In the last post, I highlighted several key differences between dignity cultures, honor cultures, and face cultures. We also looked at a few similarities and their implications. Today, we’ll give deeper into the topic, exploring the practical significance of these cultural differences for serving cross-culturally.
As we navigate these varied landscapes, here are four practical implications to keep in mind:
Intercultural Relationships
First and most basic, distinguishing dignity cultures, honor cultures, and face cultures will impact intercultural communication.
For example, people from dignity cultures are more likely to communicate directly and assertively. They are also more likely to be willing to challenge others and to disagree openly.
People from honor cultures, on the other hand, are more likely to be indirect and indirect in their communication. They are also more likely to be willing to compromise and avoid conflict.
People from face cultures, on the other hand, are more likely to be indirect and deferential in their communication. They are also more likely to be willing to save face and avoid losing face.
If you are going to form relationships with people from a different cultural logic of self-worth, it is important to be aware of the different cultural expectations. This will help you to avoid misunderstandings and to build more effective relationships.
Effective Gospel Communication
The gospel message is universal, but to resonate effectively, it must be contextualized to people’s cultural realities. How can we expect people to respond to what they don’t grasp fully?
For instance, a Western presentation of the gospel, often centered on guilt and law, may not resonate as deeply in honor or face cultures. Here, concepts of honor, shame, and social harmony hold considerable sway, necessitating a different approach to sharing the gospel narrative.
Navigating Misunderstandings and Conflicts
Understanding cultural paradigms equips us to navigate potential misunderstandings or conflicts better. In dignity cultures, where individual autonomy and personal convictions are emphasized, a respectful approach to personal beliefs is paramount.
In contrast, honor and face cultures, marked by familial and societal expectations and the potential implications of public shame or loss of face, demand a more nuanced approach to conflict resolution.
Culturally Sensitive Discipleship Strategies
Lastly, discerning these cultural constructs aids in the development of culturally sensitive discipleship strategies. In honor cultures, communal accountability and honor-based motivations can serve as effective tools for discipleship. Meanwhile, in dignity cultures, personal Bible study and individual spiritual disciplines are especially prominent methods, reflecting the culture’s emphasis on personal autonomy and conviction.
Concluding Thoughts
However, while we seek to understand these cultural paradigms, it’s vital to remember that we should avoid boxing people into stereotypes. Instead, these understandings should enable us to respect and appreciate each person’s unique cultural background. Cultures are not static; they are complex and dynamic, with considerable individual variation even within broad categories.
As we engage in cross-cultural ministry, let’s strive to better understand these cultural paradigms. This understanding can serve as a stepping stone to building bridges of mutual respect and effective communication, allowing us to tailor the unchanging yet multifaceted gospel message to the hearts and minds of those we serve.
After all, we carry one gospel, and that message is indeed for all nations.
Too often, we speak of “honor-shame” cultures when, in fact, the reality is more nuanced.
Among cross-cultural psychologists, a growing body of research explores different ways that people from different cultures view and value their own sense of self-worth. This research identifies three distinct “cultural logics”: dignity, honor, and face.
In this blog post, I’ll explain the key differences between these three perspectives. In the next post, I’ll discuss some of the implications of these differences for ministering cross-culturally.
Distinguishing Dignity, Honor, & Face Cultures
As followers of Christ engaged in cross-cultural ministry, we face an intricate tapestry of cultural differences. Three fundamental cultural threads worth knowing include dignity cultures, honor cultures, and face cultures. By gaining a deeper understanding of these paradigms, we aim to enhance our ability to serve and contextualize the gospel in diverse cultural contexts.
Dignity Cultures
Dignity cultures derive self-worth from a sense of inherent human dignity and individual autonomy. Rooted in the concept of intrinsic worth unaffected by external factors, these cultures emphasize personal rights, equality, and respect for all individuals.
The strength of dignity cultures lies in promoting individual freedoms and rights, fostering a more inclusive and egalitarian society. However, an inherent weakness is that an excessive focus on individual autonomy can overshadow the importance of social cohesion and collective responsibilities. These cultures, primarily prevalent in the West, value individuals based on their innate dignity, leading people to derive self-esteem from their moral convictions rather than public opinion.
In the context of cross-cultural ministry, it is essential to acknowledge and understand this inherent dignity when communicating the gospel, emphasizing the worth and value of individuals in God’s eyes. This recognition allows for a more effective engagement with dignity cultures, highlighting the significance of each person’s inherent worth, while also balancing individual rights and collective responsibilities.
Honor Cultures
Honor cultures link an individual’s self-worth to their reputation and social standing within the community. A person in these cultures is expected to protect their reputation and the honor of their family or group.
The strength of honor cultures lies in promoting social harmony and cohesion, as individuals are motivated to behave in ways that enhance their reputation and avoid actions that might bring shame. However, a potential weakness is that the emphasis on honor can lead to violence or aggressive behaviors when defending one’s reputation.
Prevalent in regions like Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, honor cultures revolve around the concepts of honor and shame, which can be gained or lost and are closely tied to fulfilling societal or familial roles and expectations.
