Comments (0)

By Bruce, January 25, 2012

Transcript:

Welcome to this Operation Reveille pod cast on culture stress and culture adjustment in stability operations.

Recent YouTube video of US Marines urinating on Taliban corpses underscore how behavior and attitudes towards the local people can be more critical than beans, bullets, and firepower.

The degree to which service members successfully partner, advise, facilitate, understand, and influence in stability operations is directly related to how they handle culture stress. Good cross-cultural adjustment takes spiritual fitness and moral leadership. National-policy-directed military doctrine, training, leadership, education, and reset activities must press further than cultural awareness and language learning to wholeheartedly address culture stress and adjustment. Cultural adjustment failure has had incipient and sometimes catastrophic consequences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Poor adjustment adversely impacts three areas: 1) individual emotional stability; 2) interpersonal team and staff dynamics; and 3) ability to influence the civil environment.

First, regarding emotional stability: stress from the foreign civil environment can cause the following four categories of reactions: 1) anxiety, confusion, disorientation, uncertainty, insecurity and helplessness; 2) fatigue, tiredness, lack of motivation, lethargy, and depression; 3) disappointment, unfullfillment, discouragement, and inadequacy; and 4) aggression, anger, irritability, contempt for others, and resentment.

Second, regarding team dynamics: poorly adjusted individuals on a team will likely work to suppress feelings of failure, fear, and hostility that they are experiencing due to a conflicted self-image. These repressed negative emotions will then bubble to the surface in what’s psychologically known as displacement resulting in overreactions to trivial matters, and they will also bubble to the surface in what’s psychologically known as projection resulting in viciously criticizing others.

Displacement and projection can lead to one or more of the following: 1) vicious competitiveness like sabotaging the success of others; 2) inordinate attention to peripheral projects like a principle-driven campaign for fairness; 3) withdrawal and isolation, like excessive working out; and 4) regression to childish behaviors like temper tantrums.

To maintain self-respect, the affected members on teams and staffs often rationalize these dysfunctional behaviors by blaming others for creating the conditions that make these behaviors inevitable.

Third, poor adjustment of individuals and of teams constrains and sometimes sabotages the mission in at least these three ways: 1) it increases the likelihood of misunderstanding and disrespecting the local people; 2) it undermines the ability to have influence among local people; and 3) it heightens the risk for atrocities and abuse.

I saw the problems that emerge from poor cultural adjustment when I was in Iraq where I spent time among 39 different small teams. The local national interpreters on one team confided to me that they thought force protection dog got treated better than they did. Most teams had volatile internal dynamics from tension between members who had adjusted and others who had not. I suspect this tension exists across all the services at all levels.

I suspect that allegations of scandal made a year ago in the Rolling Stone magazine over LTG Caldwell’s use of Psy-Ops resources and over GEN McChrystal’s attitude toward Richard Holbrooke have their origins in dysfunctional small group dynamics that result from different reactions to culture stress. The issue here is not whether or not the allegations are true, but the dynamics that made the situations even thinkable.

I discovered during my time in Iraq that when Soldiers encounter a “civil environment” with “customs” requiring “significant accommodation,” they typically adjust in one of three possible ways: 1) totally reject local forms and methods; 2) totally embrace local forms and methods; or 3) accommodate local forms and methods without appropriating those for themselves. Possibility #1 breeds ethnocentrism, disdain, withdrawal, and abuse. It essentially says, “These people are either stupid or immature.” Possibility #2 abandons the security found in one’s own identity that is a necessary foundation for unit cohesion and personal influence. It essentially says, “I need to become like them to help them.” Possibility #3 has the proper balance for effective influence. It says, “These people can do it a different way.”

In a unit or on a staff, the best-adjusted service members face hostility from colleagues at both extremes. The resultant tension sabotages unit effectiveness and undermines Army capabilities.

I also discovered that helping Soldiers to be more secure in their own spiritual identity and helping them to understand both culture stress and stages of adjustment enhanced team dynamics and mission effectiveness. Spiritual fitness and capacity for adjustment correlate with one another.

Awareness and adjustment are different. In the “Attributes-Knowledge-Skills” or “Be-Know-Do” expression of Army leadership, awareness is knowledge. Cultural awareness has little influence until combined with skills and attributes to proceed towards cultural adjustment. Cultural awareness (even combined with language proficiency) does not guarantee cultural adjustment. In fact, cultural awareness without good adjustment can be a recipe for disaster.

At Abu Ghraib, Soldiers likely used awareness of the Muslim belief that dogs are unclean and ceremonially defiling to intensify their abuse. On the other hand, Soldiers who are culturally adjusted are less likely to dehumanize culturally different people.

Pictures of “kill teams” in Afghanistan released last year by Der Spiegel magazine demonstrate how potential for abuse remains as threatening to national security as ever.

The concepts of culture stress and adjustment are not totally absent from Department of Defense doctrine, but they need exaggerated attention.

The Joint Chief’s Universal Joint Task List organizes and numbers training conditions for collective tasks. It embraces training for accommodating strong beliefs and significantly different customs in the civil environment.

The Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (ACFLS) defines “cross-cultural competence” as “a set of knowledge, skills, and attributes that enables leaders and Soldiers to adapt and act effectively in any cross-cultural environment.” The most critical component in this definition and for stability operations is “adapting.”

Culture stress along with the process of cultural adjustment is one of the greatest unaddressed challenges facing commanders at all levels. Poor adjustment adversely impacts three areas: 1) emotional stability; 2) team dynamics; 3) and influence in the civil environment.

Poor adjustment undermines stability operations and national security. Adjustment capacity depends upon service member attributes as well as skills and knowledge. It correlates directly to spiritual fitness. Filling this capability gap, therefore, becomes critical. All service members with spiritual fitness and capacity to handle culture stress must rise to the challenge of helping their brothers and sisters in arms with adjustment challenges.

For more information on culture stress and adjustment, check out the flow chart posted at this URL

http://www.oprev.org/cultureadjustment/web/chart.html

References:

- Associated Press. “Abu Ghraib Dog Handler: ‘Abuse Ordered‘” October 2009.
- Boone, Jon. “US Army ‘kill team’ in Afghanistan posed for photos of murdered civilians” The Guardian, 21 March 2011.
- FM 6-22, Army Leadership, October 2006.
- Hastings, Michael. “Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators” Rolling Stone, 23 Feb 2011.
- _____. “The Runaway General: The Rolling Stone profile of Stanley McChrystal that changed history” Rolling Stone, 22 June 2010.
- HQDA G-37/TRI and HQ TRADOC G-2, ARMY CULTURE AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STRATEGY, 01 December 2009.
- Khaled Abou El Fadl. “Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature” Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature (New York: Continuum International, 2004).
-UJTL, Joint Chiefs of Staff, PDF Version of Approved Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) Database With Conditions, Version 4 – Posted 12 October 2010.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, January 25, 2012

God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades
by Rodney Stark
Harper Collins Publishers, 2009, paperback 288 pages

In history classes at various Army service schools I’ve learned about many military campaigns. Lectures and readings expose lessons for modern leaders from the days of Carthage down to modern times. However, for some mysterious reason, military history curriculums ignore the two centuries containing the Crusades.

The material that Rodney Stark covers in God’s Battalions is like terrain on a continent that I never knew existed much less could be explored. If doctors neglected data the way the strategy, operations, and tactics of the Crusades are overlooked, they would be sued for malpractice.

Stark’s scholarly yet gripping prose reveals that the ignorance does not stem from a lack of researchable material. The Crusaders were men of means. They hailed from important families. They were literate, well-connected, and creatively financed. Both sides chronicled the campaigns in vivid, though often exaggerated, official records. Augmenting sources like letters, diaries, commercial records, and last wills and testaments survive in abundance.

God’s Battalions educates and surprises on nearly every page. Stark analyzes the stage-setting religious, political, and economic situation. He describes Crusader motivation. He explains planning, recruiting, financing, training, transporting, and supplying multinational expeditionary campaigns covering thousands of miles. He discusses control of the seas. He details operations at what were essentially forward operating bases among ethnically and religiously diverse civilian populations. He reveals strategy, mixed motives, and treachery of supposed allies. He compares weapons, tactics, and technology. And he shows how and why eventually the rulers and people of Europe essentially abandoned their settlements in Palestine to be overrun.

As case studies in the multinational, coalition, expeditionary “Western way of war,” Stark exposes that the Crusades have few equals. On the role in warfare for “sacred speech,” the only better case study might be modern current events. After reading God’s Battalions, I am convinced that every commander and every chaplain should be studying the Crusades.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, September 2, 2011

Point 1: Love conquers fear (1 John 4:18). Terrorism inspires fear. Fear causes response of flight (“Islam is peaceful”) or fight (“Muslims are evil”). Without love, we lack objectivity, become reactive victims, and follow popular paths of least resistance into either denial or anxiety. With love we seize productive initiative.

Point 2: Prayer for enemies inspires proper attitudes (Matthew 5:44). When Jesus told his followers to love enemies and pray for persecutors, he compared that response to God’s response to us. God sends rain on both the righteous and the wicked. God is never a victim and always has the initiative. Human behavior does not manipulate God.

Point 3: Stephen prayed for Saul (Acts 7:60 & 8:1). Triumphing over the perpetrators of this 9-11 evil takes radical initiative.

Application: Consider “adopting” a terrorist for prayer from ATFP.org .

Comments (4)

By Bruce, July 18, 2011

Download a pdf version.

What do President Ahmadinijad in Iran and the Americans in Afghanistan have in common? Both are presiding over the world’s fastest growing Christian populations. In Iran, the Evangelical population is growing annually at 19.6 %. In Afghanistan, the rate is 16.7%.¹

Some scholars theorize that persecution may have something to do with the growth.

