Month / May 2024

by daviddawson462742281

Cultures of Learning: Stereotypes and Insights

In their chapter Communication for Learning Across Cultures, Martin Cortazzi and Lixian Jin (1997) engage how presuppositions about culture influence communication and learning. Their research elaborates upon academic cultures, cultures of communication, and cultures of learning. Students not only bring cultural practice and theory into the classroom, they use their system to interpret the practice and theory of others . Teachers and students must be conscious of how these differences affect how we interpret each other. They promote cultural synergy, “the mutual effort of both teachers and students to understand” each other (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997).

The concept of cultural synergy can be explored in analysis of the ministry of Jesus and the apostle Paul. Jesus adjusted his approach to teaching as he encountered individuals and groups of differing social profiles. When speaking to Nicodemus the pharisee, Jesus provoked his religious sensitivities by giving a scandalous proposal (Jn. 3:3). When speaking to fishermen, Jesus challenged their paradigms by asking them to go against the conventional wisdom of their vocational (Lk. 5:1-11). Paul appealed to the philosophical-religious culture of debate in Athens when he addressed the Areopagus (Act. 17:16-34). In Jerusalem, Paul spoke in Aramaic and referred to his Pharisaical belief in the ressurrection (Act. 22:1-21). 

Cortazzi and Jin (1997) identify academic cultures such as “Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic, and Nipponic”. British academic culture is oriented towards the individual in comparison to Chinese emphasis on relationships, collective consciousness, and hierarchy (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997, p. 78). According to Cortazzi and Jin, differences in cultures of communications frequently contribute to faulty assessments of the cultural other. Some cultures express solidarity by continuous dialogue without pause while other cultures pause as a sign of respect. The British deductive approach introduces the idea first, followed by contextual and auxiliary information, while the Chinese inductive approach does just the opposite. Culture of learning consists of the “norms, values, and expectations of teachers and learners relative to classroom activity” (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997, p. 79, 80, 81, 83). 

Missiologist Craig Ott (2021) elaborates five dimensions of culture’s influence on teaching and learning: the cognitive, worldview dimension, social, media, and environmental. Whereas British teachers expect students to be proactive in seeking help if needed, Chinese students expect teachers to ack like caring parents, being attentive to students needs without being asked (Ott, 2021). I have experienced the importance of Ott’s environmental dimension: “the physical, institutional, and sociopolitical context of teaching in another culture” (Ott, 2021). For example, in the 1990s I was involved in after school programs in downtown Los Angeles. I witnessed the chaotic physical environment that many students were expected to learn in. On the other hand, during my time in Brazil I was surprised to perceive that what I considered a chaotic leaning environment – with lots of distractions, interruptions, and talking over each other – was though of as dynamic and collaborative by many Brazilians (albeit not all). 

According to Ott (2021), decontextualizing is the primary difference between Western thinking versus contextualized 

non-Western thinking. Decontextualization is the primary thought form produced by literacy, which creates a barrier in relation to oral cultures. The primary differentiating factor in the use of reason is the relationship to context, some cultures emphasize theory and others experience (Ott, 2021). 

My ecumenical work in Europe involves wooing church leaders from diverse Christian traditions towards models for reconciliation and partnership. Abstract thinking is fundamental for technical aspects of biblical studies, hermeneutics, and contextualization, but oral and concrete approaches are increasingly becoming recognized “increasingly recognized”. If the art of verbal storytelling has declined in the West, I must take inventory of my own deficiency in this essential form of communication. I fear that the description of non-narrative teaching as “cool, disembodied, rational arguments (…) rhetorical” may describe my primary form of teaching (Ott, 2021, p. 87, 91, 93). 

Understanding analytic and holistic cognitive styles helps me appreciate my wife, who perceives and processes information “more as an integrated whole” versus my preference for “clear-cut conceptual groupings” (Ott, 2021, p. 111). It makes perfect sense to me that the tendency to “frame everything in either-or terms and airtight categories” results in the loss of “the integrated whole” (Ott, 2021, p. 132). 

If biblical interpretation will require a more intuitive, holistic approach versus solely relying upon grammatical, 

historical analysis (Ott, 2021), then this will require a slower pace and a reduced scope of engagement. In my own ecumenical work, I will need to be realistic regarding how many individuals, groups, and contexts I can meaningfully interact with. Geneva Gay’s (2018) contrast between “caring about” and “caring for” as the difference between “emotionality without intentionality” and “deliberate and purposeful action plus emotionality” helps inform my teaching approach. 

