A Cultural Welcome Wagon?

It was 1970 and I remember that when we moved from the foreign country of California to the town in Oregon where I would grow up, we were visited by some ladies from the local “Welcome Wagon.” They brought a nice fruit basket, some words of welcome, and some advice as to good places to shop, doctors, dentists, and other professionals that were in the area. Apparently, the “Welcome Wagon” has been around since 1928 as their website explains, 

Welcome Wagon was founded in 1928 by an insightful marketing man in Memphis, Tennessee, Thomas Briggs. Mr. Briggs was inspired by stories of early Conestoga “welcome wagons” that would meet and greet westward travelers, providing fresh food and water for the journey. He created Welcome Wagon to embody this same spirit of warm hospitality and welcome. He hired "hostesses", women who were friendly and knowledgeable about their neighborhood, to personally deliver baskets of gifts supplied by local businesses to new homeowners. Over a cup of coffee, hostesses would tell new home buyers about local civic and cultural activities in the community while handing out gifts and coupons from local businesses. This hostess network expanded across the country until, aside from Briggs and just a handful of males, Welcome Wagon became one of the first all-woman companies in the US.

This business plan for this group found that by giving public service-type information, their representatives could move into giving coupons and plugging local businesses. It really was all about the money.

What if we, as Christian ambassadors could set aside the commercialized approaches of merchants and mega-churches always looking for market share and program growth and provide a different, more relational, and culturally helpful kind of welcome?

In my last post, I included a quote from Soon Ang, and Linn Van Dyne’s Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications that emphasized the importance of training immigrants in the rudimentary elements of the culture of the country to which they are moving. I will repeat the last part of it here, “Immigrant cultures need to change, and people must become culturally intelligent or stay in the margins of society. People who are culturally intelligent zero in on aspects of culture that are different and respond appropriately.”

This issue was brought home to me again as I was asking a friend of mine about her own experience as a refugee from Laos in UN-run camps in Thailand and then in regards to her coming to the US in the 80s. I asked her what could have been done better and I was surprised when she said the same thing as the Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. She said it would have been better to have someone explain some of the aspects and expectations of our culture before arriving here when all the lessons come the hard way. In addition, no one explained that she could have attended high school when she came. She got a job and taught herself English working in a 7-11. She was one of the feisty ones that seem to be able to succeed despite the odds. 

Part of the problem is we tend to have cultural myopia and think everyone thinks like we do and should behave the way that we do in our native culture. What seems strange to them may be normal to us and vice versa. We need to be able to talk through the potential points of friction before it starts a fire; seeking mutual understanding instead of sitting back and complaining.

What if we were intentional about not just teaching ESL classes, but actually engaging culturally with immigrants, teaching them our cultural “dance” so that they will not be sentenced to “stay in the margins of society” like economic and political wallflowers. At the same time, it would be helpful for us to learn about their culture as well, thus mutually benefiting each other. Revisiting the "Welcome Wagon" idea, what if we also shared the lay of the land, letting newcomers know where "locals" hang out--the best places to shop, eat, and get your car fixed--without any financial kickbacks? It might actually become a wonderful neighborhood!

Finally, there has been much written in criticism of America as a “melting pot” and how it tends to homogenize cultures into one bland bowl of porridge. I prefer to think of it as a pot of soup or stew where the flavor is enhanced and made richer by the inclusion and blending of many other cultural influences. However, for this to happen well, we must do better at welcoming the stranger that stands at our door and be involved allowing them to become a friend, or perhaps family.

A Generational Jihad of Blame

[This post is an assigned response to a September 2014 post by Paul Louis Metzger entitled Who Is to Blame for the “Jihad Generation”? His original post was in response to the increasingly radicalized nature of Islamic youth populations in Europe and North America and such phenomena as ISIS/ISIL and how we should respond.]

Who is to blame? Interestingly, my first thought is why start with the concept of blame? I am not sold on the value of affixing blame, pointing the finger at others, for actually solving the problem. While it can be beneficial to confess our own failures, working to pin blame on another is a rather negative and polarizing negotiating approach. If Dr. Metzger’s point is to use Britain’s purported failure to engage young 1^st & 2^nd generation immigrants to prompt us to look inside our own hearts and society for the cause of this phenomenon then I can see the point. But why ask “who is to blame” instead of considering how we may have failed?

