A New Testament World in 2015: To Eat, or Not to Eat

A Bit of Context: Skip if you Hate History

 

Roots in history...

The Old Testament became clearer to me once I had lived in Taiwan. I don't mean that I was enlightened as to the theological significance of certain passages (although that's happened naturally along the way too), but that you simply look at the Old Testament differently when you've lived in a culture that was around in one form or another while it was being written.

For example, around the time Moses was ruling as the Prince of Egypt, the Shang dynasty was succeeding the mysterious Xia dynasty as the precursors to the ancient Chinese empire. Chinese culture had barely begun to develop then, of course, but the important thing is that it's considered the same culture in a sometimes jumpy but unbroken line since then. That line was frayed and all but severed in China by the devastating and culturally suicidal Cultural Revolution, an intentional attempt to break from the past, but in the end China is still China. (Taiwan never experienced the Cultural Revolution, and Chinese visitors are sometimes shocked to see how traditionally Chinese it feels, like an alternate future in which China was never Communist)

In cultures this old, regardless of the great changes experienced along the way, certain ancient things get passed down, even a lot of things of which people inside the culture are unaware, and including some things we see in the cultural setting of both the Old and New Testaments. A lot of the context of Biblical culture applies more easily.

So it is for reasons of history and not of cultural compatibility that America and Christianity have been so closely identified. Historically speaking, America was settled largely by Christians from Europe when Europe was still Christian, and therefore from its earliest days, the faith and ideals associated with it were present.

Culturally, however, it's one of the current existing cultures least like those in the background of scripture. Most Americans today are descendents of those who left the Old World and together created a new one, quite unlike the place they left behind. Even back at America's founding, the post-enlightenment West was teetering at the brink of the Industrial Revolution, and already entering Classical Modernity. The West had been Christian for a while, at least in the official sense. The dark, old fear and ritual appeasement of the spirit world of the pre-Christian West was confined to the remotest areas where the church was least strong, or else carried on in folk traditions. Those kinds of traditions are usually tied closely to the land, and only in the countryside of the earliest-settled parts of the US do you see these kinds of folk traditions having any kind of strength. Mostly they endure in individual family customs, things done because grandparents did them, though the grandparents themselves might not have fully understood why, only that it's nice to keep family traditions alive.

So ironically in the foremost country of the New World, one that had (at the beginning) an appreciation for but the least possible ties to global Antiquity, the ancient books of the Bible were more known, revered, and followed than in most of the Old World where the very cultural legacy of those events could be seen and felt all around. Americans believed the Bible even while they could only guess at what life was like back then, whereas in much of the world life continued much as it had at that time.

Taiwan and the world of the Bible

Traditional worshipers offer incense to a goddess idol

Here in Taiwan it is nearly the opposite. The legacy of those ancient days in which the Bible was written can be seen around one. People perform spirit-channeling or exorcism rituals and occasionally still cut themselves bloody in front of idols to evoke a response. Food is offered to idols before being eaten. Divine lots are cast. Whole pigs are sacrificed to ancestral spirits. The "spreading trees" the Old Testament talks about in connection with idolatry are here and there, called "divine wood" and often marked with red ribbon. Birds and insects are placed alive in the back of some newly-made idols as sacrifices in order to bind their associated spirits to them. The lunar calendar is closely followed, and all religious and traditional events are based on it. (like in Jewish culture)

One can walk through noisy and bustling markets filled with the smell of internal organs, fresh produce, and incense wafting from the central temple (around which most traditional markets are based). Beggars and monks beg, stall owners call out to for you buy their wares, idol processions pass with blaring trumpets and pounding drums, navigating streets which are not always straight; a maze known to locals but confusing to outsiders.

The difference in 2015 is that those monks sometimes have smart phones, and you can get to those temples by taking the subway. But technology is merely a feature of life, and in the East (outside of Japan, perhaps, but to some extent even there) it rests much more lightly on the shoulders of culture.

