Andrew space

A while ago I found some interesting data from the ABS about mixed marriages - that is, marriages between people of different ethnic backgrounds.

Here is a graph I've put together, that shows you the percentage of people of Chinese ancestry, who had a spouse of a different ancestry. The blue is guys, and pink girls.
Basically, it's quite rare for first generation Chinese migrants (ie. OBCs) to have a non-Chinese spouse - less than 20%. But then it becomes increasingly popular for second generation Chinese (ie. ABCs) - between 30-40%. And by the third generation the level rises to above 70%.

This is not so surprising, because second and third generation Chinese (ABCs) are going to the same schools and finding the same jobs as Aussies (and others). They speak English with the same accent, and probably share a lot in common.

However mixed marriages can mean tension between the spouses that they only discover later on down the road, because their families of origin. While they might seem quite similar in their outlook on life, the families they grew up in were probably quite different from each other. They probably grew up with different values in the home, different attitudes towards family, work, leisure and housework. Both of them will have brought unspoken assumptions and expectations into their marriage about how things should be, which have been formed by years of seeing how their family did things.

When they were going out, these differences probably weren't apparent. And if they were aware of them, they probably seemed minor and easily dealt with. But later on, when they are deciding on family holidays, or raising children, these differences will emerge. They find themselves naturally falling back to the way their parents did things - sometimes to their horror!

This is an issue for any couple - but the differences can be particularly large, and particularly unexpected for those in mixed marriages!

[ PS: what are some potential differences that might unexpectedly emerge down the line? ]

As evangelicals, we tend to be afraid of good works and social action.

Doing good works feels that we might endanger our salvation and turn us into Roman Catholics. Or that it might compromise the priority of gospel proclamation and turn us into liberals. And so good works tends to be something we avoid for theological reasons!

And there are probably other reasons as well holding us back. Perhaps we are afraid that once we start looking into it, we will be overwhelmed by how much there is to be done. Or that it will show up our comfortable lifestyle in the West and make us feel guilty about the new widescreen plasma TV we bought recently. And so it's simply too confronting for us...

However the Bible won't let us do this. It tells us that God has actually created for good works (Eph 2:10). Not only that, we are to be eager for good works (Titus 2:14). And James tells us that pure religion is to care for orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27).

We are right to insist that people are not saved by good works (Eph 2:8-9). However, we are saved for good works (Eph 2:10). And so the evangelical fear of good works, and the affluent discomfort with good works, is actually wrong. Far from shunning good works, we should actually embrace them, be eager for good works, and be full of good works ourselves!

How then do you put good works and gospel proclamation together? People have gone about it in different ways.

One answer is (a) that some Christians should devote themselves to social action, while others do proclamation. Another answer is that (b) we do social action so that it opens doors for gospel proclamation. Others (c) confuse the two and say that social action is gospel proclamation. And still others say that (d) they are two equal partners of the missionary task.

All of these are unsatisfactory for different reasons. Instead, you can think of it as the difference between being, and doing - and a Christian should have both.

Our doing should be gospel proclamation. Paul asks, "How can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Rom 10:14). The biggest need people have is to hear the good news about Jesus - and no one else will do the work of proclamation for us. For some Christians this will mean doing the work of the evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), for others it will be a readiness to give an answer for the hope we have (1 Pet 3:15).

But in our being, we are to love good works, and a desire to do good should naturally flow out from us. We shouldn't have to think twice about caring for those who are in need or pleading the cause of the oppressed. We have been created for good works.

Once we have heard the gospel and responded to it with faith and repentance - what then? Are we saved to just become messengers of that gospel, passing it on to others? No, in our being, we are to grow to become a people who are attracted to good works, who willingly give and work to see good done, and who mourn the fallenness of the world.

[ PS: are you eager for good works? ]

1. Not just Confucianism...

From the previous series of posts (here) you might think that Confucianism is the major contributor to the worldview of Chinese people. However Confucianism isn't able by itself to explain every aspect of Chinese culture - there are other things as well that contribute to the worldview of the Chinese, and a significant one is the migrant experience.

There are several factors making up the migrant experience. Some are common to all migrants, but some are particular to those who migrated away from China in the 1970's, and away from Hong Kong in the 1990's. This group is called the Diaspora (a Greek word meaning 'dispersion'). And understanding these factors sheds a lot of light on the culture of Chinese in the Diaspora.

2. Fleeing danger - and conservatism

In the 1960's and 70's many people fled from China to Hong Kong, ahead of the Cultural Revolution. And then when they heard that Hong Kong was returning to China, they again fled to countries like Canada, Australia and the United States. In both cases they perceived a threat to their family's economic and physical wellbeing, and showed a willingness to go to great lengths in order to protect the economic and physical safety of their family - even going to a country where they have no relatives.

