Friends at another church alerted me to this interesting feature of Chinese Christianity. And you may have found that this is at the root of some of your church conflicts...

1. How common is forgiveness in the Chinese household?

1. In your own self, grow to love and pursue the glory of God - not your own face.

You can't just force yourself to not love something (such as your own 'face') - that's not how our heart works. Instead, we have to grow to love something else to a greater extent - and that which rightfully ought to have that place in our affections is God himself (see previous post here). And so if we are ourselves to be liberated from our love for 'face', we must grow in our love for God and his glory.

Not only is this what we have been created for (and so good for us) - it is also a means by which we influence others around us. When others see in us a freedom from face consciousness, yes, it may cause some to despise us as those who do not want any face (pu yau lien). But it will attract others who want to know how it is that we can be so liberated.

2. In your ministry to others hold up to others the glory of God - so that, by God's grace, they may love it.

Not only do we ourselves need to be people who are growing in our love for God, in our ministry to others we want to be intentional in holding up to others the glory of God - the excellencies of his grace and the majesty of his holiness. Our ministry should not just be about telling people, 'don't love money', 'don't lie', 'don't love face'. Those commands have no power in them, and people will not be able to tear themselves away from their love of face.

Instead we do for them, the same thing we do for ourselves. We parade before them in our teaching the loveliness of God in as many ways as we can: through our Bible studies. our sermons. our song leading. our casual conversations over coffee. And by God's grace, the Holy Spirit will work in their hearts to fire up in them a love for God - and not other things.

Be aware here that our aim must not merely be to free people from a love of face. That is not good enough, because a person could conceivably replace that with a love for family - or a love for wife - or justice. And laudable though these may seem to us, these are not acceptable substitutes for the love of God.

3. In your interactions treat those who love their own face as the weaker brother.

People don't take well to having their well-loved idols ripped out of their clutching hands. They will hate you for taking away their idol, and will not be disposed to listen to you, even though you may speak the truth! You must deal gently with them. Consider them as your weaker brother (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8).

And so yes, we do wish for them to be set free from their love of face - but while we work intentionally for their liberation from face, for their sake we also accommodate their love for face for a time.

4. In your perception of others, understand that there may, in fact, be a kind and caring edge to their face behaviour.

Face behaviour can be quite disgusting and petty, for people who are not brought up on it. And so it's quite natural for thsoe who are not as face conscious to see bad motives behind every instance of face behaviour. And so: they are not talking to me directly because they are gutless cowards. They are unwilling to apologise because they are not true Christians. They aren't dealing with conflict openly because they have dirty things to hide.

Yes, that could be the case - and we know from our theology that sin can taint everything that we do, even as Christians!

But they may be doing what they culturally understand to be the loving thing to do. This face behaviour, that is interpreted negatively by those of us unfamiliar with it, could be out of a culturally instinctive desire to protect the relationship, to shelter us from open embarrasment, to get a good outcome for everyone.

5. In your understanding of your role, consider yourself a missionary from the ABC world, interacting with natives of the OBC world.

Because there are not one, but two cultures involved: the Australian Born Chinese (ABC) and the Overseas Born Chinese (OBC). And when we get involved with people from another culture, we should behave as missionaries. Not demanding that they must be like us! But living among them, winning their trust, and proclaiming to them a God who is far greater than their idols. Think - and live - like a missionary.

6. In your overall strategy, raise face as an area for discipleship - but in a smart way!

Because it may never have occurred to your OBC friend that their face behaviour is an area that actually needs to be brought under the lordship of Christ! Yes, their pastor may have been showing them  the glory of God for many years, but they may still not grow out of their love for face. And that's because people tend to be blind to their own culture. This is where people from other cultures - such as ABCs - can be helpful to our OBC brothers and sisters.

However, you need to raise the issue of face in a smart way. That is, you need to do it in a way that takes into account how people of the OBC culture likes to hear things. And one example of this is directness / indirectness. 

In Western cultures, we prefer to be told up-front, "look here - these are the three things you need to fix up." We don't like people to beat around the bush. It appears manipulative to us.

But Eastern cultures prefer the indirect route. And so instead you might tell a story about the first converts to Christianity in China, "who so loved God, that they didn't care about their own face. Those first converts faced the hatred and alienation from their own family, co-workers and villagers. They lost face before so many people. But they knew they were now friends of God..." And as you tell that story, OBCs will begin to think to themselves, "Yes, that's true - I must also be willing to lose my face!" You haven't scolded them about face! But through the story they see that their love for face must also become an area of discipleship...

[ PS: any other points that you would make on how to deal with face? ]

"So numerous are these, and so frequently do they appear, that the comparison of the Chiristian community with a 'family' must be regarded as the most significant metaphorical usage of all."

Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community, 49.

There are large differences between East and West. And one significant area of difference is how relationships play themselves out - particularly in how they handle disagreements over ideas...

Westerners can disagree and debate hard against others' ideas, but still be 'okay' with one another. That's because rejecting someone's ideas doesn't necessarily mean rejecting that someone as a person. Consider how, in the West, debating is considered a fun and enjoyable pastime. People can engage in vigorous debate but still remain friends!

However Easterners can't do this. When Easterners disagree openly with someone else's ideas, they feel they are disagreeing with the whole person. As a result you sometimes have people who may be smiling and nodding politely - while all the time being vehemently opposed to the ideas being aired. Because disagreements can't be handled openly, instead they are sorted out behind closed doors where no one can see the disagreement taking place. This is to preserve harmony and the face of everyone involved.

And as long as Westerners are talking to Westerners, and Easterners are talking to Easterners, that's all okay. Because by and large, people are comfortable 'playing' by the rules of their own culture.

However problems crop up when Easterners are talking to Westerners... When that happens, all of a sudden Easterners are horrified that Westerners would speak to them (or others) in such a manner that they do - not realising that the mode of communication doesn't necessarily have to convey a lack of respect or concern for the person. And Westerners are disgusted by the manipulative back-handed manner of dealing of their Easterners, who will not discuss things openly nor allow their ideas to be tested - not realising that behind this may be a concern to preserve face and harmony.

We should also note that Easterners aren't completely on about harmony and face-saving in every circumstance. No, this only applies in cases where equal disagrees with equal. If, however, a superior disagrees with a subordinate, they will not hesitate to let their opposition be known. Instead they will cut down the other person abruptly, with little concern for their face. Consider how a parent might not hesitate to scold their fifteen year-old child in public!

In all this as well, we should be aware that the Eastern and Western way of doing things, though they could be interpreted in a positive light (openly debating ideas, or preserving harmony) - can also be a cover-up for evil. A Westerner might actually hate his opponent - and oppose their ideas with full force - as an outlet of his hatred. And an Easterner might insist on debating ideas behind closed doors instead of in the open - because they fear their ideas cannot not stand up to scrutiny, or out of concern for their own face!