As Christian missionaries, understanding the central role of honor in these cultures enables us to present the gospel as a story of restoration, emphasizing Christ’s role in restoring our honor before God. In doing so, we acknowledge the importance of honor in these cultures while also encouraging a peaceful and redemptive approach to resolving conflicts arising from the desire to preserve one’s reputation.
Face Cultures
Face cultures highly value maintaining social harmony and avoiding public embarrassment (e.g., “losing face). People in these cultures are sensitive to the impact of their actions and words on their own and others’ social standing.
An emphasis on face allows for positive social interactions and a focus on preserving relationships. However, it can also lead to a lack of direct communication and addressing important issues honestly, since maintaining harmony often win out over expressing one’s true thoughts and feelings.
Primarily found in East Asia, so-called “face cultures” prioritize social harmony and collective reputation. “Face” represents an individual’s respectability and social standing. The significance of saving or gaining face in these cultures can result in severe social consequences if one face is lost.
Understanding this cultural aspect enables us to contextualize the gospel as a means of saving face and restoring relational harmony through Christ’s sacrifice. This presentation of the gospel is highly relevant and relatable to individuals in face cultures (since it aligns with their cultural values of preserving face and maintaining social harmony). However, it also encourages honest and open communication about important matters while emphasizing the restoration and redemption found in Christ’s message.
How are they similar?
While these cultural constructs certainly have unique attributes, they also share certain traits.
For example, a common characteristic among dignity, honor, and face cultures is the universal human need for social recognition and respect. Regardless of whether we’re discussing Western dignity cultures, Middle Eastern honor cultures, or East Asian face cultures, you’ll find that each values the social recognition of an individual’s worth.
This human need, whether realized through inherent dignity, honor bestowed upon fulfilling social roles, or maintaining face in societal interactions, forms a foundational common ground among these cultures.
Second, these three culture types share an emphasis on morality and social order. In dignity cultures, individuals tend to derive their self-worth from an internal moral compass, fostering a society that upholds the dignity of every individual. Honor cultures, while more externally driven, place a strong emphasis on moral behavior tied to societal roles and expectations. Similarly, face cultures stress social harmony, which can only be achieved through proper conduct and adherence to social norms.
Lastly, each has mechanisms for managing potential offenses or transgressions. In dignity cultures, there’s a tendency towards dialogue, forgiveness, and legal processes. Honor cultures may emphasize confrontation, even retaliation, to defend honor, and face cultures might utilize intricate patterns of indirect communication and mediation to preserve face and social harmony. While the specific mechanisms differ, their presence is noteworthy.
A Few Initial Implications
In the next post, I’ll delve more fully into the practical implications for ministry of distinguishing between dignity, honor, and face cultures. For now, here are just a few initial thoughts.
Recognizing that these culture share traits is significant for our cross-cultural communication and ministry. Here’s why:
(1) Acknowledging the universal need for social recognition can aid us in presenting the gospel in a way that affirms the value of every individual. In a world often marked by devaluation and dehumanization, the gospel’s affirmation of human worth can resonate powerfully across cultures.
(2) Understanding the shared emphasis on morality and social order helps us appreciate the moral intuition embedded in different cultures, helping us discern bridges for gospel conversations. This understanding can enable us to present Christ’s teachings as fulfilling the deepest moral longings of humanity.
(3) Recognizing the common mechanisms for dealing with offenses provides us with a platform to discuss sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation–– central themes of the gospel message. Understanding these mechanisms can equip us in explaining the radical nature of God’s forgiveness through Christ.
Today, I will elaborate further concerning why we wrote the book and how it can prove useful to readers. First of all, it’s neither a typical academic nor a popular-level work. It’s a true hybrid.
Reasons for Seeking God’s Face
The book has 101 practical reflections. Why so many? And what do you mean by “practical reflections”? Is there a need for this book?
For the past decade, the conversation around honor and shame has largely been among missiologists and some theologians. Although Jayson Georges’ work presents these ideas at a popular level, it generally focuses on the missionary community. By contrast, I’ve taken a more academic approach, appealing to theologians and missiologists, those who serve as “gatekeepers” for the larger church.
What still needs to be done? Getting the message to a general audience while still being helpful to people already familiar with the honor-shame conversation.
In part, this is what my co-author, Ryan Jensen, and I attempt to do in this work. Even among those already conversant with honor and shame, much more needs to be accomplished. First, few people grasp just how expansive or pervasive these topics are in Scripture. This is one reason we have 101 sections.
We wanted to have sections from every part of the Bible, even making sure to include a representative sample from wisdom literature and the minor prophets (not just the “easy texts”). In fact, writing the reflection on Ecclesiastes was one of my favorites.
No one will finish this book and still think that honor and shame influence only a narrow set of texts.
Is Seeking God’s Face Practical?
