Serving with Eyes Wide Open

by David A. Livermore

  However, one of the more troubling comments I heard from a group of majority world pastors who were giving me their frank perspective on North American short-term trips was this: “You talk about us to your churches back home in such demeaning ways.”

  I pushed back. “Really? You usually come off as heroes in the reports I hear. You would think your churches were nearly perfect from what most short-termers say about you.”

  They weren’t so sure. Our exaggerations about how locals are so dependent on these short-term teams and the long-term impact of the work, the jokes about the weird foods and the destitute conditions, and the exaggerated reports about what was accomplished often lead our brothers and sisters to feel demeaned.

  I’m troubled by the way our simplicity plays out in statements about what happened in our lives as a result of our short-term sojourns. I expected more, particularly out of the adults, and especially the pastors. While we describe the dissonance we feel as we see our wealth juxtaposed against poverty, it seems to have little influence on the number of souvenirs we purchase or the choices we make when we get home. Participants rarely describe a significant change in how they think about God and their faith as a result of trips like these. In fact, rather than being challenged to see Christianity differently, participants talk most about how Christ and his bride are the same everywhere.

  All too often, the short-term experience “eludes any significant reflection on the deeper assumptions and attitudes that structure one’s view of God, of themselves, and of host strangers.”[97] Terence Linhart reports that the Indiana group he studied demonstrated an “absence of theological reflection about their ministry programs they were conducting, no attempts to understand the incongruity between poverty and joy, and no awareness of new experiences that contradicted previous observations or interpretations.”[98]

  Clearly, some participants experience deep transformation and come home with very different descriptions of what occurred within them. But why aren’t there more? Why are our takeaways always the same surface-level things? What can we do to make long-term transformation more common among the millions of North Americans who participate in short-term missions every year?

  Concluding Thoughts

  Our understanding and thinking about what we experience on short-term missions are often oversimplified. As a result, our expectations and motivations are inaccurate. Our desire to “Just do it” comes from a short-term perspective rather than a long-term vision. Our tendency to look for similarities often keeps us from seeing differences, and as a result we miss out on the more colorful picture that exists among the people of the world. Our reduction of the Bible to manageable concepts and cultural principles sucks the life out of the story of God. Our simplistic approaches to help poor people end up exposing our own poverty. Simplicity is endemic to short-term missions. It’s part of what it means to be an American. It’s part of what it means to be a North American evangelical. But it doesn’t have to be.

  There’s an endearing simplicity to Jesus’s focus as he goes about his ministry. Yet a quick perusal of his use of parables and his upside-down approach to challenging the established religious system ought to warn any of us against labeling Jesus the epitome of simplicity. Our response should not be to see how complicated we can make short-term missions. Instead, we must acknowledge that we shouldn’t be content simply to look at what we can see with a quick glance. We’ve been on a journey to open our eyes wider in order to see what we may have missed before. Are you beginning to see it? Is your vision broadening?

  Part 3

  Sharpening Our Focus and Service with Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

  What should we make of all this? Should we throw up our hands in despair, cut up our passports, and throw out every letter soliciting funds for short-term missions? Believe me, there have been times when I was ready to go there. Countless pages in my journals from the last several years contain entries like this one:

  Is all the money and effort invested in short-term work paying off? As short-termers, we’re often ill-equipped to solve the real needs that exist in the places we visit. Locals are enduring our water bottles and weak stomachs, and we’re spending millions of dollars to do it. Is there a way to truly make short-term missions a win-win?

  At the end of the day, I’m not convinced we’re without hope in seeing short-term missions as an effective tool for serving God’s church globally. If criticisms alone are enough reason to abandon the entire movement, then let’s be consistent. We’re not short on criticisms about long-term missions either. Just because there are some challenges and problems doesn’t mean we should abandon the whole thing. I’m committed to seeing us redeem short-term missions. How might we engage in short-term missions with eyes wide open and use it as a way to widen our perspective? How can the dollars we invest in short-term missions be stewarded toward long-term transformation of everyone involved? It’s time to strive for a more solution-oriented focus: short-term missions with cultural intelligence.

  When I began researching short-term missions, I didn’t want to be a researcher who simply pointed out problems without offering any solutions. So I reviewed materials and programs that were developed to improve people’s cross-cultural effectiveness. I studied many of the training programs designed for missionaries, Peace Corps workers, and others who moved internationally for overseas assignments. I resonated with the emphasis on taking the time to learn the language, customs, and cultural values. But I knew these approaches wouldn’t work for most short-term missions teams. As much as I’d love to see every short-term missionary become fluent in the language and customs of the culture they visit, it’s simply unrealistic. That’s when a friend introduced me to Dr. Soon Ang, a fellow Christian who was pioneering the research on cultural intelligence, or CQ.

  Don’t be alarmed by the academic sound of CQ. CQ is just a way of measuring and improving the way we interact in different cultures. The theory was developed using some of the same ideas used to develop IQ, EQ, and the theory of multiple intelligences. We’re all pretty familiar with the idea of IQ—a way to measure our intellectual capabilities. And many of us are familiar with the idea of EQ, or emotional intelligence—the ability to assess and regulate the emotions of ourselves and others. CQ picks up right where EQ leaves off. It’s the ability to adjust how we think and behave in various cultural situations.