[ PS: how does this make sense of some cross-cultural conflicts you have observed? ]

It's said that harmony is greatly prized in Chinese culture - and conflict is avoided at all costs. For instance one of Confucius' sayings was that the only kind of conflict that should be allowed is the 'conflict' of an archery contest between two gentlemen. But even in that case, they way in which they 'compete' is to be civilised (see post on Confucianism here)!

Master said, 'There is no contention between gentlemen. The nearest to it is, perhaps, archery. In archery they bow and make way for one another as they go up and on coming down they drink together. Even the way they contend is gentlemanly.'

Analects III, 7

Older: Oh, you did a good job there. That's so good. Next time make sure you get some sleep, okay?
Younger: Thanks, I'll try my best.

Older: How dare you do such a thing!
Younger: I'm sorry, I was wrong.

Younger: No, I've had it! I'm not listening to you any more!
Older: (outraged) What did you say!

Younger: How dare you do such a thing!
Older: (stares incredulously) What did you say to me?

"it is bad manners to hit anyone, for a young lady to administer physical punishment to a male servant is altogether beneath her dignity. For a long time I had to endure the reproaches of my family and in the eys of the servants I had definitely 'lost lien.' No one had sympathy for me, but the boy went unreprimaded by the others."

Hsien Chin Hu, 48.

The Parent ego state, in its Nurturing mode, is empathic. It demonstrates, explains, and shares. It appreciates and sees what is right. It provides firm, not harsh structure and limits.

However the parent ego state, in its Critical mode, is quite the opposite. It is judging and punishing. It controls, and is fault finding, looking for what is wrong. It is uninvolved apart from giving pain. It provides either excessive, or arbitary limits or structure.

The Adult ego state engages in rational thought. It is responsible, and able to delay gratification.

The Child ego state, in its Natural mode is marked by playfulness, spontinaety, creativity, freedom and openness of expression.

However the child ego state, in its Not OK mode, is marked by helplessness, hurt, rebelliousness, guilt and inadequacy.

Alex: "I think we need to rethink our business stategy." (Adult)
Bruce: "You're right. What ideas have you got?" (Adult)

Alex (smiling): "Wouldn't it be funny if we put decaf in the coffee machine!" (Natural child)
Bruce (smiling): "Go on, I dare ya!" (Natural child)

Alex: "Oh no, I can't find that report! Panic! Panic!" (Natural child)
Bruce: (shaking head and smiling) "Tsk. Maybe you should clean up your desk sometime!" (Nurturing parent)

Alex: "I think we need to rethink our business stategy." (Adult)
Bruce: (crossly) "I've told you before - it's fine. Just do what you're told." (Critical parent)

Alex: "Can you make it to the team meeting in ten?" (Adult)
Bruce: (truculently) "Leave me alone!" (Not OK child)

Alex: (barely contained rage) "Can you explain what you were thinking?" (Critical parent)
Bruce: (calmly) "Sure. You told us last week to make all the arrangements. So we got three quotes, and chose the best one." (Adult)

42 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Mark 10:42-45 (NIV)

We've looked at a lot of stuff about 'face' in Chinese culture. And not just Chinese - 'face' also plays a big role in Korean and Japanese societies as well!

"Face is distinctively human ... While it is true that the conceptualisation of what constitutes face and the rules governing face behaviour vary considerably across cultures, the concern for face is invariant."

David Ho, "On the Concept of Face"

1. The foundation of a good face

If you recall, there are two kinds of face: lien, and mien-tzu. While mien-tzu is the kind of face someone can increase in by success in life, and visible displays of position and status, lien is not the kind of face you can grow in.

But more importantly while a person starts off in life with no mien-tzu, everyone starts off with the same level of lien. This is the same basic level of moral uprightness that everyone is assumed to have as honest, decent members of society.

Loss of mien-tzu is embarrasing - but loss of lien is catastrophic. When someone loses lien for immoral or socially disagreeable behaviour, society loses their trust in that person, and they are no longer able to function. And so catastrophic is the loss of lien that it can even lead to suicide!

Lien is important. And as a result, people will do anything to preserve their lien - they will even compound lie upon lie, they will even hurt others if it will only preserve their lien.

But underlying this belief that everyone starts off with good lien is the deep-seated notion in Chinese culture that people are essentially good...

The San Zi Jing (or Three Characters Classic) is a 13th century work used to teach children to read and write - and also infuse good Chinese behaviour. And the very first lines of the San Zi Jing teach this essential goodness of humans:

Men at their birth,
   are naturally good.
Their natures are much the same;
   their habits become widely different.
If foolishly there is no teaching,
   the nature will deteriorate.
The right way in teaching,
   is to attach the utmost importance
   in thoroughness.

San Zi Jing I.1.

It is this view of the human being that lies beneath the Chinese ascription of a good lien to everyone (read more about it in an earlier post). And it is only when people show their nature to have deteriorated, that their lien is subsequently discounted by society. Failing that however, society is ordered as though all people have a good lien - they are treated as though they will be upright and virtuous. Which is nice.

2. The false foundation of a good face

But this is important because it is the exact opposite to the Christan view of what humans are like. Consider how different the following passages are from the San Zi Jing:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5 (ESV)

Surely I was sinful from birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 51:5 (NIV)

...as it is written,
"No one is righteous, no, not one;
     no one understands,
     no one seeks God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
     no one does good,
     not even one."

Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)

The Christian doctrine of original sin is important in Western societies. This awareness of how deeply the problem of sin runs in humans has led to political and church structures that purposely built in checks and balances to account for the presence of sin - even in people who may be friendly and well-meaning (see very old posts here and also here). There is an inbuilt assumption that leaders may do what is wrong - even if they were popular and trusted enough to have been elected in the first place!

3. Implications for the dynamics and structure of leadership

By contrast in Chinese culture there is an inherent assumption that leaders will do what is right. There is an inbuilt tendency to believe that the elderly patriarch of the family will do the right thing. That the society leader will not abuse his power. That the one in charge will look after us. And as a result, there's no need to worry about the details. What - don't you trust me?

And that's because the Chinese concept of leadership assumes a good lien. The leader is seen as virtuous and 'right' - and so why not allow them to have complete control? why would you want to question their actions? what are you saying, by wanting to put in checks and balances?

You can see this working itself out in the dynamics of leadership - in how relationships play out within leadership structures.

Because of course, the facade does slip. The patriarch is a drunkard - the leader embezzles, or lies. And abuses his power. But even then, all those around the leader will maintain the facade. They will fight to preserve the lien of their leader - because it is too traumatic for the group to acknowledge that they have a leader who does not have a good lien.