Under Chairman Mao and Chinese Communism, professing Christians in China grew from 1.5 million in 1970 to 65 million in just twenty years.² Fed to lions and hunted into the catacombs, Christianity gradually grew to dominate the Roman Empire.³

Persecution and exponential Christian growth often coincide. However, persecution often coincides with diminishing Christianity. For example, statistics on Christianity in Iraq are reversed from what they are in Iran and Afghanistan. Although Iraq is like Afghanistan in featuring both persecution and American presence, its Christian population is declining by 2.4% annually.⁴

Christianity was once the dominant religion across North Africa, through the Middle East, and up into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). European Christians were once a small minority of all the Christians in the world. In 1050, Asia Minor, the land of the seven churches of the book of Revelation, boasted 373 ecclesiastical regions and was nearly 100 percent Christian. 400 years later, ecclesiastical regions in Asia Minor had dropped to three, and Christian population had dropped to less than 15 percent.⁵ Turkey today is nearly all Muslim and less than a quarter of a percent Christian.⁶

But it’s not only Islam that often displaces Christianity. During the time of nearly 300 years of persecution in Rome, Christians in Persia enjoyed relative freedom and were on their way to becoming the majority religion. Then after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire more than 190,000 Christians were martyred in Persia over the next 40 years.⁷

Christianity was established in China and then eliminated at least twice. Relics and inscriptions show that Christians were present, free, and growing in China during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), but when that dynasty disappeared so did the Christians.⁸ Franciscan friars established a Christian presence in China during the years of Mongol rule (1271-1368), but they and their ministry results disappeared after the Ming Dynasty took over (1368).⁹

Christianity arrived in Japan with outside trade (Portuguese in 1542), and it grew to number around 300,000 within 50 years. But in 1587 Japan expelled all its foreigners, and, in 1614, Christians came under intense persecution.¹⁰ When Japan allowed missionaries back in 1858, what they found to have survived  was some barely recognizable Christian traditions in a handful of remote fishing and island communities.¹¹

I have a theory that explains why persecution sometimes coincides with Christian growth and sometimes coincides with Christian decline.

Martyrs who are in the socio-economic and ethno-linguistic group of their killers become a persuasive Christian testimony, but the testimony of martyrs who are in a different socio-economic and ethno-linguistic group has no significant impact on their killers.

This theory is a corollary to the “reached” and “unreached” people group categories championed by Ralph Winter and popularized at the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne, Switzerland.¹²

Winter and others like Donald McGavran and Cameron Townsend, the founder of Wycliffe, noticed that Christianity tends to spread within durable groups of people that have a natural affinity for one another until it reaches barriers of acceptance and understanding that exist between groups that have different identities and allegiances.

Thus a “reached people group” is one within which a sufficient number of indigenous Christians have the resources, vision, and ability to continue evangelizing their own people without meeting barriers of acceptance and understanding.

An “unreached people group” is a durable ethno-socio-linguistic unit featuring common identity and allegiance that lacks the people, resources, vision, and ability to self evangelize. Until someone from outside the group takes the gospel across the barriers of acceptance and understanding, that group will remain “unreached.”

Tertullian wrote on Roman persecution that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. He saw Christians killed for their faith, and he saw its effects on the society that was killing them.¹³ He was watching unbelievers within his people group killing believers who were among them – people with the same language, heritage, music, holidays, food, clothing, customs, courtesies, clothing, and living conditions.

The persecution that is happening today (in parts of China, Iran, and Afghanistan) where Christianity is growing occurs between people within the same ethno-socio-linguistic group.

However, the persecution that is happening today where Christianity is diminishing occurs between people groups. In Iraq, the unreached people group (Arab) is prevailing over the reached one (Assyrian).

Sometimes violence between reached and unreached people groups works in Christianity’s favor. Conquistadors established Christianity in Latin America,¹⁴ and Charlemagne conquered and then converted many pagan tribes of Western Europe.¹⁵ But in Egypt, Turkey, Persia, China, and Japan, power and history favored either the outside Arab and Turkic people groups invading or the inside people groups defending pagan culture.

When Christians become embedded in a people group like yeast in dough, then the heat of persecution helps them mature, propagate, and transform the loaf, but when Christians remain distinct from a people group like chocolate chips in a cookie, then the heat of persecution makes them melt away.

END NOTES:

1. Operation World 7th Edition by Jason Mandryk, Biblica Pub., 2010, p. 916.

2. World Christian Encyclopedia 2nd Edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, vol. 1, p. 191.

3. The Church in History by B. K. Kuiper, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951, pp. 7-13.

4. Operation World, p. 470.

5. The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins, HarperCollins Pub., 2008, p. 23.

6. Operation World, p. 831.

7. Exploring Church History by Perry Thomas, World Pub., 2005, pp. 16-17.

8. The History of Christianity in Asia by Samuel Moffett, Orbis Books, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 288-314.

9. The History of Christianity in Asia, pp. 471-475.

10. A History of Christian Missions by Stephen Neill, Penguin Books Ltd., 1964, pp. 133-138.

11. The Lost History of Christianity, pp. 36-37.

12. “On the Cutting Edge of Mission Strategy” by C. Peter Wagner in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader 4th Edition, William Carey Library, 2009, p. 578.