 

My second thought is that if, as Metzger’s Islamic friend suggests, jihad “is the internal struggle within oneself to battle and overcome evil” then why is prompting such spiritual struggle blameworthy in the first place? Either the rise of jihad is negative with blame attached or positive with credit attached. If it is neither positive nor negative then we can attach a little apathy and say “Who cares?” The problem with the practice of jihad, and usually with blame as well, is that it tends to be directed externally, demonizing others instead of the evil working on our own hearts. It’s just easier that way…but it is not helpful. We have been doing it almost since the beginning, starting with Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the snake (Gen 3:12-13).

I can sympathize with the quoted statement that “young Muslims in inner-city Britain have been left disenfranchised by politics and let down by imams and other community leaders.” This is the case in many places of the world, especially in areas containing a high number of culturally distant immigrants. Refugee parents may have had good reasons for coming to Britain, the US or Canada, etc. but their kids may not have fully felt the pain that prompted such a move. They often have only felt disappointment at the inability of Western culture and economics to ultimately bring the sense of satisfaction and belonging that they seek. One issue here in America is the indoctrination of immigrants into a life of dependency on government and private sponsorship instead of working closely with immigrants to help them navigate their way out of the system.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that there is help available to the destitute refugee-type immigrant. But their drive to achieve and succeed can quickly be ruined by well-meaning charity and a less-than-well-meaning cultural environment in the ghettos where they often have to settle. We need to consider how we as a society can be more invitational and relational to the sojourners in our midst.

Dr. Metzger also quoted an Independent article that “addresses the need for Muslim leaders to connect better with youths to make sure they are well-adapted in their Western cultural contexts.” This agrees with something I read in the Handbook of Cultural Intelligence that suggested that this acculturation process should start before the person ever emigrates. In our pluralistic, politically-correct, tolerance-oriented behavior are we actually marginalizing immigrants by not teaching them our culture? Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, suggest that we are doing just that, and caution,

"When there is a large cultural distance, it is necessary to train immigrants to understand the consequences of their immigration, and to become somewhat culturally intelligent. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to give permanent visas to people who do not understand the local culture. It is also undesirable to use the "leave them alone" policy in "respecting" immigrant cultures. Immigrant cultures need to change, and people must become culturally intelligent or stay in the margins of society. People who are culturally intelligent zero in on aspects of culture that are different and respond appropriately."^[1]

Reconciliation must be sought. It might take longer than we would like and it may require us to humble ourselves walking slowly back the way we came to learn a different approach, but ignoring it will leave casualties in a growing minefield of anger and resentment.

When people prepare to immigrate, they really need to prepare themselves in advance for the cultural expectations, temptations, and disappointments that they will experience. It is almost like an iteration of Proverbs 20:21 “An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end.”  

So am I blaming the immigrants? No, I am not, but we would be doing them a service to help prepare them before they come as well as coming alongside to befriend and coach them once they are here. I have read a number of studies that show that most foreign university students studying in the US will never be invited into an American home for a meal, or a holiday, during their stay here. If that is the case then they will probably leave without any positive relational ties to the West, and that sense of exclusion and distance may spell trouble for us in the long run since they are the next leaders of their countries.

Here are a few of the ideas that I think might be helpful to communicate to cultural guests and to ourselves as well:

·       No place is perfect no matter what it looks like on TV.

·       No people are without flaws and engagement will require intentionality, patience, and forgiveness.

·       While no one should be kept down, don’t expect everything to be handed to you. It takes work to get a leg up.

·       Much of what you observe will seem strange or even wrong according to your culture of origin, don’t hesitate to ask for cultural clarification.

·       No one should expect someone else to have to carry their load for them.

·       No one should be kept at arm’s length and ghettoized by the dominant culture, but no one will be successful without learning the culture of the land where they live and work (or want to work).

Part of breaking out of the cultural ghetto is building trust. Someone has to go first. Instead of joining in the generational jihad of blame that hinders true engagement, perhaps we can just pause to consider how well are we doing in our efforts directed at breaking down barriers of mistrust and make any adjustments that are necessary. [This applies to members of both the dominant and the minority cultures.]

 

Then, if you have a table, set another place and invite someone in.

---

[1] Soon Ang, and Linn Van Dyne, eds. Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications (Armank, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2008), xii.