And so all through Chinese history, even though emperor after emperor is revealed to be corrupt, trust is still placed in the concept of the emperor - and yet another emperor is installed. And today even though corruption has been a newspaper issue in Asian societies for many years, it's still there. Because underlings cannot bear to damage the lien of their leader. It is too traumatic!

But not only can you see this trust in the inherent goodness of leaders in the dynamics of leadership, you can also see it in leadership structures themselves.

An interesting example is how committees tend to function (see earlier post).You would have thought that the collectivism of Chinese culture would lead to flat structures and equality among people in a committee - but here you're wrong! Chinese (even ABCs) tend to prefer committees with strong chairpersons and compliant members. And that's because the assumption of the lien of the chairperson brushes aside any worry that he might misuse his power, or have misconceived ideas.

And even if leadership structures do have checks and balances (such as structures adopted directly from the West), it's really poor form to actually consider making use of them - if not downright dangerous to call for a vote! Or openly question the government in a newspaper! Or put forward an opposition party! Because - what are you saying?

4. Original sin and Chinese Christians

Among Chinese Christians the doctrine of original sin is taught, of course. But does it actually inform the behaviour of Chinese Christians? or is it merely given lip service? is it applied unevenly?

1. The face of the clan 

So far we've been talking about 'face' as it relates to an individual. However in Chinese culture it is more than that! One's face can also be linked with the face of others in your social group...

Imagine a high school child, who fails to get into university. That high school child will not be the only one who loses face before his family and peers. His parents will also lose face among their peers - and this is a serious thing ("Hey Tommy, I hear your eldest didn't get in to university!" - or worse still, if everyone knows, but no one says anything)!

Or imagine if a boss is humiliated in front of his employees by a stranger. The employees will go to the outsider and demand that he apologise. The employee will fight to preserve the face of their boss - they will feel compelled to uphold his honour.

These two scenarios illustrate how face is not just something that affects the individual (like the son, or the boss). The rising and falling of someone's face also affects other members of one's family, friends, gang, or company. So an affront to one, can actually be felt by all. David Ho writes that, "the behaviour of closely related persons is included in the evaluation of one's prestige. Thus, the prestige of a scholar-official suffers as a result of his son's misconduct."

And because of this, you sometimes have others in the company (or gang, or family) fighting to preserve the face of their boss (in the example above). You could say that they are jealous for the face of their boss.

2. The face of the 'big man'

In this context of the social aspect of face, what is also significant is the face of the da ren, or 'big man'. In Chinese culture, this da ren is the acknowledged head of a group in society. Samel Ling writes that,

‘For thousands of years Chinese people have been accustomed to a hierarchical way of leadership. There is the emperor on top, with different gradations of government officials. On the local level there are the landowners (gentry) who act as the middlemen between the peasants and the local government official. Everybody knows who the “big men” are in town – the heads of the landowning households. And they are addressed as da ren […], meaning “great person”. Such is the way the Chinese look upon a person who exercises some leadership in society.’

Samuel Ling, The Chinese Way of Doing Things, 147-48.

The social situation today is greatly different, but the concept of the da ren continues on. These da ren are in effect the important people in each society grouping - family, company, church - to which people accord respect and honour. It could be the elderly patriarch of our family, the boss of our company, even the pastor of our church. And in Chinese culture there is great concern for subordinates to preserve the face of the da ren.

In his fourth year project Alistair Chiu draws attention to a widely reported news story in China, illustrative of this face behaviour.

[...] where a director forced an employee at a bowling alley to kneel before him and pour him tea. The director had gone bowling with his subordinates when there had been an argument over a technical problem. The employee manager had tried to solve it but the director felt disrespect and got angry demanded she restore his honour.

When the boss arrived and saw them fighting, he told her who the director was. As soon as she head this, she acquiesced to his demands and knelt before him in the bowling alley to serve him tea, sacrificing herself to restore his pride and honour and save the bowling alley from his wrath.

Surprised and yet satisfied by this display of public humiliation, the director returned to good humour and offered to pay for the bill.

As part of a study about face practices, Wenshan Jia (The Remaking of the Chinese Character and Identity in the 21st Century: the Chinese face practices) shared this incident with some consultants who remarekd that, ‘a superior’s face is more important than the face of subordinates.’ And ‘one should not lose face, especially in front of one’s subordinates.’

Alistair describes what is happening behind the scenes in this scenario:

Having lost face, the director needed to regain it, or he would lose standing and respect amongst his subordinates. Even if they did not think so, he thought so. There was also an intricate relationship between power or position and mianxi (another word for face). For example, an apology equaled loss of face and in extension loss of power. This fact explained why the superior, even if afterwards he felt regret for what he had done, could never apologise but would affirm his own rightness to his underlings.

Alistair Chiu

Even those who participated in Wenshan Jia's study were disturbed by the behaviour that was produced by such face-consciousness, and in fact there was public uproar in China when this incident made the news.

As Christians, we have even greater reason to be disturbed - after all, who is this chairman? Merely another one of God's creatures, who will also one day stand naked and trembling before the throne of God. And the unrighteousness of one of God's creatures demanding that he be exalted by another, demanding that others humiliate themselves for the sake of his face, is all the more plainer for those who have come to know their own place in God's created order.

3. God's concern for his own 'face'

And indeed we saw in our last post that someone's concern for their own face can become idolatrous (see previous post). However concern for face is not always idolatrous... and you see this particularly when we come to the Bible, and consider God's own concern for his 'name'.

Because God is face-conscious! Ultimately God is concerned for his own honour. This is actually God's purpose in creation (Psa 19:1-2). He works salvation not merely for our sake, but for the praise of his glory (Eph 1:11-14). Even when he exercises judgment it is so that people will know that he is the Lord (Exo 7:17). He is jealous to preserve his holy name from being defamed (Isa 42:8). He vindicates his holy name in justifying sinners, by having an atoning sacrifice bear sin (Rom 3:25-26). God's concern, in everything he does, is his 'name'.

But while our preoccupation with our own 'name' is ugly and idolatrous, God's preoccupation with his 'name' is not. This is because it is eminently right for God to be concerned for his own glory and honour. But for a creature to be concerned for their own 'name' is not. Because they are giving their own small 'name' the place that only God's 'name' should have.

In Desiring God, John Piper puts it like this:

God's ultimate goal [...] is to preserve and display his infinite and awesome greatness and worth, that is, his glory.

God has many other goals in what he does. But none of them is more ultimate than this. They are all subordinate. God's overwhelming passion is to exalt the value of his glory. To that end he seeks to display it, to oppose those who belittle it, and to vindicate it from all contempt. It is clearly the uppermost reality in his affections. He loves his glory infinitely.

