Inside and out: Knowing Chinese and US models of ministry

Abstract

Increasing numbers of US millennial missionaries are working alongside Chinese house church pastors in China, and conflicts between the two groups have been noted. To date, a majority of scholarly works have explored each of these group’s more surface-level needs, values, and preferences. This basic qualitative study seeks to describe differences in their tacitly held working models of ministry. Working models of ministry have been defined as taken-for-granted assumptions about what it means to be a minister. Analysis of qualitative data yielded from 16 semi-structured interviews resulted in a description of how each of these two groups have conceptualized ministry. In responding to different social contexts, each model has had a different structure, mechanism, and movement. Metaphorically, Chinese participants have been ministering as shepherds by establishing in-group boundaries, embodying clear direction, and taking responsibility for their flock’s growth. In contrast, millennial participants have been ministering as Sherpas by coming alongside those whom they are discipling, walking with them, and sharing burdens during the journey. This study recommends Chinese house church pastors adopt certain aspects of the US model as they lead millennial missionaries. This study also recommends millennial missionaries adopt certain aspects of the Chinese model as they disciple Chinese Christians.

Keywords

Chinese Christianity US millennials working models cultural models models of ministry

Introduction

In step with most missionaries who have just arrived in their field, US millennials serving in China have typically engaged in language learning and basic evangelistic activities. As some years have passed, they have now begun to work more closely in ministry with Chinese house church pastors. Not surprisingly, this has been marked by frustration and confusion from members of both groups.

Tyler is a member of the millennial generation, defined by Howe and Strauss (2000) as Americans born between the years 1982 and 2004. Initially excited to lead a ministry project with Brother Tang, Tyler soon found himself troubled as they attempted to work together:

Yeah, I just couldn’t get Brother Tang at all. The more time we spent together the more I disagreed with how he did stuff. It just didn’t feel right. He set up our schedule and it felt like it was made for ministry machines! . . . Even the fun times were basically structured for us. How are you going to go deeper with people like that? He and I would be sharing the gospel with a Chinese student, the student would say something, and it would get shut down pretty quickly. Brother Tang would basically say, “No, that’s not right. What I think is right.”

As his attempts to dialogue with non-Christian Chinese students were truncated by Brother Tang, Tyler found it difficult to minister in the way in which he had become accustomed.

Conversations with Brother Tang revealed a different story. While ever polite when speaking of the US millennial missionaries he had worked with, Brother Tang appeared to be just as confounded by their actions as Tyler had been by his. Brother Tang described his concerns:

We appreciated how hard [the Americans] tried to serve over the summer. They are so willing to try new things and are always so funny! It is hard to say, but there were some things that I thought were a little strange. You know, with non-Christians, [the Americans] just asked questions. If you only ask questions, who will follow you? You know, if you don’t give them an answer, they will follow someone who will.

Brother Tang saw in non-Christians an implicit need for practical direction on how to live life differently, therefore he could not understand the purpose of Tyler’s open-ended and probing personal questions.

Though missionaries like Tyler and house church pastors such as Brother Tang have received cross-cultural training and they have held similar theological convictions, tensions between the two groups have seemed to fester. Insightful scholarly works have focused on broader cultural disparities between Americans and Chinese (Chu and Choi, 2010; Fukushima and Haugh, 2014; Hsu, 1980; Xu and Ocker, 2013). Beneath such cultural disparities, Sire (2004) has positioned worldview, which he has described as answering the most fundamental questions about life and identity. Individuals enact the answers to these fundamental questions by referencing cognitively held, “taken for granted theories,” which have been called working models (Argyris, 1995: 22) or cultural models (Bennardo and De Munck, 2013).

