Experts in languages say that between American English and Latin American Spanish there is only one sound in common. Other sounds can be approximated by speakers of the other language (especially with training), but it is only the sound of the letter “f” that we share together.
Beyond sounds, common facial expressions have different meanings. A smile in Portland, Oregon does not necessarily mean the same thing as a smile in Lima, Peru. Both cultures like to share a laugh, but the meaning behind the laugh and the appropriate time for the laugh are different.
The illustrations go even deeper into the heart of our two cultures: Americans value education because we love to improve ourselves and each other. Peruvians value education because it brings hope for a better tomorrow.
My point? If we differ at the level of the sounds we consider normal, why would we assume that we understand the deeper things of life the same way? The differences between how Peruvians and Americans view life are vast, complicated, and wonderfully alluring. I am privileged with the joy of learning to love what is of good report in both cultures – different though they are from each other!
Those deep cultural differences have been visible this week in terms of finances. Money, costs, prices, funding, income, expense. . . . all of the words and ideas that we use to describe the role of exchanging goods and services between people within a culture.
Some of the differences can be measured. For instance, the 2008 Purchasing Power Parity index says that a Peruvian has an annual purchasing power of $3990/person. Compare that to the purchasing power of a US citizen: $47,580. It is not hard to realize that one will have more money available than the other.
Look beyond the numbers and the message comes into even sharper focus. A preference for the well being of the group over the rights of the individual and a focus on nurturing each other are predominant in Peru; the US values individual initiative, and resources are more likely to be used to build infrastructure than for social nurture. At the core of the two peoples, there is a difference in what we feel and consider to be important, beautiful, and right. And those differences, of course, show up when we speak the language of money.
I have pondered this question long and hard this week. There is a financial side to providing the Creating Understanding training. Yet that financial side is not easily reduced to a spread sheet of income and expense. The differences go so much deeper.
Why, exactly, am I concerned with this problem today? In order for the World Link Grad Center to operate in Peru, we need funds. The operating budget of $4100 for this Seminar is subsidized greatly by the fact that many of our staff (both in Lima and Portland) are supported by different missionary agencies. It is a very low figure indeed. . . from American perspectives. Each student has been asked to cover $1000 of the costs of these two months. That includes about $290 per person that will be paid to IICC (to cover that $4100), with the rest going to our host ministry for food and lodging.
$1000, it turns out, is an astronomical figure. It is just about 25% of the average annual spending ability of a Peruvian. Imagine how many Americans would find it difficult to pay $12,000 for tuition, food and lodging for a 2 month seminar. That is an approximate proportional equivalent from that purchase power parity index.
The price tag of class work for the MA program comes to $5600 US ($700 for each of 8 learning units). As one woman said, “we buy houses for that much money, and then we live in them for a life time.”
I don’t write this blog with answers in mind, but I rejoice that the questions are taking on clarity. We are asking the God of all wisdom to help us construct a financial plan that is “third culture.” We want a plan that is not totally American, but is acceptable (at the deep levels of the word) to Americans. We want a plan that is not totally Peruvian, but is deeply acceptable to our Peruvian brothers. Most of all, we seek a plan that is God-cultured – that is led and formed under His direction. We are asking Him to build a bridge between the language of money as spoken in Peru and the language of money that is spoken in America.
Simply finding money is not the answer – mission history over the last century shows too many places where just sending money brought about division, dependency, and weakening. The answer is in mutual understanding that allows God’s people to fully join forces to accomplish what God has called us together to do. I ask you to please pray for both the Peruvian and the American servants who are seeking that level of understanding so that the vision before us can take root across the globe, even when spoken in the language of money.
28 March 2010
21 March 2010
Quien No Tiene Minga
“Quien no tiene minga, mendiga.”
“The one who doesn’t have a group to work with (a ‘minga’) will beg for food”
The Incan empire lived out that idea, which was later turned into a proverb in Peruvian Spanish (and less beautifully, into my English translation above). As we found in a visit to the Museum of Anthropology and History, the Empire thrived because of orchestrated team work; a community life in which people helped each other to plant, to harvest, to build. The one who didn’t have that group of mutual help would end up begging for his bread.