This is the same as saying: He loves himself infinitely. Or: He himself is uppermost in his own affections. A moment's reflection reveals the inexorable justice of this fact. God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if he valued anything more than what is supremely valuable. But he himself is supremely valuable. If he did not take infinite delight in the worth of his own glory he would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to the excellence of that person's glory.

John Piper, Desiring God.

This is why, all throughout the Bible, God is concerned for his own 'name'.

4. Fighting for God's 'face'

As Christians then, in the same way that an employee is disturbed to see his employer lose face and works to regain honor for him, we also are disturbed to see the name of God dishonoured (Rom 2:17-24). And positively, we are people who strive, in all things, for the name / glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). We are now his people -a people who declare his praises, that others might see and join in our praise (1 Pet 2:9-10).

Which is why when Christians idolise their own face, this is doubly wrong. Not only are they treasuring something that is inferior! More seriously, they are also witholding from God the honour that he alone deserves.

And so when we address the world, we do so not just as dispassionate advocates for a better way of life. We are God's own people - who are jealous for the glory of God's name! We don't just disagree with unbelievers. We are disturbed when his name is slandered! We don't just have a different opinion - we are filled with sorrow when we see people choose their own face over God's!

In fact we will willingly do things that make us lose face - if only God receives greater honour. Because at the centre of our universe is now the glory of God. It is his name, his honour, his 'face' that is precious - and not ours.

[ PS: who are the da ren's in your social groups? When the gospel comes to the Chinese, how does it transform things? ]

"It is virtually impossible to think of a facet of social life to which the question of face is irrelevant. The desire to gain face, to avoid losing face, and to save face when it is threatened is a powerful social motive."

Ho, "On the Comcept of Face".

"The consciuosness that 'loss of lien' means that the confidence of society in his character is impaired, and places him in danger of being despised and isolated, usually acts as a strong deterrent on the individual."

Hu, "The Chinese Concepts of 'Face'".

"In most instances, face lost can be regained. However, the loss of face may well be permanent in cases where the misconduct is serious and in direct contradiction to role-imperatives and/or taboos. Examples of such cases are a captain found guilty of cowardly abandoning his ship and crew to save his own life, a priest caught in adultery, or a family disgraced by incestuous relationships. Not infrequently, the loss of face has such serious consequences that it leads to suicide."

Ho, "On the Comcept of Face".

How do we reflect theologically on face? Face becomes a problem when it is an idol. When what we love most of all is our reputation, our dignity and prestige in society, then face becomes an idol to us. Yes, we may be pilars of our church - but our behaviour reveals that our true love is our own face - and not God after all.

And you can see this when churchgoers know that God desires them to seek forgiveness - but they do not, because they love their face too much. We see this when churchgoers allow lies from respected leaders to spread unchecked - because they are too much in love with their own face to break the rules of face. We see this when churchgoers withold heartfelt appreciation for brothers and sisters - because they must maintain their own face.

5. A breathtaking disregard for face!

Contrast this concern for face, with the breathtaking disregard for the opinion of others that you find in the New Testament:

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Galatians 1:10 (NIV)

3 For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4 On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. 5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed--God is our witness. 6 We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.

1 Thessalonians 2:3-6 (NIV)

29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.

Mark 10:29-30 (NIV)

"Mei-yu lien - 'to have no lien' is today used almost interchangeably with pu-yao lien. This is about the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person. For example, people who turned traitors against their country in its hour of greatest need are said to 'have no lien' at all, meaning that they have laid aside all pretensions of being decent human beings. In a similar way, individuals who accept a religion as a step for material advantage and social advancement 'have no lien' in the eys of the public."

Hu, "The Chinese Concepts of 'Face'".

1. The values of a social group

The concern to maintain face is clearly and important dynamic in Chinese societies - and we'll reflect theologically on the place of face later on. But today, we're going to consider how the face behaviour of a group can reveal important insights into what is held as important by that group...

In his article, David Ho points out that the things which cause a loss or gain in face are based on "sets of criteria or standards which vary both cross-culturally and over time within a single culture. These standards are rooted ultimately in the value orientations of a given culture at a particular point in time." That is, different social groups have different values that they uphold and prize.

2. Stated values ... and actual values

However, those who have worked in the business world will know very well that the stated values of an organisation can be quite different from what is actually valued in that organisation. Your company says it values 'teamwork, openness, customer service' - but at the end of the business year, the ones who get bonuses and promotions don't actually exhibit 'teamwork, openness and customer service' at all. Instead, they could have the very opposite qualities!

And it's in this area that the study of face can be particularly useful. David Ho writes that "the study of face, therefore, gives us insight into not only the nuances of social interaction but also the kinds of values that are upheld in a given society, particularly those values which are deemed to be prerequisites for all its adult members."

3. Discerning the true values of a social group

How does this work? Well, by observing what it is that causes people to gain or lose face in the community, you can get an uncomfortably honest picture of the true values of that community. But it's particularly the ones which cause people to lose face that we should look out for. "The kinds of behaviour judged to be face losing serve as an especially sensitive indicator of the prevailing mores and morality of the times."

And so a social group (such as a business, or even a church) may claim to value forgiveness, truthfulness and integrity - but is this really the case? The way you can tell is to see what sorts of things cause a loss or gain in face in that group.

If someone loses face because he is unforgiving, untruthful or lacks integrity, then it can truly be said that these are in fact true values for that particular group. And to a lesser degree, if people are held in high esteem by the group for being forgiving, truthful and acting with integrity, then you can say with some confidence these are in fact true values for that group.

However if that social group claims to value forgiveness, truthfulness and integrity - but in actual fact those people who are unforgiving, untruthful or lacking in integrity still have face... then it must be questioned if these are in fact the real values of that group.

Well if it isn't forgiveness, truthfulness and integrity, what then are the things that are found in those who are highly esteemed? Look out for those who have lost face in that social group, and consider carefully: what really was it that they did which caused them to lose face? Was it that they were disloyal to the organisation? did they talk back to older people? did they question the past? If so, what does that suggest? It could mean that the true values of that social group may in fact lie in loyalty, in submission to one's elders, in thinking the same way...

The thing about face is that the values that control the gaining and losing of face can't be controlled by any one person - like the HR team sending out a memo to all the employees ("our three values are these..."). No, it's out there, deeply ingrained within the members of the social group. And while one or two may deny that these are true values of their social group, the actual behaviour of the whole social group, in discounting the lien of an individual, reveals quite clearly what the true values of that group are.

4. Face and ministry

The truth about "the prevailing mores and morality" of your church can be quite shocking and depressing. But if we are bold enough to look at the ugly truth, this can be quite useful for us in ministry.

