General Flow
| Gliffy Diagram | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Core
"I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” (John 17:15-21).
Thesis
Understand the impact of Culture on Service and how we can be more effective in our service given the culture we live inUnderstanding the difference between the culture the Coptic Church grew up in and the Culture it immigrated to is key to carrying on an effective youth service.
Problem Statement
We often feel that our service is not sufficient for the youth and some youth just stop coming to church. You can see this clearly by looking at the youth list and the subset who are actually involved.
...
Is there good culture? Bad culture? Or it just depends?
I think there is a culture based on good principles which have deviated away from these good principles and there are cultures which are based on horrible principles. We can look at how God used the people of Israel to wipe out evil nations with evil culture. For example human sacrifices was part of the culture of some of these nations.
...
In order to get good at software development, it's not enough to look at other people's code, you need to develop software yourself,
The point being, it is not enough to only learn theory, you need to actively practice in order to get good.
...
One criticism which can be raised against this argument is within the church we have immutable doctrine. However, this doesn't deny the right for people to express their questions, doubts, lack of understanding. In order for someone to gain a better understanding of these immutable doctrinedoctrines, one must be able to examine them, understand their history and prove them for himself.
For example, let's take the doctrine of the Trinity. From my personal view many times when this comes up we tend to go down the road of trying to explain it using pictorial images like the triangle, or the sun and the rays, etc. While these are good for a young child, it is not effective for older youth. It doesn't help them grow, because these images are themselves not proof of anything. They People need to be able to derive this conclusion from their own research, or be guided by understanding the source of this doctrine. The trinity is not something humanity invented, it is a divinely revealed truth. And it's not something that the church has come up with from thin air. Therefore, we should be able to provide guidance for people to go and do their own research and be able to arrive to the same doctrine. Not everyone is interested in such research, but I'm talking about the people who do want to understand more in depth. This should be encourageencouraged, even if their thoughts portrays disbelief or doubt.
...
I would argue that it is good for the general strength of the church to allow freedom of thought, because that leads to people who believe not because they are forced to or because they are told not to question, but because they are truly convinced. This leads to a strong stronger community.
Another argument against freedom of expression is that if you have contradictory opinions you might cause disagreements and it's hard to deal with disagreements. Disagreements can be viewed as something that shakes the confidence in the institution. A rebuttal would be to say this:
There are different types of disagreements or differing views. Ones which revolve around non-immutable points and another revolves around immutable doctrine. I do not say that there should be a compromise on the immutable doctrine. However, we should be able to prove these immutable doctrine using infallible proofs. And we should not raise the non-immutable points to the level of immutable doctrine, because if everything is immutable doctrine, then there is nothing immutable anymore.
Thus far I described two approaches to the principle "freedom of expression" above:
- Discouraging freedom of expression in fear of the blowback it could cause. This is the culture of the middle east
- Encouraging freedom of expression because it produces stronger societies
...
The culture though has abandoned that standard and therefore, we find ourselves taking this principle in an unnatural direction. We have people saying that they speak their truth, as if truth is a subjective concept. We have people trying to live and express harmful ideas and stopping their ears from listening to any reasonable arguments against their point, because it would be offensive to them. They defend their stand by saying we have the freedom of expression. But by disallowing arguments and cancelling the opposing point of view, they are denying that same principle to others. Therefore the pendulum has swung in the other direction. By allowing a subgroup freedom of expression but denying another group the same, there is no longer freedom of expression, but tyranny.
Understanding this is key to understanding the youth we deal with.
...
Reverence (respect) of the elderly and those in positions of responsibility
This brings me to a related point. Reverence takes on a different understanding in traditional Western culture versus Easter Eastern (Egyptian) Culture.
In my view Reverence to those in positions
Two opposing personal experiences:
- For a period of time I used to sit with Uncle Magdy on regular basis to discuss different topics. And the man is a lot more informed and knowledgeable than me. If you look at his practices, he did a lot of research, a lot of reading, a lot of prayer. He was a thinker. And when we talked with each other it wasn't a one way monologue, but rather a discourse. I learned a lot from him, but I disagreed and still disagree with some of the points which came up in our discussion. Does that mean I disrespect him? Not in the slightest, but disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We can disagree with each other yet respect each other's point of view tremendously.