On a daily basis, all individuals reference countless, tacitly held working models to inform their actions and relationships. A working model of ministry is a specific kind of working model that informs how one acts and relates as a minister. Because individuals do not exist in isolation from their social and cultural context, the acceptable answer to the question, “What does it mean to be a minister?” is shared among the members of any given group and changes over time (Bennardo and De Munck, 2013). My dissertation research explored the working models of ministry held by US millennial participants and Chinese house church pastor participants (Rupp, 2019). In exploring and describing these models, my study sought to further mutual understanding between the two groups and to put forth practical recommendations which might ameliorate intergroup tensions.

Literature review

An initial review of the literature sought to outline major sociocultural and historical factors which have shaped each group (Rupp, 2019). Six major sociocultural factors which have been present in the social context of Chinese house church pastors are: (i) a history of agrarian living (Fei, 1992; Scollon and Scollon, 1994), (ii) Confucian philosophy’s influence on family and interdependent identity construction (Hsu, 1949, 1980, 1985; Lin, 1935, 1937, 1959; Yan, 2009a), (iii) the role of facework in maintaining interdependently held identity (Hu, 1944; Fu, Watkins, and Wei, 2004; Ting-Toomey, 1994; Wu, 2009) (iv) a desire by the Chinese church to be viewed within broader society as independent from foreign influence (Koesel, 2013; Lee, 2007; Leung, 2011), (v) historic Communist Party policies (Lin, 1935; Yan, 2009b, 2010), and finally (vi) current Party-state policies in the midst of rising nationalism (Entwistle, 2016; Fulton, 2015; Ma and Li, 2017; Yang, 2005).

With respect to US millennial missionaries, a review of the literature found six major sociocultural factors which appear to have shaped the historical context of this generation to be: (i) US individualism and independent identity construction (Bellah et al., 2007; Putnam, 2001; Smith, 2009), (ii) postmodernism and pluralism (Jenness, 2015; Reed, 2016), (iii) the polarization of politics and Christianity (Bader-Saye, 2006; Pelz and Smidt, 2015; Vaughn, 2016; Waters and Sevick-Bortree, 2012), (iv) the rise of social media (Balda and Mora, 2011; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge, 2013; Yust, 2014), (v) intensification of “adult dominion over the world of childhood” (Howe and Strauss, 1992: 335) known commonly as helicopter parenting (LeMoyne and Buchanan, 2011; Odenweller, Booth-Butterfield, and Weber, 2014), and finally (vi) a shifting definition of family (Erlacher, 2014; Furstenberg Jr, 2010; Mullins, 2011).

Methodology

Following the philosophical position of constructivism (Creswell, 2013), my interest was in discovering what meaning participants have attributed to their experiences as ministers and how they have interpreted those experiences (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Thus, the central research question of my study was: How do US millennial missionaries and mainland Chinese house church pastors serving together in China understand and describe their working models of ministry?

My methods of participant selection, data collection, and analysis followed a basic descriptive, qualitative research paradigm (Lambert and Lambert, 2012; Sandelowski, 2010). To aid in the “identification of information rich cases” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015: 97), the following criteria for participants were set: US millennial missionaries who had been serving in China for more than one year and mainland Chinese house church pastors who had been serving in their respective positions for more than five years. These criteria reflect the current reality for many US millennial missionaries on the field and correspond to a growing trend of indigenous Christians leading millennial missionaries from the USA.

All participants have served as members of the same non-profit, evangelical mission organization, have worked together in the same ministry context, have held similar theological stances, and have shared similar ministry goals. Though culturally different, these overarching similarities located my two participant groups as two subgroups within a broader coherent whole. In this way, my participants’ situation fit Patton’s (2001) description of “stratified purposeful sampling” (p. 240), which allows for differing subgroups within a larger whole to be represented by distinct groups of participants. Further fitting my research design, this sampling method has been used to explore “major variations” between subgroups (Patton, 2001: 238). Rather than an overly simplistic appraisal of the working models’ differences, my methodology has sought to “facilitate credible comparisons,” promoting understanding between the two groups (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007: 238).