This is why many OBCs (Overseas Born Chinese) seem to us to be conservative and cautious. However they are not so fearful as to do nothing - instead, they are the ones who are active enough to take drastic steps to protect their family from danger!

On the whole their ABC (Australian Born Chinese) children have never had such an experience themselves. They have grown up in the West, with its relative stability and security - and so are much more willing to try out things their parents think of as being dangerous or risky!

3. Chinatowns - and culture

As thousands of Chinese migrated to cities Sydney, Vancouver or San Francisco, it was natural for them to congregate together. And also for them to set up communities and maintain a culture just like what they knew back home. In an earlier period this meant Chinatowns - but more significantly it also meant that the culture of these migrants don't change very much.

The culture of Chinese migrants is often much more traditional Chinese than even China is. This is because, while the culture of China continues to develop, the culture of migrants is frozen in time. They may live in Canada - but they still consider themselves Chinese first and foremost! And so they preserve and live out Chinese culture as they knew it in order to maintain links to their roots and identity and distinctiveness.

Their children don't see why there is this insistence on Chinese culture - because they naturally consider themselves to be Australian, Canadian or American. But their rejection of Chinese culture and values is seen as unnatural by their parents - like a duck deciding to behave like a dog!

4. Hardship - and education

Fleeing from China to Hong Kong meant a great deal of hardship. People had to scrape and save and find money wherever they could find it. Some people succeeded despite such hardships - and were in a position to leave Hong Kong for the West before 1997. However when they came to the West they found that their qualifications and abilities were not as recognised as they were in Hong Kong. The jobs open to them were not as prestigious or well paid as back in Hong Kong. However despite this new hardship they again persevered, to give their family every advantage.

Because of this, anything that could give their family, and especially their children a head-start in life, or a better advantage in the working world, becomes highly prized. It's because of this that education becomes so vitally important - it's the way to get ahead. And so parents want opportunity classes for their children, selective schools, getting a good mark in the HSC, doing subjects over summer to get ahead in uni.

And together with this is the work ethic that strives for excellence and advancement, first in studies, but later the working world as well. Because unless you get ahead of the pack, your family will sink into the mire.

Children don't tend to see what the fuss is all about - because they have grown up in relative luxury in the West, and haven't had to go through hardships themselves. As a result, children who are lazy about their studies and not ambitious in their work are perceived very negatively by parents who have always seen hard work and advancement as the only way ahead!

5. Isolation - and family

'Family' in Hong Kong and China doesn't mean mum, dad and two kids. It means the whole collection of aunties, uncles, grandmas, grandpas and cousins who constantly interact and come over and share things. And so for migrants to leave that and to migrate to the West with their family means massive isolation.

Yes, they are living here in a big house with their 'family' - but not family in the sense they knew it as children. And because of that, the family that you do have becomes that much more precious. Family is all that you have! Or at least, they would like their children to share their sense of just how precious family is...

The trouble is, their children don't think like that. They absorb the culture of those around them - where Western parents raise their children to become independent, leave home at a (relatively) early age, and face the consequences of their own decisions. By contrast, their migrant parents seem overly possessive and controlling. And that's because, to them, independence means turning your back on your precious family!

Confucianism influences Chinese culture a lot - but it doesn't account for every aspect of OBC culture! You can see how the migrant experience has shaped and transformed OBC tremendously - and moreover, it also explains many conflicts with their children, who on the whole haven't gone through the same things.

[ PS: there is another thing, in addition to Confucianism and the migrant experience... can you guess what? ]

So - were you one of the millions around the world last week watching the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics? It actually gave you a great insight into the Chinese culture - and I don't mean all the dancing...

What you see in the Opening Ceremony is the predominant concern for maintaining 'face' - particularly in the light of revelations in the following week.

First we had nine year old Lin Miaoke, the young girl who appeared to be singing - but was in reality lip-synching to the prerecorded singing of Yang Peiyi. Because she was not cute enough. The musical director was quoted as saying that, "The main consideration was the national interest. The child on the screen should be flawless in image, in her internal feelings, and in her expression." He continued, "we should all understand it like this: it is a question of the national interest. It is a question of the image of our national music, our national culture."

Then we heard that the 55 second sequence of 29 giant footsteps projected by fireworks walking towards the main stadium was in reality a piece of computer generated footage. The head of the visual effects team was reported as saying that "Most of the audience thought it was filmed live — so that was mission accomplished."