Because we want the values of people in our church to be transformed by the gospel. We want people to become forgiving, to be truthful, to have integrity in all their dealings. How wonderful it would be if, in our churches, what caused people to lose face was that they were unforgiving! or untruthful! or lacked integrity in all their dealings! While we may want to ultimately step back from extreme face-consciousness, knowing where your church is at is a good start, and a good indication of your progress - or lack thereof!

As people become Christians and grow, yes their behaviour may change in certain areas. They may start attending church regularly, they may stop smoking, they may invite people into their homes. And we can (and should) rejoice over such changes. Yet underneath that, old values can continue for many years unexamined, unchallenged, unreformed.

How do we go about changing the values of a social group? By revolution? evolution? sending out memos? I suspect that this is something individuals have little control over. Not only is it an instinctive reflex from our heart, it's also something that is in many people all at once. But God is sovereign over our hearts - and the hearts of all people. And so as we preach passionately, we must also pray fervently...

[ PS: what causes loss of face in your family? your company? your church? ]

1. The Chinese concept of 'face'

The concept of 'face' is immensely important to people in Chinese communities. People are expected to know and abide by the rules of face - and are penalised harshly if they break them.  And the this concept of 'face' can strongly influence how relationships play out among Chinese Christians...

So what is face, and how does it work? And how should we reflect theologically on the concept of face?

I've recently be reading quite a nuanced article by David Yau-Fai Ho called "On the Concept of Face", from the American Journal of Sociology. He seeks to work out how 'face' works in Chinese culture, and to show how it is distinguish from related concepts such as status, prestige, dignity, honour. David points out there are two Chinese words used to describe face, each with a different nuance: lien and mien-tzu.

Lien represents "the confidence of society in the integrity of ego's moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible to function properly within the community." Lien is the basic moral uprightness that all people begin life with. Everyone is entitled to lien as honest, decent members of society. It cannot be gained, it can only be lost for immoral or socially disagreeable behaviour.

In another article, Hsien Chin Hu ("The Chinese concepts of 'face'", American Anthropologist) describes how lien may be lost. "A serious infraction of the moral code of society, once come to the notice of the public, is a blemish on the character of the individual and excites a great deal of comment. A fraud detected, a crime exposed, meanness, poor judgment, lies told for one's own profit, unfaithfulness while in office, a broken promise, the cheating of a customer, a married man making love to a young girl, these are just some of the acts that incur the criticism of society, and are rated as 'losing lien'".

Mien-tzu, however is "a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation." While everyone initially enters society with the same amount of lien, one usually starts off with no mien-tzu at all - and you gain mien-tzu throughout life. Mien-tzu can be gained in two ways, either through personal achievement, or through non-personal factors (such as a display of wealth, or having social connections).

And so a poor but honest farmer would be someone who has high lien (because he is honest and hardworking), but low mien-tzu (because he is poor). And a feared warlord may have high mien-tzu (because of his position and his military power), but low lien (because he perpetrates crimes for the sake of money).

2. Losing, gaining and regaining 'face'

How then does face 'work'?

One loses or gains face relative to the level of face one is expected by society to have. And so an action that would gain face for a person with lower face, might do nothing for another person who already has more face. Thus face has to do with the expectations that society already has for that individual. Paying for a wedding reception at an up-market restaurant would gain face for a poorer family, but would only be expected for a wealthy family.

The face that is being spoken of in this instance is mien-tzu. Ho writes that, "one does not speak of gaining lien because, regardless of one's station in life, one is expected to behave in accordance with the precepts of the culture; correctly conceptualised, exemplary conduct adds not to one's lien, but to one's mien-tzu".

However if that previously wealthy family did not have a reception at an up-market restaurant, it would cause them to lose face. The circumstances that led to them not having a reception may have existed earlier (eg. a downturn in business earnings), but loss of face doesn't happen straight away, but only when there is a public crisis or testing point (eg. a wedding reception), and that person is unable to protect their face from loss.

Face that has been lost can be regained. This may happen "through compensation, corrective actions, making up for one's shortcomings, etc.: but regaining face does not constitute gaining face--it is merely a restoration to the individual of what ought to have been due him in the first place."

But one is not always able to regain face - sometimes what has been uncovered is so serious that the loss of face is permanent. "The loss of face may well be permanent in cases here the misconduct is serious and in direct contradiction to role-imperatives and/or taboos." That loss of face can be so serious that it leads to suicide (often as a way to regain some kind of face). Ho writes that "face can be more important than life itself."

It's important to realise that face is a sociological thing - not a psychological thing. That is, it doesn't exist in a person - but distributed 'out there' in society. And you can see this because your face isn't entirely under your control - other people can actually damage your face.

And so a person could lose face not only because of their failure to match up to society's obligations on them - but also from "the failure of others to act in accordance with his expectations of them--that is, not only from the individual's own actions, but how he is treated by others." And so if your friends, relatives or subordinates treat you badly, you will lose face. Imagine the boss scolding his employee in his office: "Look what you have done! You have made me lose face!"

Because of this, a concern for face is also seen as an indicator that you will know how to play the 'game' of adult society properly. Hu notes that people will be more willing to interact with you if they know you have a concern for face, because they know how you will behave - you will avoid situations that will be damaging to your face. Someone who doesn't have concern for face (pu-yao lien), however, is unpredictable, and is best avoided.

And because face is given and expected in society, sometimes people might choose to give mien-tzu to a leader in society that they actually despise by showing just enough deference to avoid it being noticed by that person, in order to obtain their goodwill (pad their mien-tzu). Imagine an official coming to a village and showing deference to a wealthy but heartless local landowner!

This may happen because that person had built up their reptuation, avoiding social censure for a time. But then once wealth, power and position have come to him, "they trust their mien-tzu to be strong enough to hush talk about their moral character." And so while loss of lien is often catastrophic, powerful people can prop themselves up in society for a time by their mien-tzu. Hu points to Chinese warlords who became powerful and feared through their armies - yet were secretly held in contempt for their disregard for the moral standards of society, and whose liquidation was thus cause for national rejoicing.

3. Stay tuned!

We've actually only scratched the surface here. But already you can see how important face is for Chinese culture. Ho writes that, "it is virtually impossible to think of a facet of social life to which the question of face is irrelevant. The desire to gain face, to avoid losing face, and to save face when it is threatened is a powerful social motive." And perhaps you can even begin to see how face might influence relationships amongst Chinese Christians.

Imagine a Chinese Christian not forgiving another, and that behaviour being accepted - because of their concern for face. Or someone who really dislikes a leader, but who behaves very civilly towards them in public - because of face. Or an older Chinese Christian not apologising to a younger, and that behaviour being defended - because of face. Or a youth leader revealing a fault of an older Chinese church leader - and the youth leader being the one taken aside and spoken to - because he made the older lose face.