The idea that teachers must seek the “insider perspective” of those they are teaching, to understand “what they are striving to be” (Gay, 2018) is a challenge. Besides being Western in a general sense, my family upbringing highly emphasized putting off gratification in the present to build towards future goals. It has been a challenge for me at times to relate to students who have little long-term focus. If caring for consist in helping a student be better “in who and what they currently are” (Gay, 2018), then I need to grow in accepting students and overcoming my negative biases. But as Gay (2018) states, really caring for students is to “hold them in high esteem” and “expect high performance from them”. To a degree I recognize myself as a “cultural hegemonist” – consciously or not – expecting all students to behave according to my cultural standards of normality”. The distinction between aesthetic and authentic caring (Gay, 2018) is a disturbing one in my self-analysis. A key to my ecumenical work is championing some Christian groups who occupy marginal status or whose theology and practice is considered obscure. But I must ask myself whether my caring for the inclusion of marginal groups is authentic or merely aesthetic. Unity in the body of Christ is, unfortunately, a beautiful vision that can be used to justify one’s own participation, turning into a form of self-glorification. 

My teaching would be most effective using a learning strategy that engages effectively in the social relations aspect of Ott’s (2021) five dimensions. I have content and the tools to build content for the rest of my life, but I need to discern the open doors of relationship with individuals and groups the Spirit wants me to enter. And to these people I must have the courage and dedication to commit myself. For only as Ruth covenanted with Naomi would the Lord’s plan for their lives come about. 

References

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for Learning Across Cultures. In R. Harris, D. McNamara, & P. D. McNamara (Eds.), Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning (pp. 76-90). London; New York: Routledge. 

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. (Lower Level LC1099.3 .G393 2018; Third edition.). Teachers College Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.5fa32307.b7c3.5027.b081.5fe7ee113c2a&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Ott, C. (2021). Teaching and learning across cultures: A guide to theory and practice. (Lower Level LC1099 .O83 2021). Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.eca6bcdd.ba4a.5f1a.a161.26d8b7e3511a&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

by daviddawson462742281

The Science of Mission and the One New Humanity Vision

The roots of contemporary missiology are found in the era of higher criticism when all branches of theology were subject to scientific analysis. Scripture was studied according to the rigors of historical and archaeological verification. Similarly, Christian mission began to be studied according to the rigors of the social sciences. From that time till now – for better or for worse – missions studies have been approached scientifically. Evangelicals like myself follow a pietistic impulse that view the biblical narrative as a supernatural, all-encompassing, divinely revealed narrative. I accept the level of circularity that exists in my presupposition of faith – I believe the Bible because it affirms itself to be the word of God. This, however, does not preclude the profound evidence of my own experience walking with Jesus the Christ.

But studying mission according to principles that arose during the scientific revolution is not anathema to biblical faith. I believe the academic inquiry and scholarship are essential aspects of a humanity created in God’s image. The Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies is perhaps the most comprehensive source for current scholarship and theory related to missions.

In this article I will dialogue with chapters 3 and 4 of the handbook in relation to the biblical vision known as one new man or one new humanity based on Ephesians 2:

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 

For the purpose of this article, one new humanity (ONH) refers to the belief that the rejection of the Jewish part of the ekklesia by the Gentile believers was the first division in the body of Christ, laying the foundation for subsequent fracturing. Jewish followers of Jesus have been present in the ekklesia for all of its history, but most often absorbed into the Gentile church and taught – even forced – to abandon all practices of Judaism as a prerequisite for faithfulness to Christ. Note that I use the term ekklesia to refer to what the Catholic Church has described as the community of those called to Christ ex circuncisione and ex gentibus (Nina Rowe, 2011). 

Participants in ONH hold that the emergence of the Messianic Jewish movement in the 1960s and its subsequent development are foundational to the restoration of the unity of the ekklesia. The use of the term ekklesia is important because Messianic Jews increasingly refer to themselves as practicing a form of Judaism and not as Christians or members of its church. Therefore, the restoration of ekklesia refers to the initial vision of Ephesians 2 which did not last past the second century. As an ingrafted “wild olive shoot” the apostle Paul exhorted the Gentile believers to honor the unique calling and future destiny of the Jewish “olive root” (New International Version, 2011, Rom. 11:17). 

