Wesay -- A Cool Dictionary Tool

I found this short video on the WeSay website. I think it speaks for itself.

Weeping and Joy

This morning I read the following:

"This day is holy to the LORD your God;And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, do not mourn or weep." For all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, "Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength." (Nehemiah 8:9-10ESV)

I was honestly a bit shocked, as it was evident from context that this last phrase has been completely empty of the meaning that the context here clearly gives it.  I'm not sure how many songs I have sung about the Joy of the Lord being my strength.  But I've always thought of it in terms of relationships between the Lord, joy, and strength as in Psalm 28:7 (NKJV):

The LORD is my strength and my shield;
         My heart trusted in Him, and I am helped;
         Therefore my heart greatly rejoices,
         And with my song I will praise Him.

That is, I have always meant that the Lord is in focus when considering the origin of the strength, and the Joy is a byproduct (of his help, provision, etc.).  As if I could hum a couple words of the song "The hmm hmm hmm Lord is my strength," and the meaning wouldn't change much.  And that goes with my basic outlook on life--Joy is a nice byproduct of what is right, when it comes, but don't count on it. But that doesn't do justice to the context of the words in Nehemiah.

So I did a search.  Certainly a song I've sung all my life could not be taken so wrongly from scripture, or else surely I could not have a minority interpretation of it that was never corrected?  The song must come from another use of the phrase in scripture.  But where?  I looked through six popular versions (how many can we get before the rest get at least one?!?!) for verses containing "joy," "Lord," and "strength."  And I found nothing of the sort anywhere, in any of them (fyi, I checked NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, KJV, NKVJ -- I didn't bother with the ones that have come out since I was a kid).

So I'm left to hope that I was the only one who didn't get it, and never got corrected.  But it certainly doesn't look to me like Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Levites didn't have Joy as a byproduct of faith in mind.  Joy seems to be an appropriate and necessary response to  the holiness of God.

Which brings me to another issue that seems to keep coming up.  It seems we Americans (at least) have a hard time talking about sin, unless it is someone else's, or collective (essentially still someone else's).  We don't like to admit that we are guilty, and that our sins deserve death, and oh, so much more.  But it seems like we miss the point/context of the Good News if we don't get sin.  Otherwise, from what are we saved? Or is the good news that we had a pretty good life, and Jesus made it better? So I've spent a lot of time thinking and talking about the reality of sin and its consequences, since that seems to be a message that is otherwise absent.

But here the people get their sins.  The people wept when they heard the law because they had listened to it, understood it, and applied it to their lives (collectively and/or individually might not be distinguishable here?).  They knew their lives were contrary to the word of God and that He had wrath--righteous anger--against them, because of it. And so they were crying.  Which again matches the way I have thought: if we're guilty, then we should feel it, and showing others (genuinely) doesn't hurt.  But this wasn't right.  The people heard God's word for the first time in a long time, and it convicted them.  But hearing His word also made the day holy (I presume that's what did...), so weeping wasn't the appropriate response-- Joy was.

Which brings me back to my issue.  We don't get the Gospel if we ignore sin, but we don't get it either if we stop at sin. There have been traditions that have been criticized for focusing on sin, and perceived to walk around morose all the time. I think they're generally more right than the Sunday morning rock concert-goers, but the problem for us all, I think, is to hold the two both firmly, and keep applying them both.  The holiness of God, and the application of his word to our life brings grief, for we are sinners.  But it also brings Joy, because He is holy, and as well our God (which should be enough to make our heads spin!)   If God in Christ has accepted us despite our sins, having paid for them himself, how can we not have joy?  Jesus is both Just and the Justifier of the ungodly (i.e., us), how can we not have Joy?  If in our confession of sin, Jesus shows himself faithful and just (how can you be both faithful to a sinner and just at the same time?), and if He not only forgives us of our sins, but also cleanses us from all unrighteousness, how can we not have joy?  I confess that, as hard as I have made out joylessness in Christ to be, I have managed it enough times.  So I guess I may have pushed a bit too far on 1 John 1:8, and need to focus more on v 9 (8-10 will come in time, I presume!):

⁸ If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  (1John 1:8-9 ESV)

A New Experience

Last night I threw up a burp.  Just about the grossest thing I have done in awhile.  I guess it was the reverse of a 'verp,' where you get chunks coming up on a burp.  After a day or so of upset stomach/intestines, I felt the chunks rising in my throat, ran to the bathroom while trying to contain them, opened the toilet and let loose -- air.  Nothing but air (and stench, of course).  Anyway, I thought someone might find that interesting.

sick

Nothing quite like coming home from a three week trip overland across three countries, and then getting sick.  Kim's Malaria sounds like the worst head cold she's ever had, plus the worst GI infection she's ever had, plus a few other symptoms just for fun.  Mine seem to play around, and recently they just look like Giardia.  I had aches and fever, with head cold symptoms, so we thought malaria, but the quick test kit just said no.  We'll check again in another 12 hours.  Fun to show the kids how it works, though -- Chemistry in action.
Normally I just hibernate my way through most illnesses, and in a day or two, I'm back on my feet.  So we'll see what the next couple days hold.

catchup

The last couple weeks have been a whirlwind. We're now in Kampala, taking a break for a day while we do last minute shopping, doctor visits and a bit of nothing before the last two long days of driving to return to Bunia.