The Lord is Our Host: A New Look at Psalm 23

Psalm 23:5-6

⁵    You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies;
     you anoint            my head with oil;
                                  my cup overflows.
⁶ Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
          all the days of my life,
                 and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Comments:

Psalm 23 is usually referred to as “The Shepherd Psalm” for good reason (v.1-4), but it also contains the imagery of host and honored guest (v. 5-6). This second aspect of Psalm 23 gets very little attention compared to the first. However, there are a number of similarities between the two.

The shepherd shows the sheep hospitality by providing good food, drink, and a comfortable place to rest (v.1-3). The shepherd also offers the sheep protection as they journey on good paths that reflect well on the character of the shepherd (v.3-4).

The host similarly provides a meal (table and cup, v.5-6) and appropriate refreshment and honor to the guest (v.6) as seen in not just the table preparations but the anointing with oil. However, the Lord as our Host does more than that. In the ancient Middle Eastern culture “the law of hospitality” was supreme and made the host is responsible to offer protection to those who shelter in his home. The Lord as host in this psalm not only protects the guest from enemies, but vindicates the guest in their presence (v. 5). This is no hurried meal snatched in the anxiety of imminent attack, but a humanized form of the rest experienced by sheep whose shepherd has led them to green pastures. Spurgeon, the great 19^th Century preacher, when commenting on this psalm, wrote,

“When a soldier is in the presence of his enemies, if he eats at all he snatches a hasty meal, and away he hastens to the fight. But observe: ‘Thou preparest a table,’ just as a servant does when she unfolds the damask cloth and displays the ornaments of the feast on an ordinary peaceful occasion. Nothing is hurried, there is no confusion, no disturbance, the enemy is at the door and yet God prepares a table, and the Christian sits down and eats as if everything were in perfect peace.”[1]

He leads us to his house and there where everyone can see he makes it clear that we are not only under his protection but are honored by his relational hospitality. Yet some might think that this is only our 15 minutes of fame and that soon we will be out on our own again. This is not what the psalm teaches. Nor is it some western hospitality that is done from a carefully orchestrated distance of individualism. Derek Kidner comments,

In the Old Testament world, to eat and drink at someone’s table created a bond of mutual loyalty, and could be the culminated token of a covenant…So to be God’s guest is to be more than an acquaintance, invited for a day. It is to live with Him.” [2]

The Lord is our host, both now and in the future. The psalmist makes it clear that he was currently participating in the banquet and would enjoy “dwelling” with the Lord in the future, even forever

This Lord who is our Host, is Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, who has been revealed in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18) and he is the one who has gone to Heaven to prepare a place for us and will come back for us one day and take us to the table prepared (John 14:1-3).

In being the Lord our Host, God in Christ by the Spirit invites us into the Trinitarian community where we find protection, honor, refreshing, and justice that remains. But what does this mean for those of us who follow such a Shepherd and worship such a Host? When followers of the Way were first called Christians it was intended in a derogatory sense (Acts 11:26) but described their commitment to live as “little Christs” determined to do what Jesus had done. Early Christian hospitality and care for the poor were renowned as they provided food, shelter, medical care, and worked for justice for all whom they met when there was no Motel 6 leaving the light on for them. They were givers more than takers, despite living under the often brutal persecution of the Roman Empire. Could his words in John 14:12, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” have applied to hospitality? I think so.

So how do we become better hosts in today’s world? What will we risk? Whom will we protect and provision and send on their way and who will we allow to heal and help in our midst? Do we only open our homes and our lives to those who agree with us, look like us, and provide us some benefit? Or do we take Jesus’ words to heart, loving even our enemy for the sake of Christ?

How can those who don’t know the love of the Good Shepherd and Host learn of it and respond if not to that love as seen in us and extended to them? How will they know the welcome of Divine community if not embraced by the outposts of such community here on earth? In what ways should we welcome the beggar at our gate? I think we have a lot of reflection, thinking, and work to do.

Is not the best diplomacy that of a shared life and the honest and unguarded table? Will those who are open get burned in the process? Probably, but a better question to ask is, will those whose minds and gates are closed to the alien miss out on what God is doing? Absolutely.

This week we set aside a day to give thanks for what we have received from the Lord our Host. I have to confess that while I am often timid I am learning to open my eyes to the wonder of relational hospitality. In fact, I wonder what the Lord will do in our midst in the year to come. But first, I have to come into his midst by grace through the Word and the Spirit. Let’s encourage each other in this adventure!

^“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

This post may also be found on my Psalms-related blog, Psalms-Honest2God.