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with eight participants from each group. During this process of data collection, coding and analysis occurred concurrently in a “fluid, interactive, open-ended” process (Charmaz, 2014: 320). In order to conduct research in a cyclical, “emergent” manner, initial thoughts and findings from earlier interviews were recorded as memos and, as deemed appropriate, were allowed to influence the direction of subsequent interviews (320).

To help ensure a trustworthy study, I utilized the standards of researcher reflexivity (Finlay, 2002) and plausibility (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) and conducted multiple member checks throughout the research process (Miles et al., 2013). Following the practice of Koesel’s (2013) research among Chinese house church pastors, pseudonyms for all participants were adopted and used from the outset of my research. Likewise, following the work of Yang (2005), all city names and specific geographic markers were omitted from the point of transcription. Finally, this research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Findings

Both of the working models of ministry this study explored were found to have a structure, a mechanism, and a movement. The structure is the form the model takes, the movement is the direction in which the model proceeds, and the mechanism is the way in which the model operates. The Chinese model of ministry has taken the form of two distinct identity shifts that move from the outside-in and occur through the mechanism of conformity. The US model of ministry has taken the form of three one-on-one relationships that move from the inside-out and occur through the mechanism of interpersonal processing.

Structure of the Chinese model

Chinese house church pastor participants described their first shift in identity as becoming a Christian. This shift moved them from a non-Christian out-group to an in-group of Christians. While the individual retained a measure of responsibility in accomplishing this shift, participants have sought to assign a higher level of responsibility for establishing this new identity to the in-group, its leadership, and to God. In the first few weeks of his sophomore year, Li Jun remembered seeking Christian leaders who could take responsibility for him,

I told them, every time I was with them, I told them just like this, “You guys, pay attention, because I’m so weak . . . I can’t stop. So, you guys definitely need to call me to come to church . . . And always come care for me. Because, if you don’t come call me, I may not have the power to come myself.” Then, every single Saturday night they faithfully gave me a call, encouraging me to come. Oh, it really touched me.

These Christian leaders went on to call him weekly for the next year, fulfilling their duty as caretakers of his Christian identity. When in need, Li Jun looked at the center of the group, expecting his leaders to take responsibility for its members.

Replete with familial language, Chinese participants’ description of Christian fellowship revealed its functioned as a fictive family. Participants expressed a profound sense of belonging within this in-group of Christians and found a reassuringly stable context for interdependent identity. In contrast, an absence of Christian fellowship resulted in acute loneliness and marked temptation to conform to other, non-Christian identities. In this way, fellow Christians have been seen as a particular type or kind of person, while non-Christians have been understood as inherently different. In their working model, one type is to be emulated while another must be avoided.

Chinese participants described the second shift in identity as becoming a full-time minister. Frequently, this shift has been signified for participants by a “calling passage.” Brother Peng spoke of receiving his calling passage with reverence: “That was the time, the moment, I felt very clearly God calling me. He was calling me. The time to serve God full-time had come and [Isaiah 6:8] became my calling scripture. Still this passage touches me very frequently.” Understood to be a confirmation of their divine calling, a calling passage is a section of Scripture usually impressed upon a participant after some time spent in prayer.

The second shift has resulted in an elevated status of and increased expectations on the participant within Christian in-groups. Once such a calling was received, individuals have been understood to have irrevocably given themselves to full-time, life-long ministry. Like the first shift, this second shift has been accomplished through the mechanism of conformity, moving participants still further inward to become members of the in-group of leaders.

Mechanism of the Chinese model

The mechanism which has accomplished both shifts in identity has been conformity. Using the verbal ideas of “to imitate” (效法, xiāofǎ), or “to follow after” (跟随, gēnsuí), Chinese participants frequently described deliberately conforming to a way of being. Within their Christian in-groups, leaders expected participants to conform to accepted actions, behaviors, and thoughts. This mechanism has embedded the individual in the group and has helped demarcate their Christian in-group from non-Christian out-groups. Liu Wei described conforming to a particular in-group behavior:

Seeing other people pray was very meaningful for me . . . One of the most stressful things for me was when in a large group meeting everyone would pray, one after another. Oh, this was very difficult! When it was my turn to pray, I didn’t know how to pray! My hope was that [God] would let me know how to pray . . . In the end, God really fulfilled a promise to me. I asked him to change my prayers, not very much time passed at all, and then it was completed. I can be the same as them! I can pray like them! Now I feel like my prayers are pretty much the same as theirs. It is such a relief.

