“I suppose when Heaven’s Heroes faced setbacks or heartbreaks, they just redoubled their prayers. They snuck past enemy lines. They did the next thing. I tried to pray, and I wanted to sneak past enemy lines, but I couldn’t even get back into the country. I had no idea what the next thing would be.” 166
This section of the book focuses heavily on the after-effects of Peterson’s “victory” with Veronica. We learn that Veronica and her friends were interrogated by authorities and their faith was shaken. Veronica writes to Amy in simple, plaintive words. “I love Him and I must confess I wonder about his plan.” Amy responds “I must confess that I also wonder about his plan–I ask him many times why he is allowing this to happen to you.”
This is where the triumphalism of traditional evangelical narratives fall and crumble. What do we do when we fail, or suffer, or experience consequences for our faith when others don’t? Peterson wonders if part of Veronica’s questioning of God stems from the fundamental inequality of the situation. Did God love Americans more? If not, then why was she being persecuted?
These are hard, tricky questions. Although we are only invited in to a certain degree, this glimpse into a life where being committed to Christ negatively affects everything–including your family, friendships, education, and opportunities–is a sobering wake-up call to those of us who have not experienced true persecution.
Peterson discovers that she will not be able to enter the country again, perhaps ever. Her carefully laid plans are upended in a single email, and she plunges into the journey of processing her grief while at the same time needing to make decisions about her future. She decides to teach in Cambodia for a year and starts to experience a more traditional, expat experience. And as she does, her questions about the overall nature of modern-day missions start to grow.
Questions for Discussion:
In her interlude, Peterson talks about the “real” first missionary sent from America. Was this a new discovery for you?
Peterson tells a story that is both miraculous and full of failure. How has the culture of missions prepared people to deal with both of these realities?
Thanks to all who continue to read along and post thoughtful questions! We will wrap up our discussion over the next two weeks and then I will do a Q and A with Amy Peterson, the author of Dangerous Territory. Please leave a question for Peterson in the comments, and I will curate a list and send them to her.
See you next week, when we discuss whether or not the word “missionary” should be retired–and does Peterson end up with Jack or Charley?
Catch up on previous entries here:
#1: Finding God in Foreign Contexts
#2: What it Means to be a Neighbor
Gabrielle
I loved Leile’s story. I was an intercultural studies minor at my university and took several mission-centered classes, but I don’t remember hearing about him. That makes me sad/frustrated.
The concept of the “lighter, more flexible structures” Peterson describes intrigues me (166). Once, I heard a missionary describe different models of church planting by comparing them to an elephant’s gestation 22-month timeframe (mega or highly structured churches) via a mouse’s gestation 20-day timeframe (small, simple churches). He challenged us to evaluate our concepts of what a church needs to be a good church (bulletins, microphones, budget, etc.) and come back to the core of the gospel. He argued that we’ve made church planting and ministry too complex, too expensive, too slow.
I’m curious to see if bi-vocational missions like Leile’s will become more common in the future as mission organizations reevaluate their methods.
Hmm…as far as dealing with both realities goes, the culture of missions in the U.S. tends to portray the success stories and shy away from the mess. Honestly, I’m not sure how that can be changed. Any thoughts?
Breanna
I agree about the focus on success stories. I learned really quickly when I moved overseas that people in the US would panic and act as if I should move home if I voiced any sort of struggle/weakness. I think there is a bit of a prosperity gospel mindset mixed into the North American church’s view of missions, this false idea that being a missionary means being some sort of “perfect”, and not experiencing the same struggles as “average Christians”
I think one helpful thing is is simply having more honest narratives like Peterson’s. For me personally I think it means continuing to be publicly honest about my weaknesses and failures, for the sake of those who want to mistakenly uphold overseas workers as being super Christians. I think more and more conversations like the one we are having about the weaknesses of missions and the ways we can do better are important and helpful in steering the Christian community toward recognizing and addressing failure and “success” in healthier ways.
Breanna
I also found Leile’s story compelling, and wished that it was part of the American missions narrative. I hope more and more folks learn his story!
I think it is valuable to question the traditional missions structure and to look at healthier alternatives/adaptations. However, I think that the bi-vocational missions models has some weaknesses too, and I think PEterson probably just couldn’t get into all that when addressing missions from her own short term experience. There are simply not enough hours in a day to be vocational and to be a learner in a new culture. When you consider the time it takes to learn a language, not to mention cultural nuances and mores; being bivocational can actually slow a person down in forging new cross cultural relationships. In modern day missions, being bi-vocational tends to put a person in relationships with people who already speak English, or who are able to learn English, thus limiting relationships. I think bi-vocational missions is a great idea and can be feasible, but we quickly forget that when Paul was tentmaking, he was doing so in a setting where he already knew the culture and spoke the language (not to mention did not have to navigate work permits and visas, etc.)
___
As far as questions for Peterson:
– Do you support/have relationships with overseas workers now, and if so, what are some of the questions you ask them? Based on your experiences, how do you decide what kind of work you wish to support?
– What kind of cultural training did you do before going to the field? I was impressed by your understanding of high context culture so early on in moving overseas; that kind of stuff is hard for an American to learn that early on unless we have had time to sit down and learn/be trained.
Breanna
Oh, one more question to add;
What was it like re-entering the N American church/faith culture after your time overseas? Was that a tough transition, especially after some of your experiences? Were you able to find a good community?