The Bible speaks that same truth in passage after passage: if one is alone and falls, who will help him? Two together are better. A cord of three strands is not easily broken. Jesus sent out the disciples by twos. Paul traveled the Roman Empire with a missionary band, and the picture that we have of Church life is a body, where each member serves the rest. It is a hard life when we try to go it alone; we are made to work together.
We weave that idea into the very nature of the Creating Understanding Seminar. Over the past 7 weeks, students in the Seminar have worked in four groups, not only visiting four different neighborhoods, but working together to analyze, write, and report on what they find. Each group submits written work; not each student. Each group presents their findings to the whole class; not each person. Each group suggests Biblical approaches to ministry in their neighborhoods; not each student. We don’t want to just talk about the importance of teams; we want to build cooperative learning into the very training of missionaries. After all, their success depends on their ability to cooperate. (look at John 17:20 – 23 to see how true that statement is!)
As I was thinking about teams this afternoon, I realized once again how grateful I am for the multinational team that is making this Seminar a reality. On the Peruvian side, we are blessed with hospitality and administrative ministry of Olga, Moises, Blanca, Jenny, Angie, Lina, and Maximo. On the IICC side, Mark, Karen, Andrew, Stan, Mark, Carmen and Katie are part of the “minga." (The photograph above shows many of the ministry team as well as the students at a prayer time we had in late February).
“The one who doesn’t have a group to work with (a ‘minga’) will beg for food”
The Incan empire lived out that idea, which was later turned into a proverb in Peruvian Spanish (and less beautifully, into my English translation above). As we found in a visit to the Museum of Anthropology and History, the Empire thrived because of orchestrated team work; a community life in which people helped each other to plant, to harvest, to build. The one who didn’t have that group of mutual help would end up begging for his bread.
The Bible speaks that same truth in passage after passage: if one is alone and falls, who will help him? Two together are better. A cord of three strands is not easily broken. Jesus sent out the disciples by twos. Paul traveled the Roman Empire with a missionary band, and the picture that we have of Church life is a body, where each member serves the rest. It is a hard life when we try to go it alone; we are made to work together.
We weave that idea into the very nature of the Creating Understanding Seminar. Over the past 7 weeks, students in the Seminar have worked in four groups, not only visiting four different neighborhoods, but working together to analyze, write, and report on what they find. Each group submits written work; not each student. Each group presents their findings to the whole class; not each person. Each group suggests Biblical approaches to ministry in their neighborhoods; not each student. We don’t want to just talk about the importance of teams; we want to build cooperative learning into the very training of missionaries. After all, their success depends on their ability to cooperate. (look at John 17:20 – 23 to see how true that statement is!)
As I was thinking about teams this afternoon, I realized once again how grateful I am for the multinational team that is making this Seminar a reality. On the Peruvian side, we are blessed with hospitality and administrative ministry of Olga, Moises, Blanca, Jenny, Angie, Lina, and Maximo. On the IICC side, Mark, Karen, Andrew, Stan, Mark, Carmen and Katie are part of the “minga." (The photograph above shows many of the ministry team as well as the students at a prayer time we had in late February).
And the names that I have shared don’t even begin to mention the technical, financial, prayer, and administrative help coming from Portland, Lima, Philadelphia, and many, many other places.
May you have Jesus’ joy as you and your “minga” work together to make Him known this week!
13 March 2010
Missionary Communities
Vicky is one of the students in this Seminar. She asked me a great question after class about 2 weeks ago. I’d like to share some of my answer in this blog.
The question? What is it about NEWMA mission that would convince a graduate center in Portland Oregon to send teachers, create internet mentoring methods, translate curriculum, and look for Spanish speaking teachers. . . . what is it about NEWMA that makes World Link Graduate Center put forth the effort to bring the Seminar (and later the full MA) here to Lima?
No doubt it is a big undertaking – one that is stretching us as an organization (and stretching me as a person!). But, as we say in Spanish, “bien vale la pena” (it is well worth the trouble).
NEWMA is sending Latin American missionaries to the ends of the earth. There are over a thousand who have already been sent out, and yet these faithful and highly qualified workers are not using the patterns of mission agencies from other parts of the world. Early on in their 30-plus years of history, NEWMA’s founders realized that sending missionaries from Latin America would need a Latin American model of missions. Enter the “Andean missiology” of NEWMA mission!