Unfortunately, by the second century a distinctly Jewish part of the ekklesia disappeared due to their rejection by both the nascent Gentile church and Rabbinic Judaism. The parting of the ways describes the alienation of the Jewish Jesus-believing from their Gentile brethren (Enslin, 1961), the subsequent suffering of which was compounded by the rejection of the former by emergent Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the temple. Participants in ONH believe that with emergence of Messianic Judaism in the mid 20th century the Gentile church has a legitimate interlocutor towards which repentance can be directed and reconciliation sought. What is less known is how participants in ONH view its implications for missions – how it may affect its conceptualization and application? How have participants in ONH applied this vision to mission and what have been the results? 

Chapter 3 of the current version of the Oxford Handbook for Mission Studies was written by Paul Kollman (2022), titled Defining Mission Studies for the Third Millennium of Christianity.  Kollman (2022) cites three probable trends in the future of missions studies: interest by a “growing diversity of scholars”, influence applied to “more areas of Christian life and scholarship”, and new insights coming from “innovative comparative approaches” (p. 46). The emerging field of anthropology of Christianity looks at “the various social changes that Christianity – often linked to mission – fosters in diverse situations” (Kollman, 2022, p. 47). How might the fulfillment of the ONH vision impact societies and cultures? Currently Christianity is expressed around the world with an impressive cultural diversity. The Bible has been translated into most of the world’s languages and worship is shaped according to local customs and creativity. However, just as the gospel was transferred from Jew to Gentile, it was then transferred from the Roman World to the New World. In the 20th century unprecedented church growth in the Global South (Africa, Asia, and South America) signified the transfer of primary Christian leadership to the Non-Western world. Unfortunately, however, the pattern or cultural hegemony has been present throughout church history, with the national/enthnic centrality of the gospel shifting from one supreme Christendom to another. 

Kollman (2022) also describes how recent missions studies have interacted with social movement theory (p. 47). Some theorists have explored the benefits of integrating the study of complex or formal organizations and the study of collective action and social movements (Gerald F. Davis et al., 2005, xiv). It has been proposed that concepts developed in the domains of organizational theory and social movement theory are useful to each other (Gerald F. Davis et al., 2005, xiv). When looking at a phenomena such as ONH from a social science perspective, is it unique or just one of many similar religious movements? It can be argued that the history of the church is a succession of grassroots social movements that evolved into formal organizations. These religious institutions then followed the pattern of all religions – they were challenged and replaced or reformed by prophetic movements from the margins. My passion for ONH flows from my belief that the Ephesians 2 vision is truly unique in world religions and has yet to be fulfilled as Christ desired. 

Kollman cites recent studies of the Didache that show how mission concerns existed in the first century (Kollman, 2022, p. 48) when a Jewish and Gentile community of believers still existed. The Didache was written by Jewish Jesus-believers to instruct their Gentile brethren in religious practice (Nessim, 2023, xiv). The Didache’s articulation of how the Torah was applicable to the Gentile believers gives a motif for considerate and effective Jewish-Gentile relations within the ekklesia before the parting of the ways. 

A steadily more religiously pluralist world due to globalization has led missiologists to seek what insight might be gained from comparative dialogue with other missionary religions such as Buddhism and Islam (Kollman, 2022, p. 49-50). Comparative study is being made of the missionary practices of these religions, as well as analyzing the reasons that other religions such as Hinduism, Confuscianism, and Judaism have less impetus for self propagation beyond a particular people group (Kollman, 2022, p. 50). One question related to my research on ONH is how Messianic Jews see mission and evangelism. Messianic Judaism is rooted in a more ethnically centered religion, therefore their increased presence within the ekklesia could affect the missionary impetus. Many Christians struggle to reconcile the missionary vision they were taught in church in light of religious pluralism and secularism. It is hard for Christians to understand non-missionary religions, including the relatively inward-focused nature of rabbinic Judaism. What might Christians learn from dialogue with these other faith traditions? Nany anthropologists today are studying how “mission-generated social change produces new cultural forms” (Kollman, 2022, p. 51). The theme of reconciliation has been extremely influential in missions studies over the past 50 years. Perhaps it can be argued that mission-generated social change led to ONH as an example of a new cultural form. 

