Reciprocity,Collectivism,andtheChineseChurch

JacksonWuPatronageSymposium

Beirut,2018

Agifthasmeaningwithinaspecificcontext.Focusingonthecontextofgift-exchangecanshedmorelightonpatronageandreciprocitythanmerelyspeakingoftheword“gift.”Therefore,wewillreflectonthesignificanceofreciprocitywithin2particularsettings:(a)culturesand(b)relationships.ThistalkwillpresentreciprocitywithinaChinesecontext.UsingChinesecultureasacasestudyenablesustoseethesignificanceofsocialexchangewithindifferenttypesofrelationships.

Considerthefollowingwayspeopleinterpretedthefavorsdoneforthem.In2006,anolderwomaninNanjingfellwhengettingoffabus.Aman,PengYu,helpedthewoman,contactedherfamilyandpaidherinitialhospitalfee(about$33).However,sheaccusedhimofcausingherfall.AlthoughnocorroboratingevidenceexistedprovingPengYuwasatfault,thejudgeinthecaseruledagainsthimsaying,“noonewould,ingoodconscience,helpsomeoneunlesstheyfeltguilty.”1

Asimilarsituationoccurredin2013,whenWangLansawanolderwomanhadfallen.LikePengYu,WangLanassistedtheelderlywoman,contactedherfamily,andpaidtheinitialmedicalfees.Onceagain,theinjuredwomanaccessedWangLanofpushingherclaiming,“Ifitwasn’tyouwhobumpedintome,whywouldyouhavehelpedtakemetothehospital?”Later,camerasprovedconclusivelythatWangLandidnotharmtheolderwoman.

Thesetwoanecdotesillustratetheimportanceofcontextwhengivingorreceivinggiftsandfavors.FewpeoplecouldimaginejusthowdifferentlythesetwoelderlywomeninterpretedtheactionsofPengYuandWangLan.However,ineachcase,thehelperwasarelationaloutsidertotheinjuredpeople.Consequently,theirassistancewasviewedwithsuspicion.

Ontheonehand,weknowourrelationshipwithotherpeoplewillinfluencehowweinterprettheirgifts.Inthecontextofshallow,one-dimensionalrelationships,theyareconsideredbribes.Inthecontextoflong-term,multi-facetedrelationships,theyareexpressionsofloveandloyalty.Inaway,thesenormsofsocialexchangearecommonsense.Ontheotherhand,theideasandpracticesmostcommontohumanlifeoftenarethemostcomplex.Toseewhyaconceptiscomplex,simplybegintalkingaboutcontext.

So,wenowturntolookatrelationshipsinChineseculture.

1Countlessarticlesretellthisstoryandthenextone.Botharesummarizedonline:https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82.cf.https://www.chinasmack.com/good-samaritan-again-blamed-after-helping-fallen-elderly.

ReciprocityinChineseRelationships

AsignificantformofreciprocityinChinesecultureiscalledrenqing.Awoodentranslationofrenqing(⼈情)is“humanfeelings.”Renqingdescribesavoluntaryreciprocalexchangebetweenindividualsbasedonemotionalattachment.2Sentimentperpetuatessocialexchangeaspeoplecontinuetofostermutualaffection.

Renqingisonewaythatpeopleestablishguanxi(orrelationships).Guanxicouldbedefinedas“thosesocialconnectionsthatfacilitaterepeatedfavorexchange.”3Guanxisubdividesintothreetypes:“obligatory(familyandkinshiprelations),reciprocal(friendsandacquaintances),andutilitarian(seller-buyersorstrangers).”4Renqingonlyexistswithinnon-familialrelationships.Chinesedonotregardthegive-and-takeoffamilyrelationshipsasrenqing.Rather,helpingone’srelativesisanobligation,whataperson“shoulddo”(yinggaide).Inthisway,obligationisdistinctfromrenqing.

Familialrelationshipsentailafundamentalobligationordutywithoutrespecttoone’sfeelings.Peopleareresponsibletoprotectandsecuretheneedsoffamilymembers,both“immediate”and“extended”family(touseacommonWesterndistinction).Onescholarsummarizestherelationshipbetweengift-givingpracticesandfamily.Shesays,

“[T]hemotiveofreciprocitydoesnotcharacterizethegift-givingrelationsinChineseculturesincetherelationshipswithinafamilyinChinaaretoosacredbeboundbytheobligationtoreciprocate.”5

Exchangingresourcesamongfamilyisamoralimperative.

Bycontrast,renqingcarriesonlyslightmoralconnotations.Itprimarilyconcernswisdom,etiquetteorpropriety.Thepersonwhoproperlyexchangesrenqingunderstandshowtomanageinterpersonalrelationships.Thus,Yangexplainsrenqingas“theproperwayofconductingoneselfinsocialrelationships,treatingeachaccordingtothebehaviorthattheirspecificstatusandrelationshiptooneselfdictate.”6

2Cf.K.K.Hwang,“Faceandfavor:TheChinesepowergame.”TheAmericanJournalofSociology,92(4)(1987):944−74;YunxiangYan.TheFlowofGifts:ReciprocityandSocialNetworksinaChineseVillage(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1996).3YanjieBian.“TheIncreasingSignificanceofGuanxiinChina’sTransitionalEconomy.”Presentationasthe41stAnnualSorokinLecture.UniversityofSaskatchewan.29Jan2010.p.4.Technically,guanxicanrefertoanyrelationship,thoughverbalappealstoguanxiroutinelyconnoteBian’sdefinition.4ChaoC.Chen,Xiao-PingChen,andShengshengHuang.“ChineseGuanxi:AnIntegratedReviewandNewDirectionsforFutureResearch”ManagementandOrganizationReview9:1,March2013,167–207.CitingZhang,Y.,&Zhang,Z.GuanxiandorganizationaldynamicsinChina:Alinkbetweenindividualandorganizationallevels.JournalofBusinessEthics,67(4)2006:375–392.5VinitaP.Amberwani,“ExaminingGiftGivingMotivesinaCrossCulturalContext.”(PhDDissertation;CarletonUniversity,Ottawa,2014),p.70.Whataboutfilialpiety?Whilefilialpietyisreciprocalinnature,Chinesedonotcategorizeitasrenqing.6MayfairMei-huiYang,Gifts,Favors,andBanquets:TheArtofSocialRelationshipsinChina(Ithaca,NY;Cornell,2016),68.

Hwangdescribespermanentfamilialrelationshipsas“expressiveties.”Healsoidentifiestwotypesofnon-familialrelationships:(1)“instrumentalties”and(2)“mixedties.”7Instrumentaltieslackan“expressivecomponent”offamilyrelationships.Oneestablishestemporary“instrumentalties”for“attaininghismaterialgoals.”Thesetransactionalrelationshipsincludethosebetweenabusinessanditscustomers.