In terms of Biblical culture, America is like having moved far away from the old family farm to a new house in the city, and your descendents having to look at pictures of old farmhouses and tractors and imagine what it was like for their family to have once lived there. Taiwan is like still living in a family farm, generations later. The old farmhouse has electricity now, and your tractor has GPS, but it's still an old farmhouse and tractor. You "get" that life, because you still live in that context, and the advances of technology are a comparatively minor difference compared to that major point in common.

For a more vivid example, imagine the difference between someone saying "there is a rabid dog loose in the next building," and "there is a rabid dog loose at the end of this hallway." In the former case you recognize the threat, but also that there is an effective separation between you and it. In the latter, you feel the force of the threat directly because there is nothing between you and it but an expanse of empty space. Taiwan feels like that; ancient times are only separated from you by the passing of generations here, and you feel their force.

So while those dwelling in the lands of suburbia or coffeeshopolis can only imagine what it might be like to live in the cultures of the Bible, in Taiwan one has the sense of what it would be like if those cultures were merely updated to the present, without any real breaks from the past. Give Paul a cellphone, Demetrius a megaphone to incite the protestors in Ephesus, stick King Agrippa in a motorcade, and maybe get the lecture hall of Tyrannus some whiteboards and a projector, and you get the idea.

Food Sacrificed to Idols: A Personal Example

If you have spent more than a couple years in church, you are probably familiar with the writings of Paul. One of the things Paul talks about, in one of his brilliant passages about Christian freedom/responsibility, is the question of eating food, in this case meat, which has been sacrificed to idols.

²⁵ Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁶ For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” ²⁷ If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁸ But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— ²⁹ I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? ³⁰ If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? ³¹ So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:23-31, ESV)

I. Application in America:

This and passages like in it Paul's letters are sometimes invoked when one is considering issues like drinking alcohol for Christians. The Bible condemns drunkenness and a drunken lifestyle, but does not call alcoholic consumption itself a sin, yet there are Christians with such a strong tradition of abstinence from all alcohol that their conscience does not permit them to drink at all. In their case, then, abstaining is right and proper, and violating their conscience to drink would be sin. (Though a careful study of scripture might lead them to see that there is nothing inherently sinful about it, and if they changed their mind based not on pressure from other believers but on the testimony of scripture, then drinking would no longer be sinful for them) 

Paul both condemns their placing that rule on others (many pastors seem to totally ignore this passage), and also condemns attempting to persuade someone to violate their conscience. In other words, the one who does not drink alcohol cannot condemn the one who does (though he can exhort him to avoid drunkenness if that danger exists), but the one who drinks can't try to persuade the one who doesn't drink to have a drink with him, in violation of his conscience, and might best avoid drinking in front of him altogether. Paul is happy to give up a freedom out of concern for someone, yet strong in his condemnation of those who would take away the freedom altogether.

Now in America we would less frequently cite 1 Cor 8, and more commonly go to Romans 14 (which mentions both eating and drinking, and drinking wine). This is because the question of things having been sacrificed to idols is not really a pertinent one to us. Those passages can even make the Bible feel further away and less applicable to us today. (As I keep reminding people, that is not because the Bible is weird, but because we are weird, in terms of how all people throughout history and around the world have lived/live now.)

Gotquestions has a good article on the topic of meat/food sacrificed to idols, which in some ways underlines my point:

"One of the struggles in the early church concerned meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Debates over what to eat might seem strange to most of us in modern society, but to the first-century believers, it was a subject of great consequence. As the apostles dealt with the issue, they gave instructions on several broader topics with application for today..."

Americans often feel they have to get pretty abstract when looking for applications of scriptural teaching, because the culture in America is so different. It's hard to imagine a direct application of the passage about meat sacrificed to idols, and any attempt to cleverly figure out a cultural parallel is probably going to be a stretch at best. We can see the general lesson Paul is getting at, however, and that's good enough for us.

In Taiwan today, however, the passage can be applied a little more directly...