Kollman (2022) describes the gravitation in missiology towards fields that are related but not centered on Christian mission as “engaging mission tangentially” (p. 51). In this, missiology is predicted to follow the trend of other academic fields. This means that missiologists increasingly make connections to other social sciences that would have been considered irrelevant. This freedom is expanded by the trend towards missions studies including scholarship from other disciplines or under the labels of “intercultural studies, contextual theology, and world Christianity (Kollman, 2022, p. 51). 

There is an increased censuses that the missio Dei is the foundation of mission, while not disregarding the link of mission to human activity (Kollman, 2022, p. 51). Based on missio Dei, mission is open to unlimited possibilities while at the same time particular mission foci can exist (Kollman, 2022, p. 52). The understanding of mission as any human cooperation with divine action in the world grounds mission studies in “empirical realities” that can be analyzed within non-theological systems (Kollman, 2022, p. 52). Intergroup conflict studies is one example of an observed phenomena that relates directly to ONH.

Chapter 4 of the Oxford handbook was written by Dorottya Nagy (2022), titled Theory and Method in Mission Studies / Missiology.  Nagy (2022) cites the fragmentation of missiology derived from the “multiplicity of terms referring to theory and method in missions studies” (p. 56). Nagy (2022) proposes that an “interdisciplinary awareness” of missions studies methodology may improve interdisciplinary dialogue and partnership (p. 56). By methodology, Nagy (2022) refers to “the logical reasoning and the theological/philosophical assumptions that underlie academic work” consciously or unarticulated (p. 57). Methods, distinctively, are the orienting research techniques and procedures that are drawn from methodology (Nagy, 2022, p. 57). There is a trend in research toward clustering comparative, historical, empirical, and hermeneutical methods across disciplines, causing the challenge of “interdisciplinary miscommunication and misunderstanding” (Nagy, 2022, p. 57). Nagy (2022) describes theory as pointing to “contemplation, observation, and consideration, aiming at an understanding of reality” (p. 57). In considering missions studies theory then, we face the principle of ontological and epistemological plurality within the academic world (p. 58). Thus the discussion of method and theory in missions studies is another validation of using interdisciplinary methods and recognizing epistemological plurality in my study of ONH. 

Nagy (2022) indicates that missions studies are conditioned by institutionalization and contingency (p. 58). Here contingency refers to the influence of particular innovators and trends in the soft and hard sciences. Missiology combines knowledge production education that is both academic and theological-missiological (Nagy, 2022, p. 59). Consequently, missions studies are being situated in a “newer, larger, fashionable field of study”, with the strategic move of re-articulating missiology as “intercultural theology or world Christianity” (Nagy, 2022, p. 59). Nagy (2022) observes that these strategic moves require “methodological awareness and accountability”, especially regarding the epistemological ambivalence inherent in interculturality (p. 59). Thus although the breadth of social sciences available to missions studies steadily grows, interculturality requires sensitivity to epistemological contradictions. The “conflictive plurality within identities” (Nagy, 2022, p. 59) will be present in my engagement with with Messianic Judaism and Jew-Gentile relations in the ekklesia. 

With interculturality as an “epistemological locus”, Nagy (2022) sees a possible working definition of missiology as “the study of the relational, communicative (co)existence between God, humans, fellow human beings and the whole creation across space and time” (p. 60). Therefore, at its core missions studies deals with “an understanding of God and relationality with God” (Nagy, 2022, p. 60). For example, missions studies engages theories about salvation in other religions and how this affects missionaries’ communication of the gospel. ONH can be seen as motif of mission as intergroup reconciliation, therefore how this vision is interpreted by diverse cultures is foundational to my research. One area of my inquiry is how God’s particular relationship to Israel demonstrates his desire and capacity to love all people groups in their unique cultural identities. In this sense the relationship of God to human groups – not just individuals – is a key aspect of ONH. 

Nagy (2022) proposes that love is relevant to method and theory not as an uncontaminated emotion but as an “ontological drive of separated beings towards union (p. 60). Missions studies are concerned with the nature and action of God and the implications for how humans should think and live (Nagy, 2022, p. 62). Thus missiology is normative, always expressed in a “situational, actual, and empirical-intercultural manner” (Nagy, 2022, p. 62). The normativity of missions studies has to be placed “against the constellation of other modes of normativity, and is thus “always partial and becoming in relationality” (Nagy, 2022, p. 62). Missiological normativity is closer to discernment, rooted in spirituality, which makes it an “open-ended discipline, one which does not hide the researcher behind the research” (p. 62). This spiritual open-ended discipline does not presume that the researcher has a neutral position but exposes the “entanglement, power issues, and issues of representation” (Nagy, 2022, p. 62). However, this spiritual open-ended discipline also demonstrates the legitimate desire to love God and his world (Nagy, 2022, p. 62). This normative, spiritual, open-ended conception of missions studies means as a researcher I do not need to detach myself as a religious devotee. 