“Mixedties”must“keepacertainexpressivecomponent”(i.e.,renqing).Typical“mixed-tie”relationships(i.e.friendships)include“neighbors,classmates,colleagues,teachersandstudents,peoplesharingabirthplace,andsoforth.”Theyarevoluntaryandparticulartocommoninterestsorbackground.IntheWest,examplesincludeschoolalumni,fansofthesamesportsteam,and,attimes,thosewithsimilarpoliticalviews.JiRuansummarizes,“Mixedtiesarerelationshipsinwhichanindividualseekstoinfluenceotherpeoplebymeansofrenqingandmianzi[‘face’].”8

Howdoessocialexchangeworkwithinthesethree“ties”orrelationships?Therulesofexchangethatgovernfamilialandtransactionalrelationshipsresemblethoseofotherculturesandsoarenotdifficulttograsp.Bycontrast,friendships(or“mixedtie”relationships)aremorecomplex.Inwhatfollows,IwillexplaintherulesandfunctionofreciprocityinChineserelationships.

Exchanginggiftsorfavorsprimarilyservestwointerconnectedfunctions.First,socialexchangeestablishesrelationshipwithothers.Iincludetheinitiation,maintenance,anddeepeningofrelationships.Second,gift-givingsowstheseedofobligation,whichwillsomedaybearfruitintheformofreturnedfavors.

Exchangeritualsaresobasicthatnotgivingorreceivinggiftsandfavorswilleventuallyendfriendships.9Friendship[mix-tierelationships]areconsciouslypragmatic,ofteninitiatedwhenpracticalconcernsarise.Theyarelesslikelytostemfrommerecommoninterest.

OnecouldsummarizeChineserenqingorreciprocitywithaphrase:“Giveinordertoreceive.”Beforecriticizingthisperspectiveas“selfish”orunbiblical,afewobservationscanhelpusnuancetheChinesenotionofreciprocity.

Forinstance,theBiblecontainsseveralinstanceswhereoneismotivatedtogivebythepromisetoreceive.InMatthew6:3–4,Jesusadmonishes,

“Butwhenyougivetotheneedy,donotletyourlefthandknowwhatyourrighthandisdoing,sothatyourgivingmaybeinsecret.AndyourFatherwhoseesinsecretwillrewardyou.”

7Hwang,“Faceandfavor,”pp.949–538JiRuan,“TheUseofGuanxiinEverydayLife.”(PhDDissertation,UniversityofKent,2015),p.100.9Manyhavemadethisobservation.Cf.AmandaElizabethBrunson,“TheConceptualizationofFriendshipbyChineseInternationalStudentsataUniversityintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.”(PhDDissertation;Tuscaloosa,AL;UniversityofAlabama,2017),64,89,102.

Likewise,inMatthew10:42,

“Andwhoevergivesoneoftheselittleonesevenacupofcoldwaterbecauseheisadisciple,truly,Isaytoyou,hewillbynomeanslosehisreward.”

ThesepassageshighlightthepointthattheChineseexpectationofreturnisnotentirelywithoutsomebiblicalcorrelate.10

WhataboutJesus’admonition“Itismoreblessedtogivethantoreceive”(Acts20:35)?Firstofall,noticethatJesusgivesmotivationforgiving––blessing).Second,Chineseeffectivelycombinethetwoactionssuchthattheformer(giving)isameanstothelatter(receiving).Whileoneisblessedtogive,heisdoublyblessedifhealsoreceives.Chinesereciprocitycreatesa“win-win”scenario.Sharingresourceslimitscompetitionbyfosteringcooperation.Ineffect,thisapproachisonestrategyfordealingwiththeso-called“limitedgood”phenomenon.11

BasichumanexperienceremindsusthatChinesereciprocityisnotinherently“selfish.”ThefunctionofChinesereciprocityisnotuniquetoEastAsia.Mydescriptionofrenqingcouldwelldescribesimilarrelationshipsacrosshumancultures.Ontheonehand,doingfavorsandgivinggiftsarenaturalwaystoinitiateafriendshipevenintheWest.Forexample,peoplewelcomenewneighborsbybringingthemfoodorothersmallgiftswhentheymovetothearea.

Chineseusevarioussocialrituals(calledli)tofosterrenqing(i.e.,reciprocityamongfriends).Theseincludebanquets,hostingmeals,andgivinggifts(e.g.,birthday,wedding,randomsmalltokenitems).Overtimes,perpetualsocialexchangeformsrelationshipsthatcaneventuallyapproximatekinshipbonds.

Ontheotherhand,friendshipsthrivewhenpeopleexchangefavorsandgifts.Fewgenuinefriendshipssurviveone-wayrelationships,aswhena“friend”perpetuallyrefusestoinvestintheotherperson,whetherintheformoffavors,advice,encouragement,orgifts.12Accordingly,onemightconcludethatChinese,ingeneral,arelessnaïveandmoresober-mindedaboutthenatureoffriendship.

Philosophically,Chinesereciprocityisrootedinthefundamentalbeliefthattheworldandsocietyhaveanaturalorder.Thus,apersonshouldmaintainone’ssocialpositionthroughrenqing,whichguaranteesbalanceinrelationships.Onescholar

10Fromadifferentangle,cf.1Tim5:4,“Butifawidowhaschildrenorgrandchildren,letthemfirstlearntoshowgodlinesstotheirownhouseholdandtomakesomereturntotheirparents,forthisispleasinginthesightofGod.”11Thisnotionreferstotheideathatresourcesarelimitedsuchthatonepersonhavingaresourcemeanssomeoneelsedoesnothaveit.Cf.JaysonGeorges.“LimitedGood”haslimitedgood.2Nov2015.Online:http://honorshame.com/limited-good/12IexcludeFacebook“friends”sincemanysuchpeoplearelittlemorethandistanceassociations.

summarizes,“IfaChineseisaccusedof‘knowingnorenqing’,thismeansthatheislackingliandisincapableofmanaginginterpersonalrelationships.”13

AnotheraspectofChinesereciprocityisnoteworthy,becauseitisnotoftenpresentinothercontexts.InChina,thegift-givertypicallyisthesocialinferiorratherthanthepersonwithhighersocialstatus.Inothercontexts,thesocialsuperiorgainshonorbygivinggiftsorfavors.Whatisthepurposeoflowerstatuspersonsinitiatingtheexchangeofgifts?

Heorsheseekstoestablisharelationshipinordertosecurefavors,ifnotsoonthenwhentheneedeventuallyarises.Gift-giversdonotalwayshaveaspecificfavorinmind.Rather,theyinitiatearelationship“justincase.”Simplyhavingalargerelationshipnetworkisabeneficialassetitself.Afterall,beingabletoconnectpeopletogetherisaformofgivingtoothers.

Forexample,imaginePersonB(Ben).HeestablishesarelationshipwithPersonA(Alan).However,hedoesnotnecessarilywantsomethingfromAlan.Rather,BenalsohasarelationshipwithCharles.So,BencanusehisrelationshipwithAlanasaresourcebyconnectingAlantoCharles.Inthisway,BengrantsafavortoCharles.Benisagivermorethana“taker.”

Socialexchangecanhaveapreemptorynature.Yet,preemptoryexchangesarenotnecessarily“bribes”sinceeachpersondoesnotagreeonaspecificquidproquoarrangement.Gift-giversarealwaysawarethatrecipientsmightdenyfuturerequests.

Forexample,weoncelivedinapartmentwithafantasticlandlord.Periodically,hetookourfamilytoeatatanicerestaurantandwouldhelpusoutwiththisorthatneed.But,in3years’time,heneveraskedforanythingfromusinreturnexcepttherent.Hewaswealthyandneededlittlemateriallyfromus.Oneday,inourfourthyearintherelationship,thelandlordaskedourfamilytohelphisfriend,asingerandspecificallywantedustobeinhermusicvideo.Wegladlyobligedoutofahealthysenseofobligationthatcomesfromasenseoffriendship.Inshort,duringthefirstthreeyearsofgiftsandfavors,theelandlordhadnotulterioragendaexcepttofosterrenqing.