In the same manner as other participants, Liu Wei has conceptualized personal growth as conformity to a Christian ideal practically embodied in the lives of leaders and other Christians.

The examples of leaders have been paramount within the model’s two shifts in identity, providing participants with clear role models to “follow after,” or conform to. Liu Wei described the importance of setting an example for others:

When it comes to being a role model, it is first exactly about being a person who really follows after God . . . “You imitate me, as I have imitated Christ,” that is what the Apostle Paul said. This is a key truth. In that way, maybe they can see me in the same way Paul spoke of. I will imitate Paul and Paul will imitate Jesus. In doing so, I want to direct this person to go to God. Therefore, I hope that my life could become an example. I might be able, from above, to help them in this way.

This goal-oriented element of conformity to role models has not only resulted in the hierarchical nature of this model, but it has also served as the mechanism which has accomplished the model’s movement.

Movement of the Chinese model

Represented in Figure 1, Chinese house church pastors’ working model of ministry has situated the self inside a Christian house church labeled in-group. Dashed lines denote the first shift in identity that a potential disciple must undertake in order to leave his or her out-group and become a Christian. As participants accepted irrevocable, divine callings to become full-time ministers themselves, they entered into the circle labeled Jesus & leaders. This shift in identity is also represented by dashed lines. As they first sought conformity to a Christian in-group and then later to the ideal of a full-time minister, participants described each of these shifts as “imitating,” “following after,” or conforming to the examples of leaders. The accomplishment of these two shifts has given the model an outside-in, convergent movement.

Figure 1.

Chinese house church pastor working model of ministry.

Structure of the US model

The structure of the US millennial model of ministry has taken the form of three one-on-one relationships. Participants have sought to walk personally with God, have leaders who come walk alongside them, and go walk alongside their disciples in emotionally close, mutually vulnerable relationships.

When discussing their relationship with and understanding of God, participants repeatedly used the analogy of “walking with him” in a personal way. Similar to other participants, Aden used walking-with language to describe his experience with God: “I really started walking with him my Junior year. Yeah. That January . . . was the first time I really started to prioritize reading my Bible every day . . . I feel like for the first time, I was actually pursuing the Lord consistently, more than just on a retreat or on a random day.” This imagery of “walking with” reflected US millennials’ understanding of ministry as a personal journey.

When recalling positive experiences with leaders, millennial participants described those relationships as “safe places” where they have been intentionally “poured into.” Ava described her experience of being led by Christy: “She always made coffee and it was always really great coffee and I got to pick my mug and I just felt immediately that she was just such a safe person . . . just stepping into her apartment, was an oasis. Just a safe environment.” Ava went on to communicate that Christy’s intentionality and care had impacted her just as much as the coffee.

Mirroring the way leaders have “poured into” them, participants have been intentionally “investing” themselves in their disciples through revealing their own ongoing relational processes with God. Kade expressed this when he summed up discipleship in the statement, “I’m sharing myself.” This self-revelation has occurred almost exclusively in one-on-one relationships. Hailey recalled her experience of connecting personally with disciples,

We were just talking about life and people were struggling . . . And just to be able to say, “Me too!” And, “It’s okay.” To share our stories with each other, I think that’s been one of the things that’s been the most meaningful to me. To just be able to share where our stories intersect and where God intersects in that. And how [God] holds us in those things and the times when we’re absolutely falling apart, but we can fall apart together.

Struggling alongside disciples has brought about an emotional closeness which has been a significant source of fulfilment for participants.