13. Exploring Church History, p. 13.

14. A History of Christian Missions, pp. 143-148.

15. A History of Christian Missions, pp. 67-68.

Comments (3)

By Bruce, February 22, 2011

As a tidal wave for democracy washes across the Middle East, how might Middle Eastern democracies look?

In 2003, while advocating for change in Iraq, President Bush asked, “Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are they never to know freedom?” In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama underscored his “commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people.” He claimed, “But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure.”

Most American foreign policy experts believe that democracies will not fight each other, so, therefore, spreading democracy spreads peace. However, democracy may not be good for everybody. American democracy did not help black slaves or Native Americans for at least a hundred years. Barack Obama may have been thinking of this history when he clarified at Cairo, “And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.”

How might democracy in a place like Egypt look for all the people?

A Pew Opinion Survey published in December 2010 found that 82 percent of Muslim Egyptians favor stoning for adultery, 77 percent favor severing limbs for theft, and 84 percent favor death for apostasy (leaving Islam).

“How can this be?” asked a friend. “We think of Egypt as being more educated and modern.” We also believe that only a tiny fraction of Muslims are radical. How can the vast majority of Muslims in moderate Egypt embrace capital punishment for people who leave Islam?

The obvious answer lies so far outside of American experience that it’s not seriously considered. Islam is a political system as well as a religious one. Leaving Islam is treason. Even in the USA, treason is punishable by death. Popularity of the death penalty for leaving Islam proves that Islam is a political system. Popular support for freedom of conscience and expression in Islam evaporates like popular support for sedition in America. Politics and Islam are functionally the same.

Violence is a tool of the state. America defends and propagates its ideology both at home and abroad with violence. American soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan are state instruments for defending and propagating democracy.

Religions become violent when they become political ideologies. That’s why so many Europeans emigrated and founded America. They wanted to be free from the mixing of religion and politics that motivated Crusades and Inquisitions.

Religion without politics is mostly benign. However, government is never without access to violent tools. Atheistic dictators Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot demonstrate the potential for violence in political systems without religion. The common denominator in nearly all violence is politics.

Today, Americans have lived for so long under a system that separates church and state that they have lost touch with how most of the world still integrates politics and religion. In Indonesia, it is illegal to be an atheist. In China, many pastors are in jail for leading non-approved congregations. In Pakistan, blasphemy – defined as criticizing Mohamed – is a capital offense. Many Americans have so lost touch that they actually blame religion, rather than politics, for more violence.

Now back to Egypt. In a country that is 87 percent Muslim, of whom at least 80 percent follow Islam as a political system, consensus will likely implement Muslim faith with civil law.

American history demonstrates how democracy is great for the majority, but not necessarily so great for minorities. Brutality in displacing Native Americans along with slavery and discriminatory segregation underscore this inescapable reality.

In an Egypt under majority rather than dictatorial rule, religious minorities will be like African Americans and Native Americans before the American civil rights movement. Majority rule in Egypt will not be very pretty for non-Muslim minorities. Not until Muslims begin separating their politics and religion.

Comments (8)

By Bruce, January 13, 2011

(Download a PDF version of this article.)

The Challenge

In international diplomacy and in stability operations, American entities are apologizing with the wrong forms. They are assuming that because the function of apology is universal the forms for it are universal as well, but they are mistaken. Using culturally inappropriate forms for apology undermines reconciliation, intensifies resentment, and prolongs hostility. No single function for communication involves more tragic cross-cultural misunderstanding with more negative consequences for modern global stability than misunderstood apologizing.

Some Cross-Cultural Communication Theory

Meaning to tell the audience his embarrassment was great for being late, the foreign missionary actually ended up telling the congregation that his private parts were very large. This misunderstanding turned out to be humorous, but the misunderstandings resulting from wrongly communicated apologies are exponentially more significant and disruptive.

Different cultures have different meanings for forms that accomplish universal functions. All societies have ways to apologize. Apologizing is a universal function. Words, grammar, and gestures, however, differ. They are forms. They have different meanings in different cultures. In the above example, the foreign guest chose the wrong word (form) to accomplish his intended apology (function) resulting in misunderstanding (missed meaning).

The “Languages” of Apology

Anthropologist Gary Chapman, whose writing and speaking popularized the five love-languages, has written with clinical psychologist Jennifer Thomas about five forms of apology. These forms from page 24, that he calls “languages of apology,” are:

1. Expressing Regret – Saying, “I am sorry.”
2. Accepting Responsibility – Admitting, “I was wrong.”
3. Making Restitution – Committing, “I will make it right.”
4. Genuinely Repenting – Promising, “I will not do that again.”
5. Requesting Forgiveness – Asking, “Will you forgive me?”

Chapman and Thomas assert that people differ in their perceptions of apology. Different forms speak more deeply and more sincerely to different people.