In future posts we'll look at what face reveals about a society, and consider how to think theologically about face!

[ PS: how have you seen 'face' play itself out in relationships around you? ]

How does your committee function? What does the chairman see his role to be? If you map out the relationships, and consider how decisions are made, what will you see?

Eastern cultures lean towards the concept of the "benevolent dictator". In this model the chairman functions much like the king of the committee. He decides what will happen, and what will not. He decides who will do what. And other people in the committee merely function to support or obey the direction of the chairman.


In this diagram, notice how prominent the chairperson is, and how there are strong lines between him and the other members of the committee. However, those other members are much smaller, and the lines between them and the others are weaker. Yes, there are lots of people on the committee - but in reality, the only thing that matters is the will of the chairman.

However, note that this works both ways. Not only does the chairman expect this from the committee, the committee members generally expect to be led by the chairman. And so sometimes if something happens to make the chairman ineffective (eg. a crisis in his personal life, or if he gets too busy), the committee simply doesn't do anything - because they are waiting for direction from the chairman.

Sometimes however it is not just the chairman, but a small group of two, or maybe three people that essentially form a committee-within-a-committee.


In the diagram notice the two prominent members - and the strong link between the two of them. Together, they maintain relationships within the rest of the committee, who are much less prominent. And the relationship between the other committee members again is not as strong.

In practice, what really matters is what goes on between those two committee members. What really counts is the opinion and endorsement of those two special committee members, because they decide what will actually happen. The others might be given some selected information, or asked to approve a decision - but generally information is held back from them, generally they are not allowed to participate in the actual decision making process. There might be the opportunity for their opinions to be heard - but it don't actually make a difference.

In more Western cultures, committees tend to function with the chairman being the facilitator of the committee. He sees his role as allowing others to say what they want to say, working out the intention and plan of the group, and basically serving the group. What tends to be prominent here is the group, not the chairman. Here you could have a chairman with no plan of his own of what he wants to do, yet the committee can still function well - because he is able to get out of the people what they think should happen.


Now these kinds of committees aren't perfect. They have the danger of being hijacked by a group of vocal members, or of factions forming within the committee. This is why Western committees vote.


An Eastern committee chairman would never allow such disharmony and traitorous disunity within their committees! And in fact overly vocal committee members would be seen as a problem. And voting is unnecessary, because he has already spoken to the committee members individually before the meeting, and has already gotten consensus.

Both Eastern and Western models can work - although both have their own weaknesses. However you can see that in cross cultural situations, where more Eastern people are in the same committee as more Western people, there can be massive differences in the expectation of how the committee should function, how decisions are made, and how chairmen and members should behave!

Carefully analyse how relationships work in the committees you are in - whether at work, at school or in the community. Is there a difference between what is on paper, and what is reality? How does the chairman see himself in relation to others, and how do others see him? What happens when there is a difference of opinion to the chairman - is it tolerated, expected, even encouraged? Do people have the same voice at the table, or do some voices have more sway than others?

As you do that analysis you may discover that one cause of much frustration and tension in your committee are differences in expectations of how that committee would function! But many ABCs may also be surprised to discover how Eastern they actually tend to be when they work in committees... for all their Westernness, ABCs often tend to create committees around strong chairmen!

[ PS: how do we reflect theologically on how committees are run? ]

I've been reading a very detailed journal article about the history of the Chinese Bible. Very few people - including Chinese Christians themselves - know much about the history Chinese Bible translation, so this will probably be of great interest to many.

You can find "The Bible in Chinese", by Wang Weifan in vol. 8 of Chinese Theological Review (1993). Unfortunately you can't just go straight to the article - you have to download the whole volume here (PDF file).

Wang Weifan traces the history from Nestorian times forward, including efforts by both Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries. He also examines the history of translation into various dialects (Wu, Min, Shantou, Hakka etc.), though you need to realise this article was written in 1993. By including translations that were completed, but never published, Wang Weifan has produced an incredibly detailed picture of Chinese Bible translation.

Here are some recurring themes in the history of Chinese Bible translation.

There is evidence of the Bible being in the possession of emperors from the 7th century, but being in Syriac, was unable to be read and understood by anyone. Kublai Khan even once sent a letter to the pope asking him to send a hundred scholars to explain the Christian religion, because the books they had were in Syriac!

Sometimes Bible translations differ because of denominational-organisational loyalties. This is apparent in the translation of God's name (where Roman Catholic, American Protestant and British Protestant translations differ between Tian, Tianzhu, Shen, Shangdi and Shangzhu), as well as the translation of 'baptise' (where Baptists tended to differ with others over xi or zhan). Other significant words were 'church' and 'Holy Spirit' (Sheng feng, Shengshen or Shengling).

Sometimes translations were held back from general availability because of miscommunication - particularly in the case where Roman Catholic missionaries thought they would not be allowed by Rome to translate the Bible - when in fact it had been allowed, but simply were not told!

Just like the history of English Bible translation is closely linked with the development of the English language, Chinese Bible translation also contributed significantly towards the spread of written Chinese. The romanisation used by missionaries to translate dialects is actually the forerunner of today's pinyin system.

The Union Version, that is now the most commonly used translation, began as a collaboration in 1890 between the American Bible Society, British and Foreign Bible Society and the National Bible Society of Scotland, and resulting in its publication in 1919.

However as you would expect, the article only treats the Cultural Revolution period with one brief paragraph. And while discusses the number of Bibles published by the Amity Foundation (which prints Bibles within China), doesn't talk a lot about how easily available they are...

[ PS: have a read - but be aware that there are a lot of facts and figures... ]

We're used to the doctrine of Justification by Faith (JBF) coming under fire in the West. Things like Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ), the debate on Lordship Salvation and the New Perspective have all been relatively 'recent' attacks on JBF in the West.

But did you know that JBF is also under attack in China as well?

I was recently going through some journal articles from the Chinese Theological Review, hoping to find some good theological reflection on Chinese cultural issues. Instead I came across not one, but three articles written in 2004 advocating for a de-emphasis on the doctrine of Justification by Faith in the Chinese church (all of them in vol.18). They are:

• "On Justification by Faith", by Li Weizhen
• "De-Emphasizing Justification by Faith: Theological Reflections", by Ouyang Wenfeng
• "De-Emphasis on Justification by Faith: An Instance of Theological Adaptation", by Wang Guanghui

They're not very long articles - you'll probably find them quite easy to read.