II. Application in Taiwan:

Table of food and spirit money laid out for ancestral spirits in my neighborhood a few days ago

In Taiwan, in AD2015 just as much as AD15, there is a direct and immediate application.

Idols are still worshipped, not abstract ones like wealth or popularity, but actual statues and figurines. Part of this worship involves placing food before them, often fruit and bowls of rice, but sometimes chickens, pigs, whole prepared meals and other things as well. (rituals differ in different sects, traditions, and places)

Similar tables, set out last week in front of a nearby Starbucks and bank

An additional form of idolatry is the worship/appeasement of ancestral spirits. Especially right now during Ghost Month in Taiwan, one can see tables loaded with snacks, incense, and spirit money (which gets burned later, in a ritual meant to send it into the spirit world so ancestors will have better status there too), laid out as an offering to spirits, to ask them not to bother the store, business performance, employees, or owners.

No one wants to waste all the snacks, so usually they all get divided up among the employees later, who take them home to their families and eat them.

Now imagine my surprise one day upon returning home to my apartment to find a couple little bags of what look like trash sitting in the hallway outside my door. A closer investigation revealed they were not trash, but actually snacks and a couple of drinks (tea and soda).

Some really Taiwanese snacks, plus Heysong Sarsaparilla and tea

Within a few seconds I guessed what had happened. It is not only businesses, but apartment buildings as well that will put out offering tables. I had in fact noticed a poster several days earlier on our bulletin board downstairs which notified residents that the offering would happen at a certain day and time, for anyone who wanted to attend the ceremony. (Because of the layout of our building and the road downstairs, they can't just leave the tables out all day) Seeing the snacks, I realized that it was in fact the day the bulletin had mentioned, and so it seemed one of my neighbors had thought of me and brought me back some of the snacks from the offering.

My initial reaction was to feel good that they had remembered me. (I moved in recently and have only recently met my neighbors and had one or two elevator conversations with them) Then, I pondered whether to eat the snacks or not.

It was sort of a funny surprise to realize that I had encountered a problem for which I could apply Paul's writings not only conceptually but very literally. Because I now live in a culture that stretches back to biblical times, the examples drawn from that cultural background suddenly were directly relevant to me.

So I looked up what Paul had said about eating offerings to idols, and again felt impressed when I realized I was now living in the world he was talking about. It was like stepping back in time, except I had really just left the West and entered the wider world, where many places haven't broken with the past on their way to the present.


III. To Eat, or Not to Eat?

Now I had to figure out whether I was going to eat the snacks or throw them away. Like the question about eating blood*, it's not something I take lightly or ignore as merely an issue for those times. Because while we may not see it in America, we still live in the world described in the Bible. God's rules don't simply vanish into the aether over the centuries, either He specifically released us from following them or we still have to.

(*- It's a common ingredient in food here, and I do eat it along with my Taiwanese friends, but only after deciding that it was not wrong as a Gentile Christian for me to do so, after a careful study of scripture and conversations/debates with a couple of Messianic Jewish friends) 

But it seems in this case, I had stumbled on a problem that first-century believers also faced, and therefore I had direct guidelines from Paul on how to deal with this:

1. (1 Cor 8:4-6) Paul clearly says that an idol is nothing of itself. While it's easy to see that idolatry is a short road to entanglement in evil spiritual influence (in Taiwan you can literally observe this), the idol itself is not a real god, and believers recognize that it is not a true god, nor participate in idolatry simply because the food has at one point been physically been located in front of it. (or in my case, on a table on display)

2. (Romans 14) Paul says that despite having freedom, we should not harm the spiritual life of fellow believers by causing them to violate their conscience. In this case no Taiwanese believers were present. If they had been, depending on who it was, it would probably be right to refrain from eating, knowing that it was a deep cultural issue for them, because of their former ways. (1 Cor 8:7) On the other hand, they might explain they too had cast off idolatry, demonstrated their allegiance to Christ through baptism, and regarded the food as nothing special, in which case this wouldn't specifically be a reason not to eat it, but an occasion to rejoice in our freedom in Christ and eat with thanks.