What are “practical reflections”? In one correspondence with Ryan, he wrote this:
In my Ph.D. studies, I read a lot about honor and shame. This existing literature really opened my eyes to the reality of honor-shame in the Scriptures. However, thinking about and writing these reflections for about a nine-month span reinforced not only the prevalence of the topic and its importance to help us best understand Scripture but also its practical implications for our personal spirituality.
For me, it wasn’t just trying to write an entry and provide some practical application as I noticed it in the text. Instead, almost all of my reflections came out of my daily reading of Scripture when something was impressed on my heart from the Spirit. I would often meditate on it for a couple of days and really think about how it worked in my personal life before writing the full reflection.
Going through this process helped me to see the practical implications that the world of honor and shame in scripture has for each and every follower of Christ, regardless of if they come from a predominantly honor-shame culture or not.
Ryan came to me with an idea for writing a “devotional.” I wasn’t interested because, personally, I’m not a fan of devotionals. At the same time, I saw his point. Something else needed to be written that helped people consider how honor and shame impact the heart and hands.
So, we merged genres, combining the brevity and practicality of a devotional but with theological substance. We then tested it with two sizable focus groups and applied their feedback. Hopefully, you’ll find Seeking God’s Face edifying for the head, heart, and hands.
This book will be useful in a personal, missional, and academic setting. Just by looking at the variety of endorsers, you can see the book’s range of appeal and applicability.
More Endorsements
I previously posted positive blurbs about the book from Brandon O’Brien, Lucy Peppiatt, Tom Steffen, and Jim Mullins. Here are a few more endorsements.
Seeking God’s Face will help you to see the Bible in a new light by bringing out the themes of shame and honor where you didn’t see them before. In addition to explaining the meaning of numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments, the book encourages readers to reflect on ways they have shamed God or others, to repent from dishonoring behaviors, and practice honoring God with our lives. These contemplations on a biblical worldview of shame and honor can serve to correct any culture’s practices that dishonor others.
Kenneth Nehrbass, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Global Studies, Rawlings School of Divinity, Liberty University
What Wu and Jensen have done in this helpful devotional is to put the Bible’s own discussion of these topics in front of the reader while prompting meaningful, personal reflection and application. Before you make up your mind on the issues, work through this devotional volume and take time to reflect on the Bible’s own presentation of these important elements of human existence.
Matthew Bennett, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Missions and Theology, Cedarville University
… As a scholar and pastor from the Majority World, I highly recommend this book to people who struggle with the daily experience of shame.
Patrick Chan, General Secretary, Hong Kong Campus Crusade for Christ.
…Written in a devotional format, it has the breadth of research and careful exegesis that Wu is known for. They show that this deeper understanding should then make a difference in our daily lives, our communities, and our relationship with God.
Kiem-Kiok Kwa, Lecturer, Biblical Graduate School of Theology, Singapore
Seeking God’s Face will inspire new reflections on honor and shame, whether you are a veteran or rookie to this theological discussion.… I found myself sitting forward in my office chair to absorb their insight and then sitting back to reflect on what it means for my life.
The further I went in this book, the more I appreciated the beautiful blend of theological depth and psychological honesty. I recommend Seeking God’s Face for personal devotion or group study on this important biblical concept.
Chris Sneller (Ph.D., King’s College London) Director of Innovation, Bridges International; Lecturer in Missional Theology, Houston Baptist University
Few resources on this topic exist to equip the Church for such ministry contexts. And those available are often academic in nature and beyond the reach of most believers.
Wu and Jensen are to be commended on providing the Church with a very helpful, user-friendly work. Seeking God’s Face is a creative and innovative piece of mission literature…. Part training manual, part practical guide, this book assists readers with making disciples of all nations—particularly the majority who hold honor-shame value systems.
J. D. Payne, Ph.D., Missiologist, Professor of Christian Ministry, Samford University
While there are many devotions on the shelves, I recommend Seeking God’s Face for your spiritual mirror to help you walk in spiritual honor before the Lord and the world in the face of honor and shame.
Haggai Alhamdu Habila, Pastor/Chaplain at Living Spring Fellowship, Puyallup, WA
Working each day through Seeking God’s Face has deepened and enriched both my personal faith and my cross-cultural Bible-teaching ministry by opening up new vistas on familiar Old and New Testament passages.
In their introduction, Jackson Wu and Ryan Jensen state that they intend this set of 101 reflections to “affect our head, heart, and hands.”
I can vouch that this is wonderfully true, …
Chris Howles, DIS, Head of Theology Uganda Martyrs Seminary Namugongo. Founder of www.fromeverynation.net
I must confess, I’ve been new to learning about honor and shame dynamics the last few years. Yet I’ve had no greater teacher than Jackson Wu. These dynamics are everywhere in Scripture–and in culture today, blind as we may be to them. Seeking God’s Face will help you have “eyes to see” these powerful dynamics in the biblical story, in your own life, and in society around you today.
Joshua Butler, Author of The Skeletons in God’s Closet and The Pursuing God
This collection of essays, based on critical texts from both the Old and the New Testaments, is beautifully devotional in nature. At the same time, Seeking God’s Face not only provides its readers with critical insights into honor and shame, but it does so in a manner that is easily accessible and useful to pastors, scholars, and lay people.