This was precipitated by a speech by Bishop K.H Ting in 2000 entitled "De-Emphasizing Justification by Faith". In that speech, he said:


The idea here is that by emphasising Justification by Faith, they are consigning the vast majority of the Chinese people (and indeed members of the Communist Party, who are meant to be unbelievers) to hell. They are afraid that this makes Justification by Faith a policial issue - which they want to avoid. Not only that, they consider the idea that so many millions of Chinese might go to hell simply for not believing in Jesus abhorrent, especially if they are quite decent people. The first author writes,


Not only that, the second author argues that to emphasing Justification by Faith will leads to Christians neglecting morality.


The first author reveals that where they want to head is in the direction of Vatican II, with Karl Rahner's concept of anonymous Christians. This is the idea that there are people out there who are not Christians, nor who would call themselves Christians, but who, in keeping the law of their conscience are pleasing to God and will ultimately be saved.


The articles try to show exegetically that biblically, justification is not on the basis of faith alone, but on faith plus works. If you read their articles though, you'll find that their exegesis is really bad. Context just goes out the window as they try to make their point that people are equally justified by their works.

The second writer shows that part of this is also driven by the idea that Justification by Faith stands in sharp contrast to the love of God. Somehow, JBF no longer flows out of the goodness and graciousness of God - but is opposed to it!


Already you can see that there is some serious misunderstanding of the doctrine of justification going on here!

All this is also due to a desire for the Chinese church to develop a truly 'Chinese theology'. The idea here is that the Chinese church is still too much influenced by the West, and needs to develop it's own distinctive brand of theology - as though there is such a valid thing as an ethnic theology. The third writer aruges that in order to develop such a theology, Christianity in China needs to adapt by absobing Chinese culture and changing.


And the first casualty of this theological reconstruction is the doctrine of Justification by Faith.

You can see that these authors are driven by a real desire to have the Chinese church engage with the people around them, instead of simply becoming enclaves that deter others by their exclusivity. They dearly want their unbelieving countrymen to see that Christians are good and useful and pleasant people in society. They want to remove any reason for the Communist Party to shut down churches and impede its work.

But this pragmatic goal is their main driving force - and the believer's humble submission to God's word has to give way to that.

[ PS: Chinese Theological Review is published by the China Christian Council, with Bishop K.H Ting as its president... ]

Duty plays a big part in the thinking of Chinese people - and many Chinese Christians. And this is primarily due to the long influence of Confucianism throughout Chinese history...

Confucianism sought to bring order and harmony to society by focusing attention on reviving the rites of the ancestors (li), and so becoming a cultured person (ren). The theory is that others will see the superiority of the cultured life and emulate it - and thus the cultured person's dignified behaviour is the cornerstone of society.

However this means that all the focus is on external behaviour - and not at all on the internal motivations of a person. Over many years, this has generated a society where the highest virtue is to remain dutiful and fulfil one's obligations, regardless of the personal cost. In contrast, in Western culture the highest goal is self actualisation (as in Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

And you can see the difference in East and West coming out in what is admired in the movies that people watch (particularly dramas - not action movies). In the West when someone breaks out of stifling and constricting social obligations and pursues what is really in their heart, that is seen as virtuous. Western movies are all about living the real you, about being authentic, about pursuing what you want - regardless of what others think about you. In contrast, movies in the East honour the father who fulfils his duty at great personal cost. The policeman who heroically does what is required of him. The employee who, though torn apart internally, who still fulfils his obligations.

In the East, this can translate to a Christianity that is all about duty. And obligation. And loyalty. People are admired because they fulfil their duty to God at great personal cost. The focus is on the sacrifice that people make. Perhaps you have heard statements like the following?

• "Look at that man, he has cancer, and yet he is setting up tables for church."
• "Look at that woman, she is in hospital dying, and yet she is still doing her duty by sharing the gospel."
• "Look at those missionaries, they give up so much to serve God. I could never be like them."

And these statements would be said with great reverence. With awe and humility before these people, in recognition that we have not yet attained such a level of godly self effacement.

However what is missing in all of this is the affections. Because the Eastern approach puts the focus on the external behaviour. On dutiful, even sacrificial obedience. In this approach, what is going on inside is irrelevant - or perhaps it is even better if you are personally wanting the exact opposite to that which you must dutifully do. And so it is even more heroic if, on the inside you long for a comfortable lifestyle, yet dutifully you pursue the hard road of being a missionary - and al that for God.

However far from requiring dutiful obedience, God is actually interested in our affections. He wants for us to love him (Deut 6:5), he commands us to delight ourselves in him (Psa 37:4), to worship the Lord with gladness (Psa 100). But not only that, God actually condemns dutiful obedience. Consider Deuteronomy 28.


The problem here wasn't that they weren't serving (external behaviour) - they were doing that. The problem was that they did not serve the Lord their God with joy and gladness (internal affections). And as a result they faced the judgement of God.

Consider also 1 Peter 5. Here Peter is appealing to elders of the church. Here the negative judgement from Deuteronomy is put in terms of a positive command.


We are to serve not because we must, not out of a sense of duty. But because we are willing, as God wants us to be. We are to be eager to serve. God is interested in our motivations in ministry. If we do the work of ministry begrudgingly, if we do it out of a sense of duty and not of joy, then we have a defective ministry. God is not honoured in your service, and you need a change of heart.

In Desiring God, John Piper describes a husband bringing flowers to his wife on their anniversary. She is overjoyed and thanks him - but imagine if he says, "don't mention it, it's my duty. Even though I didn't want to do it, I sacrificed my money and time, and bought these flowers for you. It's only what I have to do." That is an insult to her honour! She would be more honoured if the husband loves her and see it as his joy to bring her flowers.

Ultimately if we are serving God out of a sense of duty, if it is a great sacrifice for us, then it reveals what we really treasure. If it is a great sacrifice for us to serve God, it shows that we really value possessions or pleasure most of all - and not God. But when he is our very great treasure, then choosing him over lesser things is no sacrifice at all.

Jesus calls it hypocrisy when people honour God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him (Matthew 15:8). The sense of duty is deeply embedded in Chinese culture - and many Chinese Christians operate out of a sense of duty and obligation to God. However God is actually dishonoured when all our service is to us is duty. God desires that we serve him - with joy and gladness!

[ PS: a good book to read here is Desiring God, by John Piper. Read it online for free here! ]

The advertising services industry spends millions of dollars researching and producing ads that will tap into, and shape the desires of the watching public. So they're pretty good at working out what people's interests are.

I came across a paper presented by Xue, Zhou and Zhou back in 2003 entitled, "Visual Strategies in US and Chinese TV ads". They compared the way advertising is done in the US and China - but along the way also looked at the products and services advertised on TV. And when they did so, they noticed some significant differences in the things being advertised.

