andrewhong.net

So far we’ve looked at how Confucianism and then the migrant experience has shaped the worldview of the Diaspora Chinese – and also of Chinese Christians. However, there is a third thing that has significantly shaped Chinese culture today – and that is modernism.

Dennis Ahern, in a journal article on modernity and Chinese cultures, says that "modernism is the imperative felt by a traditional society to restructure its worldview around scientific presuppositions" (Missiology, 17/3 (1989)).

As the East gradually opened up to the West, the influence of modernism has only grown and grown in strength. Ahern highlights its pervasive influence, writing that "the tentacles of modernity reach into urban Asia in every Chinese living room through television. Modernity alters traditional culture, grafting and blending the East with the West."

I would also add that modernity has also shaped Chinese culture through the workplace. Western businesses have transform how Asian companies operate. Adopting ‘world’s best practice’ means taking on management practices and relationship models that are often forged in the West – and under the hammer of modernism.

While a few have resisted modernism, on the whole Asia has embraced modernist ways of getting things done in the workplace. Carvey Vern, who for many years observed the impact of modernism as a missionary in Asia, said that "Asian countries like Hong Kong are experiencing modernisation, indeed modification which includes importation. This importation of western influence is now germane. It is in fact now theirs".

In the West, Eddie Gibbs has been observing the shift from modernism to postmodernism, and has been writing about its implications for the church – first in Church Next (2001), and then in Leadership Next (2005). Now, I disagree with some of the things he has to say – because his answer is to adopt a postmodern approach to leadership, and I think that’s not the right answer (maybe I’ll write about it one day). However, he is absolutely right in pointing out that it was not good for the church in the West to embrace modernism.

He cites Cloke and Goldsmith, in The Art of Waking People Up (2001), who list a series of telling symptoms of a business influenced by modernism.

• People are punished for being aware and being authentic. In other words, telling it as it is.
• Leaders stop telling the truth and lie or keep silent about things that matter.
• Feedback is no longer oriented to how people can succeed but to how they have failed – not just in their work but as human beings.
• Performance assessment becomes judgemental and hierarchical rather than supportive and participatory.
• Honesty is separated from kindness, integrity from advancement, and respect from communication.

You can see that, under modernism, people are reduced to working
machines. The only thing that matters is the prestige and bottom line of the company – not people, and certainly not integrity! And perhaps you have felt that at your workplace.

But Gibbs goes on to say that, "if these indicators are accurate in
relation to the business world, they are even more applicable and
widespread with respect to the church." It is only natural for this to happen. These methods seem to work well for business leaders in the corporate world – and in fact are rewarded. So why not also use them in the church?

While the West is abandoning modernism and embracing postmdernism (a mistake), the East is embracing modernism (also a mistake). And along the way, Asian churches are affected as people bring modernist ways of relating and getting things done from the business world, into the church.

[ PS: does that list of five points from Cloke and Goldsmith resonate? ]