3. (1 Cor 10:27-29) Paul says that we can simply eat food that might have been sacrificed to idols without questions of conscience, but if someone informs us it was offered to idols, we should refrain from eating, not for our own sake but for theirs. In this case, it was exactly like verse 27. The food was simply left outside my door, without even a note saying where it came from or who had left it there. They also have no idea what I did with it, merely that it was gone if they ever came back and checked, since one can't leave bags of snacks sitting out in the hallway. On the other hand, had they knocked on my door while I was home and informed me that it had been offered in the "bai bai" (word in Taiwan for traditional rituals), and asked if, since they knew I was a Christian, I was able to eat it, a strong case can be made based on those verses that I would need to politely decline.

4. (1 Cor 10:30-31) Finally, Paul says that if our conscience is not bothered, we can eat (or drink), with thanks and giving glory to God. This is what I decided to do. Finding that, based on the other passages, I was not forbidden to eat in general, did not have the religious/cultural background that made it a matter of conscience for me, and would not be offending the conscience of anyone else, whether believers or nonbelievers, I ate the snacks with thanks, and appreciative that my neighbors had thought about me. My prayer is that one day they will know the true God, and rather than snacks from offering tables eaten separately, we might eat and drink Christ's Communion together and rejoice in the knowledge of the Lord who alone is worthy to receive the praise they had formerly been offering to idols and spirits.

In the East, Straight Lines Curve

As I continue with several posts on the general worldview and religious traditions which are found in East Asia in general and Taiwan specifically (one on a (Trad.) Taiwanese vs. Western worldview here and on Far Eastern religions vs. Christianity here), a convenient example occurred to me which might help illustrate some of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western thought, which affect how the gospel is shared here and how people on each side view each others' religious practices and principles.

1. "Straight" Lines

Tell me, what is a straight line?

If I give you a piece of paper with two points A and B already marked, I'm sure you can draw me a straight line AB between them. Some students here in Taiwan might whip a ruler out of their handy pencil/pen bags to make sure it's very neat and straight (I approve).

But what happens when I fold the paper?
Is it still a straight line then? 

"No," you might say, "the straight line between the two points must be the shortest distance. So now it's an invisible line through the air from point A to point B."

Mathematically speaking, that works. We all had at least a bit of math/geometry in school, and we grasp the definition of a straight line, at least in what we think of as normal three-dimensional space.

Or we think we do. What if I ask you to walk a straight line from one tree to another tree? Without shovel shoes, you can't do it. You have to follow the contours of the landscape locally. If you were walking a straight line from one city to another, even in Kansas (sorry Kansans, flattest place I could think of), the curvature of the earth would start to take effect. Without expensive equipment and substantial know-how, you couldn't even begin to walk a truly straight line between the two cities.

"I never turned!"

"Yes," you may say, "but no one is talking about 'mathematical' straight lines when we're talking about traveling." Quite so. In fact for air travel routes, one has to calculate the so-called Great Circle routes, which take into account the non-Euclidean geometry necessary when you're moving around on a surface that's not flat.



This is all getting complicated though, and instinctively you know the idea of a straight line is actually a simple one. It just depends on what context we're talking about. So really we're making a linguistic statement: When someone says "straight line" (in English), you understand that they mean it's the shortest distance between two points, either mathematically, if that's the context, or practically speaking, if that's the context.

Guess which line is actually the shortest distance between the two points?

2. "Straight" Lines vs. "'Straight'" Lines

One can see a very basic difference between Chinese religions* and Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) along these lines. When Christianity says "a straight line," it means "regardless of the place or time, regardless of whatever context, going from here to here or else infinity in one or both directions, without ever changing directions." We can boldly state that it will not change directions because God has given us the knowledge of an eternal, supernatural coordinate system. So we assume our straight lines and straight lines from God's perspective, which at times we come near to assuming we can see from.

