A variety of articles have come across my desk in relation to the topic and this year's Orality Conference organised by the International Orality Network chose its theme as Honour and Shame.
Honour/Shame based cultures tend to also be cultures where a significant proportion of cultural learning occurs orally.
We have recently released our "Pocket Preacher" solar audio player discipleship tool with 2 years worth of daily bible teaching, for the very purpose of reaching people who either don't have access to books, or are illiterate, or just prefer to still learn orally. This is not to say that some cultures are not oral learners at all. We all are born with two ears and a mouth and to some degree or another, learn orally. But many people on this earth don't just learn orally alongside learning through written material, they learn best and predominantly and preferably through oral means.
This has not lessened of course with the impact of television and the internet (via computer, ipad, smart phones) across our globe, from the Kalahari Desert to New York City.
This has impact on how we teach biblical truth to those in such situations if we are going to take into account how oral learners, learn best.
Apart from a few of my own comments below, let me just first paste some links to significant articles and mention a couple of quotes from them....
The first are excepted from an article by Hannes Wiher who was a missionary in West Africa for many years and did his PhD thesis on "Shame and Guilt - A key to Cross-Cultural Ministry" but who also wrote a paper for the 2013 Orality Conference.
on Oral Preference Learning/teaching....
While shame-oriented students tend to think in a synthetic and analogical manner, guilt-oriented students present analytic thinking. While the first group will learn by copying and learning by heart, the second group will have an inductive learning and discovery approach. The former will function better in groups, while the latter prefer to learn individually. Teaching according to conscience orientation is a challenge for teachers from the other orientation. Obliging a student to function in a school system of the other conscience orientation can represent a major drawback in school performance. A main warning for teaching in shame-oriented contexts is to avoid making a student lose face. .......
on Oral Preference Leadership p10...
Shame-oriented societies tend to have hierarchical systems. In the Bible, we find the judges, prophets, priests, and kings. In Africa, the traditional chief system prevails. In India, we find the caste system. In the church within a shame-oriented context, the hierarchical system corresponds to the episcopal system. Even when there are democratic structures like committees, the whole decisional power is with the president or director. The members of the committee are the counselors, elders, or wise men in the traditional system. Before a decision, the chief can consult, but it is not compulsory for him to do so. If the elders do not agree with the chief, they are limited in the expression of critique by the norms of the shame-oriented culture. If the chief does not spontaneously consult them, they have no direct means to influence him.
On the other hand, shame-oriented subordinates will not express their opinion when they are not consulted, even if they are heavily dissatisfied with the leader. This goes on until open rebellion creates chaos. It is therefore advisable for a leader to consult with a group of counselors before making decisions.
Wiher 2003:295ff).
Because shame-oriented people are sensitive to issues of power and honor, it is of importance to them who is sitting in a committee. A pastor who has become a carrier of mana through ordination ceremony will have more weight than a layperson who has little mana.2 In the animist's view, a person bestowed with a lot of mana has direct access to God's power of blessing and life. Consequently, the word or a prayer of an ordained pastor has greater importance than that of a layperson. In this example, it becomes also evident that animism is a shame-oriented system (cf.2 In the animist perspective, the concept of mana can stand for power, charisma, authority, good fortune and luck. It can be acquired through sacrificial rituals. The term has Polynesian origins and was introduced into the field of cultural anthropology by the missionary Robert Codrington in 1891.
Criticism of subordinates should only be communicated privately. If the leader loses control, he is dishonored and shamed and conduct is equated with sin. Control of emotions is therefore a precondition for leaders. As the working community is perceived as an extended family, the leader also has the functions of a head of the family. This means showing consideration and care in critical situations. It also means showing generosity with subordinates in material and social matters.
On the other hand, respect of the leader and his orders is the first obligation for shame-oriented subordinates. If they do not agree with an order, they are supposed to execute it and only express their opinion after that, in private. A discussion engaged directly after the order, before its execution, is seen as refusal and shames the leader.
Guilt-oriented societies will tend to an egalitarian system with a low-key hierarchy or no hierarchy at all. The leader will be measured at correctness, punctuality, competences and efficiency. Criticism of leadership will be current and open. A pastor cannot hide behind his special access to God through ordination. He will rather have to prove his capacities in preaching, management, and counseling.
Consequently, cross-cultural leadership has to take into account culture and personality differences according to conscience orientation.
(for those reading this blog who are interested to read further on the issue of Cross-Cultural Leadership, I recommend also "Leading Across Cultures" by Dr James Plueddemann published by IVP)
The next ones both come from the latest issue of the Orality Journal
In the excellent Editorial, Samuel Chiang talks about the influence of technology on our lives and makes the comment:
Previously our worldview was determined by our parents, with a sense
of guilt-innocence (rule-centric), which flowed from the authority of the
Word of God, and is reinforced by the social network that was formed in
activities with the local parish.
Now our worldview is determined by our various family units, with
different worldviews that is digitally mediated through social networks; we
are driven less by a sense of guilt-innocence, but more so by a worldview
of shame-honor.iv Where previously we were raised by two parents, now
we are raised by a community (digital and those who are "present"). Our
code of conduct is different.
Jackson Wu asks some questions relating to how one's worldview affects what stories to tell and how, in his article
He says:
We desperately need humility to acknowledge how denominational and organizational subcultures can mislead us into "theological syncretism," whereby we confuse the gospel with our theological tradition.......
Oral cultures tend to share certain characteristics. For instance, many oral learners have an "honor-shame" worldview. By contrast, western missionaries are likely to emphasize themes like law and guilt.
Even if the latter have good doctrine ("what" should we believe?) and strong communication skills ("how" to tell a story), a more basic problem remains. They do not speak the same "worldview language."
Therefore, missionaries may not answer the key "why" questions that matter most to oral learners.
In this paper, I will briefly answer two important "why" questions.
First, why do oral learners think the way they do? Second, why are honor and shame important for gospel ministry......
We get ahead of ourselves when we focus on good doctrine ("what?") and storying ("how?) yet neglect to consider how worldview influences the story we tell.
....I'd encourage you to read the whole article - its superb!
No comments:
Post a Comment