- On the other hand, one time I was reading a book by Pope Shenouda and he said something (which I can't remember) that I didn't necessarily agree with. I mentioned my disagreement to a fellow I knew, and his response: "Who are you to disagree with the Pope". And on another occasion I was mentioning a thought about Pascha and the response was "Are you going to correct me, sonny".
You can see the stark differences in both of these encounters. In the first one there is an inherit encouragement for the freedom of expression
Individualism versus Community
Dialogue versus Monologue
Honesty and Transparency
...
It seems to me that reverence to authority has gone down the road of not questioning or disagreeing with people in authority. That seemed to take a sharp u-turn after the revolution in Egypt. Maybe Bassem Youssef was one of the major cultural shifts in Egypt during his time.
This mentality of not disagreeing with authority has become ingrained in the church culture as well.
The Western view is to hold authority accountable for their action. "The government is by the people for the people".
When comparing and contrasting both views the eastern side seems to conflate between "holding accountable" and "disrespect".
There is a way to disagree respectfully with people in authority. And I'm not talking about disagreeing willy/nilly. It's not about objecting just for the sake of objecting.
My argument here is restricted to intellectual discussions (although it can be generalized, but this is not the purpose here).
This is an important point of divergence to be aware of when dealing with the youth. It's not a sign of disrespect to question or doubt what a person says. It's part of the freedom of expression mentality. So if the person being question shuts the person down or disregards their point of view or makes fun of it, the likely outcome is people will simply be turned off and not attend or care to be involved.
For illustration here are two opposing personal experiences:
- For a period of time I used to sit with Uncle Magdy on regular basis to discuss different topics. And the man is a lot more informed and knowledgeable than me. If you look at his practices, he did a lot of research, a lot of reading, a lot of prayer. He was a thinker. And when we talked with each other it wasn't a one way monologue, but rather a discourse. I learned a lot from him, but I disagreed and still disagree with some of the points which came up in our discussion. Does that mean I disrespect him? Not in the slightest, but disagreement is not equal to disrespect. We can disagree with each other yet respect each other's point of view tremendously.
- On the other hand, one time I was reading a book by Pope Shenouda and he said something (which I can't remember) that I didn't necessarily agree with. I mentioned my disagreement to a fellow I knew, and his response: "Who are you to disagree with the Pope". And on another occasion I was mentioning a thought about Pascha and the response was "Are you going to correct me, sonny".
You can see the stark differences in both of these encounters. In the first one there is an inherit encouragement for the freedom of expression, in the second one not so much.
It's important to highlight that due to the abandonment of the principles spoken of earlier, the western view of reverence has been taken too far off course, to the point where the wisdom of the elders is no longer respected. Their view is now played off as "old school" or "old fashioned" and completely discarded.
Dialogue versus Monologue
Many of the youth are looking for Dialogue and not Monologue. They are not looking for people to preach at them. They are looking for friends whom they can have a discourse with. They are looking for people to listen to their point of view and not assume that they are wrong from the get go.
Individualism versus Collectivism
Individualism: idea that people can and should guide their own lives” and “pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.”
Collectivism: action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.” Easterners, much more than Westerners, “follow outside direction — whether from tradition, from the society around them, or from public authorities.”
Egyptian and the Coptic Church culture tend towards collectivism. We're big on tradition and keeping up the tradition. Much of the decision making is made with that in mind. We term it protecting the faith. But we tend to lump tradition along with the faith, which is not necessarily true.
Individualism works well with the idea of timeless and universal morals. IE morals which are not reliant on the culture or authority to be true. Individuals can then make moral decisions on their own without having to turn to some authority figure to tell them what is right from what is wrong. In my opinion it agrees more with the idea that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We derive our morals from God directly and it's written on everyone's heart. That doesn't mean that we do not need the church, rather that we are individual members given gifts and brought together into the body of Christ. Individuals are meant to work in concert and take care of each other; prop each other up and care for each other.