Whataboutthecircumstancewherethesocialsuperiorinitiatesanexchangeoffavors?JiRuanhighlightspotentialdifferences:

Ifthemayorofthecityweretoaskaheadteacher[forastudent’sacceptanceintoaschool],therewouldbenobanquetingorgiftgiving.However,althoughtheywouldnotinvolvethepracticeofinstrumentalli,theywouldstillinvolvetheconceptofinstrumentalli,suchasrenqing(senseofindebtedness)andface.Themayorwouldusuallykeeptherenqingdebtinmindandwouldbemorelikelytogivetheheadteacherapromotioninthefuture;thatiswhytheheadteacherwouldacceptthemayor’srequestforafavour.14

13JiRuan,“TheUseofGuanxiinEverydayLife,”p.91.Likewise,cf.Gouldner,“TheNormofReciprocity,”AmericanSociologicalReview,1960:174–76.14JiRuan,“TheUseofGuanxiinEverydayLife,”p.241.

Althoughgift-givingdoesnotprecedetherequestforafavor,theruleofrenqingrequireseventualreciprocation.

Afewoverarchingprinciplesgovernrenqingexchangesandarereflectedinnumerousidioms.

1. Paybackmorethanyoureceive

Thispointensuresanongoingsenseofindebtednessbetweenparties.

2. Limithowmuchyoureceivefromothers

Thisprotectsrecipientsagainstbecomingindebtedbeyondtheirabilitytorepay.

3. Neverdirectlyasksomeonetoreturnfavors

Thefinalpointtreatstherelationshipasameretransaction(instrumentaltie).Accordingly,renqing(humanfeeling)shouldgoverntherelationship,notthedesiretoachieveatransaction.

Ifpeopledonotwantfriendship,whatcantheydo?Theycouldusesomeofthefollowingfourstrategies.EachassumesthatPersonAninitiatesafriendshipbygivingagifttotheunwillingPersonZhang.

1. PersonZhangneverpaysbackrenqing.

2. PersonZhangdoesnotacceptthegift.

3. PersonZhangimmediatelyrepaysAnwithagift.

4. PersonZhangrepayswithagiftofless(orexactlyequal)value.

ThefirstapproachisindirectbutrequirestimebeforePersonAnunderstandsPersonZhangdoesnotwanttobefriends.Thesecondoptionistheclearestresponse,followedbythethirdmethod.Inthefourthoption,thecloserthegiftsareinvalue,thelesslikelyPersonAnwilldiscernPersonZhang’sintent.

Bycontrast,howdoesoneencouragefriendship?PersonZhangcouldrespondinthreeways.

1. Giveagiftofgreatervalue.

2. Giveatimelygift.

3. Giveagiftespeciallysuitedtotherecipient(PersonAn).

Ialreadymentionedthefirstchoice.ThesecondandthirdoptionsdemonstratePersonZhang’sthoughtfulnessandsincereconcernforPersonAn.PersonZhangexemplifies“humanfeeling”(renqing)byofferingagiftorfavorthatiswell-timedto

PersonAn’sneedsorbyshowingawarenessofAn’suniqueinterests.SuchintentionalityisasignalthatAnandZhang’srelationshiptranscendsaspecifictransaction.

Whydoesreciprocitydifferacrosscultures?

Next,weaskakeyquestion:Whydoesreciprocitydifferacrosscultures?(i.e.,therulesofreciprocity).Iwillfocusononeanswerinparticular.

PengMeistudiedthedifferencesbetweengift-givingdiffersinChinaandGermany.15She[PengMei]says,“Wheninvitedtotheirboss’sbirthdayparty,26.67%Chinesewouldgiveexpensivepresentswhileonly3.33%Germanswoulddoso.”16Bothcultureshavelong-term,pragmaticorientations.Accordingly,onemightexpectbothculturestoperceivethelong-termimportanceofgift-givingforfosteringagoodrelationshipwithone’sboss.17

Whatexplainsthisstatisticalgap?

She(PengMei)concludes,

[ForChinese]Underthis“Guanxi”influence,itseemstobeaverygoodopportunitytogiveexpensivegiftstoone’sbosstofurthertherelationship….ButtheGermansareinfluencedbyindividualismandequality,thereforetheyhaveclear-cutlinesbetweenpublicandprivateinterests.(ThoughthereishighpowerdistancebetweentheleadersandtheiremployeesinGermany,theemployeeswouldrarelythinkofgettinganyconcretebenefitsinworkbyestablishingacloserelationshipwiththeirleaders).18

15PengMei,“AContrastiveStudyofGift-GivingBetweenChineseandGermans,”US-ChinaForeignLanguageVol.14,no.8(August2016):597–604.16PengMei,“AContrastiveStudyofGift-GivingBetweenChineseandGermans,”p.601.Inaddition,Pengnotes,“[M]orethanhalfoftheChineseparticipants(63.33%)admitexpensivegiftsareoftenusedtodemonstratethesignificanceattachedtoone’srelationshipwiththerecipient.Itistheresearcher’sassumptionthatformostoftheChinesepeople,themoreexpensiveagiftis,themoremeaningitentails.…Onthecontrary,only20%Germanswouldfeelthesame”(p.600).17Inexplicably,PengMei(p602)assertsGermanyisahigh-powerdistanceculture,despiteevidencetothecontrary(Cf.https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/).Infact,Germanyhasalow-powerdistanceculture.Chinaisahighpowerdistanceculture.Yet,thisdoesnotsufficientlyexplainthestatisticaldiscrepancy.Althoughalow-powerdistancemightalleviatepressuretogivetoone’sboss,nothingaboutlow-powerdistancediscouragesgivinggiftstoone’sboss.Bycomparison,wecouldexpectGermany’slong-termorientationtospurgreatergiftgivingtobosses.18PengMei,“AContrastiveStudyofGift-GivingBetweenChineseandGermans,”p.601.PengcitesBoyeLafayetteDeMente.ChineseEtiquette&EthicsinBusiness.Chicago:NTCBusinessBooks,1989;Hu,W.Z.,&Cornelius,G.EncounteringtheChinese:AGuideforAmericans.Yarmouth,Maine:InterculturalPress,1991;Seligman,S.D.ChineseBusinessEtiquette.NewYork:WarnerBooks,1999.Pengadds,“However,itshouldbenotedherethatnowinChina,theyounggenerationmighthavebeenverymuchaffectedbytheWesternculturesandvalues,sothispracticeislikelytobecomelessandless.Thatmaybewhyonly26.67%oftheChinesewoulddoso.”Peng’sconclusionlikelystemsinpartfromthecontrastbetweenthe26.67%figureandthe63.33%ofChinesewho“admitexpensivegiftsareoftenusedtodemonstratethesignificanceattachedtoone’srelationshipwiththerecipient.”

Theindividualisticversuscollectivisticdistinctionhelpsexplainpeople’sdifferentresponsestotheirbosses.19Butweneedtodevelopthissuggestionfurther.