It also demonstrates how a clear understanding of honor and shame can deepen our understanding of important biblical texts, as well as their function within the broader narrative of Scripture. Frankly, I am amazed that the authors have managed to accomplish so much in this delightful, easily readable, work!
Thomas J. Sappington, Th.D., Associate Professor of Intercultural Studies, Biola University
“In Seeking God’s Face, Jackson Wu and Ryan Jensen dispense the myth that the Bible is confusing, out of date, and inferior to Enlightenment reasoning. This volume offers a grand narrative of 101 scriptural reflections through the lens of honor and shame that reveals a repeated cultural pattern that challenges our biased Western views and nudges us toward new ways of Christian living and growing in our love of the blessed Trinity.”
Robert Gallagher, Ph.D., Professor of Intercultural Studies Emeritus, A. Duane Litfin, School of Mission, Ministry, & Leadership, Wheaton College
Uzzah put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen shook it. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. (1 Chronicles 13:9b-10)
At the height of the American Civil War, Confederate William Mumford tore down the American flag and dragged it through the streets in protest. Shortly after, Mumford was executed for desecrating the nation’s flag. Why such a severe punishment? Notice how a Union general denounced the confederate mob,
“They have insulted our flag— torn it down with indignity. This outrage will be punished in such a manner as in my judgment will caution both the perpetrators and abettors of the act, so that they will fear the stripes, if they do not reverence the stars of our banner.”
People intuitively grasp what it means to treat something as sacred, worthy of unique honor. Still, readers are often perplexed by God striking down Uzzah when he touches the ark. “Isn’t God a bit uptight?” some ask. Unlike national flags, which are owned and flown by people throughout the world, the ark uniquely serves as the symbolic throne for God.[1] No wonder the Lord gave such specific instructions about how to carry it (Exodus 25:12-14).
Yet, David’s men transport the ark by cart, just as they would anything else. They intend to honor God and bring him worship. Instead, they treat his throne with casual neglect. When Uzzah sees the oxen stumble, horror no doubt courses through his body as he anticipates the ark being defiled by mud. How shameful to let God’s throne descend to the earthen filth below!
Uzzah, however, has a fundamental misunderstanding about how to honor God. He assumes that the ground below is dirtier than his own hand. Uzzah forgets that he is a broken sinner, tainted by sin save for the mercy of God. He mistakes the call of God, who does not delight in mere ritual but reverence. The various sacrifices and rituals of worship are simply expressions of godly devotion.
In reality, Uzzah’s blood stains the hands of David and the assembly. Uzzah’s error is rooted in an increasingly casual attitude toward God that pre-dated the day of his death. He belonged to a community that treated what is holy as though it were common.
In profaning God in this way, they provoke the Lord and disgrace themselves. Uzzah’s death befits a cavalier attitude toward God’s holiness. Let us not be so casual in our service to God.
Parting Reflection
How might you be too casual in how you worship God and follow Christ? What is the relationship between ritual and reverence?
Parting Prayer
Lord, thank you for the sobering story of 1 Chronicles 13-15. We long for more than casual religion. You desire that our hearts would worship, like David, with great dancing and celebration. Teach us to honor you with all of our minds, hearts, and bodies.
[1] Cf. 1 Chronicles 13:6; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Kings 19:15, among others.
How does one show the pervasive influence of honor and shame in Scripture? At the same time, how can people see their practical implications? After all, honor and shame are dynamics that affect every sphere of life, not just “ministry strategy.” Is it also possible to write something that challenges both the intellect and the heart?
Honor and shame influence every major aspect of life, whether in relationships, politics, or social media. It’s not surprising, then, to find that honor and shame shape the biblical message and all that Christians are called to be. Unfortunately, many leaders and laypersons do not grasp the theological and practical significance of these concepts for the church.
It includes 101 practical reflections on Scripture from a perspective that takes seriously honor and shame. Accordingly, we explore passages that employ such language and related concepts. Also, we try to demonstrate how various biblical texts bear on our own sense of honor and/or shame.
We attempt to merge two genres of writing such that we get something genuinely fresh.
On the one hand, many people like reading devotions. I don’t. Most devotionals, in my opinion, are a bit too “fluffy” and light on Scripture. On the other hand, rigorous academic books tend not to reach a broader audience and often lack the kind of practicality that people need.
In Seeking God’s Face, we marry these approaches into something that is both theologically substantial and practically significant. This is my first attempt to write a book for a broader, more popular-level readership. Admittedly, we’re a bit ambitious in this book. You can be the judge of whether we succeed.
Reasons for Seeking God’s Face
The book has 101 practical reflections. Why so many? And what do you mean by “practical reflections”? Is there a need for this book?
For the past decade, the conversation around honor and shame has largely been among missiologists and some theologians. Although Jayson Georges’ work presents these ideas at a popular level, it generally focuses on the missionary community. By contrast, I’ve taken a more academic approach, appealing to theologians and missiologists, those who serve as “gatekeepers” for the larger church.