---

[1] Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury of David Vol. 1, page 400.

[2] Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, Tyndale OT Commentary series

ACME "Bait and Switch" (A Response)

Bait and Switch

The following post is a response to Paul Louis Metzger’s Patheos post Bait and Switch. In his article, he encourages Christians to not pretend to be relational merely to obtain conversions. The test of our relationality is whether we are willing to be friends with those who don’t accept Christianity and show no signs of interest. Will we be relational with non-believers over the long haul, or are we merely economic relaters who temporarily invest for a return and then reevaluate, cut our losses, and reinvest elsewhere? If we advertise friendship and caring and only deliver evangelism, to use Metzger’s terminology that is “bait and switch”. The Apostle Paul was truly relational with the Thessalonians, not spinning his message for personal or ecclesial gain.

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness… But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:3-8)

As I read and considered Metzger’s concept of relational bait and switch I thought about ACME. Remember how in the old Roadrunner cartoons how the Coyote was always trying to bait the Roadrunner? ACME was the catalog company from whom the Coyote bought all his crazy Roadrunner-catching schemes.

 

 

 

 

He often put up signs advertising false detours, Roadrunner food, and painting fake tunnels on rock walls. The Roadrunner always seemed to be able to use the detours successfully. Yet when the Coyote tried to follow he always seemed to get hit by a train or some type of exploding device. Perhaps in a “bait and switch” scenario, people may still benefit from hearing the good news even if our motives and methodology fall short (Philippians 1:18) like the Roadrunner using the Coyote’s painted-on escape tunnel. However, in such situations, we are the ones who end up suffering like the Coyote for the sin of objectifying relationships and misrepresenting the love of Christ. We miss out on what we could have learned from the other specifically because they were different and yet human. They have more to say than, "Beep! Beep!"

 

Metzger writes, “I want to listen and learn from my friends of other paths. If I don’t listen to people, it is very difficult to communicate love, which is foundational to Jesus. Listening and mutual learning and loving go hand in hand.” This subject of listening is one I have explored at length on this blog in other posts.

The concept of “bait and switch” belies a transactional approach to our salvation that is less than Biblical. The thought that we are only able to be “relational” with those who share our world-view and/or our “otherworld”-view says that we have yet to apprehend the love of God who, “shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Not only were we sinners but we had made ourselves his enemies and it was then he died for us, whether we would believe in him or not. Metzger says rightly, “Still, while I have no control over someone being converted to Christ, and will not try to force someone’s hand or heart, I do have control over whether or not I will love someone as myself.”

On this subject, Jesus’ treatment of Judas Iscariot is instructive, for he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him and yet treated him no differently than the other disciples. I find it mind-blowing and heart-stretching that when the night of Jesus’ betrayal came, and Jesus said that one of those sharing the meal with him was the traitor—nobody knew who it was (Matthew 26:20-25; Mark 14:17-21; Luke 22:22-23).

Further, Jesus taught his followers to care for others, and sharing with a fully non-reciprocal mindset is also applicable to this discussion. We are not commanded to invest a limited amount of loving-kindness in hope of a spiritual response from another person. If we are to share what we have with no expectation of receiving back in either food or finances, can the sharing of ourselves be any different? [Note: Non-reciprocal does not deny that a relationship can and should evidence mutuality.]

We may not get any economic ROI, but perhaps we can gain a more relational understanding or benefit from another perspective. This is true especially of their toughest arguments and accusations; they can temper the steel of our character to love and serve even more like Christ in the future. Metzger notes that,

“Perhaps such critics don’t realize it, but they are also evangelizing me, when they try to encourage me to stop evangelizing: they are trying, in a sense, to “convert” me out of being an Evangelical, which as I said above involves concern for evangelistic witness.”

I agree with his assessment and don’t want to become “devangelized” (my term) by my critics nor desensitized to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that may come through those same people.

May the Lord remake our hearts—with the stuff of Heaven not the stuff of ACME—that we might love long, in a way that represents well the One who first loved us.

The Cancer of Control

Sometimes I think we are sick, with a deep and deadly disease that sends its tendrils out into every bit of potentially healthy tissue and infects it. Normally functioning cells are replaced by cells that are devoted to reproducing themselves as quickly and widely as possible, totally uncaring as to the damage caused to the whole body as a result. I am not talking about the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, nor am I talking about a medically diagnosed tumor be it breast, brain, or bone. Rather I am talking about a relational disease that is far more widespread, I refer to it as the “cancer of control.”

