply cannot enjoy the taste of cooked peas. I like pea soup. I like snap peas. I like those dehydrated pea pods that are allegedly a healthier option than potato chips. But there’s just something about the taste of cooked green peas that makes my tastebuds twang and my body shudder.
This, in spite of the fact that I am, if anything, tooconvictional about the importance of being able to enjoy every good edible gift that God has given for our sustenance. When my kids call a certain food disgusting there is a part of my soul that registers that as a major problem and a worrying portent of a less joyful future for them. My wife, thankfully, is always on hand to remind me that disliking certain foods is quite normal and not something that always needs to be addressed as if it’s a great injustice against the Creator and against us, the vice-regent parentals he has appointed for these particular offspring.
Yes, the humble cooked pea reminds me that even when we have tried our best, the freedom to enjoy something is, at the end of the day, a gift from God. In this fallen world, we simply cannot always bring our bodies to enjoy everything that is, in fact, made for our enjoyment. There will always be some things that are fundamentally good that our bodies will register as bad, that we just won’t like. Sometimes we can change this. Often, we can’t.
When it comes to missionaries enjoying the local culture of their people group, these dynamics are also present. Missionaries are only partially responsible for their ability to enjoy the good parts of the local culture. But much of that ability is simply the mysterious gift of God.
It’s a grace and a help when a missionary is able to enjoy the good aspects of the local culture. Missionaries labor in what some studies have shown to be the most stress-inducing roles on the planet. Along with the normal troubles of life and ministry, they must also constantly reject and navigate the dark, twisted parts of a foreign culture – and there’s often much of this in a place that’s been cut off from God’s word and his people from time immemorial. These dark and distressing parts of culture are present in all kinds of unreached contexts and seem to be especially highlighted in isolated, tribal cultures.
Yet every culture retains aspects that still, somehow, beautifully reflect the image of God. These might be the outer layers of the culture, things like food and clothing and customs. They might be the inner layers, things like values and preferences and what is understood to be real. These are the aspects of the culture that point back to a good creation in the beginning and point forward to the strengths of the future Indigenous church. These parts of the culture are worthy of delight, even if they are significantly different from the good parts of the native culture of the missionary. When a missionary is able to delight in them, his life and work will be easier. When he’s not, it’s an extra burden that he must carry.
Now, I’m persuaded that missionaries should earnestly seek to appreciate and even enjoy the good in their focus culture. I believe that the effort to do this is the natural outworking of mature missionary love and humility. If a missionary does not even try to taste and see the goodness of a culture that is, for example, more people-oriented than time-oriented, then something is likely going wrong at the level of the heart.
But I also concede that this mature posture and effort of a given missionary may not produce the desired result. A missionary may try his hardest to enjoy the local music or local cuisine and, after years, still find himself barely able to keep it down. They may labor to know and understand the upsides of impromptu house visits, but still only feel them as incredibly stressful intrusions. When this happens, a missionary has come up against the wall of God’s mysterious sovereignty as it applies to our freedom or lack thereof to enjoy his good gifts.
This is why you need to pray for your missionaries to be able to enjoy the local culture. Because a significant part of their ability to do this is not in their hands at all, but in God’s. I have a good friend who served in a neighboring country in Central Asia. This friend, a godly brother, simply hated tea, yogurt, and olives – all major staples of his region’s diet. He tried his best, but nothing he did could change these preferences. On the other hand, I have known missionaries who were strangely drawn to the cultures of a different part of the world from the time they were children. What accounts for the difference? Certainly, nothing that they did. It was a gift given or not, plain and simple.
I genuinely enjoy many aspects of our Central Asian culture. Some of this is the result of intentional effort, tastes that have been acquired as it were. But some of it I can’t explain. Why should my heart come alive in the Central Asian bazaar when some of my expat friends hate the crowded, loud, and smelly nature of it? Why should I enjoy fizzy fermented yogurt water sprinkled with dill when it makes so many want to gag? I can’t explain these things other than they are gifts that I must learn to steward well. Perhaps someone has been praying for me.
Missionaries’ lives are full of so many things that are hard, that are draining. Small as it might seem, when they are able to find some measure of delight, joy, and even refreshment in aspects of the local culture, this makes a difference in their ability to remain on the field. When they don’t just know that something is technically good, but they are free to also feel its goodness, this is a real grace. And it’s encouraging to the locals as well.