Mechanism of the US model

Participants’ personal relationships with God, leaders, and disciples have been established and maintained via the mechanism of interpersonal processing. US millennial missionaries have used the language of “walking with” or “coming alongside” others to describe this mechanism. As participants have processed emotions and struggled personally, millennial missionaries have sensed God walking with them and guiding them along their path. As a result, they frequently described a “feeling of sweetness” and each participant has understood his or her interaction with God as a relationally close, ongoing personal connection.

Leaders who effectively helped millennials feel accepted and understood did so by asking questions, revealing their own ongoing one-on-one processes with God, and challenging participants to take greater personal responsibility in life and ministry. Responding to their leaders’ guidance, participants have taken a relatively high level of responsibility to accomplish personal growth. Just as leaders have come alongside participants, millennial missionaries have walked with their disciples, in the hope that each disciple would go walk alongside others in a similar way. Thus, interpersonal processing has resulted in the primarily horizontal nature of the model and has also served as the mechanism which has accomplished the model’s movement.

Movement of the US model

The US millennial model has displayed an inside-out movement in which participants have been pouring themselves out.

Millennial participants are represented by the circle labeled self in Figure 2. Because the self’s personal relationship with God, leaders, and disciples has been immediately known to each participant, these three processual relationships are represented by solid circles. Because the leaders’ and disciples’ relationships with God can only be known as they are revealed in interpersonal processing, these ongoing processual relationships are represented by transparent circles. Participants have sought to go pour into others as leaders have poured into them, giving this model an inside-out, divergent movement.

Figure 2.

US millennial working model of ministry.

Return to the literature

My initial review of the literature outlined six major sociocultural and historical factors which have shaped Chinese house church pastors. These factors appear to have influenced participants’ worldviews and therefore their working models of ministry. The two shifts in identity that make up the structure of the Chinese model of ministry correspond with a tendency to form in-group/out-group social identities (Ma and Li, 2017) via bounded-set thinking (Hiebert, 1994, 2008; Yoder et al., 2009). The first shift signifies being firmly embedded in an interdependent group (Yan, 2010), which functions as a fictive family (Wan, 2010; Wu, 2011). The second shift in identity signifies becoming a leader, where one is hierarchically set apart by power-distance (Hofstede et al., 2010). Their model’s mechanism of conformity aligns with a long-established penchant for respecting tradition by maintaining a faithful example (Lin, 1935; Nee, 1998). This emphasis on “following after,” or practically conforming to a type, can be seen as a means of establishing interdependent identity (Hsu, 1980, 1983) and has given the model an outside-in, convergent movement. In adopting this model of ministry, Chinese house church pastors appear to have been influenced by their social context and have also attempted to respond to it in a culturally appropriate way.

The six previously noted sociocultural and historical factors which have shaped the social context of US millennials appear to have also influenced participants’ working models of ministry. The three one-on-one relationships that make up the structure of the US millennial model of ministry correspond with a noted propensity to focus on the individual self when relating with others (Castro, 2010; Erlacher, 2014; Smith, 2009). Their model’s mechanism of interpersonal processing aligns with millennials’ disposition to form authentic and vulnerable relational connections (Tibbs et al., 2016; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Furthermore, their emphasis on “walking with” others in personal processes can be seen as an outworking of centered-set thinking (Hiebert, 1994, 2008; Yoder et al., 2009). Consistent with a post-evangelical approach to the Christian faith (Pelz and Smidt, 2015; Waters and Sevick-Bortree, 2012), the millennial participants have left the “safe spaces” provided by their leaders and have sought to pour themselves into others, giving this model an inside-out, divergent movement. Similar to their Chinese counterparts, US millennial missionaries’ model of ministry appears to be a product of their social context and also an active response to its needs.