What still needs to be done? Getting the message to a general audience while still being helpful to people already familiar with the honor-shame conversation.
In part, this is what my co-author, Ryan Jensen, and I attempt to do in this work. Even among those already conversant with honor and shame, much more needs to be accomplished. First, few people grasp just how expansive or pervasive these topics are in Scripture. This is one reason we have 101 sections.
We wanted to have sections from every part of the Bible, even making sure to include a representative sample from wisdom literature and the minor prophets (not just the “easy texts”). In fact, writing the reflection on Ecclesiastes was one of my favorites.
No one will finish this book and still think that honor and shame influence only a narrow set of texts.
Some Endorsements
“It’s one thing to grasp a concept intellectually. It’s another thing to apply it to your heart. Wu and Jensen invite their readers to wrestle, prayerfully and personally, with a cultural dynamic unfamiliar to many Western Christians but deeply significant to the characters and first readers of the Bible. The result is a unique blend of scholarly reflection and personal devotion.”
“Seeking God’s Face provides 101 passages across the landscape of Scripture to help dissipate the fog surrounding honor and shame, clearing the way for more genuine worship and works. Read this book with caution because it will touch your heart, head, and hands.”
Tom Steffen, DMiss., Professor emeritus, Cook School of Intercultural Studies, Biola University
“In this series of reflections, Jackson Wu and Ryan Jensen take the reader into the scriptures through the lens of honor and shame. Although this is a perspective often lost to Western readers, it is close to the cultures in which the stories of the Bible are embedded. Thus, they bring out both illuminating and thought-provoking conclusions, while also maintaining a cruciform focus that highlights God’s challenge to and care of the church.”
“Seeking God’s Face takes our hearts and minds on a tour through the biblical story, showing us how honor and shame are powerful themes throughout Scripture. It’s theologically robust, deeply formative, and accessible to a broad range of readers. This book is a gift to God’s people. I highly recommend it.”
On NPR, Russell Moore was asked whether he had hope that the problem of abuse and secrecy could be fixed within the SBC. He was pessimistic. Why? Because the problem is rooted in SBC culture, not primarily systems. He’s absolutely right.
It’s precisely to that point––SBC culture–– that I write this post. When I wrote the post explaining why I left the SBC and IMB, I intended to leave it there. But then Paul Chitwood, president of the IMB, called my boss and issued what can be interpreted as a southern-style veiled threat. More on that in a minute.
(The purpose of my post last year was simply to stimulate conversation that would bring healing to the IMB and SBC. This is still my ambition, which is why I write this article now since the SBC Annual Convention will convene soon in Anaheim.)
Responses from IMB Missionaries
The response to my previous post has been overwhelmingly positive. Here is a sample of the messages sent to me from both current and former employees of the IMB offering their support.
“Thanks for writing that. Really thank you.”
“Thanks for your post and for your forthrightness.”
“Many of us have recently been warned against engaging on public social media in controversial/inflammatory posts or debates regarding the SBC—so people may be even more wary about commenting, unfortunately.”
“Some of the issues raised are things that we have pushed back on for years, with little progress. We’ve seen many hurt, and felt helpless to do anything meaningful about it. Or, because of the culture of secrecy, we didn’t know about certain issues until years later…or never. There are a lot of unhealthy practices and, frankly, a lack of love/care/compassion in some of what we do. I hope this starts a needed conversation for many.
“Just a note to say how much I appreciate your recent Patheos post. I resonated with so much. Thanks for posting it.”
“One thing that is absolutely true, is that those of us who took the VRI were clearly told that any benefits we may receive were incumbent on us agreeing to not disparage the company. It was not exactly an NDA, but it was a distinction without any difference.”
“I applaud your bravery and honesty.”
“I really appreciate this. We have stepped away from the SBC as well.”
“Good article on why you left. Sad but glad you shared.”
“I absolutely admired your hanging in there with the IMB as long as possible, … I loved the honesty of the article. You said what we all know is true and have experienced. However, as an answer for the IMB, it seems to me that the only way to fix that MONSTER is to literally kill it and start from scratch.”
I’ve also heard from non-IMBers. Here are a few of their comments:
“I am making an assumption based on past experience that it is likely that your article will receive harsh criticism from certain SBC entities that are well-known for trying to shut down anything perceived as a threat to the “sacred image and reputation” of the IMB/SBC. My guess is that there will be some type of PR statement referring to “individuals trying to stir up trouble or trying to cause disunity….” I have heard these lists of IMB default phrases for too long.
Just FYI….. I have already heard so much positive feedback from so many former IMB missionaries who want to pass on your article, but are fearful to do so.”
“I wanted to thank you for writing the last article you did on your website. I can very much relate to you because I saw a lot of those negative cultural aspects in the SBC church I attend in the states, and chose not to go through IMB to [location deleted for privacy purposes]. I am with you that I have many men that I respect that are in leadership, but something has to change within and I pray it changes soon.”