Nagy (2022) refers to interculturality as “the ways through which the various agents act, interact or relate in co-creation (p. 62). Context and culture are still foundational concepts for developing missiological theory and method, but they can be problematic (Nagy 2022, p. 63). The “wide interdisciplinary interest in the spatiality of societal and cultural phenomena” has strongly influenced missiology (Nagy, 2022, p. 63). Nagy (2022) advocates for missiologists’ engagement and dialogue with scholars who come from different epistemological frameworks (p. 64). However, Nagy warns against understanding locality primarily in terms of “owned/claimed territory” as this would interpret culture primarily through “tribal, ethnic, and national lenses” instead of understanding locality in its “spatial relationality/interconnectednness” (p. 64). In my research of ONH, I must make sure not to interpret participants’ concept of locality in ways they never would. Nagy cites Steve Bevan’s work on the dangers of Western attempts to attribute meaning to cultural identity “which is not the lived experience of the culturally identified people” (p. 64). In spite of the influence of Bevan’s research, “Christian identities, informed by academic theology, keep producing and reproducing cultural (i.e., national, ethnic, or tribal) Christianities” (Nagy, 2022, p. 65). Nagy (2022) suggests that theories of culture that consider interculturality and space may be helpful in “overcoming the homogenous and homogenizing principles” that have caused “reproductions of nationalistic forms of Christianity”, such as in Europe (p. 65). Participants of ONH have contended that a key impetus for supersessionist theology arose during the Era of Exploration when the people of God replaced the notion of Gentile (Jennings, 2010). 

Lastly, the spiritual turn in missions studies described by Nagy is key to ONH because from its inception it has been a prayer movement with Charismatic practice uniting Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Messianic Jewish, and Pentecostal church leaders (Hocken, 2007). Nagy (2022) describes the spiritual turn in mission studies as overlapping with increased attention given to Christian spirituality in relationship with other spiritualities, and the researcher’s spirituality (p. 66). Thus, 

mission does not aim primarily at the propagation or transmission of intellectual convictions, doctrines, moral commands, but at the transmission of the life of communion that exists in God…The Holy Spirit is incompatible with individualism, its primary work being the transformation of all reality to a relational status (Nagy, 2022 p. 67). 

This anti-individualist conception is highly relevant to ONH’s contention that biblical mission does not consist primarily of reconciliation between human persons and God. Instead, biblical mission is fundamentally about reconciliation between human groups in fulfillment of God’s expressed desire and for his ultimate glory. 

References

Enslin, M. S. (1961). The Parting of the Ways. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 51(3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1453437

Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, & Mayer N. Zald. (2005). Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge University Press; eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=132352&authtype=sso&custid=s6133893&site=ehost-live&custid=s6133893

Hocken, P. (2007). TOWARD JERUSALEM COUNCIL II. Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 16(1), 3–17. Academic Search Premier.

Jennings, W. J. (2010). The Christian imagination: Theology and the origins of race. Yale University Press; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.ocn808346478&site=eds-live&custid=s6133893

Kollman, Paul. (2022). Defining Mission Studies for the Third Millennium of Christianity. In Coleman, Paul (Ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies. OUP Oxford.

Nessim, D. (2023). Torah for Gentiles? [Electronic resource]: What the Jewish Authors of the Didache Had to Say. Lutterworth Press, The; Biola Library ebooks. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08936a&AN=bio.on1391441015&site=eds-live&custid=s6133893

Nagy, Dorottya. (2022). Theory and Method in Mission Studies / Missiology. In Nagym Dorottya (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies. OUP Oxford.