Peoplelooselydescribecollectivistculturesasthoseprioritizingthegroupabovetheindividual.Bycontrast,individualisticculturesemphasizetherightsandprerogativesoftheindividualoverthegroup.Thesedescriptionsaresimplisticgeneralizations.Theymerelystresscharacteristicsthattendtobeprominentwithincultures.Broadlyspeaking,Chineseemphasizethe“collectiveself”(dawo)abovethe“individualself”(xiaowo).Theformerdependsonone’ssimilaritiessharedwithothers.Thelatterhighlightsindividualfeaturesdistinctfromthesurroundingcommunity.

Givenacollectivistperspective,Chinesedonotsharplydichotomize“public”and“private”spheres.Thepublic/privatedistinctionismoreprominentinindividualisticcultures,wherepeopleassumemultiple,separateidentities.Thus,one’spublicrole(e.g.,employee)shouldnotaffectprivaterelationships.Fosteringaclosepersonalrelationshipwithone’sbosscouldevenbedeemedinappropriateinaWesterncontext.

Westernfriendshipsoftencenteroncommoninterests,e.g.,sports,books,hobbies.Belongingtointerest-basedsocialgroupsrarelyentailsasenseofresponsibilityordebt.Groupmembersrelatewithinanarrowsphereoflife.Theymightnothavemeaningfulrelationshipsbeyondtheirsharedinterest.AWesternerwhodivideshisrelationshipsinthiswaycantheoreticallybelongtoaninfinitenumberofsocialgroups.Socialidentity,atanygivenmoment,istemporary.One’spersonalsenseofidentity,acrosscountlessgroups,ismostlikelydefinedbytheindividual’sparticularities.

Howdothesefactorsinfluencereciprocity?

Westernindividualismtendstolimitthequantityandqualityofreciprocityexchanges.Thisisduetotherestrictedscopeandlongevityofsocialrelationships.Inaddition,bypartitioningone’srelationshipnetwork,apersonhaslimitedabilitytodevelopthesortofreputationandtrustacrossacommunitythatencouragessocialexchange.

Bycontrast,Chinesepeopletendtoprioritizerelationshipsbasedoncommonbackground(e.g.,hometown,language).Commonalitytranscendstheindividual.“Whoweare,”notmerely“whatIdo”determinesidentity.Thisviewofidentitywillmorelikelysustainreciprocalrelationshipsovertime.20Sothen,whatistherelationshipbetweencollectivismandreciprocity?Toanswerthisquestion,weshouldobservethelinkbetweentrust,collectivism,andreciprocity.

Astrustincreasesbetweenpeople,sodoesreciprocity.21Multiplefactorsinfluencewhetheronetrustsanotherperson.Belongingtothesamegroupgenerallycontributestohigherlevelsoftrustbetweenpeople.IfyouandIbelongtothesamegroup,wearemore

19Egalitarian≠individualistic;Hierarchical≠communal.20Forreasonsforthecollectivist/individualistdivideandChinese/Westerners,seeRichardNesbitt,GeographyofThoughtHowAsiansandWesternersThinkDifferently...andWhyNY:Simon&Schuster,2003.21Forexample,cf.“Trust,ReciprocityandSocialDistanceinChina.”

likelytotrustoneanotherthanoutsiders.Theseobservationsseemobvious,buttheymaskseveraldistinctionswithpracticalimplications.

Forinstance,becausehumansaresocialbeings,evenso-called“individualistic”(sub)cultureshave“collectivist”tendencies.Allpeoplesimultaneouslybelongtomultiplegroups.Families,classmates,sportsteams,unions,andnationsareafewexamples.Tounderstandthelinkbetweencollectivismandreciprocity,oneshouldfurtherclarifythemeaningof“group.”Whatdoesitmeantobelongtothesamein-group?Whatseparatesinsidersfromoutsiders?

Inrecentscholarship,researchersdistinguish2typesofcollectivism:“categoricalcollectivism”and“relationalcollectivism.”22Toillustratethedifference,imagineeachimageaboverepresentsdifferenttypesofpeople.Atonelevel,“individualists”onlymarginallydefinethemselvesasmembersofcollectives.

Peoplefromso-called“individualistic”culturesusuallyare“categoricalcollectivists.”Herrmann-Pillathwrites,

“Categoricalcollectivismreferstosharedascriptionsofagroupofpeople,suchassharedethnicityorsharedmembershiptoanorganization.”Examplesincludenationality,ethnicity,gender,commoninterest,alumniofthesameschool,amongothers.Groupmembershipis“definedintermsofprototypicalpropertiesthataresharedamongmembersofacommoningroup.”23

Bycontrast,EastAsianculturestypicallyperceivegroupsasprimarilyrelationshipbased.BrewerandChenadd,

22AlandmarkpaperdelineatingthisdistinctionisBrewerandChen,“Where(Who)AreCollectivesinCollectivism?TowardsConceptualClarificationofIndividualismandCollectivism.”PsychologicalReview111(1):133–151.Wheretheyusetheterm“groupcollectivism,”Iuse“categoricalcollectivism”forclarity.“Group”increasesambiguitysince“collectivism”alreadyimpliestheideaof“group.”ThistermisalsousedbyCarstenHerrmann-Pillathin“SocialCapital,ChineseStyle:Individualism,RelationalCollectivismandtheCulturalEmbeddednessofInstitutions-PerformanceLink,”2009.p.19.23BrewerandChen,137.

Are these people insiders or outsiders?

“WhereaspeopleinWesternindividualistculturestendtoplaceemphasisonthecategoricaldistinctionbetweeningroupsandoutgroups,peopleinEastAsianculturestendtoperceivegroupsasprimarilyrelationshipbased.”24

Such“relationalcollectivists”primarilyidentifywiththosewhomtheyareinterdependentandhaveongoinginteraction.Suchcloserelationshipstranscendabstractcategories.Theystresscooperation,personalloyalty,andmaintaininggroupharmony.

Becausethesetwoformsof“collectivism”prioritizedifferent“groups,”theirdefinitionsof“insider”differ.Accordingly,weshouldconsidertherelationshipbetweencollectivismandtrust.Categoricalcollectivistshavelargerin-groups,thus“broaderradiusoftrust.”Ontheotherhand,relationalcollectivists,havingsmallerin-groups,tendtohaveanarrowerradiusoftrust.25

TypesofReciprocityandCollectivism

Ialreadysaidthattrustandreciprocityhaveapositivecorrelation.Onthispoint,weshoulddistinguishtwokindsofreciprocity:balancedandunbalancedreciprocity.

24BrewerandChen,137.25AndrévanHoorn,“Individualist-CollectivistCultureandTrustRadius,”JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology2015,Vol.46(2)269–276.

Relational Collectives

outsiders

insidersinsiders

circle of trust{

reciprocityunbalanced

Relational Collectives

Relationalcollectivistsaremoreaccustomedtounbalancedreciprocity(or“altruisticreciprocity”).26Chineserenqingisanexampleofunbalancedreciprocity.Partnersperpetuatetheirdebttooneanotherthroughanunbalancedexchangeofgiftsandfavors.

Categoricalcollectivistsusuallyfavorbalancedreciprocity.27Studiesrepeatedlyshowthemuncomfortablewithunequalexchanges,whetherintheirfavororagainstthem.