I was frankly amazed that I made it through yesterday's drive as well as I did, as long as it was. We got on the road before 8am, and arrived at the MAF guesthouse here at 7:30pm. That was no stop for lunch (brought bread and cheese), and a brief stop to buy some sausages for dinner. And a few potty stops, of course, but mostly lots of driving, on the open road, and behind trucks.

I was amazed by the number of trucks we passed. On the road, but especially at the border. The entire length between Kenya customs and Uganda customs (not a small distance at Malaba) had a line of trucks, presumably waiting for processing. We zipped by them, and had our own lines to wait in.

Like the "Red Cross tent," which we were told in immigration we had to do first. So I went back there, and filled out essentially all same info, except for "I packed my own bags, no one has touched them since I packed them, and no one has given me anything to take with me" Or was it "no cough, fever, or runny nose"? Weird medical check. No question of WHO cards, or yellow fever vaccinations, so apparently the swine flu must be a big PR thing.

Then the car. To get into Uganda, we need a temporary import document, so we won't have to pay duties. It costs under $25 for 14 days, which is cheap compared to what duty would be. But the first building, which was unoccupied last time we came through, was actually where I was supposed to apply this time. So I went back there, only the guy wasn't actually there. So I went back to other building to finish the process, after paying at the bank, which required additional bank fees (apparently they have outsourced their cashier). So to get the documents, I dealt with at least five people, the work which was done by one person in Goli, when we entered Uganda from the Congo border (only one person, and significantly less time…)

So, with only two hours, we made it through both border checks, and both customs checks, and we were on our way again. No other police checks stopped us for the rest of the day, either, which was nice.

Hopefully the boys will get to see trouble monkey today...

Culture Shock Thoughts

(from June 24 2009, during the Alphabet workshop)

II spoke with Dilo last night and shared some thoughts that had been bubbling around for awhile on culture shock. He asked me several questions about what its like getting around as a foreigner, and this is some of what came out.

Probably the most helpful piece of information I've received on culture shock is that adjustment comes from being able to predict what people will do and say. If I know what is coming, I won't be shocked by it. I've noticed I've been thinking a lot of being able to predict behavoir, and that it is similar to preparing for things in advance, so I'm not sure if this is an american things, or if this applies to culture shock in all cultures. I was surprised how much this resonated, both with Dilo, and with Marie.

You can know what someone will do or say by one of two basic means. First, you can expect something based on what you would do in a given situation. If someone behaves as you would, the transfer in expectation is straightforward. This is the most basic in-culture way to know what to expect, thought it is also useful in working cross-culturally. Some things are done the same by people in any culture, presumably, and certainly some things will be done the same by the people in the two cultures in question.

Secondly, you can observe and/or study behavior to understand that someone will behave differently than you would in a given situation. In this case the formation of expectation is less straightforward, but it is still possible. To say to onesself, "in this situation, I would do this, but I know that he will not; he will do this other thing" helps us predict the behavior that will, in fact take place.

In my experience, these kinds of expectations are formed in two or three ways. The easiest is to learn from others who have lived through these particular culture shocks and/or studied the culture, either through personal stories, or anthropological studies. When someone can tell you, on the basis of either study or familiarity, that a certain people in a certain situation will do a certain thing, that helps you predict that behavior when you see that people in that situation. This only requires understanding what comes from another's experience, and recognizing it when it occurs in your own.

The other way to learn what to expect in other people's behavior is to personally observe it. In my experience this is generally through suffering culture shock, then asking pointed questions to understand what happened. This method is strongly motivated by the suffering endured, and if one has the endurance to make it through repeated shocks, I think can be quite helpful, even without much advance study. Though advance study will definitely reduce at least the initial shocks, so it would be highly reccommended. Through doing what might be called growing through culture shocks, we can look on past pains and trials in interacting with people of a given culture, try to understand them, and in some measure expect the same behavior in the future.

Growing through culture shock requires two things of us. First we must be willing to look at the pain we have received in a given interaction, and discern and/or acknowledge the pain as the result of a normal intercultural interaction. There is cultural sin and particular sin, and the both hurt, but they can't both be generally applied in the same way. Even if someone sins against you, if you can expect that most people in a culture would do the same thing in the same situation, this information can be helpful in predicting behavior. I bit of reflection will probably reveal that you already so this for culturally appropriate sins in your own culture.

