The J Curve: What Global Politics and Evangelism Have in Common tagged: , , , ,

The J Curve: What Global Politics and Evangelism Have in Common

Posted by in Church & Missions, News & Culture

For the past several years I have had sat through dozens of Islamic evangelism training sessions.  Inevitably, there is always someone who will recount a story similar to this during the Q&A:

I was in a taxi, and the driver was a Muslim.  We started talking about religion.  I decided that since he was telling me about his religion I would share the truth with him about mine.  [insert your "typical" approach here and perhaps the standard anti-Islam apologetic here]  Then he just went crazy…

The encounter usually results with a shouting Arab and a bewildered evangelist who cannot understand why simply sharing the truth brought such a response.  These training events always have at least one person who stands up with some kind of “I shared a simple truth and then they started shouting” story.  The crowd typically empathizes and nods knowingly.  As open-minded, open-culture, individualistic westerners, we can only perceive that the truth will have positive results.
I believe if we cross-pollinate this problem/experience with an unlikely friend in the political world that we will gain insight into this cross-cultural phenomenon.
Ian Bremmer’s “The J Curve: A New Way to Understand why Nations Rise and Fall” provides an insightful analysis and matrix for assessing how, why, and to what extent nations change to become either more open or more despotic.  For those of us who are but a shade of hair color off from experiencing contemporary world events, Bremmer’s book describes the dicey details behind the major actions in the 20th century regarding a host of hot button countries: North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Israel, India, and China.  Bremmer argues that there is a direct relationship between a nation’s stability and their openness.  States such as Cuba, Belarus, and N. Korea are stable primarily because they are closed to the outside world.  Think about what a shock it would be for N Koreans to have unfiltered Cable and Internet access for 24 hours.  At the same time, most western countries are stable because they are open.  Imagine what would happen at the end the Gore vs Bush presidential race if the government cut off internet access, cable, and the telephone systems for 24 hours following the announcement that Bush had won his narrow victory.  Bremmer explains that the relationship between openness and stability can be graphed with a J curve.
His book, and the J curve itself, explains the process wherein a left side of the curve nation–stable but totalitarian–transitions to become a right side nation–stable but open–and the potential destabilization that occurs as they cross through the bottom of the curve.  It is safer to be at the far left side, than at the bottom; it is easier to close a country than to open it.  A charismatic leader, a meta-narrative which validates the leader’s authority and agenda, and sufficient means of isolating a whole nation are the hallmarks which allow a far left country to remain on the left.  Globalization and the age of technology are presenting problems for far left nations as it is becoming harder and harder to drown out the noise of the outside world.
While Bremmer’s book is merely about politics and not evangelism, there is much we can learn from it.  Religions, like nations, can be placed on a similar curve with similar dynamics.  Think about cult leaders for a moment.  They are able to control the minds of their people through authoritarianism.  They rewrite the meta-narrative that gives their worldview meaning and use isolation to make sure that their followers never learn the truth.  It is much easier to be a cult leader on the far left side of the curve, where there is total isolation, than it is at the bottom of the curve where the influx of counter narratives threaten the cult’s stability.  When talking with a cultist, it is easier for them to reject what they might know to be true, in order to remain in their group since the perceived shocks of changing individually from one side to the other are too great to bear.  If these parallels are true for a cult, which is simply a religious sub culture, they are even more true for a religion which is supported, accepted, and enforced by the broader culture itself!  While some religions are more open than other, most religious are fairly closed as they are defined and controlled via dogmas.  Thus, we would probably place most religions on the left side of the religious J-curve even though their adherents may not be as animated and vocal as others might be.  In trying to understand those “shocks” which disrupt and change the receptivity of an individual we need to look at social and cultural dynamics which present gaps and barriers which must be overcome in order to successfully communicate the gospel.  If we are to keep the graph above, then we could illustrate the J-curve by a dotted line, a J-curve with gaps.  Each of the breaks in the line represents a dynamic which must be understood and adequately addressed.  The comments stream will be a great place for you to suggest other gaps which you have experienced. My list is as follows:
History:  religions do not happen in a void.  There are old historic disputes and even wars that have been fought between religious groups.  Where a religion is associated with a nation (and most religious view other religions–Christianity included–this way) and there is bad history between the two groups, then there is a gap as a result which the effective evangelist must cross one way or another.  Simply asking someone to cross it without any explanation, incentive, etc, will invite a harsh response.  The Arab nations have been particularly resistant to the gospel.  One of the reasons is due the the fact that most missionaries come from the west and there is a particularly tumultuous history between the Arab nations and the western nations.  This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t send missionaries but this history is a liability.