Why do I share these messages? Two reasons…. First, they give further evidence of the systemic problems that need to be addressed within the IMB. Second, I’m far from the only one who sees them.
Neither I nor any of the above IMBers have any desire to tear down the IMB. The IMB is made up of people, whom we love.
Then the IMB president called my boss
Approximately 24 hours after my previous post went up on social media, Paul Chitwood, president of the IMB, called William Strickland, my former boss who was president of Mission ONE at the time. Stop for a moment and consider what all that means.
Neither Chitwood nor any IMB leaders reached out to me to inquire further about the problems I mentioned.
They did not call or write me to express their grief about these serious issues.
Chitwood had no time to investigate any of the statements I made in the post.
Yet, he called my boss saying that my claims were false. Since I have emails, took screenshots of relevant information, and the lived experience firsthand,….and again, since he had no time to investigate my remarks, how could he possibly assert that I made falsehoods?
The more gracious, humble, and integritous move by the IMB would be to reach out to me directly to inquire, apologize, and/or seek to improve the organization.
Instead, the action they took showed a greater interest in doing reputation management and hopefully shut up the voice of the “agitator.”
Paul’s comments to William reinforced the sad narrative that many familiar with the IMB would come to expect. (William confirmed the following account of the conversation.) Chitwood found every opportunity to mention the word “lawyers” while maintaining that he had no interest in pursuing legal action against me for my alleged falsehoods. He stressed the damage that people like me could do in demotivating people to give financially to organizations like the IMB and Mission ONE.
How does one interpret his words?
In effect, one would naturally understand him as urging William to find a way to silence me. Chitwood even offered the services of the IMB’s legal counsel “just in case” William wanted to explore Mission ONE’s options in dealing with me.
In short, the entire conversation could be described as a Southern-style, passive-aggressive power play. William is from Alabama. I grew up in Texas. Paul Chitwood is from Kentucky. We are all familiar with this “polite” attempt at intimidation. Everything was stated indirectly, allowing for plausible deniability.
In light of the ongoing scandals plaguing Christian organizations these days, I would have hoped for more from the IMB, wanting to be above reproach. Once again, I am disappointed. Chitwood’s response epitomizes the sort of problems I highlighted in the previous post.
What does it say about the culture of an organization when it withholds funds from people (who were asked to voluntarily leave/retire in order to save the IMB from financial ruin) unless they are willing to sign a non-disparagement agreement? Seriously… pause and think about that.
We must lose face to give God face
There is a fundamental problem underlying all of these cultural problems within the IMB and much of evangelicalism. Let’s be honest here…. People subtly believe that they can’t admit sinning and whatever other wrongdoing because it would make the pastor or church look bad. And if so, that would make God look bad. That very simple logic informs so much of what goes on within toxic Christian organizations.
Let me say this as clearly as possible: we must lose face to give God face.
When we are busy managing our reputation, we most likely are not doing much good for Christ’s reputation. In fact, when we’re garnering the praise of others for our wit, efficiency, hard work, or whatever, we don’t show the world that we have much need for Christ. It’s only in confession, brokenness, and humility (i.e., when we are willing to lay down our “face”) that Christ is exalted as he ought to be.
One current IMB missionary identified a dynamic within SBC culture that perpetuates problems. This person noted the power of “personal loyalty” even when someone agrees with the facts. In other words, even if “Karen” and “Mark” agree that “Bill” is misusing authority, etc., they arereluctant to speak up because Bill is a nice guy who loves Jesus and wants to win souls for Christ. For those entrenched within Southern-IMB subculture, criticism equates to disloyalty. (This is also evident in how many evangelicals have behaved with respect to politics.)
In A Church Called Tov, Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer explain that in toxic organizations, the unspoken motto is “loyalty above righteousness.”
Other missionaries hesitate to speak because they see the good done by the IMB. After all, it’s a very large organization. Change is slow. They say they’re seeking change from the inside. And, yes, there is some truth and value with each of these statements.
But I’ll just pose this question: How’s that working for you? How much has the culture really changed while you’ve remained silent?
No one wants to lose their job, but, as one current IMB missionary said to their spouse, “Do you really want to work for an organization that would fire you for speaking up about serious problems?”
For the sake of Christ and the well-being of the IMB, speak the truth and share your story.
Note: This post comes from a cross-cultural worker in East Asia.
It was a crisp, bright morning as I rode my bike to language class. About a block away from the school, I noticed a man sitting on the sidewalk begging for money. I immediately felt compelled to talk with him, but I had no time to do so as class was about to start. However, the next morning after class, I saw him sitting in the exact same spot as before. I felt compelled to talk with him again, and this time I had no excuse not to, but I rode my bike right past him and continued riding anyway.
Public Domain
Meanwhile, my spirit, unsettled within me, knew God was speaking to me to talk with this man, but I was afraid—afraid that I wouldn’t be able to successfully communicate with him, afraid that this interaction could potentially interrupt my day, afraid of what other people might think of me. Nonetheless, I turned around and after five minutes of silent prayer, I worked up enough courage to ask if I could sit with him. This led to us casually talking for about a half an hour.