New International Version. (2011). BibleGateway.com. http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#booklist

Nina Rowe. (2011). The Jew, the Cathedral and the Medieval City: Synagoga and Ecclesia in the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge University Press; eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=e000xna&AN=435252&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

by daviddawson462742281

Teaching Cross-culturally: Challenges and Responses

Challenges to teaching across cultures in contemporary analysis that I identify with

Missiologist Craig Ott (2021) states that initial excitement and curiosity on the part of students towards foreign teachers fades quickly but “the sojourner who perseveres” will develop deep relationships and cultural understanding (p. 7,11). One problem as I see it is that cross-cultural teachers are often required to do this kind of work almost purely on a sacrificial basis. In other words, idealistic and highly-motivated young teachers accept the call to cross-cultural vocation but end up disappointed. The teacher can stay overseas long-term with the prospect of marriage and family in a cultural and vocational no-man’s land. The missionary support base in the sending country becomes more relationally distant and the vocational culture on the field makes he or she a perpetual alien. If the teacher decides to return home, often the prestige and gratefulness of the Christian education culture is not what they expected. The teaching profession is very competitive for all candidates and a returning missionary may feel more outdated and outstripped by the “competition” versus feeling honored as a veteran cross-cultural practitioner. 

I have had much success with the constructivist pedagogy, but I recognize the liabilities of “self-realization” being prioritized over “community responsibility” (Ott, 2021, p. 12). I have seen this both in my own pursuit of developing a career in Christian education as well as in my students. This predominant Western approach can be described as “privileging the individual learner over the collective, and promoting autonomy and independence of thought and action” (Merriam, 2007, p. 1). It seems that so many of us – I speak as a Gen-x 47 year-old – have been hindered by the lack of institutional loyalty we learned from the constructive approach. Perhaps I am drawing a connection here that is unwarranted. I refer to how the focus on the individual learner translates into a focus on independent development with expendable mentor and peer relationships. Indian educators have challenged the effectiveness of such modes of learning in their context (Seth, 2007). It is definitely problematic when Western modes of learning are proposed as axiomatic and universal, such as the ideal of the self-guided student preparing to become a self-made man or woman. 

Most difficult and easiest aspects of adaptions for me if going into cross-cultural teaching situation and why 

Ott (2021) lists several aspects of adaptations for teaching in a cross-cultural setting. At present, if I to teach in an unknown cultural context, the most difficult aspect of adaptations for me would probably be social adaptation (Ott, 2021, p. 59). I base this on the experience of teaching in environments where there was a high expectation for relational interaction outside the classroom. Take for example an invitation to teach for a week as a guest professor at a leadership training program, seminary, or conference. I can generally manage if I am expected to teach for 4-6 hours a day, and share meals with students/participants. However, if I am also expected to be available for individual meetings with throughout the week this can become overwhelming. When I was teaching in YWAM and Bible Colleges in Brazil, for example, I had to be prepared for a considerable amount of one-on-one meetings. As an introvert, I sometimes struggled – and still do – to maintain realistic boundaries so that I could be effective. I find it comical to compare this experience with similar teaching invitations I receive in Europe. When teaching in Germany and Holland I can generally expect to have considerable time to myself. I even plan to visit some sites, eat some local foods, and do some shopping because it’s likely I’ll have enough free-time.  

I struggle to think of one of Ott’s (2021) aspects of adaptations that I would categorize as “easy”, because I see challenges in all four. However, over the years I have become more efficient at didactic adaptation and content adaptation (p. 59). The main reason for this, perhaps, is that as a missionary I have usually been teaching without a salary, or for a very small teacher stipend. For this reason, I have generally felt free regarding the improvisation of didactic method and instructional content. I hope this doesn’t reveal a lack of motivation on my part, although I’m open to that critique. What I refer to is that generally the only pressure to communicate a specific amount of content in a particular way was self-inflicted. When I was younger, I was excited to develop my understanding of content and come to a level of comfort in the teaching activity. Over the years of teaching, I have increasingly become more relaxed regarding covering all the content in the syllabus or module I am teaching. 

Geneva Gay and Craig Ott in Dialogue

Professor Geneva Gay of the University of Washington developed the model of Culturally Responsive Teaching. Gay (2018) suggests that the “content and styles of learning” of a particular ethnic group in a society should be “consistently incorporated” in the classroom instruction and testing (p. 6). Gay seeks to correct the phenomena of teachers and students connecting “academic difficulties to their personal worth” (Gay, 2018, p. 8. Perhaps Ott’s (2021) approach could be described as seeing didactic, social, structural, and content models of education as a toolbox to draw from. Gay (2018) emphasized the “European and middle-class origins (deeply ingrained in the structures, ethos, programs and etiquette of schools” (p. 9). Eisenhart and Cutts-Dougherty (1991) describe this educational environment as “socially situated and culturally constructed”, creating “social barriers or cultural norms” that “define and limit the types and the amount of information” involved in teaching (p. 28). 