Dr. Maximo Hurtado gave me 15 unique aspects of NEWMA when he described NEWMA’s model of mission to me. When I answered Vicky, I only gave about five of the reasons that I see. Today, let me dig deep into just one of the unique aspects of NEWMA.
NEWMA doesn’t only start churches; they start mission training centers.
If you travel with a NEWMA missionary, you will see buildings where believers meet, pray, study the Bible, worship, give, share the gospel with their neighbors, and enjoy fellowship of all kinds. It looks like a church, walks like a church, and talks like a church. But if you look closely their literature and buildings call themselves more than churches. They call themselves, “Mission Communities.”
NEWMA missionaries simply believe and teach that they were reached with the gospel in order to reach others. And as they reach others, those new believers also need to reach into the communities, villages, states, and nations. And so the focus is not only to start a church, but to start a mission center that will spread the Word around a whole new region. The Mission center idea puts multiplication into the forefront of thinking, praying and acting for new churches. It gives structure to the work. Believers meet several times a week – sometimes to deepen their walk with God, but at other times to learn ideas of ministry – how to reach nearby neighbors, and how to reach the furthest corners of the globe. One evening the church meets to pray for the sick and study the Bible. The next night, the same people get together to study missionary biographies, hear about unreached people groups, and consider what it means to be a cross cultural missionary.
Eusebio is one of our 14 students. He works in a church, and also works as the director of one of the larger mission center/satellite schools within NEWMA. His region is in the jungle areas of northern Peru. It takes 4 days to travel (by boat) from one extreme of his region to the other extreme. NEWMA missionaries have started 16 churches in that region, and now those 16 churches send approximately 10 young people a year to Pucallpa (where Eusebio’s mission center is at). They come for 5 weeks at a time, to learn Bible, theology, ministry, and missions. Then they head to different villages and cities to start new churches/mission centers. For 2 months they work with experienced missionaries. And then they return for another 5 weeks of residential training. That pattern continues for three years in Pucallpa and then 2 more years in the Latin American School of Mission in Lima -a total of five years split roughly 50% classroom and 50% guided practical ministry experience (and the classroom work is very well organized – they have a fully developed curriculum of 55 classes in place). When the five years are over, students are sent to a 2 year assignment either within or outside of Peru. They document their ministry, showing that they are applying the lessons learned in their first five years. And after the seven full years are complete, they receive their diploma as graduates of the mission centers of EMLA.
And guess what these graduates do? They go to the ends of the earth, making disciples and teaching them to know, love, and obey the Lord and His Word. They open yet other church/mission centers – in South America, California, France, the United Kingdom. . .. And they give a vision and a structure so the new churches can likewise start church/mission centers.
Vicky’s question has other answers. Eusebio’s story has other challenges. But from this short description you can see why WLGC is honored to work with the NEWMA mission, training the trainers who open churches and multiply mission centers.
The question? What is it about NEWMA mission that would convince a graduate center in Portland Oregon to send teachers, create internet mentoring methods, translate curriculum, and look for Spanish speaking teachers. . . . what is it about NEWMA that makes World Link Graduate Center put forth the effort to bring the Seminar (and later the full MA) here to Lima?
No doubt it is a big undertaking – one that is stretching us as an organization (and stretching me as a person!). But, as we say in Spanish, “bien vale la pena” (it is well worth the trouble).
NEWMA is sending Latin American missionaries to the ends of the earth. There are over a thousand who have already been sent out, and yet these faithful and highly qualified workers are not using the patterns of mission agencies from other parts of the world. Early on in their 30-plus years of history, NEWMA’s founders realized that sending missionaries from Latin America would need a Latin American model of missions. Enter the “Andean missiology” of NEWMA mission!
Dr. Maximo Hurtado gave me 15 unique aspects of NEWMA when he described NEWMA’s model of mission to me. When I answered Vicky, I only gave about five of the reasons that I see. Today, let me dig deep into just one of the unique aspects of NEWMA.
NEWMA doesn’t only start churches; they start mission training centers.