Discussion

Assigning tangible metaphors may clarify the differing conceptual models depicted in Figures 1 and 2 (Fairbanks, 2001; Lakoff and Johnson, 2003). Chinese house church pastors have been expected to provide practical direction and have been hierarchically set above their followers. Metaphorically, they have been fulfilling the role of a shepherd, embodying clear direction, establishing in-group boundaries, and taking responsibility for their followers’ growth. Shepherd is an emic metaphor, as it was regularly referenced by Chinese participants. Though certainly not representative of all Chinese Christians, both the shepherd metaphor and the working model of ministry I have suggested have been attested to and affirmed by my participant group.

In contrast to this, US millennial missionaries have come alongside, walked with, and sought to share the burdens of others as they journey. In the absence of an emic metaphor, I suggest that US millennial participants appear to have adopted the role of a Sherpa as they minister. Used here as “a job description rather than an ethnic marker” (Parker, 1989: 12), Sherpas are highly experienced, specially equipped guides who walk with others, sharing in the same ups and downs on their journeys. While certainly not representative of all US millennial missionaries, the metaphor and working model suggested here have resonated with my participants.

Conclusion

Tyler’s sincere attempt to enter into dialogue and process with a non-Christian friend was curtailed by Brother Tang’s insistence on providing practical answers. The conflicting efforts of these two men have been informed by their cognitively held working models of ministry. The structure of the Chinese model has taken the form of two distinct shifts in identity. The mechanism which has facilitated the model’s outside-in, converging movement has been conformity. The structure of the US millennial model has taken the form of three, one-on-one relationships. The mechanism which has facilitated the model’s inside-out, diverging movement has been interpersonal processing. Tyler and other US millennial participants have been metaphorically ministering as Sherpas, while Brother Tang and other Chinese participants have been ministering as shepherds. However large the contrast, both models of ministry appear to be faithful expressions of Christianity and valid responses to their respective sociocultural contexts.

The following three recommendations are given to Chinese house church pastors as they more frequently lead US millennial missionaries: (i) acknowledge independent identity construction by permitting emotional dialogue; (ii) form close relationships which help facilitate leading US millennials by sharing one’s story; and finally, (iii) accept an expectation of authenticity in leaders by being vulnerable with millennials.

The following three recommendations are given to US millennial missionaries as they attempt to make disciples in a Chinese cultural context: (i) acknowledge the mechanism of conformity inherent in interdependent identity construction by setting an example on par with local indigenous Christian expectations; (ii) embrace the role of an expert, which Confucian social undercurrents bestow, by giving practical answers to questions posed by disciples; and finally, (iii) accept an expectation of power-distance from others by being willing to forego emotionally close relationships.

In order for misunderstandings to be reduced, both groups will need to make changes. Learning to minister like a Sherpa will benefit Brother Tang as he leads Tyler and other US millennial missionaries. Learning to minister like a shepherd will benefit Tyler as he makes disciples who will eventually be shepherded by Chinese house church pastors. Such changes are made possible by knowing each other’s model of ministry inside and out.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Daniel Rupp

Author biography

Daniel Rupp lived in China for 12 years before working as an adjunt professor at the East Asia School of Theology in Singapore. His research interests include cognitively held models of ministry and how those models can be contextualized to suit a variety of sociocultural contexts: urban/agrarian, independent/interdependent, and humanistic/animistic.

References

Argyris

(1995) Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology 10(6): 20–26.

Bader-Saye

(2006) Improvising church: An introduction to the emerging church conversation. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 6(1): 12–23. DOI: 10.1080/14742250500484519.

Balda

Mora

(2011) Adapting leadership theory and practice for the networked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies 5(3): 13–24.

Bellah

Madsen

Sullivan

, et al. (2007) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. 1st ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bennardo

De Munck

(2013) Cultural Models: Genesis, Methods, and Experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castro

(2010) Themes in the research on pre-service teachers’ views of cultural diversity: Implications for researching millennial pre-service teachers. Educational Researcher 39(3): 198–210.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chu

S-C

Choi

(2010) Social capital and self-presentation on social networking sites: A comparative study of Chinese and American young generations. Chinese Journal of Communication 3(4): 402–20. DOI: 10.1080/17544750.2010.516575.