(*- This would include religions influenced by Chinese culture from Taiwan to Singapore, I'm making a cultural and not a political statement)

I would submit that most Western Christian traditions have a tendency to presume a bit too much regarding what we can assume to be true of God's perspective. (Emphasizing the knowability of God is good, but we sometimes seem to think "mystery" is sort of like admitting defeat, and "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" to be a sort of friendly challenge from God for the sufficiently motivated student) But at least, and this is hugely important, we are aware that God is capable of looking at things from outside His creation.

In our straight-line-on-paper example above, God is more like us looking at the paper. He is not the paper, nor does He reside solely "in" the paper or as part of it. In the very first verses of the Bible, God shows up as "hovering over the clean/erased paper," as it were. (My choice of words there is careful; a close look at the Hebrew yields some interesting possibilities") He is not part of His creation, He is self-existent and made creation because He wanted to. There was a point before which creation was not, but God was.

So Christians believe that 1) God draws on the paper and is not the paper, and 2) straight lines, what we might call God's Law, or capital T Truth, are what God calls straight, not merely what appear to be straight to a human observer living on/in a curved world. They might not even look straight, sometimes, in relational to our worldly context, because their coordinate system is not of this world. (I am reminded of C.S.Lewis in That Hideous Strength, where some angelic spirits appear to be oriented wrongly for the room, because they're standing up according to a celestial frame of reference and not the local one, yet in their presence it is not themselves but the room which suddenly seems to be at a funny angle.)

I think most Christians do not realize that this is almost a unique perspective in the whole world. It comes solely from God's special revelation in scripture, and no one else thinks in this way. (I am not familiar with Islam, but from what I know it a) borrows its basic conception of God directly from the Old Testament, so it's still drawing from a Judeo-Christian source, and b) in conservative Islam it goes farther to being inflexible even in the non-particulars, so that for example, I have been told until the end of time the Qur'an cannot properly be the Qur'an in any other language but old Classical Arabic. So the criticism that it is trying to drag people back to the 8th century AD seems to be at least partially deserved, because it is a time-and-culture-bound religion, it can only export the 8th century AD and Arabic culture anywhere it goes.)



All non-monotheistic global and local religions, which is to say, the default religions for the billions of people from South (India) to Northeast (Japan) Asia and naturally including Taiwan as well (plus thousands of local/traditional religions worldwide), entirely lack this basic concept. To them, however, the concept is not basic but new and foreign, as it does not occur naturally to them. Nature is not full of straight lines, and if you are born into an Asian culture, neither is life.

In the Far East, a straight line curves with the earth, and eventually comes back to where it begins. The straight line of progressing time does the same. History is a long repetitive cycle. Souls are the same, circling through heaven or hell on the wheel of karma to be reincarnated over and over again.

In fact, in the Chinese context, "straight" in the orthogonal (straight lines, right angles) sense was traditionally downright negative. Roads in the past were made to curve because evil spirits travel along orthogonal lines. City streets now don't observe that convention, but that's fine too in an Eastern context, because the right way to do something, even in a religion, does not continue straight for infinity either. It curves with the earth and with time.

At the risk of sounding very much like an engineer who then went on to seminary, I could summarize in this way: Christian Truth is Euclidean, Eastern Religious Truth is Non-Euclidean. Christian doctrine follows the unchanging standard of a God who does not change, therefore if something is Right Belief or Right Practice, it is so yesterday, today, and forever until Kingdom Come. The fights between and among different traditions (and, sadly, factions) in the church are rooted in this common understanding, so while ugly and a terrible witness to the world in terms of how they are typically fought, they are at least preferable to apathy. They happen because we know there is one unchanging truth, and we're greatly concerned with how closely we're following it. (The problem often begins with a failure to distinguish between what really is unchanging truth and how one feels that truth should properly "look" when lived out, more about which anon)

Chinese religious practice (there is no 'doctrine' per se) follows the standards of gods who are merely the most exalted inhabitants of the created order, and wouldn't be so unreasonable as to suggest religious practices shouldn't change with the times, as everything does. The Christian God is transcendent and immutable; the Chinese gods are exalted yet pragmatic. So the fights over doctrine in the Christian Church might seem strange in Chinese religion because no principle is higher than that which demands harmony between people. On the one hand, a Chinese priest might say the first step to discovering truth would be to stop fighting, versus a Christian priest who would go to his death for a truth that God has already revealed.