You may appreciate hearing all languages, but if you don’t hear your primary apology language, you will question the sincerity of the apologizer. On the other hand, if the apology is expressed in your primary language, then you will find it much easier to forgive the offender (page 105).

What’s true between individuals who vary in personalities is doubly true between cultures that vary in language, heritage, and majority religion. Different apology forms also speak more deeply and more sincerely to different cultures.

When Arabs or Pushtuns hear apologies from Americans in American forms rather than in their own cultural form, then they question American sincerity. On the other hand, if Americans were to apologize to Arabs or Pushtuns in the primary Arab and Pushtun cultural forms, then reconciliation would be more attainable.

Some Differences Between the Forms

So what are some differences in the preferred forms for apology between cultures?

The New Testament admonition to forgive as one has been forgiven reflects a universal pattern of accepting apologies based upon God’s example. Different religions have different beliefs on apologizing to God. These religious differences result in different forms for apologizing to each other. A society’s historical, economic, and political context plays an important role as well.

Some Social Context Driven Differences

Regarding social context, American civilization takes significant control over its environment. American people have control over their careers, marriages, and religion. The American government has broad influence in the world. People with a high sense of power and control also have a high sense of responsibility. As a result, Americans tend to doubt the sincerity of apologies that avoid taking responsibility. They typically respect people who own up to their mistakes. They usually disrespect people who make excuses and blame others or circumstances. Americans especially despise the word, “but,” in any sentence that includes the words, “I am sorry.”

Most people in the world, however, have little power and minimal control over their environment. They are generally more vulnerable to nature and disasters than Americans. Arabs, for example, have little personal control over their careers, marriages, and religion. The frequently uttered phrase “insyallah,” meaning, “If God wills,” illustrates the perception that ultimate responsibility rests with God rather than people. Middle Eastern governments have little global influence and tend to see themselves as victims in a world order dominated by others. People with little sense of power and control have a low sense of responsibility. Therefore, shouldering responsibility is rarely a necessary part of their apologies, and blaming shortcomings on others is actually part of the form for apologizing. People in these contexts desire dignity more than accountability.

American quickness to apologize to the world for everything from collateral damage in air strikes and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses, to past injustices like the slave trade, flows from a sense of being responsible and in control. Confessing “sins” and accepting responsibility fills an American emotional need, but it does not lead to reconciliation with offended populations. Those offended parties are not looking for admissions of guilt or acceptance of responsibility as much as they are looking for restitution and the affirmation of dignity that comes when someone asks for forgiveness. Neither making restitution nor requesting forgiveness requires admitting responsibility. These are the primary apology forms for much of the world.

Some Religious Context Driven Differences

Differences in religious heritage contribute significantly to difference in forms for apology. In Christian tradition, God forgives sins when his people confess them and take responsibility for them. Accordingly, no one can make restitution for his or her own sins. Only God can do that. Theologically, it’s called “substititionary atonement.” Historically, it involves the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. As a result, in personal and corporate relationships, restitution frequently comes through third parties like the government or insurance companies rather than directly from the responsible parties. Relationships are often restored with no restitution occurring at all. American apologies typically require the words “I was wrong” (confession), and “I am sorry” (regret). Often they include the words, “I will try not to do that again” (repentance).

Apologies in most of the rest of the world do not require these words of confession and accountability. To an American, omitting these sentiments would not really be an apology. And yet reconciliation happens all the time around the world in families and between tribes without anyone ever admitting guilt or accepting responsibility. In American culture, the main glue of relationships is trust, an important ideal in relationships is innocence, and a major destroyer of relationships is guilt. In most of the rest of the world’s cultures, the main glue is respect, an important ideal is honor, and a major destroyer is shame. American apologies seek to restore trust. For Americans, humbly admitting guilt enhances trustworthiness. Apologies in most other cultures seek to restore respect. Respectability involves honor, status, and appearances. Admitting guilt takes humility and undermines honor.

In both Christianity and Islam, relationship with God begins with identity as God’s people through profession of faith. In Muslim tradition, however, God forgives the sins of his people when they demonstrate that they are good Muslims by performing the ritual works of Islam (like the five pillars of Islam: fasting, praying, pilgrimage, alms giving, and reciting the creed). Confession is not necessary. Respectability is maintained. Humiliation is avoided. God forgives sins based upon good deeds outweighing bad ones. The equivalent form in personal and corporate relationships is making restitution and asking for forgiveness. Restitution is like a good deed. It affirms the dignity of both parties. Just as a government or insurance company can restore what has been lost without being at fault for someone else’s wrong-doing, a wrong-doer can restore what has been lost without ever admitting responsibility. Asking for forgiveness is different than saying “I am sorry.” It surrenders control to the other party. It moves responsibility for restoring relationship from the guilty party to the offended party. It admits to imperfection, but it does not admit to all of the details of the offense. That kind of detail would be a confession.