Thetwotypesofcollectives(categoricalandrelational)affecthowgroupmembersextendtrust.Forcategoricalcollectivists(i.e.,individualists),trustisbasedoncommonaffinityorsharedattributes;henceabroadtrustradius.Reciprocityandtrustinteractinadifferentmanner.

Threeobservationsarenoteworthy.First,becausecategoricalcollectivistsemphasizebalancedexchange,reciprocityisakintoatransaction,whichischaracterizedbyimmediateandequalrepaymentofdebt.Therefore,reciprocityplayslessofaroleinformingandsustainingcloserelationships.

Second,peopleareprimedtothinkoftheirgroupidentityonlywhentheircategoricalcollectiveisexplicitlycontrastedwithothergroups.Thus,oneislesslikelytothinkofhernationalidentityexceptinconsciouscomparisontoothernationalities.Afanofasportsteam,liketheNewYorkYankees,expressesthatsocialidentitywhentriggeredbythefanofanotherteambraggingaboutarivalorperhapscriticizingtheYankees.

Apartfromtheseinter-groupcontexts,onelaysgreaterstressonpersonalidentitythansocialidentity.Inthatcase,individualsarelessconcernedwithcooperationand

26YimingJing,“HowInterpersonaltrustisdevelopedfromsocialexchange”,pp.???27“Balancedreciprocity”,cf.YimingJing,HowInterpersonaltrustisdevelopedfromsocialexchange.”

circle of trust

reciprocitybalanced

Categorical Collective

insiders

transactional exchange

harmoniousrelationships.28Furthermore,apersonsimultaneouslybelongstomultiplecategoricalcollectives.Atanygiventime,one’ssenseofcollectiveidentitydependsonthesituation.Inthiscontext,reciprocityismoreinstrumentalthanaffection-based.29Socialexchangeisbasedontheprincipleofequity,i.e.,asatransactiondependingonacost-benefitanalysis.

Third,reciprocityisanunfittingandimpracticalmeansofformingone’scategoricalcollectiveidentity.Exchangingfavorsandgiftsdoesnotaffectasocialidentitybasedonsharedattributes.Also,apersonhaslimitedresourcessuchastimeandmoney.Itisunreasonabletoexpectindividualstomaintainongoingsocialexchangewithabroadcircleofpotential“insiders.”

Relationalcollectivistsaremorediscriminate.Unbalancedreciprocity(orrenqing)iswellsuitedtofostertrust.Thesepeopleengenderpositiveaffectionsforoneanotherbyexchangingfavorsandextendingmutualsocialdebts.

Suchreciprocitydeterminestheclosenessofone’srelationships.Relationalcollectivistsformin-groupsthatareparticularratherthancategorical.Using“unbalanced”reciprocitybuildstrustandsohelpsChinesediscriminatebetweenthosewithwhomtheyshareresourcesandthosetheydonot.30Inshort,Chinese(relational)reciprocityisaformofpayingitforward.Favorsserveasdeposits,whichaccruewithtimeandreturntothegiverwithincreasedvalue.

Thetwotypesofcollectivismexplainresearchfindingsthatappearcounterintuitive.Scholarscharacterizetherelationalcollectivistsingeneralizedterms,claimingsuchcollectivistsprioritizethegroupovertheindividual.

Bycontrast,weexpectindividualists(i.e.,categoricalcollectivists)toshowlessconsiderationtoinsidersbecausetheystresstheirownneedsabovethegroup.Infact,categoricalcollectivists(i.e.individualists)consistentlyshowstrongerbiastowardstheirin-group(“insiders”)comparedtorelationalcollectivists.31Howdowemakesenseofthis?

Theexplanationliesinthefactthatwedefine“in-group”differently.Relationalcollectivistsarelesstrustingofpeoplewhobelongtotheircategoricalin-group(nationality,ethnicity,gender,etc.).Withoutanestablishedpersonalrelationship,such

28LastsentenceaparaphraseofBrewerandChen,p.146.Cf.YimingJing.“HowInterpersonaltrustisdevelopedfromsocialexchange.”PhDdissertation.29AsYimingJingstates,“AmericantrustismoreinstrumentallybasedwhereasChinesetrustismoreaffectivelybased,onlyemergefromsocialexchangesthatlastoverextendedtime-periods,andinvolvereal-world,face-to-faceinteractions”(p.52).30Bycontrast,categoricalcollectivistshavelessneedtoconsiderhowtoallocatetheirresourceamongotherssincetheygiveaccordingtopersonalneed.31BrewerandChen,“Where(Who)AreCollectivesinCollectivism?TowardsConceptualClarificationofIndividualismandCollectivism,PsychologicalReview111(1):133–151.(pp.??)“SocialCapital,ChineseStyle:Individualism,RelationalCollectivismandtheCulturalEmbeddednessofInstitutions-PerformanceLink”p.20??

peopleare“strangers.”Inotherwords,aChinesepersonisnotgoingtotrustotherssimplybecausetheyalsoareChinese.

Thisconclusionisconsistentwithnumeroussociologicalstudies.Forexample,“ThecomparativelackofabstractgrouployaltyhasalwaysbeencommonplaceindescriptionsofChinesesocialbehavior.”32Also,“Americanstendedtotruststrangersonthebasisofacommongroupcategorymembership,whereasstrangertrustforJapanesewascontingentonwhetherthetargetpersonsharedadirectorindirectrelationshiplinkwithacloseother.”33

ImplicationsfortheChurch

Howmighttheaboveobservationsinfluencethechurch?Theimplicationsaremany,soIwillhighlightjustafewapplicationsacrossaspectrumofareas.34

First,howdoweapplythedistinctionbetweencategoricalcollectivesandrelationalcollectives?Theologicallyspeaking,thechurchisacategoricalcollective.ThechurchconsistsoffollowersofChristwhosharecommonvalues,convictions,beliefs,practices,andexperiences.

Fromourobservations,weanticipatethatchurcheswillfacecertainchallenges.Sharingattributesorcommonaffinitydoesnotguaranteeenduringsocialtiesthattranscendsocialcontexts.Anindividualbelongstomultiplesocialgroups.Someonemightonlyhaveanenhancedsenseofbelongingtothechurch(i.e.aparticularcategoricalcollective)whenotherpeoplecriticizeorcompetewithit.

32CarstenHermann-Pillath,“SocialCapital,ChineseStyle:Individualism,RelationalCollectivismandtheCulturalEmbeddednessofInstitutions-PerformanceLink.”October2009.p.20.33BrewerandChen,seequotecitationbelowinnotes34BrewerandChenmakeanoteworthyobservation.Aperson’sself-conceptionattimeseithercoheresordivergesfromone’ssocialidentity.Inasmuchasacategoricalcollectivistseesadiscrepancybetweenhisself-conceptionandhissocialidentity,hewilllikelyfeelguilt.However,forarelationalcollectivist,inconsistencyinone’spersonalandsocialidentityproducesshame.

Tounderstandwhythisoccurs,wemustrememberthedistinctionbetweenguiltandshame.Atafundamentallevel,guiltprimarilyconcernsactions,i.e.,doingwrong,whereasshameinvolvesidentity,i.e.,beingbad.Inanindividualistic(categoricalcollectivist)culture,someattributeorabstractprinciplecharacterizesthegroup.Itdetermineswhobelongsandwhodoesnot.Thisexternalcriterioncreatesperceivedstandardsthatpeoplecantransgress.Thesestandardsareobjective,ratherthansubjective,inthesensethattheyarenotrelativetoaparticularperson’swhimsoropinions.Aperson’stransgressionsconstitutewrongdoingandthusproduceguilt.

