the danger of mimicking American churches

In a brilliant paper analyzing research in the behavioral sciences titled The Weirdest People in the World? (HAT-TIP to Richard Beck) it is pointed out that

(A) recent analysis of the top journals in six sub‐disciplines of Psychology from 2003‐2007 revealed that 68% of subjects came from the US, and a full 96% of subjects were from Western industrialized countries

Furthermore

In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the premier journal in social psychology—the sub‐discipline of psychology that should (arguably) be the most attentive to questions about the subjects’ backgrounds—67% of the American samples (and 80% of the samples from other countries) were composed solely of undergraduates in psychology courses. In other words, a randomly selected American undergraduate is more than 4000 times more likely to be a research participant than is a randomly selected person from outside of the West.

This group is called WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) because, not only do they point out that not all studies on this group can be universalized, but in comparative research it would seem that this group generally lie on the extreme many different aspects which research has been done on. You can find many examples in the paper.

In a growing conversation over the past years many of us have become skeptical of the easy way in which we buy into American church models and ideas. Think about our models for youth ministry, mega-churches, emerging churches etc. Think about all the times George Barna statistics is quoted, usually with a disclaimer such as “we know that this is America, but we are only a few years behind them”.

Although this article doesn’t talk about church, it does raise the suspicion concerning the effectiveness of American church models even further. It compares Westerners to non-Westerners, only to find that Westerners are somewhat weird in the world, being the extreme in different aspects of their being, and not the universal example. The Americans are compared to the rest of the Western world, just to find that in many respects Americans are the extreme with the Western world. Other comparisons are also made, and some things which do seem to be universal is also pointed out.

Reggie has been pushing me on this point over the past years, and I’m more convinced than ever that he is correct: We need to do local research on church, society and theology. This do not mean we ignore American research, we can learn a lot from the vast amount of research that is being done in America. But the findings cannot be assumed to be true for our own context. Furthermore I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to engage American dialogue partners whom are unable to recognize the contextuality of their own approaches to church and theology (and sadly many of the American books on the shelves of our Christian bookshops, and speakers we fly in to “teach” us do not seem to have the necessary skills to recognize this, although they might mention “this is how it work in my context” a few times when talking).

If their is truth in the study in behavioral sciences, and if the behavior of a group influence the forms of church which gets created (not such a far-out assumption to make), then many of the typically American models of church created speak not only to a context which is different from the context in which I need to work, but are born from a context and speak to a context which is really on the extreme of society in the world. This might be the last place where we should look to if we were to find universal ideas on church.

This is not a total rejection of American diologue partners. I have learned a lot from American voices, but just a call that we listen to Americans as Americans. A country somewhere out there which seem to be quite strange when compared to the rest of the world. I am from South Africa, and this country is also quite strange when compared to the rest of the world. So let’s find ways of engaging our own strangeness.

Private property and Christian ethics

I remember a few years ago, when everyone was still reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and telling us all how simple and easy it is to be “financially secure” (which is a middle-class concept for rich). One story really struck me back then. Apparently (and I haven’t read the book, so I might be wrong, although this wouldn’t change my argument later on) the author suggest that you should buy at least 4 properties: One for yourself to live in, and three to rent out when you are retired, so that you can live from the money you receive. Now, I’m no economist, but my simple logic told me that this argument was seriously flawed: Because if I need three properties which other people rent to be financially secure, then only 25% of the world can ever be financially secure, and the rest will for all eternity struggle to make ends meet, since they need to pay rent for the house they live in every month.

Rich Dad, Poor Dad isn’t my issue, and if I missed the finer nuances of the argument, so be it, but this do bring me to what I would like to write. I have some serious ethical questions with the whole private property industry. If a small amount of people own a significant amount of the residential market, and they rent them out, then a significant amount of people are struggling each month to keep a small amount of people rich. What’s more (and here the economists surely need to correct me if my logic fails me) is that my simple logic tells me that the fact that a small number of people who own a significant amount of property is pushing the prices of property higher. If the number of buyers in the market decreases, because only those buying for themselves are competing for the prices, then prices can be normalized. Furthermore, if owning a house meant that only you yourself are living in it, then other controlling methods can also be incorporated in order that the price of the place I live in doesn’t cost me unnecessarily much.

These suggestions might not be in line with a “free market” (although by now being critical of free market economics should be acceptable), but as a Christian ethicist I have a few serious questions. If Christians confess a God (in whichever way you understand the term “God”) which created everybody as equals, and which watches over all of creation, then we have to critique systems which treat some as less human than others, which doesn’t watch over a large part of society, and make it impossible for them to watch over themselves. We have to deliver this critique well thought through but with everything we have!

We will have to create a society where these difficult questions is asked not only professional Christian theologians and ethicists, but thinking Christians business women and men, and all those part of our public society which identify with the tradition which claim to reach back for their ethical reflection to the teachings of Jesus from Nazareth, those who interpreted his words and ideas, and the Jewish text and its interpretation. And not only ask these questions of others, but critically consider our own participation in this system, and answer for that.