So, pray for missionaries to be able to enjoy the local culture. Pray that they would be able to appreciate and delight in all of the good aspects, even if they’re wildly different from the good aspects of their own culture. Pray for me and my family in this area as we get ready to head back to the more culturally difficult of the two cities we’ve lived in in Central Asia.
And, while you’re at it, pray for me to be able to enjoy cooked peas. If God has created something good, then I want to be free to taste it as such.
If only 27 more friends join us as monthly supporters, we should be 100% funded! If you would like to join our support team, reach out here. Both monthly and one-time gifts are very helpful right now. Many thanks!
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
One of the interesting roles that God has given me is being the Reformed guy who tries to convince other Reformed guys that culture really does matter.
I cannot say how grateful I am for the Bible-loving, church-centered, missions-minded, theologically-robust Reformed circles that I have been a part of since college. The pushback that these circles have offered against the errors of popular missiology has been both courageous and necessary. That same pastoral and theological pushback has exposed my own missionary blindspots again and again, driving me back to the Word when I might have otherwise been swept along by the popular current.
When it comes to culture, for example, missionaries have all too often taken things too far. For example, they have taken something observably true like the homogenous unit principle – that the gospel naturally spreads along preexisting lines of culture and relationship – and made it into a prescriptive law: Serious missionaries should only share the gospel and plant churches in groups that share the same culture or are part of the same “household.” Or, popular missiology has elevated culture to such heights that it would rather missionaries disobey clear commands of scripture than risk “contaminating” the culture of the local believers with that of the missionary. In areas such as these, my Reformed, church-centered brethren have been absolutely right to sound the alarm. And I praise God that they were able to see these errors and speak up even if it meant upsetting the majority of their missionary friends.
However, the fact that culture’s role has been abused in missions often means that culture’s role now gets dismissed and discounted by those advocating for right and biblical priorities. It’s the classic pendulum swing, the baby getting tossed out with the bathwater. Or, as our Central Asian friends put it, the wet wood being burned with the dry.
Yet instead of being reactionary, we should seek to ask what kind of importance the Bible gives to culture – and to ourselves reflect that proper emphasis. If we study God’s book of creation, we will absolutely see that cultural differences exist and are very important. Indeed, entire disciplines (e.g. cultural anthropology) have arisen from studying this fact of creation. But what about God’s book of revelation?
One passage that helps us understand the weight the Bible gives to culture is 1st Corinthians 9:19-23, the classic passage on contextualization. Though even as I mention these verses I am aware that some may be tempted to tune out because this passage has been discussed in missions conversations ad nauseam. However, let me point out what a strange thing it is that we would effectively discount certain passages of the Bible because we’ve heard them referenced a lot. Regardless of whether passage feels novel or not, it’s the Word of God, and it still tells us about the nature of true reality. We must be on guard for the ways we are tempted to dismiss passages that have grown very familiar.
19] For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. [20] To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. [21] To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. [22] To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. [23] I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (ESV)
In this passage, Paul tells us of his posture when it comes to the differences between himself and those he is trying to reach. It is the posture of a servant (v. 19). The differences specifically referenced here include belief, ethnicity, and conscience (Jew, under/outside the law, weak, etc). All three of these areas overlap significantly with our modern category of culture – essentially, that individuals and groups of people are significantly different from one another because of their underlying beliefs and external practices. But Paul even goes beyond these three specifics and lays out his broader application of this principle with his language of “all things to all people.” This means that if there is a difference that is a potential barrier between Paul and his hearer, and Paul can do so while still following the law of Christ, then he is going to bend to the preference and practice of the other. In this way, he serves others by removing unnecessary barriers. And he thereby gains a better hearing for the gospel message.
From this passage, we learn that cross-cultural interactions are opportunities for service. Biblically, the one who bends to the preference and practice of the other – when permissible and for the sake of the gospel – is taking the role of a servant.
Cultures are different. They do not come together and cooperate seamlessly. There is a necessary series of adjustments that must and will take place when someone from one culture is interacting with someone from another culture. This is happening whether we acknowledge it or not.
Especially when it comes to mutually exclusive areas of culture, you must choose one or the other. We cannot run a meeting that is time-oriented and relationship-oriented at the same time. Either we begin the meeting when we said we would or we begin the meeting when everyone has arrived. We must choose. We cannot be night-oriented and morning-oriented at the same time. Bible studies that don’t kick off until 11 pm are not compatible with a church service that begins at 8 am. We must choose one or the other. If the Westerners serve the Central Asians, our church become more relationship and night-oriented. If the Central Asians serve the Westerners, our church becomes more time and morning-oriented. Both can be good options for serving one another, depending on the way in which they take place.