Shade, Kelly and Oberg (1997) argue that “core cultural characteristics” are shared by members of an ethnic group, indeed, “enthicity and culture” constitute the underpinnings of behavior in general, which Gay (2018) picks up in her model of mitigating variables and expressive behaviors (p. 10). We can compare this with Ott’s (2021) assessment that novelty in intercultural teaching contexts often wears out fast and true fruit comes from deep long-term commitment (p. 7,11).

Gay’s argues that conventional teaching paradigms fail because they concentrate on what students from certain ethnicities and cultures don’t have and can’t do (p. 13). Ott’s suggestion that didactic, social, structural, and content aspects of teaching can and should be adapted contextually is not at odds with Gay’s (2018) proposal (p. 59) . Gay’s (2018) assessment that Western individualistic approaches to contextual adaptation fail (p. 14) is in agreement with Ott’s (2021) indictment of collectivist pedagogies that prioritize self-realization over community responsibility (p. 12). 

Gay’s (2018) observes educational assumptions that capability or lack thereof in students is indicative of a general deficiency that will manifest other areas (p. 16-17). I can relate this to Ott’s (2018) observations regarding the emphasis of Western modes of education on individual learning, autonomy and independence (p. 12). The individualistic approach to education demonstrates the tendency towards specialization in the Academy. The ever evolving subdivision of academic disciplines and multiplication of new areas of study fragment the learning environment. The student is encouraged to specialize, and even in popular self-help publications the predominant emphasis ois on the discovery and maximization of individual strengths and abilities.

Finally, Gay’s (2018) comments on the limitations of standardized tests and grades in relation to cultural differences presents the paradoxical situation of immigrant students (p. 18). Immigrant students from Majority World nations are often taken out of the community dynamic that would normally provide them with a better learning situation. The linguistic, cultural, and educational adjustment is something I say my own children go through in immigrating from Brazil to the U.S. and then to Portugal. Ott cites criticism from Majority World educators regarding the deficiencies of Western approaches (Seth, 2007). However, it is still the case that immigrants coming to the West desire to thrive and be a part of that cultural context. I’m aware of the criticism in Europe, for example, that many immigrants only come to seek a better life for themselves whether or not that means becoming a productive contributor to the majority culture. However, research shows that the majority of immigrants to Portugal where I live sincerely seek to work and assimilate into the majority society (Já Poderemos Falar de Segurança e de Imigração?, n.d.). 

References

Eisenhart, M., & Cutts-Dougherty, K. (1991). Social and cultural constraints on students’ access to school knowledge. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, programs, and policies (pp. 28–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. (Lower Level LC1099.3 .G393 2018; Third edition.). Teachers College Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.5fa32307.b7c3.5027.b081.5fe7ee113c2a&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Já poderemos falar de segurança e de imigração? – Contra-Corrente. (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2024, from https://omny.fm/shows/contra-corrente/j-poderemos-falar-de-seguran-a-e-de-imigra-o

Merriam, Sharan B. 2007. “An Introduction to Non-Western Perspectives on Learning and Knowing.” In Non-Western Perspectives on Learning and Knowing, edited by Sharan A. Merriam and Associates, 1–20. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Ott, C. (2021). Teaching and learning across cultures: A guide to theory and practice. (Lower Level LC1099 .O83 2021). Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.eca6bcdd.ba4a.5f1a.a161.26d8b7e3511a&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Seth, Sanjay. 2007. Subject Lessons: The Western Education of Colonial India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Shade, B. J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

by daviddawson462742281

Shifts Taking Place in Mission Studies

The recognition of Christianity as a global religion has shifted ecumenical projects from denominations to cultures and heightened the need for a strategy to engage religious pluralism (The Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies, 2022, p. 3-4). The influence of modern science on Christian mission expanded the related disciplines to include “theology, practice, history, cultural studies, religious studies, and social studies (OHMS, 2022, p. 4). 

I’m intrigued by the notion that a secular context provides the church an opportunity for “mutual exorcism” – to “purify each other from the dehumanizing forces each can harbor” (OHMS, 2022, p. 7,10). I understand this to refer to the possibility for secularist and Christian worldviews to challenge each other in ways which can be fruitful for their adherents and the general society. I imagine the Christian helping the secularist to temper the stridency of his or her optimism regarding collective human capacity to organize society towards justice and happiness. On the other hand, I can see the secularist showing the Christian the inconsistency of their desire to wield political power to effect the vision of Jesus. 

