References

1. M Baer (2012). Business as mission: The power of business in the Kingdom of God.
2. (2001). Les religions dans les grands empires coloniaux.
3. H Chen (2016). 今日宣教大趋势 jīn rì xuān jiào dà qū shì [Megatrends of missions today.
4. D Moody's Story.
5. Tony Adams (2006). Seeking Father.
6. L Flanders (2011). About face: Rethinking face for 21st century mission.
7. S Guthrie (2000). IS THE FAMILY VIABLE? SOME THOUGHTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM.
8. J Heil (2010). Philippians: Let us rejoice in being conformed to Christ.
9. E Hiebert (2008). Transforming worldviews: An anthropological understanding of how people change.
10. E Hiebert (2012). Critical Contextualization.
11. H Liu (2012). Creating The Content:Categories and Articles.
12. W Mischke (2015). The global Gospel: Achieving missional impact in our multicultural world.
13. J Neyrey (1998). Honor and shame in the Gospel of Matthew.
14. Juan Caballero (2008). Jerome H. NEYREY y Eric C. STEWART (eds.), The Social World of the New Testament. Insights and Models, Peabody (MA): Hendrickson, 2008, 295 pp..
15. J Donders (2006). Globalization and Its Effects on Urban Ministry in the 21st Century. Edited by Susan S. Baker. Pasadena, California, US, William Carey Library 2008. Pp. 358. $19.99..
16. T Steffen (2011). The facilitator era: Beyond pioneer church multiplication.
17. T Steffen (2016). Church multiplication models & strategies (Power point presented in ISCL 732.
18. T Steffen (2016). Shame and honor (Power point presented in class.
19. R Stockitt (2012). Restoring the shamed: Towards a theology of shame.
20. T Tennent (2010). Invitation to world missions: A trinitarian missiology for the twenty-first century.
21. E Wan,M Pocock (2015). Diaspora missiology: Reflecting on reaching the scattered peoples of the world.
22. J Wu (2012). The Salvation Army.
23. J Wu (2015). Reply to Doug Coleman (part 2) -Defining "dishonor.
24. (1998). Parliament that has inherited its power from the monarch, and in the body of the monarch itself which contains the promises of both God and people. Today, law also finds its sources in the legislative acts of the European Community and the decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights (religion will often refer to a sacred text). All our understanding is reducible to the ability to comprehend the expansiveness and limits of our language and the cultural boundedness of our language. It was Edward Sapir who most poignantly maintained that the limits of our language are the limits of our world. Over the years of socialisation, ‘ways of seeing’ are developed that are socially constructed by the limits of a particular language. Yet, as language is all around, there is a temptation to see it as a neutral tool, a mirror that tells it ‘like it is’. All language does is to give someone else’s interpretation of their belief, or their experience. It is no more, and no less, than a guide to social reality. What is seen as, or believed to be, the real world may be no more than the language habits of the group. It is, therefore, often a biased view. Languages also have their limits: if language does not have a word for something or some concept then that ‘something’ will not be seen nor that ‘concept’ thought. All language is, however, responsive to what linguists call the ‘felt needs’ of its speakers. Indeed, it is more likely that not only are thoughts expressed in words but that thoughts themselves are shaped by language. An example of felt needs can be given from the vocabulary of weather. Although the English are often said to enjoy talking about the weather, for many decades our essentially mild climate has provided us with the need for only one word for ‘snow’ (that word is ‘snow’!). In English there are several words for cold, but only one word for ice. By contrast, the Aztecs living in the tropics have only one word to cover ‘snow’, ‘ice’ and ‘cold’ as separate words were unlikely to be used. As English speakers, it is impossible to state that ‘cold’ is synonymous with snow. Coldness is a characteristic of snow, but there can be ‘cold’ without ‘snow’. We would not be able to understand how snow and ice could be interchangeable. In English it is not possible for these two words to become synonyms. However, Inuits have many different words for ‘snow’. Words describe it falling, lying, drifting, packing, as well as the language containing many words for wind, ice and cold because much of their year is spent living with snow, ice, wind and cold. The above is one small illustration of the relationship between living, seeing, naming, language and thought. Language habits predispose certain choices of word. Words we use daily reflect our cultural understanding and at the same time transmit it to others, even to the next generation. Words by themselves are not oppressive or pejorative, but they acquire a morality or subliminal meaning of their own. A sensitivity to language usage therefore can be most revealing of the views of the speaker. For example, when parents or teachers tell a boy not to cry because it is not manly, or praise a girl for her feminine way of dressing, they are using the words for manly and feminine to reinforce attitudes and categories that English culture has assigned to males and females. Innocent repetition of such language as ‘everyday, taken-for-granted’ knowledge reinforces sexism in language and in society. In this way language determines social behaviour. Language, as a means of communication, becomes not only the expression of culture but a part of it. The.
25. Mischke (2011). emphasizes an additional foundational step before Hiebert's four steps: Exegete Bible cultures (p. 491), because the Bible has its own background of culture, including shame and honor.