If you travel with a NEWMA missionary, you will see buildings where believers meet, pray, study the Bible, worship, give, share the gospel with their neighbors, and enjoy fellowship of all kinds. It looks like a church, walks like a church, and talks like a church. But if you look closely their literature and buildings call themselves more than churches. They call themselves, “Mission Communities.”
NEWMA missionaries simply believe and teach that they were reached with the gospel in order to reach others. And as they reach others, those new believers also need to reach into the communities, villages, states, and nations. And so the focus is not only to start a church, but to start a mission center that will spread the Word around a whole new region. The Mission center idea puts multiplication into the forefront of thinking, praying and acting for new churches. It gives structure to the work. Believers meet several times a week – sometimes to deepen their walk with God, but at other times to learn ideas of ministry – how to reach nearby neighbors, and how to reach the furthest corners of the globe. One evening the church meets to pray for the sick and study the Bible. The next night, the same people get together to study missionary biographies, hear about unreached people groups, and consider what it means to be a cross cultural missionary.
Eusebio is one of our 14 students. He works in a church, and also works as the director of one of the larger mission center/satellite schools within NEWMA. His region is in the jungle areas of northern Peru. It takes 4 days to travel (by boat) from one extreme of his region to the other extreme. NEWMA missionaries have started 16 churches in that region, and now those 16 churches send approximately 10 young people a year to Pucallpa (where Eusebio’s mission center is at). They come for 5 weeks at a time, to learn Bible, theology, ministry, and missions. Then they head to different villages and cities to start new churches/mission centers. For 2 months they work with experienced missionaries. And then they return for another 5 weeks of residential training. That pattern continues for three years in Pucallpa and then 2 more years in the Latin American School of Mission in Lima -a total of five years split roughly 50% classroom and 50% guided practical ministry experience (and the classroom work is very well organized – they have a fully developed curriculum of 55 classes in place). When the five years are over, students are sent to a 2 year assignment either within or outside of Peru. They document their ministry, showing that they are applying the lessons learned in their first five years. And after the seven full years are complete, they receive their diploma as graduates of the mission centers of EMLA.
And guess what these graduates do? They go to the ends of the earth, making disciples and teaching them to know, love, and obey the Lord and His Word. They open yet other church/mission centers – in South America, California, France, the United Kingdom. . .. And they give a vision and a structure so the new churches can likewise start church/mission centers.
Vicky’s question has other answers. Eusebio’s story has other challenges. But from this short description you can see why WLGC is honored to work with the NEWMA mission, training the trainers who open churches and multiply mission centers.
07 March 2010
Our Classroom - part II
Backwards, Upside Down, and Flat
It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon here in Peru and the students are visiting their primary classrooms – the different parts of Lima where they learn from the people about the people. While they are out of the building, I’m getting ready to guide next week’s classes in the more traditional classroom.
Only it isn’t really very traditional – the Creating Understanding classroom tends to be backwards, upside down, and flat. Before you jump to conclusions, let me explain!
How do you build a training program that will prepare young missionaries for cross cultural work? I get to lead that discussion next week – and what a great topic for this group! There are 14 people in our Seminar, and 7 of them are significantly involved in missionary training programs.
How do you train missionaries? By thinking backwards. We start with the skills, attitudes, knowledge that will be needed for the task, and then we walk our way “backwards” from that end point, one by one making sure that what is needed at the end is included in the curriculum. What activities will help us reach our goal? What new information do students need to know? What attitudes will let someone go to the trouble of learning this? As tempted as we are to fill the curriculum with topics that we enjoy talking about, the best way forward is to think backwards – starting with the end in mind and then identifying the steps that will take us to that endpoint.
And as for “upside down”? Traditionally, teaching starts with a theme or title – a proposition if you will. And from that proposition, students work on activities that will clarify its meaning, finally arriving at some kind of application at the end.
We tip that pattern upside down. Starting with the experiences that students or the teachers have lived through, we start with the realities of ministry. Then we create discussions into which we add new information, identify and discuss potential options, reflect on the key issues, and finally create - together – a few short summary statements. All of the traditional elements are still there, but we present them in an order that builds off of experience and involvement.
Finally, our classrooms are flat – as in Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat. His point is that technology has made it possible for multiple cultures around the globe to interact non-stop.