Relationalcollectivistsdonothaveexternallydeterminedboundariesthatdefinetheirin-groups.Oneisacutelyconsciousoftheinter-relationshipbetweenone’sbehavior,hisrelationshiptootherpeople,andhisstatuswithinagroup.Certainactionsmightoffendothersoreventhreatensignificantrelationships.Apersonmightfindhimselfrejectedandcastoutofthegroup.Accordingly,someoneinthisculturalcontextissensitivetoothers’personalassessmentofhim.

Ineffect,oneeasilybeginstoregardthechurchasatypeofvolunteersociety.TheproblemisexacerbatedinChinawhereChinesearenotpronetotrustpersonsinthesamebroadsocialcategory.HowmightChristiansrespond?

Christiansshouldmovefromseeingthechurchasa“categoricalcollective”toformingthechurchintoa“relationalcollective.”Whenbelieversinitiallymeet,theyarenotlinkedbypersonalinteraction.Developingcloserelationshipsoccursthroughtheexchangeofgrace(i.e.,gifts,favors).Thisgive-and-takecreatesenduringrelationshipsthattranscendtheologicalorideologicalunity.Ultimately,thechurchmustforgeaunitybasedonpractice,notmereprinciplealone.

Thechoiceofwhereonelivescanalsohinderchurchesfrombecomingrelationalcollectives.Ifpeopleattendachurchfarfromtheirhome,theyhavelimitedopportunitiestoengageinongoingsocialexchange,whichdeepenscloseconnectionswithothers.Inpractice,theirworkandneighborhoodrelationshipswillhaveamoresignificanteffectontheirsocialidentity.

ThisdiscussionhelpsusunderstandandanalyzethechurchinChinaandelsewhere.Forthemostpart,theChinesechurchisnotorganizedin“denominations.”Rather,theyarenetworks,somelarge,otherssmall.Aretheycategoricalorrelationalcollectives?

Whenconsideringthechurchinourrespectivecontexts,wewanttoask,“Doesthechurchactmoreasacategoricalcollectiveorarelationalcollective?”Andwhatkindofcategoricaland/orrelationalcollectivesarethey?Forexample,aretheyrootedingeography?Creedalconfession?Interpersonalrelationships?Reverenceforleader?Ministryphilosophy?Answerstothesequestionswillinfluencepowerstructures,formalorinformalpatronagerelationships,ministrystrategies,andthechurch’srelationshipwith“outsiders.”35

Ahealthychurchwilldrawfromthebestofbothtypesofcollectives.Categoricalcollectivesenableustobemoreembracing,overcomingsocialboundaries,etc.However,peopleinthesecultures“valueselfoverothers,prideovermodesty,self-enhancementoverself-effacement,havemorebutlesscloseandenduringfriendships,preferadirectcommunicationstyle”whichcanbeseenasinsensitivetoothersandpronetostrainrelationships.36

Relationalcollectivesarethecontextofpersonalized,enduringrelationships.They“valuebeingwithandcaringforfamily,friendsandmembersoftheirgroups,modestyoverpride,self-effacementoverself-enhancement.”37

35Formoredevelopmentofthispoint,see“PolityandPatronageintheChineseChurch.”6June2018.Online:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jacksonwu/2018/06/06/polity-patronage-chinese-churches/.36“Culturaldifferencesinsocialnetworkingsiteuse:AcomparativestudyofChinaandtheUnitedStates”LindaA.Jackson,Jin-LiangWanginComputersinHumanBehavior29(2013)919.37“Culturaldifferencesinsocialnetworkingsiteuse:AcomparativestudyofChinaandtheUnitedStates”LindaA.Jackson,Jin-LiangWanginComputersinHumanBehavior29(2013)919.

Missionaryrelationships

MissionariesworkingamongChinese(andinothercollectivistcultures)areoftenconfusedbythenormsofsocialexchange.ThislackofunderstandinglimitstheirabilitytodevelopenduringrelationshipswithChinesenationals.Evenworse,missionariesmightcauseirreparabledamagebytheirinappropriatebehaviors.

Theseproblemsarerootedinone’salmostimperceptibleassumptionsaboutsocialidentity.Specifically,whenmostWesternerscrossingcultures,thesecategoricalcollectivistsarebiasedagainst(Chinese-style)unbalancedreciprocity.Therefore,theylikelywillstruggletoformclose,long-termrelationshipswithChinese.

WesternerstendtomisunderstandwhyChineseexchangegiftsorfavors.Manyforeignersaresurprisedtoreceivegiftsfromastranger.TheyaresuspiciousofaChineseperson’smotive,thinkingthegiverintendstobribethem.Unfamiliarwithlocalcustoms,foreignersmightrejectthegiftsandlimittheirfriendshipswithChinesepeople.

WhenWesternersdoacceptgifts,theypotentiallycommitanothermistake.Theyareuncomfortablehavingarelationaldebt,feelingasiftheyareobligatedtocomplywithothers’demandsofthem.Inordertoavoid“debt,”theytooquicklyrepaythefavororgift.Consequently,theyconveytoChineseneighborsthesubtlemessagetheyarenotinterestedindeepeningtheirfriendship.

Missionariesshouldbebothintentionalandinformedwithrespecttosocialexchange.Iftheyareignorantofthesignificanceoftheirgifts,theycanhinderrelationshipbuilding.InherinterviewswithChinese,Brunsonobserved,they“talkedaboutbeingoffendedbygiftsthatAmericansgavebecausethegiftsweregenericorinexpensive.”38Oneintervieweesaid,“wasshockedthatAmericanswillgivegiftcards,wine,orflowers,thingssheconsideredtobeimpersonal.”AnotherChinesestudent“toldastoryofoneofhisChinesefriendsfeelinginsultedwhenherAmericanfriendgaveherabumperstickerforherbirthday.Hesaid,‘Butyouknowwhathegivestoher?Acarstickerthatsaid,“IloveChingdao.”Hercity[sic].Yes.Soshefeelssomadaboutit.’”

Westernerscantooeasilyoverlookthesymbolicvalueofgiftsandactions.Missionariesareadvisedtolearntheunwrittenrulesofsocialexchange.Asmentionedabove,severalfactorscontributetothesignificanceofagift.Besidescost,thetimelinessandsuitabilityofagiftorfavoraddtoitsmeaning.Conversely,certainelementsineveryculturepotentiallydetractfromtheperceivedvalueofagiftorfavor.Forexample,Chineseconsiderthenumber4unluckybutthenumber8lucky.Also,thenumber250signifiesanidiotorastupidperson.Thus,givingsomeoneagiftof250RMBmightbeinterpretedasaninsult.39

38AmandaElizabethBrunson,“TheConceptualizationofFriendshipbyChineseInternationalStudentsataUniversityintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.”PhDDissertation(Tuscaloosa,AL;UniversityofAlabama,2017),89.Thefollowingquotationscomefromp.65.39Whatnumberinferssomethinglikeslutorgigolo?