Creswell

(2013) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Entwistle

(2016) Faith in China: Religious belief and national narratives amongst young, urban Chinese Protestants. Nations & Nationalism 22(2): 347–70. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12162.

11.

Erlacher

(2014) Millennials in Ministry. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press.

12.

Fairbanks

(2001) Changing the mind of a nation: Elements in a process for creating prosperity. In: Harrison

Huntington

(eds.) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic Books.

13.

Fei

(1992) From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society. 1st ed. Trans. Fei Xiaotong’s Xiangtu Zhongguo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

14.

Finlay

(2002) “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research 12(4): 531.

15.

Fukushima

Haugh

(2014) The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 74: 165–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.004.

16.

Fulton

(2015) China’s Urban Christians: A Light That Cannot Be Hidden. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

17.

Furstenberg

Jr (2010) On a new schedule: Transitions to adulthood and family change. The Future of Children 20(1): 67–87. DOI: 10.1353/foc.0.0038.

18.

Hiebert

(1994) Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

19.

Hiebert

(2008) Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

20.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Hong

Watkins

Hui

EKP

(2004) Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology 39(4): 305–16. DOI: 10.1080/00207590344000402.

22.

Howe

Strauss

(1992) Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: Quill.

23.

Howe

Strauss

(2000) Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. 3rd ed. New York: Vintage.

24.

Hsu

FLK

(1949) Under the Ancestors’ Shadow: Chinese Culture and Personality. 1st ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

25.

Hsu

FLK

(1980) Americans and Chinese: Passages to Differences. 3rd ed. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

26.

Hsu

FLK

(1983) Rugged Individualism Reconsidered: Essays in Psychological Anthropology. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

27.

Hsu

FLK

(1985) The self in cross-cultural perspective. In: Marsella

DeVos

Hsu

FLK

(eds.) Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

28.

(1944) The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist NS 46(1): 45–64.

29.

Jenness

(2015) The flattened self: Generation Y reads Freud. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society 20(3): 284–302. DOI: 10.1057/pcs.2015.44.

30.

Koesel

(2013) The rise of a Chinese house church: The organizational weapon. The China Quarterly 215: 572–89. DOI: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/S0305741013000684.

31.

Lakoff

Johnson

(2003) Metaphors We Live By. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Lambert

(2012) Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research 16(4): 255–56.

33.

Lee

JT-H

(2007) Christianity in contemporary China: An update. Journal of Church and State 49(2): 277–304.

34.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011) Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum 31(4): 399–418. DOI: 10.1080/02732173.2011.574038.

35.

Leung

(2011) Missions, cultural imperialism, and the development of the Chinese Church. In: Cook

Pao

(eds.) After Imperialism: Christian Identity in China and the Global Evangelical Movement. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, pp. 23–34.

36.

Lin

(1935) My Country and My People. New York, NY: John Day: Reynal & Hitchcock Publishing Company.

37.

Lin

(1937) The Importance of Living. New York, NY: John Day: Reynal & Hitchcock Publishing Company.

38.

Lin

(1959) From Pagan to Christian: The Personal Account of a Distinguished Philosopher’s Spiritual Pilgrimage Back to Christianity. Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company.

39.

(2017) Surviving the State, Remaking the Church: A Sociological Portrait of Christians in Mainland China. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

40.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

42.

Mullins

(2011) Linkages between children’s behavior and nonresident father involvement: A comparison of African American, Anglo, and Latino Families. Journal of African American Studies 15(1): 1–21.

43.

Myers

Sadaghiani

(2010) Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business & Psychology 25(2): 225–38. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7.

44.

Nee

(1998) The Character of the Lord’s Worker: Being Molded for the Master’s Use. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry.

45.