And then we discovered that the children carrying in the Chinese flag and wearing traditional dress of the 55 minority groups in China, were not actually children of those minority groups - but instead members of an acting group, made up of children from the dominant Han people group. The VP of the Games was reported saying that, "It is typical for Chinese performers to wear different apparel from different ethnic groups. There is nothing special about it. They will wear different apparel to signify people are friendly and happy together."

And of course there is the content of the historical retelling itself. It was interesting to see how Confucianism was celebrated - while in reality in the 1960's and 1970's Confucian teachings were actually repressed by the Communist party, and Confucian scholars strongly persecuted. And in the retelling of China's history, large sections of the modern period were conveniently omitted - such as Mao's Great Leap Forward of the 1950's, and the Cultural Revolution of the 60's and 70's. All we had was "the modern period", represented by bright neon lights - presumably a reference to modern development and technology!

One feature of the Chinese culture is the concern for 'face'. That is, that on the surface everything appears to be harmonious, impressive, and functioning well. To convey the impression of minority groups happily coexisting under the one flag. That modern China is all about clean technology. The concern to show the prettiest possible face to the international community. Because in Chinese culture, substance doesn't matter - only the appearance does. What matters is that people form a good impression.

The reason why this can seem so wrong to many in the West, particularly those of younger generations, is because increasingly the opposite is true - substance is more important than appearance (or at least, what we think is substance). And so for Gen X and Gen Y, it's become more important to be authentic, than polished. More important to be vulnerable, than correct. More important for someone to be genuine and heartfelt, than to be traditional...

...and so when East and West come together, no wonder there is sometimes suspicion and miscommunication!

[ PS: a good book that explores differences between the East and West from a Christian perspective is One World, Two Minds by Dennis Lane. ]

People like the idea of house churches.

A house church evokes in our minds the purity of the New Testament early church. They don't need a lot of structure and formality, and instead make do with a simple structure. They don't need all the rules and bureaucracy of an institutionalised church, and instead you have people relating to one another purely, as brothers and sisters...

Sometimes you hear people speak glowingly and wistfully about house churches - and maybe you also long to throw off the restrictiveness of our church structures and go back to the beautiful purity of house churches.

And of course house churches can work nicely. And in some places, that's the only viable church structure in the face of persecution.

However there are problems with house churches, and often people don't realise that they aren't all they are hyped up to be. Power is in the hands of a few people - particularly the family that owns the actual house they meet in. And if they want, they can abuse that power.

Like it or not, they have a big influence on the house church. What if they want to preach? Or if they suggest that their son or daughter would be a good Bible study leader? What if they want a certain event to be held for the church, or if they didn't like another event and simply made their house unavailable on that day?

Of course, if they are godly, then these things shouldn't happen... but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

The way to think about church structures isn't to imagine the best case scenario, when everyone is behaving in a godly way. Because if that's what you do, then any church structure will work fine.

Instead, the way to do it is to think about worst case scenarios - what can be done if people behave badly, and things go wrong. What can be done if church leaders abuse their power. Or if certain individuals insist that things get done their way, and lie and slander. What can be done if any one person in the hierarchy ends up going wrong... or if two, or three people go wrong. And the problem with house churches is, little can actually be done if key resources (such as the house) are in the hands of a few people...

This is why when churches get larger, it makes sense to have buildings and property that aren't owned by any one person or family - but by the group. And with that comes all the administrative overhead that we dislike - but all that overhead actually serves to protect gospel ministry for when things go wrong.

[ PS: the 'emerging church' is one modern form of house church movement... ]

Have you got an emergency joke?

If you're anything like me, you tend to forget jokes right after you hear them. After all, you have much more important things to keep in your head - like birthdays of your loved ones, or statistics on the Chinese in Sydney.

But sometimes it's good to have a joke up your sleeve. In case you need to fill in a few minutes' worth of time. Or give people a bit of a break from thinking hard in a workshop. Or entertain some children...

If you're the kind of person that finds it hard to remember a joke, you might want to go and learn one - just in case.

Earlier this year at our church camp, when the 'variety night' score tally was slow coming in, I was called on to use my emergency joke, so I did - in front of about 300 people, and two guest speakers.

So go and learn a joke. Hopefully a clean one. Hopefully one that you can flesh out a little. And even better if it's something that you could segue into an impromptu gospel talk from. Because you never know when you'll need your emergency joke...

[ PS: having used up that one, I've now gone and learnt another emergency joke... ]

Narrative criticism is a relatively new thing in the world of biblical studies - but is actually really useful for handling biblical narrative, such as the Gospels in the New Testament.