The effects of money and power dynamics on the modern missionary movement (OHMS, 2022, p. 8) have been evident during my missionary career. I have spent about 20 of the past 30 years in missions overseas as an American, mostly in the Global South but more recently in Southern Europe. In every context where I have served I have witnessed disfunction in missions strategies related to money and power dynamics. One common denominator I have witnessed personally and researched is the positive effects of emancipation of leadership and financial sustainability. At the same time, so many Global South missionaries follow the example of their Western mentors and end up seeking financial support from the U.S., Europe, and Anglo Commonwealth countries with strong missionary legacies. 

I find comparative theology to be a promising approach for missionaries like myself, where people of other faiths are seen as partners rather than object of mission (OHMS, 2022, p. 11). Vinoth Ramachandra states that we close ourselves off from conversion to the religious other as well as to a conversion to a deeper understanding of our own religion (FULLER studio, 2024). Ramachandra (2024) advocates for Christians not say “Come to us for we have the truth, but come with us He has the truth”. 

I believe it is urgent that the church promote the agency of those who are often “marginalized from missional centers of power, such as women, non-Western Christians, and minorities” (OHMS, 2022, p. 12). However, when I hear descriptions of Majority World Christianity where “lay people are the primary agents of mission” (OHMS, 2022, p. 13), my experience in the Global South makes me wonder why I usually witnessed the opposite. I refer to Brazil where I served as a church planter for 16 years, a context where the attraction model was predominant and ministry centered on professional pastors. 

The emergence of missiology as a scientific approach to cross-cultural evangelism helps me understand how social science methods came to be employed in the field (OHMS, 2022, p. 8). As theology and biblical studies came to be scientific disciplines engaged by scholars in universities, the same approach was applied to the missions (OHMS, 2022, p. 19). The Anglo-American Protestant world has been influenced by the Germanic ideal of missionary science since the early 20th century (OHMS, 2022, 21). And in the German-speaking world, the focus on local appropriation of the message rather than its delivery has been felt wherever I have served. The intercultural theology moniker helps me understand how in my lifetime many seminaries changed their course description from “missions” to “intercultural studies”. I have no criticism of this, in fact I feel that as a missionary I have benefited from it in contexts moire antagonistic to evangelism. But it is helpful to know the Liberal Protestant German context from which it emerges. 

The scientific approach to mission coming out of Germany let to a theological shift versus Anglo-American pragmatism (OHMS, 2022, p.?). As a result, apparently, missiology was short-lived in the Anglo-American academy but lived on till present in Germany and Scandinavia (OHMS, 2022, p. 26-7). In the U.S., only the private Christian universities maintained missiological research chairs, which were short-lived in mainstream secular colleges (OHMS, 2022, p. 27). All this is potentially encouraging to me as someone seeking to teach in European seminaries and develop missiological research programs. 

On the other hand, as someone engaged in missions in Europe, the most strong source of missiological research I encounter (perhaps as an English-speaker) is the Center for the Study of World Christianity in Edinburgh (OHMS, 2022, p. 29). The CSWC has excellent resources online that I consult regularly. As someone living in majority-Catholic Portugal, I am encouraged to know of the convergence of Protestant and Catholic missioligists (OHMS, 2022, p. 31). Two years ago I helped organize a theological symposium at the Universidade Lusofona in Lisbon and I am hopeful that areas of missiological study may promote ecumenical partnership. 

Lastly, the news that missiology has become “a corporate narrative exercise, in which Christians hear, exchange, and ponder the life stories of those who have sought to live the communal life of the gospel, and to witness to its truths in a multiplicity of contexts” (OHMS, 2022, p. 33), is encouraging. As someone coming from a highly energized missions agency like YWAM, a “less pragmatic, more theologically reflective, and more interdisciplinary and culturally divers” approach sounds wonderful (The Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies, 2022, p. 33).  

References

FULLER studio (Director). (2024, April 29). Deconstructing Evangelism Through the Lens of Global Christianity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWnIjON8sWELinks to an external site.

Kim, K., Jørgensen, K., & Climenhaga, A. F. (Eds.). (2022). The Oxford handbook of mission studies. (Upper Level BV2090 .O94 2022; First edition.). Oxford University Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.2ad0546b.f552.5b2c.aa65.cf3897a492f1&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893Links to an external site.