Making restitution and asking for forgiveness, while blaming circumstances or others in order to avoid responsibility, is the principle apology form in cultures with Muslim majorities. In many years of living and working among Muslims, I have rarely heard a Muslim say “I am sorry,” but I hear them asking for forgiveness all the time. In fact, requesting forgiveness from friends and relatives is an important feature in Muslim holiday celebrations. Humility in cultures with Muslim majorities isn’t demonstrated in the ability to admit faults but in the ability to depend upon grace from others to forgive faults that remain unconfessed. From the perspective of the people in these cultures, it is the American form for apology that sabotages reconciliation by undermining the dignity of the parties who need to reconcile. It publicly humiliates one party, it embarrasses the other, and it gives relational control to the offender rather than to the offended.

Some Practical Implications

These different forms for apologizing have different strengths and weaknesses. One form may even be objectively better than another. One may spark better social harmony than the other. For example, when reconciliation depends primarily on repentance, its highest price becomes humility. On the other hand, when it depends heavily upon restitution, a satisfactory price for justice may be too high to pay.

However, such comparisons are irrelevant to diplomacy and stability in places like Afghanistan where Americans are not called to change religiously grounded reconciliation systems but to work within what’s there. American entities must accommodate the preferred apology form of the culture with which they are dealing.

A Negative Example

In Mosul, Iraq in early 2009, a civilian sedan drove deliberately in front of a heavy American tracked vehicle as it was on patrol. The automobile driver and a passenger child were killed. The Americans made restitution to the family of the child and driver. They also apologized to the family and community by saying that they regretted causing the unfortunate accident. However, the insurgency-affiliated driver had deliberately driven in front of the Army vehicle in order to cause the collision. Anti-government elements had actually staged the incident to inflame hostility towards the Americans. The American admission of responsibility actually played into the hands of insurgents who were waging an information campaign against the Americans and against the American-supported Iraqi government. On the very day that the American Battalion Commander of the unit that had been involved in the accident was on his way to meet with community leaders to underscore his apology and deliver compensation, a member of the killed child’s family exacted revenge by driving into the Commander’s vehicle with an explosive packed car that killed the Commander.

My Recommendations

When American entities take responsibility for tragic events and negative circumstances in cultures with Muslim majorities, they undermine potential for reconciliation. In fact, the more that Americans underscore their sorrow and regret for these events and circumstances in attempting to foster sympathy and achieve good-will, the more they undercut their ability to reconcile with the people that they are offending. It’s exactly the opposite of expectations for the form of apology that’s primary in America. The admission of guilt and responsibility just serves to vindicate the aggrieved parties in their hostility. Forgiveness for transparently admitting guilt follows when entities are already in trusting relationships. When trusting relationships do not exist, that kind of transparency simply enhances justification for hostility.

Instead of expressing regret and thereby taking some measure of responsibility for everything from the Crusades to enhanced interrogations, American entities should request forgiveness – not for the perceived offenses, but for generic inadequacy. They should use words like, “If there’s anything that we’ve done to offend you, please forgive us.” This language transfers the initiative and responsibility for the relationship to the party that perceives itself to be offended without adding to their excuses for nursing bitterness. American aid for relief and development should then be offered not as restitution for American offenses, but as restitution for damage done by uncontrollable parties and circumstances. Accepting the aid becomes an admission that uncontrollable forces are to blame, that generic forgiveness is being offered, and that relationship is being established.

A Very Brief Review

Cultures have forms, functions, and meanings. Apologizing is a universal function, accomplished with different forms having different meanings in different cultures. Based upon their social context and religious heritage, Americans prefer a form of apology that emphasizes responsibility while minimizing dignity. Based upon a different context and heritage, many other cultures prefer a form of apology that maximizes dignity while minimizing responsibility.

Apologizing to people in one culture in the unfamiliar foreign form of another compounds misunderstanding and hostility over the original offense. American diplomatic and stability force entities habitually aggravate hostility and misunderstanding by apologizing in the form most familiar to them rather than in the form familiar to their audience. To facilitate global peace and security American entities in cross-cultural relationships need to understand and accommodate forms for apology that are unfamiliar to them.

(Download a PDF version of this article.)

Comments (9)

By Bruce, October 12, 2010

The time has come to talk about holy-book burning and ask, “Why the double standard for the Bible and Qur’an?”

The Bible and the Qur’an are not equivalent books. Treating them as if they were facilitates misunderstanding and conflict.

When a pastor in Florida threatened to commemorate 9-11 by burning Qur’ans, it escalated into an international crisis (Guardian story). When the US military burned Bibles in Afghanistan, it actually defused an international crisis (CNN story).

Burning a Qur’an is exponentially more explosive than burning a Bible. It is potentially much more perilous than publishing pictures of Muhammad. In Indonesia, I saw a man die in a hospital from a beating after he’d been arrested for allegedly burning some verses of the Qur’an.

In Muslim theology, the Qur’an is a verbatim incarnation of God’s word. It is an extension of divine essence, a part of heaven. In Christian theology, Jesus fulfills that role. To Christians, the Bible is not an extension of God’s essence. It frequently quotes God in recording the history of some of God’s actions and interactions with his creation. Christians believe that Jesus is divine, and that the Bible is divinely provided and protected as a testimony to him. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is divine, and that Muhammad is divinely provided and protected as the testimony to it.