This type of relational cancer works in individuals to keep them from being fully persons in relationships with others. It works its procrustean power poison in all types of relationships be they marital, familial, occupational, educational, or governmental. The church is not immune to this disease and in fact, is a place where it thrives. This has happened throughout history as fallen humanity has struggled to exercise dominion in the world without surrendering itself to the higher authority of a loving and redemptive God.

There is nothing wrong with exercising God-given authority within the scope of our position and context if we have not given ourselves absolute authority. We must recognize that we too are under the authority of God. And he has modeled humble leadership for us in many ways, most profoundly in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I have always been impressed that while the disciples would quarrel amongst themselves over who was the greatest while a Roman centurion (who knew about having authority and also being under authority) could immediately and humbly recognize that true authority was in Jesus, and submit himself to it.

In Matthew 8, after appealing for help for his paralyzed servant and receiving Jesus' pledge to come and heal him, the centurion gave an answer that amazed even Jesus,  

But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” ¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him,

“Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith…” (8:8-10)

And Jesus concludes this pericope by saying in v.13,  “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” I think it is good for us to notice the obvious fact that it was not because of the centurion’s ability to control the situation, but in response to his belief—his trust—that Jesus was enough for the situation that Jesus was amazed. Our situational control and great works are not what Jesus is looking for…but our childlike and reasoned trust is. 

When we are afraid and insecure we try to control our environment more than ever…and that includes the people around us. However, the collateral damage of our tendency to control can be catastrophic. May the Lord give us faith like the centurion, that we might humble ourselves instead of demanding, love generously instead of acting in fear, and make our pleas for others truly out of empathy for the sake of others and not for ourselves. This needs to be applied collectively not just as individuals.

The centurion in Capernaum knew something about the mutuality of authority that kept him from becoming a controlling person. It is something that as Paul addresses the responsibility we have in our various relationships, he speaks to those who have power, “Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1) And the Apostle John addressed the root cause of the cancer of control, and its cure, when he wrote, ^“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:18-19)

Let us humble ourselves rather than exalt ourselves. Let us love because we have been loved by Jesus. Let us trust all our pressing concerns into his care rather than our command. Let us see the Lord’s power at work!

“And the servant was healed at that very moment.” (Matthew 8:13)

Bridge-Building 3: Tolerances & Tighteners, Gaps & Grips

This post is an assigned in response to a 2012 post by Paul Louis Metzger entitled “Beyond Tolerance to Tenacious Love”

Much has been written about cultural tolerance and intolerance in the last 20 years. It is surprising that tolerance has almost come to mean intolerance. In relational terms, tolerance is what we call it when we can converse, and even work together, civilly, despite the fact that we have very different beliefs and values. Finding common points of agreement or safe meeting places is important if we are going to build effective bridges.

Unfortunately, in a tidal wave of political correctness, what was once tolerance (disagreeing civilly) has been twisted to require agreement with the current anti-conservative (politics), anti-Christian (religion), and anti-traditional values (morality) agenda and not speaking or advocating for anything that disagrees with it. I am a fan of the original definition and dismayed by the controlling influences of the second. Relational intolerance is when we can’t have a normal, civil, human, conversation with those who disagree with some position, belief, or behavior we hold dear. If those in power are intolerant they will tend to compel those who disagree to agree—using any methodology and coercive force available to them. This behavior is not relational at all.

In terms of physical bridge-building, the word “tolerance” has a number of different applications. Members meeting together atop a pier are to fit together according to the tolerance standards for the materials. With steel construction, gaps of more than 1/16 of an inch need to be shimmed and filled. Translating this metaphor of bridge-building tolerance into relational and cultural terms, “Tolerance and intolerance,” as Paul Louis Metzger suggests, “do not function as properties of beliefs but of behaviors. If tolerance were to be framed as a matter of acceptance of another person's (or tradition’s) belief system, then anyone who rejects my belief system as true would be intolerant.” However, that doesn't mean we can’t work out a protocol for how we can meet and work together. But we might need to drive slowly!

On the Southwest side of Portland, there is a bridge—a flyover exit ramp—connecting I-5 and Highway 217 that was notorious for traffic accidents related to a variety of tolerance issues. One such issue was the gap in the joint between two sections.