  CQ is a skill set that can be learned and developed over time, and the materials in this section are a way to begin that process. By the way, you’re already on your way. One of the biggest steps toward enhancing your CQ is simply to open your eyes to the realities of the world and to the challenges of cross-cultural interactions—that’s what we’ve spent the last several chapters exploring.

  Don’t try to attain a perfect CQ score (which doesn’t really exist) by the time you go on your next trip. Our desire is simply to use the last section of this book to embark on a lifelong journey of growing in CQ as a way to more effectively love God and others in the twenty-first-century world. CQ will help us sharpen our focus and service in short-term missions, and it can enhance our ability to interact across cultures day in and day out as we move throughout the twenty-first-century world.

  CQ consists of four capabilities, all of which are linked together. As demonstrated in figure 1 below, the four capabilities of CQ are:

  CQ Drive: Your level of interest, drive, and motivation to adapt cross-culturally.

  CQ Knowledge: Your understanding about how cultures are similar and different.

  CQ Strategy: Your ability to interpret cues and plan in light of your cultural understanding.

  CQ Action: Your ability to behave appropriately when relating and serving cross-culturally.

  Most materials designed for short-term work emphasize two of these capabilities: CQ Knowledge (cultural understanding) and CQ Action (cross-cultural behavior). But all four capabilities are needed for effective short-term missions. The interdependence of these four capabilities is important,
because having one without the others may actually be worse than having none of them.[99]

  You can find information about how to assess your CQ at www.culturalQ.com. This tool is an academically proven way of measuring CQ in all four areas.

  The next four chapters describe the four capabilities of CQ. We’ll look at a brief explanation of each capability, suggest some ways to nurture growth in each of them, and demonstrate what they look like in real life by going on a journey to Shanghai, China, with a group of college students.[100]

  9

  Try, Try Again

  CQ Drive

  Eight Christian college students left their dorm rooms in Indiana to spend their January term in Shanghai, China. Members of the team are all TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) students who by participating in this two-week mission trip will also receive three credits and hands-on experience in TESL. They raised support from family and friends, promoting the trip as a chance to share the gospel with Chinese peers who want to learn English. The team is led by Jake, a senior marketing major with a minor in TESL. Jake grew up as a missionary kid in Mexico. He’s spent more time living outside the United States than in it. The group’s Chinese host is Tan Jun.

  After picking up the American students at the airport, Jun took them to a crowded Shanghai restaurant. Fortunately for the team, Jun speaks flawless English. After they were seated at the restaurant, Jun smiled and said, “Perhaps you’re tired after your long journey.”

  Jake, the team leader, said, “Yeah, we’re pretty wasted, but it will be good to eat something other than plane food!”

  After dinner, Jun decided the team should take a stroll down Nanjing Road, one of the busiest shopping districts in China. The streets were mobbed with people. The North American students were exhilarated and exhausted all at the same time. The pollution seemed intense, and the noise level caused a major headache for several of the jet-lagged students. Jun bought them all some dumplings at a hawker stall and insisted they try them. Brian, covering his mouth as he yawned, said, “So Jun. Where are we staying tonight? Is it close to here?”

  “Don’t worry,” replied Jun. “We’ll go there after a while. I’ll show you where it is.”

  Brian muttered to Sarah, who was walking next to him, “What I’m worried about is getting away from the stench and noise and lying down flat for the first time in thirty-two hours!”

  Sarah said, “Remember, Brian, these are things Chinese people always do—stay up late, eat, and shop.”

  “Well, I’m not Chinese!” Brian said a little louder than he meant to.

  Brian is four months away from graduation. He hopes this trip will help him figure out how to use his TESL degree. He’s a little annoyed that the next three days are devoted to touring Shanghai because what he really came to do was teach English. As great as it will be to hang out with the rest of the team in Shanghai, Brian didn’t come here to eat squishy foods and visit temples. He came to teach English and share the gospel!

  The more tired the students became, the less difference their pre-trip orientation seemed to have on their attitudes and behaviors. They were jet-lagged, tired, sweaty, queasy, and way out of their comfort zones. They just wanted to sleep. Finally, when they arrived at the hostel where they were staying, Brian was relieved to see a McDonald’s just a block away.

  The motivation for participating in short-term missions was the first conflicting image we examined in part 2. Going merely for the sake of adventure or to experience a new place can get in the way of doing short-term missions well. On the other hand, viewing cultural experiences as a distraction from our true mission is equally problematic. The motivation behind our service is the first issue addressed by cultural intelligence: CQ Drive.

  What Is CQ Drive?

  CQ Drive refers to our level of interest and motivation to adapt cross-culturally. It’s a traveler’s robustness, courage, hardiness, and capability to persevere through cultural differences. A person high in CQ Drive draws great satisfaction from being in new places and interacting with people from different cultures. A person low in CQ Drive avoids engagement with the culture as a whole. Short-termers with low CQ Drive hope to stay in comfortable hotels, interact primarily with their fellow teammates, and eat familiar foods. In contrast, short-termers with high CQ Drive want to adapt to the new culture not only to do short-term missions well but also because they’re genuinely interested in learning about life in a different place.