Christianity: "Up" towards God is always true, "Down" away from Him is always wrong
Chinese religion: "In" towards harmony/balance is true, "Out" towards disorder/disharmony is wrong

Hopefully this chart is not totally confusing. Basically in a God-based Truth system, Right and Wrong don't/can't change over time, because they are grounded in man's relationship to God and His Truth. In an East Asian Truth system, beliefs can and must change over time, because they are based on Right and Wrong with respect to how the harmonious relationships between oneself and everything in the universe are conducted.

A great example of this occurred recently: I was surprised to hear that some cities are dialoguing with religious officials about banning the burning of ceremonial paper money in cities, because it's causing air quality problems (especially on special religious holidays), and religious officials are deciding what other methods of worship could take the place of burning the spirit money. The point being, while the burning of paper money is a centuries-old established and important component of ancestor worship, the needs of 2015 must also be taken into account, and some kind of compromise can be reached which gods and ancestors theoretically won't mind. There is no doctrine which states that there is only one proper way to worship ancestors which cannot be changed if religious leaders decide otherwise and people go along with it. In other words, as part of Chinese religion, ancestor worship has progressed along the timeline, its context has changed, and it's expected to evolve accordingly. There is no fundamental issue of "right" or "wrong" in making a change, only a pragmatic one of what change will "work best"/not anger the ancestral spirits (or more importantly for the city government, their living, voting relatives). But as my diagram above illustrates, a movement "out" towards disharmony as a result of this change would indeed be "wrong," and so the dialogue is necessary so that disorder won't increase as a result of the disharmony created by arguments or unrest over the changing of an important traditional practice.



(This illustrates a very important difficulty with sharing the gospel in a Chinese cultural context: the first thing many people want to know is, "is this Chinese? Does it suit Chinese people?" For religion, nothing could be Chinese except Chinese religion, because Chinese religion by its very nature tailors itself to match the needs of Chinese people at the moment. It is the expression of spirituality of the Chinese culture, seeking harmony with the universe as it is, but it has no loving, transcendent Father God to rescue one from that broken universe and one's own personal brokenness.)

Industrial ventilation system for a traditional temple furnace where spirit money is burned

Interestingly, the argument for homosexual clergy in the church follows a more or less similar line as this kind of pragmatic religion ("times have changed, society's morals have changed, the Church can't keep ignoring that.") But because of Christianity's "straight line" beliefs, which can't change based on the times, because they are based in God's unchanging law, they have to go back and try to pretend Paul was saying other things in the Greek and never really originally meant what the church has taken as his obvious meaning ever since he wrote his letters.

Note: This is one reason "liberal Christianity" is 100% liberal and 0% Christian. That is no exaggeration. To say God's truth could change based on the vagaries of a particular human culture or "how we feel right now" is to throw out the entire basis of the revelation of God and say God calls for whatever we decide He ought to; in other words, we are God. There is no "reasonable compromise" between God's truth and man's expediencies. Those who say so are merely moral relativists who enjoy the trappings of Christian culture to a certain extent, they are not servants of Christ nor members of His body.