Someforeignerswillneedtoreframethewaytheyseegiftsinthecontextofrelationships.Receivingafavordoesnotnecessarily“enslave”apersonbymakinghera“debtor.”Instead,socialexchangeisthenaturalresultofhealthyrelationships.

Furthermore,onecanexercisegreatercontroloverthequalityandqualityofhisrelationships,simplybybeingintentionalinpracticingsocialexchange.Thesedynamicsremindusthatanysinglepersoncanonlymaintainalimitednumberofrelationships,eachhavingadifferentqualityandfunctionwithinone’slife.

Therefore,oneiswisetoconsiderthebestuseofresourcestomanagehisvariousrelationships.40Missionariescanutilizetheirresourcesforthesakeofbuildinglong-termclose-tierelationshipsratherthanmeretransactionalrelationships,(whichmakespeoplefeeltheyare“projects”oremployees,notfriendsanddisciples).

EvangelismasGift-Sharing

ChineseChristiansusesocialexchangeasameansofevangelism.Atabasiclevel,givinggiftsplacesasubtlesocialobligationonpotentialconvertstoattendchurchactivities.Yet,onescholar(AndrewAbel)pointsoutanadaptiontoculturalconventional.The“senseofdebtseemstogotothecongregationasawhole,ratherthantofacilitatedyadicexchangesbetweenindividuals.”41

Moreover,Abelidentifiesfourways“churchmembersstrategicallynegatecertaintraditionalChinesenormsofreciprocity….[F]avorsareoftenprovided

1)anonymously,

2)toperfectstrangers,

3)withnoexpectationofreturn,and

4)topersonsoflowerstatus.”42

ThesedistinctivefeaturesofChristiangift-givingasignificantduetothewaytheycontrastconventionalChinesesociety.

TheChristianwhoassistsnon-believersdoessonotfromafeelingofsocialobligationnoracalculatedefforttocompelotherstorepaythefavor.Whenanindividualbelieverforsakesexpectationsofreturnforhimselfpersonally,recipientsrecognizesuchgiftsasexpressionsoflove.

40AdamGrant,Givers.41AndrewAbel,“FavorFishingandPunch-BowlChristians:RitualandConversioninaChineseProtestantChurch”SociologyofReligion,67:2(2006):172.Cf.“…thefavorcomesonbehalfofthecongregationandisnottiedtotheChinesetraditionalmeansofbuildingrelationshipsbetweenindividualsthroughtheexchangeofgiftsandfavors;thegiftorfavorisinsteadgivenwithnostringsattached.”(Abel,“It’sthepeoplehere”–TheStudyofRitual,Conversion,andCongregationalLifeamongChineseChristians”,p.94).42AndrewAbel,“FavorFishingandPunch-BowlChristians”,p.172.

ChineseChristianseffectivelyplaceallsocialrelationshipsintotwo(notthree)types.Withinthechurch,believerscalloneanother“sister”and“brother.”Allnon-Christiansareregardedequallyasoutsiders.Asaresult,

The‘renqingrule’dropsout.ItisasiftheChineseChristiansaretreatingeveryoneintheirsocialworld(i.e.,otherChineseChristiansorpotentialconverts)asmembersofthesameclan,and,intheprocess,underminingbalancedreciprocationoffavorsasthebasisformostnetworkties.43

Christiansextendhelptofellowbelieversfromapositivesenseofobligation,asonefeelstowardfamilyandclosestfriends.Bygivinggiftswithoutanexpectationofindividualreturn,theChristianessentiallyinvitesnon-believerstojointhechurchfamily.

SocialexchangeamongChristiansalsosubvertsChinesehierarchalnorms.Thisisevidentinseveralways.StudyingconversionamongChinesebelievers,Abelobserves,

itwasoftenapersonofequalorhigherstatuswhowouldinitiateafriendship.Averycommonpatternwasforcollegeprofessors,advancedgraduatestudents,and/orsuccessfullocalprofessionalstomeetarrivingstudentsattheairportandoffertodrivethemtotownandinvitethemtoupcomingchurchsocialevents….Forsomeoftheseindividuals,itwasthesequalities,seeninthebehaviorofchurchmembers,thatattractedthemtothechurchandtoconversion.44

Similarly,Abelsharesastoryofanoldmanwho“frequentlytoldhischildren‘Itookcareofyouwhenyouwereyoung;nowyouhavetotakecareofme!’”butthenhelpedwiththehouseholddishesafterbecomingaChristian.45Moreover,authorityinChinesechurchestendstobevestedinthosewhoare“older”,notinage,butinyearssincetheirconversiontoChristianity.46

Reciprocitycanbeusedasameansoflovingenemies.Specifically,wiselyrequestinggiftscanhelpusmakefriendswithourenemies.Irefertowhathasbeencalled“TheBenjaminFranklinEffect.”47McRaneyexplains,

WhenFranklinranforhissecondtermasaclerk,apeerwhosenamehenevermentionsinhisautobiographydeliveredalongelectionspeechcensuringFranklinandtarnishinghisreputation.AlthoughFranklinwon,hewasfuriouswithhisopponentand,observingthatthiswas“agentlemanoffortuneandeducation”who

43AndrewAbel,“FavorFishingandPunch-BowlChristians,”p.171.44Abel,“It’sthepeoplehere”,p.18.45Abel,“It’sthepeoplehere”,p.46AndrewAbel,“FavorFishingandPunch-BowlChristians,”p.173.47See.McRaney,YouAreNotSoSmart.Asummaryisfoundonline:https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/.Cf.https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/02/20/the-benjamin-franklin-effect-mcraney/

mightonedaycometoholdgreatpoweringovernment,ratherconcernedaboutfuturefrictionswithhim.

Franklinsetouttoturnhishaterintoafan,buthewantedtodoitwithout“payinganyservilerespecttohim.”Franklin’sreputationasabookcollectorandlibraryfoundergavehimastandingasamanofdiscerningliterarytastes,soFranklinsentalettertothehateraskingifhecouldborrowaspecificselectionfromhislibrary,onethatwasa“veryscarceandcuriousbook.”Therival,flattered,sentitrightaway.Franklinsentitbackaweeklaterwithathank-younote.Missionaccomplished.Thenexttimethelegislaturemet,themanapproachedFranklinandspoketohiminpersonforthefirsttime.Franklinsaidtheman“everaftermanifestedareadinesstoservemeonalloccasions,sothatwebecamegreatfriends,andourfriendshipcontinuedtohisdeath.”

Contrarytowhatmanypeoplethink,thewayonecanbefriendanenemymightnotbetogiveagift,buttohumblyreceiveagift.

TheologyofGrace

TheChinesepracticeofsocialexchangecreatescertaintheologicalchallenges.Themostseriouschallenge,perhaps,concernsthenatureofgrace.Accordingly,Chinesefacetwotemptations.Thefirstis“easy-believism.”Apotentialconvertmightthinkthatcertainactions,e.g.,baptismorpraying“thesinner’sprayer”,aresavingritualsakintothosefoundintraditionalreligion.Oneperceivessuchpracticesthemselveshavemechanisticefficacy.

Thesecondtemptationcontraststhefirst.Onemightconfusetherelationshipbetweengraceandworks,suchthatthelatterbecomemeritoriousinthesenseofgainingfavorwithGod.