  People high in CQ Drive are internally motivated to learn about a new place. They want to ask the deeper questions that come about best through CQ Strategy, something we’ll look at later. As they begin to observe differences and some of the ways their own assumptions are challenged, they don’t run from facing those differences. Instead, they persist in trying to adapt in light of their observations. They don’t persevere through this process in isolation. They actively seek relationships with people who are culturally different. For these kinds of individuals, a short-term missions trip is just one of many opportunities in the course of a year when they will seek out cross-cultural experiences. A person with high CQ Drive is always on the lookout for opportunities to understand different cultures and different ways of seeing the world.

  CQ Drive is one of the most overlooked aspects of short-term missions. CQ Knowledge and CQ Action are the elements of CQ often given the most attention. Many short-term teams conduct extensive orientation, which includes researching some of the understanding necessary to make the trip meaningful. Many teams spend time talking about the importance of their behavior on the trip and remind one another about that during the trip. But little attention is given to the aspect of motivation when it comes to short-term missions or, for that matter, how it relates to cross-cultural interactions in general. The motivational component of cross-cultural adaptation is generally neglected or given little serious attention.[101]

  Ironically, CQ Drive is the most important aspect when selecting people for cross-cultural work, including short-term missions work. As we saw in chapter 3, the way one anticipates and is motivated to participate in a short-term project directly influences how that individual experiences the trip. Motivation shapes cross-cultural engagement more than anything else. A person’s primary motivation, whether to travel with friends or to “save” people, directly shapes how that person will engage with those he or she encounters.

  It’s not enough simply to be motivated to do short-term missions. Quite honestly, we’re not short on passion and zeal when it comes to short-term missions. Many of our short-term endeavors are driven by our confidence that they’re biblical, our love for adventure, or our desire to make a difference in the world. All these motivators powerfully shape our assumptions about what should happen on the trip. The question lies in whether we also see the importance of immersing ourselves in the local culture and how doing so will help us learn and serve.

  CQ Drive doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Our levels of motivation are connected to the motivations of those with whom we travel and, most of all, of those closest to us. Throughout the past couple of decades, as North Americans have traveled and worked abroad, a great deal of research has examined the role of one’s family and friends in how an individual works cross-culturally. If you’re really excited about going on an overseas assignment but your spouse or kids aren’t, that has a direct impact on your level of motivation. If a close friend is on a trip with you and has little interest in really experiencing the culture, that immediately challenges your level of interest in engaging with the culture.

  Motivation is also shaped by our cultural backgrounds. While we can’t assume everyone from one place is more motivated than everyone from another place, it’s important to understand the relationship between our cultural programming and how we’re likely to score on CQ Drive. For example, Americans typically have lower success rates adjusting to other cultures compared to many other ethnic groups. There are a number of reasons for this. One of the primary contributing factors for
our poor adaptation cross-culturally comes from the urgency factor we looked at earlier. We’re programmed to solve problems and fix things efficiently. The very idea that we might go primarily to learn and relate goes against the grain of our cultural ethos. Furthermore, despite our espoused desire to learn from others, it’s been ingrained in us as Americans that we’re the best country in the world and we should therefore help other people become more like us. With that mind-set comes a whole set of assumptions that make it more challenging to calibrate our motivation for effective cross-cultural engagement.

  In similar fashion, for many Americans, receiving positive feedback is a key motivator. I’ve often been a bit paralyzed in cross-cultural settings because I hear so little direct feedback on whether the ministry that’s happening is effective. However, in many cultural contexts, directly expressing feedback—positive or negative—is viewed as a form of humiliation and embarrassment, so more discreet feedback is preferable. All of these cultural dynamics play a part in understanding CQ Drive.

  In contrast, cultures that are more collectivist in their orientation—an idea we’ll explore more fully in the next chapter—are motivated differently than those that are more individualistic (e.g., most Western cultures). Collectivists are motivated most by what’s good for their group, not for each individual. For example, McDonald’s wasn’t successful in using its “Employee of the Month” program in India in the same way it uses it in North America. It was humiliating for most Indian employees to be singled out as the employee of the month. So McDonald’s began rotating the award among teams of employees rather than singling out an individual.

  One of the most important aspects of CQ Drive is our desire to adapt not only to the immediate task at hand but also to the culture as a whole. Typically, people who travel overseas to work, whether for business or for missions, are motivated to do their work well. An American businesswoman wants to run the branch office in Bangkok successfully. The Chicago pastor training in Ghana wants to feel as if he’s communicated the content well with the people being trained. However, the same individuals often demonstrate a much lower level of motivation for adjusting to the culture as a whole. The US businesswoman in Thailand might think a ride down the Chau Phraya River in a river taxi has little to do with how she runs the office, and the North American pastor might think eating Ghanaian food has little influence on his teaching. The research demonstrates exactly the opposite. Our level of interest in connecting with a culture as a whole directly shapes how well we do our work in subtle but profound ways.