Unfortunately, the changing culture took individualism again to an unnatural extreme. They made the individual the centre of the world. The current society took away God and replaced him with the individual, making the individual God. Instead of empowering the individual this in effect destroyed him. An individual needs God to obtain true individuality. Straying away from God, leaves a shadow of an individual, eaten up by their own desires and self loathing.
The question I would raise, what's the pros and the cons of each of these views?
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Mead offers three examples of cultural differences between the West and other cultures: (1) individualism versus collectivism; (2) moralism versus situational ethics; and (3) theory versus experience. (It should also be noted that these distinctions are to be understood generally rather than universally. Of course there are exceptions. Indeed, a significant percentage of the elite in non-Western societies are either educated in the West or Western-style institutions. Many also exhibit Western traits in their thinking and lifestyles.) By individualism, Mead means the “idea that people can and should guide their own lives” and “pursue goals and values that they themselves have chosen.” Westerners “typically see themselves as willing and able to act autonomously” and have a strong sense of agency. Mead cites social psychologist Richard Nisbett, who in his comparison between Western and non-Western cultures found East Asians to be more influenced by social pressures. Observed Nisbett, “for Easterners, action is something that is undertaken in concert with others or that is a consequence of the self operating in a field of forces.” Easterners, much more than Westerners, “follow outside direction — whether from tradition, from the society around them, or from public authorities.” While Western languages attribute events to individuals, Eastern languages apply a passive voice, perceiving events happening to individuals. Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede, after surveying IBM personnel in 66 countries during the late 1960s and early 1970s, found individualism to be highest in employees in Britain, the United States, and Canada, followed by other European countries, Latin America, and lastly Asia. Hofstede also found high levels of assertiveness and tolerance of uncertainty in Westerners, as well as stronger aversions to hierarchy. Non-Westerners in turn were “less assertive, more hierarchical, and more afraid of uncertainty.” Other research in the business realm and political scientist Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Surveys corroborates this. Moralism also distinguishes West from East. Relying on the work of such academics as F.S.C. Northrop, Mead means that in evaluating moral decisions, Westerners consult principles internalized early in their lives, principles they interpret to be universal and timeless. This process allows them to make ethical judgments based on their own authority, without recourse to external society. It also means people are held individually responsible for their decisions, and that they can be persuaded to choose the right. The “psychic sanction” driving good behavior is guilt, “the sense that one has violated some universal moral norm.” Non-Western cultures, in contrast, make moral judgments based primarily on social context. Right and wrong are derived from the expectations of one’s immediate associates—such as family, neighbors, and coworkers. In this paradigm where morality is externalized, there is less of a sense of freedom and responsibility, and more choosing based on situational factors. Shame, rather than guilt, is the psychic sanction for good behavior, and people are pushed to choose the right less out of persuasion than on command. Finally, Western culture is defined by theory, or abstract thinking. Typically for Westerners, what constitutes truth and reality is theoretical, and does not need to be experienced directly. Sense-experience is “only an instance of something universal.” This focus on the abstract—dating back to Plato’s “forms” and Aristotelian logic—was critical to the development of the scientific method, as well as Western political philosophy, which seeks to “reconcile the individual with political order.” Non-Western cultures, alternatively, are more empirical and less theoretical. What is “real” is what is tangible and practical, and the intellect’s ability to accurately understand reality is suspect. “In Asia,” notes Mead, “the world is seen as endlessly complex, beyond human comprehension. Objects and people are not distinct from one another but, rather, related by myriad ties. Individuals are not distinct from society but bound to it by many duties.” Thus, rather than seeking mastery through reason, the East “seeks harmony through sensibility.” |
Impact on the Service
Culture has a direct impact on the Service. Service doesn't exist in a vacuum. Therefore it is important to understand the ever changing force of culture we live in, and continuously tune our approach to the service to handle these changes.
I have highlighted what is in my opinion two of the key differences between Eastern and Western cultures which account for the bulk of differences between people who grew up here versus people who are more inclined towards the eastern way of thinking whether it is by adopting imported Egyptian Culture or having grown up in the Egyptian culture.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to outline specific impacts of these two differences on the Service and how it could limit the communication between the different parties.
Exercise
| Cultural Principal | Eastern View | Western View | Impact on the Service | How it can be dealt with |
|---|---|---|---|---|