In the Western world, we are used to reading and making sense of logically ordered pieces of writings, such as Paul's epistles. We generally know how to discern the structure and argument from these things to get at the author's big idea.

However, we're not so used to doing this with narrative. While we are used to reading narratives in the form of novels, and see narratives in the form of movies, generally this is for entertainment - and we are not used to narratives that are written to actually get us to do something. We either think that narratives just plainly and historically describe what happened (with no intention to cause a change in us), or are looking for a moralistic way to apply it to ourselves (much like Aesop's fables).

However the writers of biblical narrative aren't simply out to record bare historical facts - they actually are wanting to persuade us to do certain things. A good example of this is John, who himself declares that "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). Having read his gospel, John wants us to believe. He writes with the intention to get us to believe.

Observe then the different ways that people would get you to believe...

First, if Paul is writing a letter and wants to get you to believe, he would go about it this way. He would:

• list out all the good reasons for believing in Jesus,
• and then he would explicitly tell us that we need to believe.

And that's what we're used to - Paul telling us explicitly what we should think or do.

Second, if Mark writes a narrative and wants to get you to believe, he would go about it in an entirely different way. He would show you:

• an incident where a Pharisee attacks Jesus, even though he had healed someone (and we are thinking, "that's just wrong").
• Then show us another incident where a teacher of the law tries to trip up Jesus, even though he is clearly a good teacher (and we are thinking, "no! can't they see?").
• And then another incident where a wealthy man was close to following Jesus - but didn't, because he loved money first (and we are thinking, "how foolish that is!") .
• And then we are shown an incident where someone finally does follow Jesus (and we think, "at last! Someone has gotten it right!").

Mark hasn't gone out and explicitly told you to believe in Jesus - but through the way the narrative is arranged, and through how characters respond to Jesus, gets us identifying with the person who responds with belief.

So a narrative may actually have a similar aims as a letter (eg. to get people to believe in Jesus) - but it has the added power of being able to draw in the reader to identify strongly with people who actually do believe in Jesus.

This means that when you're doing a Bible study or talk on the Gospels, you want to be alert for what is going on, so you can show it to people and teach the Gospels with the right emphasis. You need to be very alert for the kinds of things that the writer of a narrative uses to shape your response as you read. These include things like:

• incidents that in reality are far apart, arranged so they are adjacent in order to make a point or show contrasting reactions
  
• incidents that happen in the same place as something earlier on, or at historically significant places
  
• characters that are well described vs. characters that are not well described
• characters that we identify with vs. characters that we dislike
  
• authoritative things that the narrator says vs. things that characters say
  
• unexpected features of people (eg. that a Gentile has faith, while the Jewish leaders don't)
• how classes of people are described (eg. the many different women in Mark)
• what the crowds do (eg. following him, listening to him, or calling for his death)
  

This involves not just reading a paragraph or two of the narrative, but reading large chunks of it, being very familiar with it, so that you can see what is going on. It also involves listening to yourself as you read along - am I attracted to this character? what things has the writer done to attract me to this character and not that one?

This might sound a lot like a postmodernism reader-response kind of approach. Postmodernism doesn't care what the author's intention was - that's irrelevant. The only thing that's important in postmodernism is how the reader responds. But that's not what we're doing here. The difference is we're not just interested in our response - we're looking for the kinds of things that the author himself has done, which shows us what the author's intention was.

And for those who have been tightly wedded to a plain-historical-account view of the gospels, this might all sound dodgy, as though the gospel writers are deceptively making up incidents and conversations in order to elicit a certain response in his readers. But that's not true - Luke for one is at pains to show that these are in fact actual people and incidents that he writes about (Luke 1:1-4)!

Narrative criticism is hard to do. But for those with the patience to look for how the writer is crafting the narrative, there is a lot to learn!

[ PS: those who went to the Annual Moore College lectures on Tuesday heard Mike Ovey do a great job of this on Luke!  ]

Over the past few months I've put together some posts on Confucianism (clicking on the links will take you to that post):

• Confucianism - is it a danger?
• Confucianism - the philosophy that won't go away
• Confucianism - what it's all about
• Confucianism - and filial piety
• Confucianism - and leadership
• Confucianism - and the person
  

If you want to read more about Confucianism, you can access translations of the Analects of Confucius yourself here. The Analects is a collection of Confucius' teachings, collected by his disciples after his death, and is probably the most important text in the Confucian canon.

Through these posts, it's probably become obvious to you how Confucianism could influence how Chinese Christians think and behave, and how Chinese churches function in a whole range of different areas.