According to a May 2014 article by Joseph Rose on the Oregonian’s website, “The transportation agency [ODOT] said the road joint that is gradually splitting apart had likely contributed to more than a dozen crashes in three weeks. The teeth of the huge metal seam are popping up and may be tripping up the tires on vehicles traveling faster than the 35 mph advisory speed, especially in rainy weather, ODOT said.”[1]

As you can tell from the photo, the joint is not only separating but is not the same height. 

 Note ground-down fingers.

One of the things ODOT did to alleviate the problem besides posting warning signs for people to slow from freeway speeds to 35 mph, was to grind down the fingers on the high side of the joint. 

Finally, ODOT worked to increase the surface friction to prevent cars from losing traction when the road was wet. As Joseph Rose writes,

Because ODOT's friction tester is down for maintenance, we had Washington DOT perform testing with their equipment," said ODOT pavement management engineer John Coplantz in an email to managers. Tests on the deck seal showed it was losing its grip, with some readings showing it was below acceptable "friction values."

"These numbers by themselves do not necessarily represent an unsafe condition," Coplantz wrote. "However, roadway geometry, vehicle speeds, and driver expectations place a high demand on surface friction at this location."[2]

Just as bridge joints can shift and spread under load, it seems that the same things often happen in our relational/cultural bridge-building. We start to pull apart at the joints instead of clinging to each other and the road with the “tenacious love” Paul Louis Metzger speaks of. How wide are our gaps? How strong is our grip? The warning of wisdom tells us to slow down, watch the road, and let the bond of God's love keep us from pulling away and/or elevating ourselves above each other when we are under stress. We are in need of both care and compassion if we hope to begin and maintain a conversation in the midst of a culture that has forgotten how. While we can and should be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, as Aristotle suggests, we shouldn't treat people like that. 

[Ironically, this “intolerant” bridge is about three miles down the road from a neighborhood called, Metzger, Oregon.]

---

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_217_ramp_crashes_odot_w.html>

[2] Ibid.

Can God Speak Through a Lama?

This week’s post is in response to Dr. Metzger’s recent Patheos post, Thank God for the Dalai Lama. Dr. Metzger seeks to model engagement of other religions through our convictions rather than around them.

We would be wise to heed all messages from God. In the Bible God spoke to his people a number of different ways, from the pre-fall walking together in the cool of the garden, to entertaining or wrestling disguised angels, dreams, visions, burning bushes, pillars of cloud and fire, donkeys, the Law, whirlwinds, psalmists, and prophets. Others in the New Testament enter into dialogue with Jesus Christ and have their words and actions become part of God’s message for his people today. People like the Samaritan woman in John 4, the Syrophonician woman in Mark 7:25-27, the Centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, the other centurion at the crucifixion who recognized that Jesus must be the son of God, the Jewish teacher Nicodemus in John 3, and even a hated tax collector have their story and message included in that greatest story of all. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is God's final revelation to the world (Hebrews 1:1-3). Yet down through history there have been others who have spoken words of prophetic challenge to the church even through criticism from the outside...words that should direct us back towards Christ. Can we hear the voice of the Spirit blowing unexpectedly through those who don't claim to know Christ?

 

So can God use a Lama to speak truth to Christians? Yes and no. If you are a Tibetan Buddhist you would probably answer, “Yes.” If you are a Christian you would likely say, “No.” But I agree with Metzger that there is room for those opposed to his spiritual beliefs (myself included) to be challenged by God through the Dalai Lama— challenged to see how strongly we value human life and how free we are from bondage to material possessions. Jesus of course teaches both of these points quite clearly.

As one who has been made in the image of God and thus committed to the value of human relationships the Dalai Lama warns us against the impersonal and arrogant and as Metzger notes, “In the midst of his affirmation of scientific progress that furthers the well-being of our planet, he cautions scientists, business leaders and politicians, even society at large, not to play God.” Further Metzger summarizes one of the chapter highlights from the Dalai Lama’s work “Ethics and the New Genetics”,

Knowledge of genetic predispositions of disease may lead one to abort a child whose disease will manifest itself in twenty years; such knowledge of predisposition entails only a probability at best and does not account for the possibility that a cure may be found within ten years (page 191).

The Captain calls for any to join him in the effort against evil.