Desire to live in harmony with the group:  Many people do not make changes simply because they want to be like those around them and the majority of people around them are not Christian.  To change religions puts them at odds with the group.  While we value our personal freedom and independence, most people actually do care what others think about them.  Unless we provide a realistic solution to overcome this barrier, they will not hear us with any gravity.
Us-Them:  Every culture and sub culture has the us-them dichotomy.  If you send “them” to evangelize “us” you present a barrier.  There are places when this has been overcome and it is a beautiful testament to the uniting power of the gospel.  However, we often are blissfully ignorant of these dichotomies when we nonchalantly open our mouths.  Remember, Jesus didn’t come as a Roman to the Jews.
Persecution:  Cultures which value homogeneity often persecute those who threaten the status quo.  While this seems obvious for those living in places like Saudi Arabia, it holds true even in the states.  There are many examples of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus who have come under threats, coercion, and even bodily harm in the states for either converting or even just showing too much interest.
Family structure: most religions are practiced in the context of family.  Rejecting the religion is synonymous with rejecting the family.  It is the parental obligations to be the first line of defense against conversion.  Again, this is not just something that happens overseas.  It is something that happens in the free world as well.  There are numerous documented reports of honor killings, albeit rare, and more commonly complete disowning.  For those who are in the states and convert and are disowned by a family in their home country, then that means that they might also loose their home country as well.
Decision Making: Most cultures do not value individual choice.  We are often calling people to do something that is completely different from everything they have ever thought of, not only in content, but in actually making a choice without the affirmation of the family.  Most places you are simply born into a religion.  You are what your father is, no questions asked.  One of the hallmarks of evangelicalism is that the individual must choose; one cannot be born a believer even if born into a believing family.
Loaded Language:  Words have meaning in context according to their usage.  ”Gay” no longer means “happy.”  Other religions wrongly understand and define many of our theological terms and ideas.  Jews, Mormons, and Muslims have all misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity.  Guess whose definitions their practitioners are using when we just use a buzzword?  Muslims believe that our understanding of the Trinity includes God physically having relations with Mary.  We call him the only begotten son, and if one looks in any genealogy, there ubiquitous support that begotten means the by product of someone’s physical relationship.  We have taken it a step further and codified this language in addressing the Arians when we say that Jesus is “begotten not made.”  I am not suggesting that the creed is wrong, or that we should not teach on the true nature of the God-head.  But when we use terms, the one listening to us already has a faulty definition so that he hears us affirming heresy both in his religion and ours.
So what then should we do about crossing these barriers?  The goal is not to avoid destabilization and persecution, per se, but to navigate it in such a way that the outcome is positive, desirable, and contagious.  We cannot simply avoid teaching on the Godhead because people out there misunderstand it.  If anything, their misunderstanding is a mandate to teach the true doctrine.  But the point of this post is far more practical.  We often think about what we share with people as being a “simple” presentation.  They told us what they thought and we were simply acting in turn.  It is easy to forget how absolutely counter-cultural and dangerous the gospel truly is.  Again, It is not simply religious dogma, leaders, and ability to control the masses that determine an individual’s level of receptivity.  There are many social, historical, and cultural issues which inform and amplify religious dogma.  Unless we have a system for addressing these seemingly “peripheral” affective issues, we will not be able to effectively communicate the gospel.  I believe that the reasons that many people actually reject the gospel is because of all of the side issues rather than because of the gospel itself.
Evangelism with someone on the left side of the curve is a process.  There are many gaps along the way that they will have to cross.  The farther they go the more potential for disaster there is.  I used to share an entire presentation of the gospel as part of my personal testimony.  After all, I might only see them once and so I needed to seize the moment and tell them everything.  The problem is that I placed all of the gaps all together so that no one would even consider crossing.  Furthermore, this view represented an inflated view of my role and a deflated view of the Spirits’.  I now give a much more generic presentation designed to push someone only a little way and see if they are interested.  If they are not even ready to handle truth #1, why would I give them all of them?  The evangelism process with someone on the left side of the curve requires a relationship.  One does not attempt to jump gaps simply on a dare from a stranger.  Remember, it is better to be far up on the left side than at the bottom of the curve!  When one does not understand the presentation or the presentation takes place too quickly with too many gaps pressed together, they are more likely to retreat to being closed again than pressing forward.
If there is anything we can learn from applying the J-Curve it is that people will not consider crossing the curve religiously unless we first take their gaps seriously and then provide adequate help from one side to the other.