This bridge crosses the Mekong River in Cambodia.

I was talking with another missionary mate the other day, Arthur Davis. He described the missionary as a bridge between two cultures; not fully in one or the other, but connecting the two. I have found that idea immensely helpful as I think about mission and I think it sums up a lot of what this series of posts has been about. A ship may have been a more appropriate image in the past. But the context is changing. For me, the picture of missionary as a bridge works because bridges live in two places; they have two ministries (for want of a better word) just as Harries described in vulnerable mission. Bridges enable the riches of one place to be brought to another, while at the same time allowing different riches to flow in the opposite direction (assuming this is a two way bridge).

The focus on missionary as bridge also encapsulates the relational nature of mission. I came across this great quote by Meek referring to teaching but applicable for mission, “Teachers don’t teach information; they teach themselves.”¹ We won’t bring goods, we’ll be bringing ourselves. This quote gets to the heart of mission as personal and relational. We will be learning personally from others, and others will be learning our person, as they receive us and we receive them. The missionary is the site of connection of two cultures, just like a bridge. May the result be for the glory of God as the connection of two cultures grows our knowledge and love of God’s Word in His Son through His Spirit.

1.  Loving to know, p.137. ↩

There are many changes that occur in our lives that enable us to reflect and take an appropriate new action given the circumstances. These changes in us mean that we come to see God’s Word in a different way. We might see God’s fatherly patience as we move into parenthood. We might question God’s closeness during times of trouble. We might understand God’s faithfulness over the long stretch. Yet these changes occur in the same cultural pattern, they occur in the same cultural grid.

My guess as I head to Cambodia and am faced with a different culture is that my theology will change. I’m assuming I’ll start to read God’s Word in, potentially a Cambodian way. I don’t think I’ll read it as though I was fully Cambodian, but maybe with a Cambodian tinge as though I was wearing Cambodian glasses. I’m assuming it won’t happen overnight and that it will be subtle. But doing properly the reflection cycle of the last post, I’ll read God’s Word differently as I’m shaped by Cambodian culture. That’s kind of exciting; being opened up in a new way to the wonders in God’s Word.

In terms of others, I hope to be able to share this same reflection cycle with those that I meet and those that I end up teaching. My role there will be as more of a counselor. I am hoping to help the students reflect on their own culture and situations and then provide an outside perspective at the right time. In research, this is called the emic (insider) and etic (outsider) perspectives. We all use outside perspectives (well… we should) when faced with a hard situation; we seek advice from a trusted friend. Hopefully, having done the reflection cycle for myself, I’ll be in the best place to help others through it for themselves.

It is impossible to reflect properly about every moment that occurs. I’m not advocating constant reflection. There is plenty of time for action. But in a society of ‘activism’ has reflection disappeared?

Reflection is particularly helpful in times of trouble, or when issues arise. Going to Cambodia, I suspect this will be the case more so than usual as we learn to live in another culture different from ours. The tool I’ve found helpful (taught during my time in Melbourne), helps us navigate these tricky times. It’s not fool proof. But it’s worth it.

Often when faced with a new situation or problem we go straight to action. This is partly from our activist culture that works on doing things and doing them quickly; time is money. Now sometimes this is necessary and we can’t always take time to reflect. But that doesn’t mean we never should. The reflection cycle, shown to us recently at St Andrews Hall, begins with the situation or event.

We spend time seeking to understand the ins and outs of that situation. This is important and will pay off in the rest of the cycle. We then move to the wider context (factors that may not be readily apparent, but played a part in the situation). This provides the base to head to Scripture in order to set our situation within God’s Word.¹ These parts together help us then move to action, rather than moving to action straight away.²

As an example: In relationship difficulties… of which I never have any… the first step is understanding the situation as fully as we can. The second step is figuring out what lies behind the situation that may have effected things or may provide the rationale for actions and reactions (in relationships these factors are things like moods, energy levels, certain perspectives and personalities, yada, yada, yada). Having thought through these aspects, then its time to move to theological reflection. Theological reflection is only beneficial at this stage if we have done the last two stages properly.³ If we jump straight to this one, we get a similar result as if we had jumped straight to action. On the back of those three steps we are finally ready (as we can be) for action.

The real benefit in this reflection process is as much in the understanding as it is in the process. The reflection cycle does two things. Firstly, it slows us down (haste often leads to hate). And secondly, it helps us to see things from a wider perspective. Always healthy, in my opinion.

Next post, I’ll seek to apply these insights to our particular cross-cultural adventure.

Who said you can’t put in more than 100% effort?

One way to describe what happens to a missionary is through percentages. That is, assuming someone living in the one society is the standard, that being 100%. What happens to a missionary is that they kind of become 150%.

Now this is less like adding 50% to the 100%, and more like becoming 75% from each culture. The reason I like this description is that it portrays both a loss and a gain that occurs as you cross cultures. You lose touch with your own culture, but gain insights into another.

So what is lost and gained?

Loses: Time with family and time with society. The way this plays out is that you miss the ‘little times’ with family, seeing them at events or together as a group. On a societal level, what you miss is the trends and events that become part of a social memory – ‘remember when…’. Missionaries return and miss that social memory.¹ In a way, the individual losses of social memory are nothing significant. Some you may prefer to lose. But in another sense, people refer to things from social memory and use language arising from that memory. The result is that the missionary feels on the outside having not experienced it with everyone else.

Gains: You gain insights into another culture. In seeing another culture, you see different ways of life. As a result it can help you reflect on your own. The distance that occurs as you lose some of your culture provides that space.  So not only do you gain insights into another culture, but into your own as well; leaving your culture is a way of learning about it. Seeing a new culture and your own culture in a new way provides the opportunity to reflect, and, given enough time, it may also change your way of life. This may be permanent changes or just contextual (depending on where you are living). One of our teachers described it this way: you live one way when you’re overseas and you return to your life (more or less) when you come back.

On coming back, the missionary looks mostly the same. But because of their cross cultural experiences and lost home experiences (the 25% lost of your home culture) they’ll be different, even if it doesn’t show.