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