The thought of such a callous utilitarian consumer ethic as is being made possible by the new genetics reminds me of the Hydra/ S.H.I.E.L.D. Project Insight in the film, Captain America: Winter Soldier when they deployed Zola’s algorithm that would kill every person they considered a threat and every potential threat in the future. In the movie, Captain America was determined to stop such an affront to the humanity of the world, alone if necessary but also was betting that he was not alone. So in some ways the Dalai Lama is joining forces intellectually with the Captain against those that would “play God” over who lives and who dies. I am pretty sure no one has made this comparison before!

Devoted Christians have historically contended for the lives of others over extending their own. Yet in an increasingly temporal focused culture we can be conditioned to defend ourselves rather than display the strength found in biblical meekness (Matt 5:5).

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. (Colossians 3:12-13)

We can be tricked into self-preservation instead of taking up the cross and dying daily participating in the great mission of God.

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:23-24)

Is it not possible that the Dalai Lama who is no follower of Christ, can challenge us to become better followers of Jesus? I think so. If we allow his bold writing to challenge us to stand for the relational value [what we Christians call “the image of God”] in all mankind and simultaneously rethink how tenaciously we are living into the life God has for us, or if we merely love the things of the world too much to share in the love of Christ and need to repent.

I think that we can find lots of ways to work together for the common good humanity despite our clear disagreements. As Dr. Metzger concludes.

By challenging one another, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others can help strengthen our collective resolve and response to the challenges we face in search of a truly global ethic affirming all of life. As such, we become “trustworthy rivals”…

Are we humble enough to hear God speak through not just the Dalai Lama but through those thought to be the least likely of messengers…like two guys in the Bible named Saul--one was out hunting donkeys and the other hunting Christians.

Bridge-Building 2: "Relational Impact Studies"

[This is a sequel to a previous post, entitled Bridge-building in A Chaotic World.] 

Bridge-building with other cultures and people from other religious backgrounds must start with asking a few questions and then taking time to really listen. What is their story? Who are their family? What brings them joy or sadness? What is their direction, their goal that they are seeking? What are some of the most deeply held values that assist them in their life journey? I am also interested in their impressions of Christianity and Christians prior to this time and what has formed those opinions.

If we don’t ask and then sit quietly to listen over coffee or tea how will we know where to start building a bridge or if it is necessary? Perhaps there are strong bridge members already in place that need to be identified. There are a couple of things we can do that will sabotage the pre-building process. The first thing is to treat the listening process as a means to a unilaterally desired end. As impatient task-oriented Westerners, we often want to cut through the relational ceremony and get down to business. But what if the other person considers the relational ceremony as a business?

A second thing we can do that will render the listening stage non-relational is if we are listening only as a means to know what to say in response. Many years ago I used to view a conversation like a chess match and would be thinking at least a couple of responses ahead. I swore it off as violating one of my core values, that of hearing and being heard. People can tell the difference between a dialogue and a disguised monologue so we need to stop fooling ourselves.

While individualism is rooted in interests, personhood is tied to relationships. If we are going to have a relationship then we must fully listen to one another without feeling the compulsion to rebut, correct, fix, or persuade them to another point of view. Certainly, that may come as we acknowledge our respective convictions, but it must not be the purpose of our “listening.”

As I mentioned in a previous post when building a bridge the builders need to pick the right site, materials, and design. Similarly, if I don’t make myself teachable to those I am trying to connect then the relational "bridge" will in some way fail to deliver that which it promises. If we can’t be trusted to safely treasure the story, needs, and longings of others then our efforts at bridge-building will be seen more as an invasion and an occupation rather than an authentic connection.

My late father was a wildlife biologist and wetlands scientist who made his living doing environmental impact studies that must occur before any major construction project. It seems to me that the listening phase of bridge-building is somehow like a relational environmental impact study.

How can I learn what God is already doing in a person’s life if I don’t take time to sit and listen and watch? How can we assess how our efforts to “help” may actually hinder if we don’t listen to the still small voice of the Lord amidst our relentless pressing forward with our projects? I recently sat with a businessman who confessed to being a terrible listener and being bothered by that flaw. He was right. He was loud, opinionated, and more interested in what he had to say than what I was saying. But at least he was honest about the prevailing winds in his relationships and how they would affect any bridge-building in his life. He also desired to change and had opened his life to be mentored in this area.

Some have grown cynical from the too frequent “public meetings” hosted by our elected officials where they never seem to really care what the public says unless it agrees with what leaders have already made up their minds to do. Has the world grown cynical towards our Christian efforts at bridge-building because we don’t listen (or are perceived not to listen)? I don't want to contribute to such impressions.