I looked around in vain for statistics on Australian TV advertising. If you know where I can find it, let me know, because that would be interesting to compare. So instead here is the table with the proportion of advertising for US and China.

Product/service	China	USA
Cars and car parts	6.5%	15.5%
Beauty and personal care	8.0%	11.5%
Clothing and shoes	5.0%	0.5%
Food and drink	19.0%	14.5%
Household appliances	25.0%	2.0%
Medicine	18.5%	6.0%
Travel	0.0%	0.0%
Service and retailers	4.5%	30.0%
Industrial products	2.0%	0.0%
Household care	2.0%	3.5%
Pet products	0.0%	0.5%
Miscellaneous	2.0%	15.5%
Combination	4.0%	0.0%
Computers	1.0%	0.5%
Mobile phones	2.5%	0.0%

Here I've put the data for China into a pie graph, so you can see the relative proportions of the different things being advertised. Notice particularly the large amount of advertising for 'Household appliances' (25%) and 'Medicine' (18.5%).

And this next graph shows you the figures for China (red) and USA (green) for comparison. You can see from this that the amount of advertising in China for 'Household appliances' and 'Medicine' is much greater than what you'd find in the USA (2.0% and 6.0% respectively). It also highlights some other areas which, percentage-wise look relatively small, but where China still has proportionally more advertising than the United States (eg. 'Food & drink', 'Industrial products', 'Computers', and 'Mobile phones').
What does this reveal about the passions of consumers in China? Perhaps the philosophical materialism of Communism - the idea that the only thing that exists is matter - means that people cling much more to this life (healthcare) and the attainable luxuries of this world ('Household appliances', 'Clothing & shoes', 'Mobile phones')?

[ PS: what do you make of the figures? ]

Peter Ong in the States has dug up a fascinating article recently published in the Review of Religious Research (June '08) called "Race and Adolescent Depression: The impact of race and gender". Richard Petts and Anne Joliffe, two researchers at the Ohio State University, examined a large study of the health of almost 20 thousand American teenagers (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), looking for links between race, religiosity and depression.

What they found, particularly for Asian teenagers, was quite worrying.

Because you would expect that when teenagers become more involved in religion, they would show less symptoms of depression (such as loss of apetite, inability to shake off the blues, feeling hopeless about the future, feeling sad, feeling lonely, feeling that your life is a failure, feeling that life is not worth living). And you would expect that particularly for those who may have recently migrated to a new country, having the support of a church would actually help with feelings of depression.

They found that indeed this does hold true - but only for certain races. They found a negative relationship between religiosity and depression for white and black teenagers (that is, going to church regularly is related to lower depression). They found no relationship between religiosity and depression for latino/a teenagers.

But most surprising and troubling of all was they found a positive relationship between religiosity and depression for Asian teenagers. That is, an Asian teenager who goes to church one or more times a week reported more symptoms of depression than Asian teenagers who don't go to church. And they found this was particularly true for Asian females. Here is what they observed:


What is going on? Remember that white and black teenagers who also attend church regularly do not have these same feelings, so this is not to do with the sense of being "in the world but not of it" that a Christians would feel. Instead it must be something else. And Petts and Joliffe suspect that it has to do with the tendency for Asian groups to reinforce culutural principles that are different to what they find in mainstream American society.


You can read the full article online for yourself here and look at their figures for the different races. Unfortunately the study was not able to determine exactly what kind of churches these Asian teenagers are going to - whether they are going to Asian churches, or non-Asian churches. I would guess that the majority would be going to Asian churches, just like in Australia - but that's just a guess.

Yet even so, how worrying is it that it is noticeably better for the mental health of Asian teenagers to stay away from church. This research should give us serious pause to consider the effect of our ministries on the mental health of high schoolers. What is the long term effect of the way things are done in our churches? are we really being a blessing to them?

[ PS: Moore College has this journal, but if you're looking for this in the ATLA database, the Review of Religious Research has a one-year embargo, so it'll appear in ATLA next June... ]

In a previous post we saw how the influence of Confucianism on Chinese culture predisposes Chinese readers towards an optimistic view of human nature. Confucianism denies original sin, and so paves the way for Pelagianism and Arminianism in the Chinese church. However Mark Strand's article "Explaining Sin in a Chinese Context" also raised the issue of how the translators of the Chinese Bible chose to render the Greek word for 'sin' (hamartia)...

By far the most commonly used Chinese translation of the Bible today is the Union Version. That translation was first completed by a group of Protestant scholars in 1919 and is now the most widely used Chinese translation both inside and outside China today.

However translators of the Union Version chose to use the Chinese word 'zui' to translate 'sin'. This was an unfortunate choice becasue 'zui' has the meaning of a crime committed against the laws of the government. And to further cement the misunderstanding, 'zui' is also used to translate the word 'crime' in the Union Version. And so instead of sin having its full biblical weight of meaning, sin is narrowed down to only include the relatively small area of crime.

This has the effect of making Chinese readers of the Union Version think they are only sinners if they are criminals. And those sins which the government doesn't have laws against - such as pride or greed or even adultery - aren't really considered 'zui'. And so a Chinese reader could mistakenly believe that they aren't really a sinner at all - instead that category is reserved for those desparate thugs who are pursued by police and get locked up in the government's jails. And those sins which Christians are called to put off, aren't considered to be serious at all.

Mark Strand even cites the example of a prominent church leader who was involved in adultery, yet who continued in her role of church leadership and would not give it up - because it wasn't really 'zui'. If it really was 'zui', the government would have created laws against it.

However the widespread use of the Union Version also means that the use of words in that translation also influences the understanding of that word in the wider culture. In a similar way the King James Version injected a slew of idioms into the English language - and even today influence the language of completely unchurched people. In the case of the Union Version's use of 'zui', this makes the work of evangelism harder because in the wider society sin is thought of as 'crime'.

Why then do people become Christians if they aren't convinced of their own sinfulness? What is it that they think Jesus is doing on the cross for them? Is he merely divine insurance in the remote case that they are found guilty of a crime? Are there two categories of Christians, and they fall into the second less serious category of respectable people who only need Jesus as a moral example? Is Jesus the answer, not so much to their massive sin problem, but their aspirations and dreams in life?

It's hard work to argue against a dearly-loved Bible translation - people become emotionally attached to a translation they have grown up with and memorised. And it's particularly hard work if doing so also places the favourite sins of people back under scrutiny and requires them to turn away from those sins. However we must teach that sin is more than crime - but also includes those things there are no laws about (such as selfishness), and even those things which only exist in our heads (such as envy), and most of all which do not give God the glory and honour he is due (such as a good life lived ignoring God).

[ PS: have a go yourself using online Chinese dictionaries such as this ]