Beth Watkins
I was a cross cultural Studies (missions) major at a Christian university and in none of my many missions classes did I learn about George Leile. And I find that so sad and shameful.
Tia
Breanna said, “I think one helpful thing is simply having more honest narratives like Peterson’s.” Yes! I think so too. One thing that I’ve observed that seems to sometimes inhibit this is the tie between money and missions. As Breanna said, admitting weakness or failure can sometimes make people nervous. Which can sometimes result in reduced funding, therefore making the overseas worker more cautious in relaying such things. I was glad that Peterson brought up the concept of bi-vocational work—I think the movement in this direction is very positive in many cases. Breanna brings up some weaknesses to being bi-vocational, and I think you’re right that it has limitations in some cases. But actually in the examples you mention, I wonder if that should make us instead rethink the idea of requiring workers to spend a few years of full-time language study rather than table the idea of being bi-vocational? Maintaining a Western worker doing language learning in another country for a year or two is often exorbitant (especially when it’s a whole family being supported). And often the worker doesn’t decide to stay after those initial years. What else could be done with that money? Perhaps functioning in English or another trade language is not always necessarily a bad thing? It does certainly cut one off from deeper cultural understanding and limits relationships, as Breanna pointed out, but perhaps the local English speaker you interact with could eventually convey the ideas you’re trying to bring more effectively to non-English speakers than you could anyway. (You pointed out that “when Paul was tentmaking, he was doing so in a setting where he already knew the culture and spoke the language.” That’s true to some extent, but the Roman empire was comprised of diverse ethnic groups, so he wouldn’t have readily known all of the important cultural nuances in every place he traveled, and he was functioning in the lingua franca of Greek, not the heart languages of every ethnic group he encountered…) This makes me think of the story of Bakht Singh, who encountered Jesus through a regular couple going about their work in Canada and brought what he had learned back to thousands in India. But I suppose it depends on the type of work—for example, being bi-vocational in Bible translation would slow the work quite a bit. And efforts like emergency response would clearly be different too. But in relationship building, having a job like everyone else seems to build respect in a local culture, from what I’ve observed. Breanna, what do you think? Do you think the benefits of Western workers spending years to learn a local language in order to build friendships outweighs the expensive cost of that? I’m truly interested in your observations; I know my own are limited.
Breanna
Hi Tia! I appreciate your thoughts! That is a good point about Paul still having linguistic and cultural differences to encounter in his work.
My husband has been here in Myanmar for nearly 12 years, and I am going on three years. We have seen a ton of damage done by people who sought to do ministry without knowing the language. That, and people who come here and want to be bi-vocational often end up leaving the ministry community because they find themselves running a business full-time, and have no time for ministry stuff. (That is nuanced, of course, because I definitely believe a business can also be a ministry, but not in all cases does it work out that way.)
I think part of the problem you are getting at is that people aren’t really committed for the long term, so that the expense of going to learn a language seems like a waste when a family moves home after only five years overseas. I agree that this is a huge issue; it hurts a lot of communities. While that cannot be entirely solved in a day and age where it is easier than ever to move around the world, I think if supporters and agencies required a serious, long-term commitment (like 20 years) to working cross-culturally, you’d get less people making it their five-year plan and spending so much time learning language, only to leave.
Here are some reasons I think language learning is really good even for bi-vocational workers:
– You are not dependent on translators, some of whom are not trustworthy.
– Knowing the language is a great way to show people that you care about them. People who come here to work and don’t learn language don’t always stay for long, because they aren’t rooted in meaningful friendships with local folks.
– Issues within the Christian community are often complicated and not knowing the language might mean being completely oblivious to serious stuff going on within the church (a real issue in our location)
– Knowing the language helps in sorting out the power differentials. In using a translator, there is always going to be a big distance between the missionary and those they wish to reach. Not only that, but people will often tell the person in the position of power what they want to hear (truth may not be as important as honoring the person in power) in order to please them; this is difficult to sort out without language ability.
– Knowing a language provides a deeper understanding of complex issues within the culture, such as racism
– It’s great for cultivating humility! It is such hard, slow, humbling work. It is a good way to stay perpetually aware of one’s “learner” status as a foreigner.
– If you want to connect with those who are in deep poverty, knowing the language is essential, as those folks have little to no access to a trade language.
– Being able to talk to people directly and ask them what they need is valuable; sometimes folks end up doing different work than they first intended when they moved overseas, after getting to know the language and being able to talk to people about their needs.
However, I don’t say all that to disagree with your points about the value of bi-vocational work; I think being bi-vocational is something all folks should strive for once they have a handle on the language. If it came down to supporting someone who wanted to make a long term commitment to bi-vocational work overseas (and not necessarily learning the language), and someone who was going to spend 2-3 years learning language with only a Five Year plan, I would probably support the bi-vocational worker. but I would definitely have a lot of questions for them about how they intended to go about their work!
Tia
Also a question for Peterson–since returning to the States, have you seen examples of bi-vocational work overseas that stand out to you?
Tia
Hi Breanna–great points, thanks so much for taking the time to write them out! Especially appreciate your thoughts on how language learning puts the foreigner in a posture of humility and gives a window into complex issues. Do you blog at all? Would love to read more of your perspectives 🙂
Breanna
Hey Tia! Yes, I do blog. (Though Not as much as I would like with two small kids!) The site address is burmachronicle.com/blog
This is a post I wrote a while back on language learning:
http://burmachronicle.com/language-learning-practical-ideas-and-some-reflections/#read