Then I asked him if I could treat him to lunch. He agreed, but then he asked me something I will never forget: “Won’t this cause you to lose face?”
“Face” in East Asia
One thing you should know about this man is that his face and hands are completely scared due to being burned in an accidental kitchen explosion. For four entire years, he never stepped foot out of his house for fear of what others might think of him upon seeing his marred complexion.
You see, one of the things characteristic about East Asia is that its culture is heavily influenced by the principles of honor and shame. So much so that the reality of who one is (i.e., family of origin, education, job status, possessions, appearance) defines one’s perceived value in the eyes of society.
This notion of one’s perceived value or worth is commonly referred to as “face.” One can gain “face,” and one can lose “face.” To gain “face” is to be honored and esteemed by others. On the contrary, to lose “face,” is to be shamed and scorned by others.
Credit: Flickr/SonofGroucho
Because this man literally “lost” his face due to scarring, and he can’t work due to disfigured hands, and the only way he can make a living for himself is by begging for money on the street, he is on one of the lowest levels of society. Thus, for me to associate with him, should cause me to lose “face,” since I am perceived to have a higher social status.
Face defines identity
However, I told him that I wouldn’t lose “face” because, as a child of God, my “face” comes from Him. I am free from worrying about what other people may think of me because my identity is not defined by others (although I sometimes struggle to believe this truth). While we were eating lunch, he asked me why I wanted to take him to lunch. I told him it was because I wanted to get to know his story. With tears welling up in his eyes, he said that no one had ever asked him about his story, much less a foreigner like myself.
As we were walking back to the spot where I had met him, he pulled a mask out of his backpack and showed it to me. He said that normally when he walks around town he wears the mask to cover up his disfigured face, but because I was with him, he didn’t have to! Simply by being with him, I was, in a sense, giving him his “face” back!
Although I may have lost “face” in the eyes of society that day by my actions, I believe I gained true “face” in God’s eyes as I lived in accordance with my identity in Him.
I emphatically proclaim along with David, “But you, O LORD, are a shield about me, my glory, the lifter of my head!” (Psalm 3:3, ESV)
Book reviews can sometimes make authors nervous. Sure, they might give a negative review. But a bigger concern is that they accurately depict what you’ve written. If a reviewer wants to disagree, then you want then to object to what you actually say.
With that said, I’m grateful to let people know about two recently published reviews of my books. They have written generous critiques of each work. If anyone has not read either of these books, the following reviews offer helpful introductions. Below, I’ve included the concluding paragraph to each of their reviews.
Jackson Wu has given Christians of all walks of life, in particular cross-cultural workers, a much-needed guide for contextualizing the gospel in different cultures, especially in China. So much of Chinese culture jumps from the pages of the book, but not without a thoroughly biblical lens. The book is spiritually enriching even while its purpose is to practically model a challenging topic. My personal hope is that, in addition to utilizing the practical model presented, Christians will take to heart Wu’s message in the final chapter.
Daniel Eng is a doctoral student at Cambridge. He writes a review for AACE (Asian American Christian Equippers).
Jackson Wu’s work in Saving God’s Face should be an invaluable asset to the areas of theology. It provides a much-needed perspective as he approaches the gospel thoroughly within the framework of East Asian contextualization. Furthermore, his work should also be considered in developing a ministry approach to Asians and Asian Americans, as a more rounded approach to the good news must be understood within different cultures.
Few things are as tragic and ironic as the church’s response to Andy Savage’s sexual assault of Jules Woodson. She shares her story here and here, recounting in detail how Savage molested her 20 years ago when he was a youth pastor in Texas at Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church (now StoneBridge Church).
I’ll mention just two points that compound the church’s shame.
Did Churches Cover-up or Condone?
First, the pastors of the Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church are accused of covering up the assault. Woodson says,
Little did I know, the very people I was about to entrust to protect me and help me would not only victimize me all over again but would also engage in a cover up to protect my abuser and the image of the church.
She implicates the head pastor, Steve Bradley, and Larry Cotton, who now works with The Austin Stone.
I personally know well both of these pastors because I served at Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church shortly after Savage left his position. I met but did not know Andy Savage.
Second, when Savage publically confessed his guilt in a “sexual incident” (here, here), what did the world see? The congregation of Highland Point Church, where he is the teaching pastor, give Savage a standing ovation.
Did these churches cover-up or condone Savage’s assault?
Perception is difficult to pardon
On the one hand, Highland Point certainly does not condone Savage’s actions. The congregation simply intended to extend their love to Savage. But the watching world will find such grace incomprehensible. After Savage’s statement (see video below), another pastor added, “You don’t have to be against someone to be for someone.” In our day, few comprehend what this means in practice.
On the other hand, the response by my former pastors at Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church are more difficult to explain away. I want to first make a few comments about Larry Cotton.