If we are to be like Paul, then this act of service should be chosen, intentional, and taken on by the stronger as a way to serve those who are weaker. Too often, this fact that one must serve the other in a cross-cultural interaction goes unrecognized. What results is one party becoming the servant of the other without having chosen this. It just kind of happens. And this often means the weaker are made to serve the preferences of the stronger, simply because this is how power dynamics work in the natural world. So often it’s not even intentional on the part of the majority or dominant culture.
But Paul has his eyes open for these differences, these barriers. He knows that they can make a difference in his ability to win and save others, in his chance of sharing in the gospel’s blessings with new brothers and sisters. So Paul, doing ministry in a multicultural world and planting multicultural churches, chooses the posture of a servant. Whenever possible, he will bend towards the culture of the other. While Paul will never compromise the Word of God and the scandalous gospel message, he can bend in this way because he recognizes that not every difference in belief, custom, and conscience is a gospel issue. Jews are different from Greeks. And they can be built up into one new man even while they preserve their distinctiveness.
My contention is that in this area, as in so many others, we should seek to be like Paul. We should also recognize the cultural differences among those we minister to. And recognizing these differences, we should give them their proper weight and choose the posture of a servant as often as we can. This is especially true for those who are leaders in the church.
Now for the denials. By calling for us to give proper weight to culture, here’s what I’m not saying:
I am not saying that this means that culture is more important than simple and clear gospel proclamation.
I am not saying that cultural differences alone are sufficient for planting separate churches (though language differences are).
I am not saying that we shouldn’t try in each and every local church to show that the gospel overcomes natural human divisions.
I am not saying that you must become an expert in each subculture of your very diverse congregation in order to truly serve them.
I am not saying that it’s wrong for you to live in, appreciate, and value your own culture.
I am not saying that you must always be the one to serve others in this area. It can go both ways.
As in so many areas, to give culture its proper weight we must hold this principle in tension with other truths. I have often summarized this tension like this: The gospel serves every culture. And the gospel rules over and transcends all cultures. Both of these truths are wonderful and true and belong together. A Pauline worker is therefore one who seeks to serve others in their cultures while also planting and leading churches that create new hybrid gospel cultures.
My Central Asian friends need to glory in the fact that Jesus has entered into their minority language and culture for the sake of redeeming a remnant from it for all eternity. And they need to glory in the fact that the gospel is not just for their people, but for all the peoples of the world, even their oppressors. As they grow in maturity, they too need to learn how to bend toward the preferences and customs of others that they are seeking to reach and serve.
Now, some of us are called to study and put on another culture to a deeper extent than others. Cross-cultural church planters, I’m looking at you. But most are not called to this. Most Christians would simply be served to learn the biblical principle that they should strive to serve those who are different from them. And they can do this by learning about the cultural differences that exist and seeking to accommodate them as often as is loving. This is a very practical way to love others and small gestures in this direction often pay much bigger dividends than we’d ever expect.
“Is there anything about the way we do things around here that is difficult or strange for you?”
“How can we demonstrate respect and care for you according to the culture you grew up in?”
“What’s hard for you about being a minority in our church? What makes you feel like you don’t fit here?”
Basic questions like these allow us to become the servants of others in the practical, day-to-day love that really counts. Rather than pretending that cultural differences don’t really matter because cultural differences have been abused, we should seek to be like Paul. We should seek to be a servant of others, “for the sake of the gospel.” Yes, it takes some work to do this. But there is great joy to be experienced if we will take this posture. Like Paul says, when others are saved we’ll get to share with them in the blessings of the gospel.
So, Reformed friends, culture is not everything, but neither is it nothing. It really does matter. Let’s put it in its proper place and then take our proper place – the place of a servant.
We will be fully funded and headed back to the field when 31 more friends become monthly or annual supporters. If you would like to join our support team, reach out here. Many thanks!
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
But we can expect the language history of the world to be revealing in another way. A language community is not just a group marked out by its use of a particular language: it is an evolving communion in its own right, whose particular view of the world is informed by a common language tradition. A language brings with it a mass of perceptions, clichés, judgements, and inspirations. In some sense, then, when one language replaces another, a people’s view of the world must also be changing.