As a result, in Muslim theology, burning a Qur’an is like crucifying Christ or desecrating the Eucharist. In Christian theology, burning the Bible is like burning a very valuable and special book. Functionally, for their respective groups, the Bible and the Qur’an are different, so the responses of the respective groups are different as well.

The Muslim equivalent to the Christian Bible is their Hadith. The Hadith is the written record of the sayings and actions of Muhammad. Muslims use it to interpret and apply the Qur’an the way that Christians use the Bible to understand and apply the teachings of Jesus. Without the Hadith, there can be no authoritative application of the Qur’an. Without the Bible, there can be no authoritative knowledge of Christ.

Islam is political as well as religious. Muslims do not study the Qur’an devotionally the way that Christians study the Bible. Rather, they dissect the Qur’an legally the way that Americans treat the U.S. Constitution. A Muslim cleric is more of a legal scholar than a theological one. Muslim people leave interpreting the Qur’an to trained clerics the way that Americans leave interpreting the Constitution to trained lawyers. Muslims and Americans memorize portions of the Qur’an and Constitution. Some may memorize the whole thing. Memorizing the Qur’an or Constitution does not make one a constitutional or Muslim scholar.

Political institutions always have access to instruments of violence for defending sovereignty and policing law and order. Americans with little knowledge of the Constitution will die to defend it and protect the institutions that interpret and apply it. Similarly, Muslims sacrifice their lives to defend the Qur’an and protect the religion and institutions that spring from it. Americans have a death penalty for treason (and other crimes like murder). Muslims have a death penalty for people who leave Islam (and other crimes like adultery).

Ideally, Christians will die rather than renounce their faith in Jesus. Unlike what springs from the Constitution and the Qur’an, Jesus’ “kingdom” is not of this world. If it were, as Jesus told Pilate before his crucifixion, then his followers would have risen up to fight. Whenever people, like the Crusaders, have risen up to fight in the name of Jesus, they destroy the other-worldly nature of Jesus’ kingdom and violate the teaching of Christ. When Muslims threaten to behave violently to stop the burning of the Qur’an, they underscore the worldly nature of their kingdom and validate the comparison between burning a Qur’an and crucifying Christ.

Islam is a worldly kingdom, historically advanced and defended by Muslim political institutions. Today, the worldly kingdom of Islam is divided between many disunited countries under the dominance of a non-Muslim world system. Without a united institution to advance and defend their religion, Muslims are left all on their own to enact and threaten civil unrest when their “kingdom” is threatened.

And that, dear friends, explains why you can burn a Bible, but you can’t burn a Qur’an.

Load print version of this article.

Comments (0)

By Thomas, October 12, 2010

“The more I read the Bible, the more clearly I saw this single truth: Loving and forgiving one’s enemies is the only real way to stop the bloodshed” (Mosab Hassan Yousef, page 148).

Those are the words of a Palestinian and eldest son of the founder of Hamas. His autobiography, Son of Hamas, testifies to modern-day Saul-like conversions while revealing how Mid-East unrest doesn’t originate in ethnic identity, but in the human heart. It exposes Israeli behavior from a Palestinian perspective, and it reveals good and bad in people on both sides. Mosab’s journey is both breathtaking and genuine. His conclusions are extraordinary and redemptive. His journey remains far from over.

Mosab reveals his father, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, to be a kind and gentle man who is not directly involved in attacks against Jewish women and children. He is beloved by West Bank Palestinians, and trapped by forces beyond human control, making, or understanding. He is one of the supporters of terrorism featured for prayer at ATFP.

Son of Hamas is a New York Times Best Seller. I encourage you to buy it, read it, share it, make it an even better seller, and pray for an abundant harvest to follow this first fruit.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, August 30, 2010

Holidays offer great opportunities to start or strengthen relationships.

Major religious holidays for American Christians are Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter. The two holiest days in Islam are Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha.

Eid ul-Fitr is the “Feast of Breaking the Fast.” It concludes the fasting month of Ramadan during which Muslims refrain from eating and drinking during daylight hours. Eid ul-Adha is the “Feast of Sacrifice.” It concludes the period set aside for the pilgrimage to Mecca called the Hajj, and it commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his firstborn son. Both of these times of feasting and celebration start at sunset and last for two or three days.

Christmas is the feast celebrating Jesus’ birthday. It concludes the 4-week period called Advent, and it commemorates God’s willingness to give himself by taking on flesh and blood. Thanksgiving is a feast celebrating God’s providence and provision. Easter is the feast celebrating Jesus’ victory over death by resurrection. Christian feasts usually last no more than one day.

Here are some ideas for leveraging these feast days in your relationships with people in the other religion.