Take yesterday’s class session as an example. Dr. Donald Smith, co-founder of the Institute for International Christian Communication ministries (which includes the Creating Understanding Seminar), could not personally come to Peru. But he joined us for a 90 minute session yesterday, sharing his heart and his experiences via internet and web cameras. Students asked questions, and he responded. He told the stories that shaped a generation of missionaries – including this current Seminar. He could talk with the students, complete with hand gestures, voice inflections, laughter, and responses to questions. Even working through a translator in the room did not diminish the connection that was made in that “flat world” interaction.
Why are we backwards, upside down, and flat? Some of the reason has to do with the world we live in. But the bigger reason is the ministry we are called to. Making disciples is a deliberate process. So we deliberately think about what needs to be “learned” (in the deepest sense of the word). From that starting point, we move forward by thinking backwards – guiding our students toward the deliberate goals that we find in Scripture.
Making disciples is also not only a matter of knowledge – Jesus was so clear that it is a matter of “obeying all things that He has taught us.” You have to be upside down to teach obedience – it isn’t just a matter of conceptually grasping propositions that Jesus said. It is a matter of experiencing Him as we grow in obedience to all He told us to do. And so, in the cyber world of 2010 we take that upside down and backwards discipleship, and make it flat at times as well.
It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon here in Peru and the students are visiting their primary classrooms – the different parts of Lima where they learn from the people about the people. While they are out of the building, I’m getting ready to guide next week’s classes in the more traditional classroom.
Only it isn’t really very traditional – the Creating Understanding classroom tends to be backwards, upside down, and flat. Before you jump to conclusions, let me explain!
How do you build a training program that will prepare young missionaries for cross cultural work? I get to lead that discussion next week – and what a great topic for this group! There are 14 people in our Seminar, and 7 of them are significantly involved in missionary training programs.
How do you train missionaries? By thinking backwards. We start with the skills, attitudes, knowledge that will be needed for the task, and then we walk our way “backwards” from that end point, one by one making sure that what is needed at the end is included in the curriculum. What activities will help us reach our goal? What new information do students need to know? What attitudes will let someone go to the trouble of learning this? As tempted as we are to fill the curriculum with topics that we enjoy talking about, the best way forward is to think backwards – starting with the end in mind and then identifying the steps that will take us to that endpoint.
And as for “upside down”? Traditionally, teaching starts with a theme or title – a proposition if you will. And from that proposition, students work on activities that will clarify its meaning, finally arriving at some kind of application at the end.
We tip that pattern upside down. Starting with the experiences that students or the teachers have lived through, we start with the realities of ministry. Then we create discussions into which we add new information, identify and discuss potential options, reflect on the key issues, and finally create - together – a few short summary statements. All of the traditional elements are still there, but we present them in an order that builds off of experience and involvement.
Finally, our classrooms are flat – as in Thomas Friedman’s book, The World is Flat. His point is that technology has made it possible for multiple cultures around the globe to interact non-stop.
Take yesterday’s class session as an example. Dr. Donald Smith, co-founder of the Institute for International Christian Communication ministries (which includes the Creating Understanding Seminar), could not personally come to Peru. But he joined us for a 90 minute session yesterday, sharing his heart and his experiences via internet and web cameras. Students asked questions, and he responded. He told the stories that shaped a generation of missionaries – including this current Seminar. He could talk with the students, complete with hand gestures, voice inflections, laughter, and responses to questions. Even working through a translator in the room did not diminish the connection that was made in that “flat world” interaction.
Why are we backwards, upside down, and flat? Some of the reason has to do with the world we live in. But the bigger reason is the ministry we are called to. Making disciples is a deliberate process. So we deliberately think about what needs to be “learned” (in the deepest sense of the word). From that starting point, we move forward by thinking backwards – guiding our students toward the deliberate goals that we find in Scripture.
Making disciples is also not only a matter of knowledge – Jesus was so clear that it is a matter of “obeying all things that He has taught us.” You have to be upside down to teach obedience – it isn’t just a matter of conceptually grasping propositions that Jesus said. It is a matter of experiencing Him as we grow in obedience to all He told us to do. And so, in the cyber world of 2010 we take that upside down and backwards discipleship, and make it flat at times as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)