ThisperspectivesubtlytreatstheChristianastheinitiativetaker,notGod.RatherthanGodtakingtheinitiativeingift-giving,wherebypeoplebecomerecipients,thisdistortionofgraceemphasizesaperson’sneedtomaintaintherelationshipthroughgift-giving.

Ontheotherhand,theabovechallengeisanopportunitytorecovercertainaspectsofbiblicalgrace.Inparticular,ChineseChristianscanhelptheWesternchurchrecoveranunderstandingofthe“circularity”ofgrace.IrefertoJohnBarclay’sworkongracewherebyagiftis“non-circular”whenonegiveswithoutexpectingrepaymentorreciprocationfromtherecipient.

Barclaystates,

Thiswasnotacommonconceptionofperfectgiftsinantiquity.Giftsweredistinguishablefromloansormarkettransactionsbythefactthatnoreturncouldbedemandedorenforced,buttheywerenotdetachedfromeverynotionof

exchangeorreturn;indeed,theycouldfulfilltheirfunctionasgiftsonlyiftheywerenotunilateral.48

Similarly,Chineseusegift-givingtosustainandstrengthenrelationships.Thebond(orrenqing)betweenpeoplecreatestheobligationor“oughtto”thatWesternersmistakeascontra-grace.However,fromaChineseChristianperspective,thefollowingistrue:ifmy“oughtto”isalsomy“wantto”,thenitisgrace.49

GrowingtheChurch

Underthenebulouslabel“churchgrowth,”Iwillfocusontwoaspects––churchmultiplicationandchurchmaturity.Theaboveobservationsshouldinfluenceourchurchplantingstrategies.Severalcontemporarychurchplantingphilosophiesemphasizerapidity.50However,Chineserelationshipbuildingisatime-intensiveprocess.ThisfactisevidentbythereciprocalnatureofChinesegift-giving.

Bylayingstressonspeed,churchplantersincreasethelikelihoodtheywilloverlookrelationshipbuilding.Instead,churchplantingcatalystsrisktreatingco-workersasemployeesandsettlingfortransactionalrelationships.Churchplantershavelimitedtimeandresourcestoinvestinrelationships.

Anemphasisonrapiditycanquicklyresultinchurchplantersrelatingwithco-workersonlyastrainers,notasspiritualsiblingsandmentorswhocareforpeopleaspeople,notministryprojects.Inlightoftheaboveobservations,missionariesandpastorsinChinaareadvisednottooveremphasizerapidity;norshouldtheytreatthenumberofconversionsandnewchurchesastheprimarymetricforspiritualhealth.

JohnMasseyadds,

PaulclearlystatesinEph4:12thatgiftedleadersaregiventothechurch“fortheequippingofthesaintsfortheworkofservice,tothebuildingupofthebodyofChrist.”Whenthiscriticalcomponentismissing,andeachmemberisnotencouragedtoministerhisrespectivegifttothebodyofChrist,thenthechurchbecomessusceptibletospiritualimmaturityandisblownaboutbyeverywindofdoctrine.51

Totrainhealthypastorsandchurchleaders,onemustslowdownnotonlytodiscernothers’needsbutalsotodemonstratethesincereconcernthatcanonlybeshownwithtime.

Exchanginggiftsorfavorsisanaturalaspectoffamilylife.ChineseChristiansroutinelyunderscorethechurch’sfamilialnature.Infact,thetypicaltranslationfor“house

48JohnBarclay,PaulandtheGift,74.49如果我“应该的”也是我“想要的”,它就是恩典50Forexample,seeSteveSmith’sT4TandDavidGarrison’sChurchPlantingMovements.51JohnMassey,“WrinklingTimeintheMissionaryTask:ATheologicalReviewofChurchPlantingMovementsMethodology”SouthwesternJournalofTheology55:1(Fall2012):129.

church”is家庭教会(“familychurch”).Todevelophealthyfictivekinships,theymustfosteradeepsenseofmutualidentificationandtrust.

Thisprocessrequirestimeandintentionality.Ifpastorsdonotmodelafamilialstyleofrelatingtootherbelievers,wecannotexpectcongregationstoadoptafamilialperspectiveofthechurch.

UnderstandingsocialexchangewithinChineserelationshipshelpuscounteractatroublingphenomenonwithintheChinesechurch.Abelnotes,

Becausethemembersworrythatthechurchwillbecomeknownmerelyasasourceofhandouts,convertsandrecruitsareoftenbetter(materially)supportedthroughtheirtypicallylargernetworksofnon-ChristianChinesefriends.52

Thisobservationraisesquestions.Dobelieversgofarenoughintheirviewofthechurchasafamily?HaveChristiansneglectedtodevelopatheologicalperspectiveofreciprocityand,asaresult,pushedChinesebelieverstoidentifyfundamentallywithnatural,bloodfamilies?HastheChinesechurchsufficientlyconsideredthepracticalimplicationsofmembership?Forexample,whatexpectationsshouldbeplacedonprofessedconvertsqualifyingthemtoreceivematerialsupport(whileminimizingthepotentialofnon-believersdrainingchurchresourcesthroughdeception)?(suchaswidowsandthepoor)

Conclusion

I’llconcludebyreemphasizingafewgeneralideas.I’llconcludebyreemphasizingafewgeneralideas.

1.First,wefocusedonunderstandinghowreciprocityworksinChineserelationships,especiallyamongfriendsandacquaintances.Exchanginggiftsandfavorsbothdevelopsanddeepensthesefriendships(i.e.“mixedtie”relationships)byfostering“humanfeelings”(orrenqing).Inshort,Chinese“Giveinordertoreceive.”

2.Wethenconsideredwhythenormsofreciprocitydifferacrosscultures.Weaskedthequestion,“Whatistherelationshipbetweencollectivism,trust,andreciprocity?”Wedrewseveralkeyfactorsthathelpusanswerthatquestion.

(a)Thetypeofgroupinwhichwebelongwillinfluenceourreciprocitybehaviors.Reciprocitydependsontrust.Andtrustishigheramong“insiders”(peopleinthesamegroup).However,EastAsiansandWesternerstypicallyforms“ingroups”basedondifferentstandards.

EastAsiansare“relationalcollectivists,”whoformgroupsbasedonpersonalrelationshipsorinteractions.Westernersare“categoricalcollectivists.”Thatis,theyareindividualistswhogenerallyformgroupsbasedonsharedattributesorcommonaffinity.

52AndrewAbel,“FavorFishingandPunch-BowlChristians,”p.174

(b)Effectongift-exchange

Asaresult,Easterners(wholiveinstereotypical“collectivist”cultures)usegift-exchangetostartandstrengthenrelationships.

Ontheotherhand,“categoricalcollectives,”bydefinition,arenotformedbasedongift-giving.Therefore,WesternersnormallydonotemphasizereciprocityinthesamewayasEasterners.Infact,Westernersarelesslikelytoengageingift-exchange,suspectingthatsuchbehaviorismanipulativeorbribery.

(c)Finally,thesedynamicshaveimplicationsforthechurch.

Atabasiclevel,thechurchisa“categoricalcollective”;yet,itmustlearntobecomea“relationalcollective.”Byunderstandingtherelationshipsbetweenreciprocityandgroupidentity,Christianscanformhealthychurchesandmoreeffectivelyaccomplishitsmissionacrosscultures.