Now there are those who agree with the above sentiment, but would use it to bring in their own kind of spiritual dictatorship, in which "God's Truth" (by which they mean their own interpretation of it) must be followed to the letter of the(ir) law or you are a heretic and an instrument of satan. Many abusive spiritual leaders have used this method to oppress their followers. The key to staying on the right path is making a clear-cut and consistent distinction between unchanging truth and freedom of practice in Christ of that truth, which Paul helpfully spells out for us more than once. So I'm amazed at how many people manage to totally ignore passages like Romans 14 when waxing eloquent about how their version of Christian practice is the only viable or God-glorifying one, or rising up in anxious alarm over discovering a tradition different from theirs. As Paul expounds on our glorious eternal freedom in Christ and God's startling invitation for us to join into His inheritance, you can sense his frustration with those who seem to be saying "that's great Paul, eternal freedom from the bondage of sin, joining God's family, sounds interesting, but hold up a second- there's this guy in our church who eats meat wrong." (He probably likes the wrong kind of worship music too)

3. How to share a Straight gospel in a Curving culture

A. Straight Truth, Curving Cultures

Therefore, we must be careful to clearly distinguish between what is unalterable doctrine, "what does God require of us," and what are our own customs and traditions for how that works out in our lives. Having done so, we can recognize that the second category has room for cultural differences, and even the first category might get said with different vocabulary or different emphases in different cultures while not differing in substance. God is not merely an elephant with us as blind men feeling different parts, but even with the elephant clearly depicting himself for us in scripture, some cultures might emphasize the power of his tusks while some might appreciate how he never forgets, but both are within the scriptural depiction, versus a culture who claims the elephant should be covered in beautiful feathers or be a majestic royal blue. The first two are merely cultural emphases within scripture, the second are departing from scripture for reasons of culture. The difference is a fundamental one, but on the surface it can look similar if we are not being careful. If we direct those seeking a well-feathered elephant back to scripture to see that this is not the case, we are correct, but if we instruct local believers that emphasizing strong tusks is wrong because "we all know" (back home) the versatile trunk is clearly more important, it is we who have lapsed into error.

Jesus is our "Elephant," in this analogy. And the whole Bible is about Him

So as we recognize that while a belief that Truth is "straight" is scripturally necessary, so not debatable for Christians who make any claim to orthodoxy at all, our world itself is a curving one. Life has many curves and situations where a straightforward approach is neither morally required nor practically helpful, and there are lots of situations where we must make decisions based on Biblical principles and our discernment, because no direct scriptural answer is forthcoming. America was founded on Christian principles, but there were lots of secular ideas from the Enlightenment mixed in, and those have grown up together until it can be difficult to clearly distinguish between them. Our culture has its own curving lines too, so we can't pretend it's the West who is "straight" and the East who is "crooked."

Yet there may indeed be many culture-specific sinful practices going on in other cultures, in local churches too: skipping church every Sunday in Kentucky to go fishing is not less wrong than skipping church every Sunday in Osaka to go sing karaoke, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to admonish those doing the second one. We just can't say it's more wrong because their way of sinning is different or unfamiliar from ours.



B. The Gospel Message Itself

When living in another culture, our first kneejerk reaction is often to conclude that they are "wrong" or "weird" about this or that. Later, after training or breakthrough moments, we often express the revelation that "this is not better or worse than the way we do it, just different." And while there may be situations where a cultural practice is obviously a violation of God's law (No one is going to call Aztec-style human sacrifice "a grey area."), we can be too quick to jump on "non-Christian" cultural mores which are in fact a bit complicated. Sometimes they are simply wrong, but sometimes we need to take a step back and ask whether it really goes against scripture or just our familiar practices. If the first, we must be courageous and never back down from the truth. If the second, we must swallow our pride and admit that there may be more than one way to do something that's important to us. The gospel can't be hindered by our cultural preferences, but it could be enhanced by them if we learn how to distinguish them from Truth.

So we must preach the gospel as "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks," as Paul says. Chinese culture has a little of both, perhaps. The gospel is a stumbling block when it comes to traditional religion and ancestor worship, to whom we must say "there is One God," and foolishness when it comes to those following Buddhist or Daoist philosophy, to whom we must say "have faith like a child." But to those who are called -from those who fear ancestral spirits to those who contemplate zen- Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.