Having acknowledged and/or discerned the pain received in one interaction, we also need to be ready and willing to encounter it again. Predicting behavior does not always reduce all the shock, particularly if the behavior is actually sinful, as well as culturally different. If we are unwilling to encounter this behavior again, we are cutting ourselves off from life and relationship in the host culture. This is, I think, what Crabb calls "self protective sin," preferring to not have relationship than to allow a particular pain to re-occur. But if we are committed to life and relationship in a given culture, and if we accept that pain in a given situation may well recurr (without dire consequences!), we can face the coming pain with courage, and not fear. I believe it is imperative that we understand clearly that God uses pain and suffering for our good, and I believe this is one way He does that. As the scripture says,

"Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good." (1 Peter 4:19 ESV)

Having learned from those that have gone before us, and having grown through the culture shocks encountered personally, it is also possible to extrapolate from this information to predict behavior in situations and cultures not yet experienced. This will, I think, still lead to some shock, but less. Having lived as an individualistic American in two distinct collectivist cultures (Mainland China, and several places in Africa), there are some things I can expect in the one, because I have experienced them in the other. This presumes some understanding of the behavior, and what motivates it. If the motivation is common between the two cultures (e.g., you don't walk alone, because being alone is bad) or situations (e.g., poverty attaching clients to patrons strongly, and also making commission seakers obnoxious), and if we undestand that motivation, we can expect the behavior in the new context.

This last is by no means reliable, which leads to a final general principle. Along with the ability to predict behavior, is the ability to be less shocked by behavior that is different than your own. Each of us probably starts life in a fairly homogenous cultural environment, with people behaving more or less the same as each other (and peer pressure can be strong). As we encounter culture shocks, we see that there are a number of ways that people normally (for them) behave differently than us. Accepting this broadening understanding of other people's behavior makes it easier to take it in stride when we find another way that someone behaves differently. This is, perhaps the difference between adapting to a particular culture (and rigidly expecting the behavior of it), and preparing for culture shock in general.

I recall an Essay by C.S. Lewis that spoke to the effect that a man, once cured of his irrational fears, must still make a moral choice of what to do in the situation. Here as well, prediction is a great help, but it is not the end of the question. Being able to predict behavior, we now need to decide what to do in the situation. But I find this a great thing, because it is a choice that is opened up to us, once we have been able to predict what will come. Unable to expect what approaches, we are only able to sit and wait for it to hit us, like an oncoming train we can't see or hear. But when we see what is coming, we have the choice, and the responsibility to decide, what to do. Do we act in concert with what is coming? Do we react against it? Do I eat the monkey meat, because that is what people do here, or do I abstain? With what consequences, on either side?

I think making these decisions wisely requres knowing ourselves and our limits, and accepting and working within them. I know that people think it is weird that I walkalone. But sometimes, I need to be alone, and I need to walk. So I have a daily choice (and some that can be made for longer periods) of what to do – do I look for someone to walk with, and spend the emotional and personal energy on that time, or do I need to save that energy, and get a little more, by exercising my body, and by being alone (being an introvert, these questions would be different for someone else)? Do I have the energy to go out and talk to people today and/or right now? My impression is that when I do, I should. Not that this would be the same for all people in all situations. But this is the moral choice that we have to face, before God, and with our concience as our guide. Are we avoiding relationships, and hard cultural work? Or are we respecting our limits, and saving our energy for a time when we can be more useful? They may well look the same.

Either way, with the responsibility and power to decide what to do with an action we have seen coming is great. People that see me acting like they do, when other foreigners don't, are generally filled with joy. People that see me consistently behaving differently than they expect people to seem confused or frustrated. I get to be a powerful force in people's lives for good, when I can. And as an American male, it is important to me that I not feel like I'm going through life as an unattached bouy tossed by the waves. Being capable of making choices, and responsible for them and their consequences, just seems right. For me, anyway.

Congo's Got Talent; How About Us?

I heard a great sermon today, in a language I don't understand. The pastor was preaching at a dedication ceremony for some literature (dictionary and pastoral epistles) in the language of his own people group, and I wasn't his target audience, so the fact that I didn't follow doesn't bother me.

He read his text in Swahili first, so others would know the text, and I mostly followed that (mainly because I was reading along in the English). His text was Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the ten talents.

After reading the text, he really got into it, and worked the crowd and really challenged them. He explained the parable, I understand, then made the application to what we were doing today. Today God has given you all some more resources to invest. What will you do with them? Will you buy them (for as little as $0.50 for the Epistles booklet) and read them and apply them in your lives? Or will you bury them, and wait for your master to come home, and then give your excuses?

It was particularly challenging to think that this man was challenging them to use the resources they had, and they didn't seem that much. He was preaching out of a published Gospel of Matthew. They also have a Gospel of Luke, I think. They just now have the pastoral Epistles, and an AIDS booklet, and alphabet chart, and some story books. It all fit neatly on a short bench, /significantly/ smaller than your nearest Christian bookstore.

If this pastor is challenging his people to invest the spiritual resources they have for eternal benefit, what would he say to us Anglophones, who have the entire Bible in how many translations, and how many commentaries and devotional works besides?

There is no question that our Master gives us different resources, and that it is up to us each to invest them for His good. But if we are to compare what I saw today with what I was raised with, 10 talents v. 5 talents doesn't seem to do it justice. We have been given SOOO much. Are we investing it? Or are we burying it, and preparing to tell our Master that He is the harsh one, and that He shouldn't be mad at us. He has entrusted us with true riches; lets invest them and meet our master with Joy.