Odenweller

Booth-Butterfield

Weber

(2014) Investigating helicopter parenting, family environments, and relational outcomes for millennials. Communication Studies 65(4): 407–25. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2013.811434.

46.

Onwuegbuzie

Leech

(2007) Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report 12(2): 238–54.

47.

Parker

(1989) The meanings of “Sherpa”: An evolving social category. Himalaya, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies 9(3): 11–14.

48.

Patton

(2001) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

49.

Pelz

Smidt

(2015) Generational conversion? The role of religiosity in the politics of Evangelicals. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54(2): 380–401. DOI: 10.1111/jssr.12186.

50.

Putnam

(2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. New York: Touchstone Books.

51.

Reed

(2016) A book for none? Teaching biblical studies to millennial nones. Teaching Theology & Religion 19(2): 154–74. DOI: 10.1111/teth.12329.

52.

Rupp

(2019) Sherpas and Shepherds: A Qualitative Exploration of Ministry Models Held by American Millennial Missionaries and the Chinese House Church Pastors They Serve—ProQuest. PhD Biola, Los Angeles, CA. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/openview/4ac534107ce869bbb85843ff165a19b0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.

53.

Sandelowski

(2010) What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health 33(1): 77–84. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20362.

54.

Scollon

(1994) Face parameters in East–West discourse. In: Ting-Toomey

(ed.) The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues. 1st ed. Albany: State University of New York Press.

55.

Sire

(2004) Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

56.

Smith

(2009) Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

57.

Tibbs

Green

Gergen

, et al. (2016) If you are like me, I think you are more authentic: An analysis of the interaction of follower and leader gender. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research 6(1): 752.

58.

Ting-Toomey

(ed.) (1994) The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues. 1st ed. Albany: State University of New York Press.

59.

Twenge

(2013) Does online social media lead to social connection or social disconnection? Journal of College and Character 14(1): 11–20. DOI: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1515/jcc-2013-0003.

60.

Vaughn

(2016) Why Millennials are Leaving the Church. Appalachian State University. Available at: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Vaughn,%20Sarah_December%202016_honorsthesis.pdf (accessed April 14, 2017).

61.

Walumbwa

Avolio

Gardner

, et al. (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34(1): 89–126. DOI: 10.1177/0149206307308913.

62.

Wan

(2010) Practical contextualization: A case study of evangelizing contemporary Chinese. Global Missiology English 1(1). Available at: http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/441.

63.

Waters

Sevick-Bortree

(2012) “Can we talk about the direction of this church?” The impact of responsiveness and conflict on millennials’ relationship with religious institutions. Journal of Media and Religion. 11: 200–215.

64.

(2011) Authority in a collectivist church: Identifying crucial concerns for a Chinese ecclesiology. Global Missiology English 1(9). Available at: http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/679.

65.

(2009) The dynamics of Chinese face mechanisms and classroom behaviour: A case study. Evaluation & Research in Education 22(2–4): 87–105. DOI: 10.1080/09500790903487512.

66.

Ocker

(2013) Discrepancies in cross-cultural and cross-generational attitudes toward committed relationships in China and the United States. Family Court Review 51(4): 591–604. DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12055.

67.

Yan

(2009a) The Good Samaritan’s new trouble: A study of the changing moral landscape in contemporary China. Social Anthropology 17(1): 9–24.

68.

Yan

(2009b) The Individualization of Chinese Society. Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic.

69.

Yan

(2010) The Chinese path to individualization. British Journal of Sociology 61(3): 489–512.

70.

Yang

(2005) Lost in the market, saved at McDonald’s: Conversion to Christianity in urban China. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44(4): 423–41.

71.

Yoder

Lee

, et al. (2009) Understanding Christian identity in terms of bounded and centered set theory in the writings of Paul G. Hiebert. Trinity Journal 30(2): 177.

72.

Yust

K-M

(2014) Digital power: Exploring the effects of social media on children’s spirituality. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 19(2): 133–43. DOI: 10.1080/1364436X.2014.924908.