What I've done here is drawn many of those themes together so you can see, on the one hand the features of Confucianism, and on the other, how it could influence a Chinese church.

Aspects of Confucianism	Possible implications for Chinese churches
The past is prized	What has been decided in the past at church is not open to question
Elderly people are venerated and should be obeyed and shown reverence	Youth leaders should always listen to and obey older leaders at church
The cornerstone of virtue is filial piety	Godly children are those who obey their parents
Social harmony is sacrosanct	A high premium on uniformity and outward shows of unity
Outward conflict is avoided at all costs	Conflict is suppressed and denied at church
Rules of society are deeply ingrained inside of people	There are a lot of unwritten rules at church
People are motivated by shame	Christians feel a strong need to redeem themselves when they do wrong
The Chinese psyche is set up for approval seeking behaviour	People behave in church in the way expected of them
Doing your duty is the greatest good	Christians focus on doing their duty to God outwardly - and not on the affections

It's important to remember that many Chinese Christians won't acknowledge the influence of Confucianism. This is not because they are lying, but simply because many of them won't actually have received any formal training in Confucianism. For them, they are not being Confucians - it's just a normal and unquestioned part of how things should be done. It's just like how "being true to yourself" is just an unquestioned part how things should be, for someone who has actually been influenced by Western individualism. Because of this you can't go about accusing people of being Confucians - that's simply not helpful. The best thing to do is just be aware, and let it help you understand why things are done a certain way.

Realise also that the influence of Confucianism among Chinese Christians is not uniform. Some individuals will be more influenced by Confucianism than others - so you can't assume that what influences one person is the same, or to the same degree. Don't jump to conclusions too quickly! However I've had the opportunity to share about Confucianism at a few different places now, and many Chinese Christians are amazed how Confucianism makes sense of so much of their experiences at home, as well as at church.

And finally it's important to understand that Confucianism isn't worse compared to Western individualism. No - it's just as un-Christian a philosophy as Western individualism, postmodernism, or modernism is. All cultures - including those influenced by Confucianism - need to be critiqued by the gospel - but don't think that the answer is to adopt Western individualism. Western individualism, and churches influenced by that, have a whole different set of problems! It's just that Confucianism is not well understood, though it is the philosophical environment in which a lot of Chinese Christians operate.

[ PS: note that Confucianism hasn't just influenced Chinese culture - it is a significant influence on the Korean and Japanese cultures as well! ]

This graph shows you the number of permanent arrivals into Australia from some Asian countries, since the the 1975-76 financial year. Remember that the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was only repealed in 1973.

Note that this is permanent settler migration - not merely those coming over to study or visit for the short-term.


Note the reaction to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and the leadup to the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China in 1997. You can clearly see that 1992 was the big year for migration out of Hong Kong into Canada, Australia and the United States of America.

But while migration from Hong Kong used to be very strong, it has really tapered off in recent years - and by comparison, migration from China really is booming! You may have guessed that from your own observation of your suburb - but this graph really highlights the massive, and sustained increase of migration from China over the last ten years...

[ PS: how is your church contributing to reaching out to these new Chinese migrants? ]

Ever get frustrated how people from other cultures communicate? That's because people of different cultures prefer to communicate in different ways - and this diagram highlights the differences between Western, Eastern and Middle eastern cultures.
People from western cultures tend to get directly to the point. Their communication tends to have a logical and linear structure. Sermons have a clear structure, and in face-to-face communication people don't beat around the bush, but get right to the point.

Middle eastern people tend to eventually get to the point - after slowly spiraling in, having prepared the listener for the message. Sermons are lengthy, and face-to-face conversations take a long time before delicately getting to the heart of the matter.

People from eastern cultures tend to not get to the point at all. They will talk around and around the point, never directly mentioning it - but by constantly circling around it, they will make clear what they're really talking about. Sermons seem to go around and around, and in face-to-face communication people never seem to say what they really mean.

You can see that each way of communicating actually has a nice side to it. In different ways, each of these are trying to be considerate...

However people of one culture can become incredibly frustrated (and even angry) about the communication styles of other cultures. Westerners can appear blunt and rude, while Easterners can seem manipulative and untrustworthy. Sometimes that's because sin can cause people to become selfish and demanding in their communication.

Not only that, people tend to think that their own communication style has an inherent rightness about it. But this isn't the case - and you can even see some of these differences coming out in the writing of the different apostles in the Bible. Paul for instance is logical and direct in his writing - like the Western linear style. And John's letters tends to go around and around - like the Eastern circular style.

[ PS: I saw this diagram in a library book back at Moore College - but unfortunately neglected to write down the reference... ]