1. These are times of giving sweets to each other and to children. Give your friend or neighbor a plate of candy, cake, or cookies to help them celebrate.
2. These are times of giving small gifts to children. Give your friend or neighbor something simple for the children.
3. These are times for holiday greeting card exchange:a. If you are a Christian, give or mail your friend or neighbor an “Eid Mubarak” greeting card. You can make this yourself with images collected from the Internet or you can order one from a dealer on the Internet.

   b. If you are a Muslim, give or mail your friend or neighbor a “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Thanksgiving,” or “Happy Easter” greeting card. Avoid giving your seriously Christian neighbors the generic “Happy Holidays” cards for Christmas. This suggests disapproval for public recognition of “Christmas.”

4. This is a time for sending text-message and e-mail holiday greetings.
   a. If you are a Christian, send your friend or neighbor an “Eid Mubarak” or “Happy Feast Day” e-mail or text-message as they begin their celebrations.

   b.If you are a Muslim, send your friend or neighbor a “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Thanksgiving,” or “Happy Easter” e-mail or text-message.

5. These are times when Muslims drop in on each other (often with house gifts). It’s a time when they expect and are prepared for visitors.a. If you are a Christian, these holidays are good times to visit your Muslim friend or neighbor to introduce yourself or build your relationship. You won’t necessarily need an appointment, but they may be out doing their own spontaneous visiting.

   b. Christians tend to celebrate their holidays more privately than Muslims. It’s a time reserved for close friends and extended family. They do not drop in on one another unannounced as Muslims often do. They do, however, like to share their feast times with outsiders. If you are a Muslim and show curiosity and express desire to find out how a Christian family actually conducts their feast, don’t be surprised if they invite you, and don’t hesitate to join them.

6. These are times when Muslims ask for forgiveness from one another for any unspecified offenses that they may have committed against each other during the preceding year.

   a. If you are a Christian, ask your Muslim friend or neighbor for general forgiveness on these days. Do not mention any specific offenses! Say something like, “If I’ve done anything to offend you in the time that we’ve known each other, will you please forgive me?”

   b. Christians do not ask for forgiveness from one another for unspecified offenses the way Muslims do. Christians grant forgiveness for specific confessions. If you are a Muslim, you may say to a Christian something like, “If I’ve done anything to offend you in the time that we’ve known each other, will you please tell me what it is so that I can apologize.” Or if you know of something specific, tell them what it is and that you are sorry.

7. These days are times of heightened religious awareness and instruction.

   a. If you are a Christian, these are good times to ask questions about Islam and Muslim culture, especially about the holiday. However, do not criticize or try to speak knowledgeably about Muhammad or Islam. “Stay in your lane!” You may present yourself as the subject matter expert on Jesus, Christmas, and communion. Let them be the subject matter experts on all things Muslim.

   b. If you are a Muslim, these are good times to ask questions about Christianity and Western culture, especially about the holiday. However, do not criticize or try to speak knowledgeably about Jesus or Christianity. “Stay in your lane!” You may present yourself as the subject matter expert on Muhammad, Muslim Feast days, and salat. Let them be the subject matter experts on all things Christian.

Comments (9)

By Bruce, August 18, 2010

Ethical dilemma over building a mosque at ground zero in New York exposes some front lines in the culture war raging across America. First, it reveals agendas that become visible when comparing what people say to what they do. Second, it provides opportunity to compare the relative importance of values held by sides in the culture war.

Concerning agendas, most of the people who are pro-religious liberty for building the mosque at that location are anti-manger scenes on public sidewalks. A hidden agenda among many in this pro-mosque group may be counterbalancing their intolerance for one kind of religious expression with tolerance for another. Ironically, most of the people who oppose this location for this mosque are pro-other kinds of religious expression, such as prayer in Jesus’ name at public events. A hidden agenda among many in this anti-mosque group may be to promote one religion over another.

Regarding differing systems of values, ethical dilemmas reveal values priorities. Telling the truth is important. However, during Nazi occupation, many Dutch families hid Jews and lied to occupying forces. Telling the truth wasn’t as important as preserving those lives. The mosque at ground zero exposes competition between at least two important values: 1) National Dignity/Security; and 2) Constitutional Freedoms.

On national dignity and security, some believe allowing the mosque to be built at ground zero will underscore American pluralism and undercut popular support for America’s enemies. For those with overarching concern for America’s dignity and security, however, this mosque location will embarrass America, embolden her enemies, and encourage support for groups like Al-Qaeda. Based upon my personal experience among Muslims and upon what I am hearing from many scholars and reform-minded Muslim leaders, I consider the latter outcome to be the most likely.

With respect to constitutional freedoms, many believe that, in the interests of taste and national security, the government can zone against the religious use of certain private properties. For those with the overarching concern that religious expression should be private and free from public interference, however, such a zoning intrusion would be an unthinkable human rights violation of much greater concern than any dignity or security issues.

As in most wars, one side will win and the other side will lose. Such an outcome in this culture war would be unfortunate for all of America. Reaching a “diplomatic” solution so that both sides can win will require exposing and marginalizing hidden agendas and then accommodating and affirming both sets of competing values. In the quest for public image, the side that wins will likely lose.