Photo by Kayle Kaupanger on Unsplash

If these concepts resonate with you, Multnomah Biblical Seminary offers both a MA in Applied Theology and a Doctor of Ministry degree that incorporates such issues of cross-cultural engagement. This post is a sample of something that was initially written as a class assignment for that program. I invite you to check out this bridge-building program as a paradigm for the ministry of God's unchanging love in the midst of this changing world.

Also, a listening-related post that looks at whether God hears our deepest cries can be found in Psalm 22 “Unanswered Call… Answered”.

Bridge-building in a Chaotic World

Tilikum Crossing "The People's Bridge",
a controversial new bridge in Portland, Oregon

Why do we need bridges? So the people can cross over something in their environment that divides them—like a canyon, river, or other body of water. Probably the first thing to be decided in building a bridge is if one is needed and wanted, secondly we need to ask who is going to pay for it. Once these questions have been addressed a bridge builder needs to know something about the forces (loads) that a bridge must withstand.

·         Dead loads that don’t move or change, the weight of the bridge itself.

·         Environmental loads that include hydraulic friction, seismic stability, and wind.

·         Live loads referring to temporary or moving forces (e.g., traffic), etc.

I frankly don’t want someone building a bridge that doesn’t know anything about engineering, geology, local weather, and the needs of the people it is designed to serve. Do you remember the famous debate over the very expensive “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, Alaska? Right here in the Portland metro area, we have the failed Columbia River Crossing (CRC) an effort to build a very expensive bridge without solving a problem, and without the support of the population as an exercise in a government’s agenda being forced on the people. Thankfully it has been stopped, but approximately $240M of the people’s money was wasted on this project.

Obviously, my question isn’t really about building physical bridges but about building relational bridges, bridges of understanding, forgiveness, and reconciliation between individuals, groups, races, and nations. So why talk about the engineering of physical bridges? Because many of the same issues come into play when trying to metaphorically "build bridges" between people(s).  

As we build relational bridges, we first must ask if a bridge is needed. Bridges should not be built any further than they are wanted. Having a bridge spanning our defensive separation is scary if we don’t fully trust those people on the other side. If we seek to bring people together then we had better make sure we are not placing one group at a greater risk for oppression (2 Timothy 3:2-5). The bridge must be for the benefit of both parties.

Building a bridge also takes time. A physical bridge not only has to be planned, and built, but it has to be maintained against structural degradation due to the normal stresses of use and environmental stresses from corrosion, freezing, temperature fluctuation, insects, etc. Sometimes bridges cannot safely be crossed quickly. Are relational bridges so different? We all know that relationships take constant work to maintain. So how do we pass on the passion for maintaining relational bridges to the next generation? (2 Timothy 2:1-2).

Bridge-builders also need to be concerned about the safety of those working on the bridge as well as those who will use the bridge in the future. Do we care that some of those working with us might “fall off” during construction? When the Golden Gate Bridge was built in the 1930s they pioneered the use of hard hats and safety nets. Do we have a safety net in place for our relational bridge-builders that is at least as effective as when the Golden Gate Bridge was constructed? Or, are co-builders merely commodities to be used up, expendable resources before the overarching goal of completing the task?

Tragic bridge collapses in recent years cause me to warn against bridges being built too quickly on the unstable soil of assumption and misunderstandings. Recently, newly constructed highway bridge columns had to be blown up after it was discovered that they were built on unstable ground. Without measuring the cultural distance that needs to be spanned, doing the seismic mapping of past offenses, and completing the site preparation of building trust, the bridge is doomed to fall beneath the weight of the forces arrayed against it. When building relational bridges we need to count the cost as well. Is this bridge worth the cost it takes to build, or does it lead nowhere? (2 Timothy 2:23) Do we evaluate the process and participants on a worldly level or according to the metrics of Christ? (1 Samuel 16:7; 2 Cor. 5:16-17) Jesus, the ultimate bridge-builder, became one of us and completed the task not by force of power or decree of authority, but by the humble giving of himself to save others. Our calling is to follow his uncomfortable example in showing reconciling love for others.

I will explore some of these questions in future posts. I welcome your comments along the way. In the meantime, Ephesians 4:31-32 gives us a great place to start building, preparing to be safe, bridge-worthy people that others would welcome into their neighborhood. “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

Golden Gate Bridge in Fog