– Ostler, Empires of the Word, p.13
The languages we speak greatly affect our worldviews. This is humbling because we often cannot even see the ways our languages have influenced the way we think until we learn another language, another ‘lens’ for interpreting life with its own unique take on things.
I never knew that English was limiting me to one word for ‘uncle’ until I learned our Central Asian language, which uses different terms for an uncle on the mother’s side vs. an uncle on the father’s side. This distinction led to my friend Adam* recently asking my kids, who call him Uncle Adam in English, whether he was an uncle on my side or on my wife’s side. The unanimous vote among the offspring was that he was an uncle on my wife’s side, which my kids probably chose for reasons of their own. However, if they were from our Central Asian people group, they would know that this means that Adam would be less important when it came to legal and identity matters, yet because of that viewed as the more affectionate, relational type of uncle. Dad’s side is for the official stuff. Mom’s side for the relational.
Here, the local language reinforces the local worldview that there are major distinctions to be made between the father’s side of the family vs. the mother’s side. Were our locals to get so good at English that they eventually stop using their own language, this distinction in the culture may also eventually fade away.
Ostler is right. You can never change languages without also experiencing worldview change. This interplay is something worth keeping an eye out for.
We will be fully funded and headed back to the field when 38 more friends become monthly or annual supporters. If you would like to join our support team, reach out here. Many thanks!
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
This week I came across an old note from the end of our first term recording lessons we had learned and were learning when it came to church planting among our Central Asian people group. It’s been six years since I wrote this note, but these takeaways hold up pretty well. For context, see where I’ve written elsewhere about lessons learned from a wolf attack and why it took 7.5 years to raise up our first local elder.
1. Leaders MUST present a united front when dealing with a divisive man, guard against him dividing them.
2. Some believers feel entitled to rent money if meeting is in their house and church salaries. We need to address this upfront.
3. Dig much much deeper before committing to a believer with a really bad reputation.
4. Speak openly about how giving money is and is not used, reinforce regularly that we do not believe in Jesus in order to get money.
5. Be much slower with traditional locals to brainstorm about starting businesses, etc., due to patron/client entitlement issues.
6. Local believers will go to their leaders first when they see a problem with another believer rather than address it directly. This is what they know to do. How to navigate this?
7. Men are tested both by how they use money and what they do when they are not given money. Same thing with power.
8. Meeting in someone’s house gives them a certain measure of power. It is then very hard to discipline them because of that power.
9. Believers bitter about money can very easily twist the truth about our financial situation as missionaries and use it effectively to destroy trust.
10. We should look for trustworthy locals who can interpret indirect communication that is happening around us.
11. Locals will gather semi-publicly if they see a vibrant body of believers, will invite others.
12. Locals will grow in a simple meeting with worship, prayer, and biblical teaching – even if led by foreigners.
13. Some local believers are too quick to do the sinner’s prayer and pronounce someone a believer.
14. House church meetings could use a clear, visible, executive leader to call the shots publicly, but we should guard against the cultural strong man inclinations.
15. We may be somehow able to ask for proof to back up believers stories about persecution, theft, etc. But not yet clear how.
16. It is very tricky to navigate more than two cultures at a time. Multicultural teams have their pluses as well as their minuses.
17. Beware of the Facebook Christian industrial complex that can be predatory. We are not working in a vacuum. Prep believers for when they are approached by outsiders with promises of money, cooperation, or traditions that we have not introduced.
18. Watch out for believers who are super judgmental of small things and other believers. They might be in hidden sin.
19. Mutual clarity on next steps every single week is crucial to avoid misunderstandings as a team.
20. The level of duplicity practiced by some locals is far beyond what we have experienced elsewhere. Pray for supernatural discernment.
21. Locals are not passive regarding leadership. Some will seize it if they see an opportunity. Firm biblical plural leadership is needed, without giving up the temporary apostolic leadership model.
22. Locals tend to idolize then demonize their leaders.
23. Locals in meetings are helped by a clear program and clear boundaries. They are drawn to structure, plans, organization, and institution while we are heading in the opposite direction because of our own Western culture. Our orientations toward institutions are very different. We are skeptical while they are enamored. Seeing a certain amount of organization and program may be part of the threshold which makes locals feel free to gather with others.
24. Our joy must not be rooted in our friends’ performance or in the status of the work!
We will be fully funded and headed back to the field when 42 more friends become monthly or annual supporters. If you would like to join our support team, reach out here. Many thanks!
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
Entrusted to the Dirt 