Larry is a godly man of tremendous integrity. Knowing him as I do, I am certain he never intended to shame Jules into silence. I’m confident Larry grossly misjudged her comments when he asked her, “So you’re telling me you participated?” Without question, he made an error in judgment. This however does not warrant certain accusations being leveled against Larry. It’s easy for people to demonize a name on the web whom they do not know. (I cannot speak on behalf of other church leaders.)
The American social context was not always as it is today. Keep in mind that most schools spanked kids in the 1980s (and perhaps early 90’s). In the 1990s, few pastors saw the situation as a legal issue. According to the Christian Post,
The legal age of consent in Texas is 17. But Texas Law also identifies as assault an encounter that involves “a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser.”
Because Jules was 17 and the closeness of her relationship with Andy, Larry obviously suspected the interaction was more consensual than not. Furthermore, in southern church culture, such “family” matters were taken care up behind closed doors. I can only guess Larry didn’t know Savage’s actions were illegal given her age. Such laws received less public attention in those days.
To be clear, Larry was wrong. But motives matter and he did not try to “protect a predator” nor did he excuse Savage’s behavior. Simply because poor judgment had horrendous consequences does not imply he had evil intentions to condone a perpetrator or dismiss a victim.
(To repeat, I cannot speak to the intentions of other church leaders.)
Shame on Christ or just the church?
Nevertheless, we must recognize another dynamic that shaped the pastors’ response.
They wanted to save the church’s face. By preserving the church’s reputation, the pastors likely thought they were protecting Christ’s reputation. I suspect countless Christians similarly hold to this erroneous assumption. As a result, Jules was forced to bear years of shame in a misguided effort to preserve Christ’s honor.
Silence is not always sacred. Consider Eph 5:11, where Paul says,
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
We often forget a fundamental truth of the gospel of grace. Our sin does not necessarily make Christ “lose face.” Rather, in order to exalt Christ, his people must “lose face.” If we are unwilling to confess our need, our sin, and our shame, then we tacitly suggest that we have little need of God. Christ only saves sinners.
Sin itself does not glorify God, but our sin is the occasion in which God shows himself sufficient to overcome human depravity and brokenness.
Paul knew that people are prone to hide their sin for the sake of protecting reputations. Yet, he knew that open rebuke is better than hidden love (Prov 27:5). He writes about how churches should respond when elders sin:
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (1 Tim 5:19–20)
Injustice is shameful
When I speak about honor and shame, I repeatedly hear the same objection. Christians tell me, “In honor-shame cultures, right and wrong are determined by whether other people know about a certain action.” Sadly, I cannot help but recall Paul’s words,
…you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. (Romans 2:1).
Why do I say that? This criticism overlooks the fact that sinful people everywhere are prone to remorse more when their sin is exposed; yet, their hearts can grow hardened when they think their sin is a secret. So, churches overlook how many decisions are about face-saving, not justice.
Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church gave Savage a send-off party when he left the church. In my view, this casts doubt on the facts of Savage’s statement. He says that he confessed his sin to church leadership “who [then] informed the congregation.”
Two things undermine this claim. First, the church would not have given him a happy send-off party. Second, I served at the church not long after his departure. No one seemed to know exactly why Andy left. It was rumored that he had a flirtatious relationship with a student, but no one knew details.
In reality, justice is not blind. It sees reality as it is. To act justly is to speak the truth and to make things right, even if it makes us lose face. If we refuse to accept this point, we should heed Jesus’ warning:
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops. (Luke 12:1b–3)
Christians scream for justice yet think it right to hide our failings. I am saddened to confess that I am as guilty of this as the next person.
Confession does not remove consequences
Savage and others have repeatedly stated that he confessed and repented of his sin. We have not reasons to doubt his sincerity. However, confession does not remove the consequences of sin.
Paul’s admonition to handle things “in house” (1 Cor 5) did not concern a breach in the law. Savage says he “accepts responsibility.” God forgives our sin but not the government. No doubt, were it someone else and not a pastor, Christians would cry out for Savage to face the legal consequences.
As we grieve over these circumstances, may the church not be seen on the side of injustice as if they dismissed the seriousness of his actions.
I’ll excited to let you know that Missiology published my newest article this month and it appears they’ve it available for free (for now). I’m thankful for allowing people access to it.
Here is the abstract:
Honor and shame are critical aspects of a biblical soteriology. In order to demonstrate the point, this article surveys three key doctrines—sin, atonement, and justification by faith. Shame is a subjective and objective reality. It is both the consequence and defining feature of sin. Within the context of a collectivistic covenant relationship, Christ pays the honor-debt owed by those who give their loyalty to him. In so doing, Christ not only glorifies his people; more importantly, he saves God’s face.
The article both summarizes and updates key ideas from Saving God’s Face. Many people ask me to write something that puts those ideas in concise form. Well, here you go. I hope you find it helpful.
Since Missiology had made it available for non-subscribers, pass the article along to others. Perhaps it will spur helpful dialogue among people in your church and on your teams.
Few things are as tragic and ironic as the church’s response to Andy Savage’s sexual assault of Jules Woodson. She shares her story 
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In