Tsunami Disaster Relief: A Tale of Two Churches

WCIU Journal: Cross-Cultural Communications Topic

January 13, 2020

by Kevin Jones and Sunny Hong

Kevin Jones (Pseudonym) served for over two decades in Asia in church planting, Scripture translation, social welfare development, and disaster relief. He currently is a non-faculty staff member at Dallas International University.

Sunny Hong has served with Wycliffe and SIL since 1994. She currently works as a senior intercultural consultant at SIL International and is an adjunct professor at Dallas International University.

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was one of the deadliest and far-reaching natural disasters in recorded history. Disaster relief efforts poured in from many places—locally all the way to the international level—bringing assistance to the many affected areas. One such area was an Asian seaside village inhabited by a minority indigenous people group. The purpose of this article is to show how disaster relief efforts in this case created a dynamic in which the church of the country’s majority people group became a rival to the church of the minority indigenous people group—because of an apparent lack of sensitivity to certain cultural issues—so that the lessons learned from this case study could be useful for future cross-cultural ministry opportunities.

Background Information on the Earthquake and Tsunami

It was Sunday morning, December 26, 2004. Just the day before, many had celebrated Christmas singing, “Silent night, holy night. All is calm, all is bright.” But the peacefulness and serenity did not last for long, especially in the area west of Northern Sumatra, Indonesia. Just before 8 am, local time, an undersea megathrust earthquake occurred, which though very devastating in itself, triggered a series of large tsunamis up to 100 feet in height, bringing death and destruction to the shores of various countries bordering the Indian Ocean. In all, 14 countries were directly affected, and the death toll was well over 200,000.

The degree of damage and destruction that occurred as a result of the tsunami varied noticeably from one area to the next, partly due to the shape and slope of any particular beach. Flatter beaches that sloped gently and gradually away from the land tended to experience very heavy devastation compared to beaches that sloped more like the shape of a basin. When the tsunami’s huge volume of water, at a great height, slammed down onto the ground, the force was devastating to people and property. The beach at the village of the indigenous church featured in this article is of the basin type, and was less directly exposed to the path of the tsunami. Although the force of the water was not as violent as at other locations, it did result in waist high water washing inland throughout much or most of the village.

The housing of the villagers in many cases amounted to tin shacks erected on pillars driven shallowly into the sand. As a result there was severe structural damage to many villager dwellings. In some cases, houses were entirely leveled, and in other cases there was considerable damage. In many cases possessions, including work equipment, may have been either ruined or totally washed away. Most important is the fact that there was not a single life lost in that village as a result of the tsunami. The villagers were all able to flee to higher ground in time because of having received a phone call warning from a sister church in the vicinity. Interestingly enough, there was one villager initially left behind. He was a double amputee (both legs) who was confined to a mattress on the floor. When everyone from the village had successfully reached the rallying point on high ground, somebody thought to ask about the double amputee’s whereabouts. He had been left behind in the rush, but a couple of strong young men were sent back to get him. When they got back to the village, it was waist-deep with seawater. By the time they reached him, the water level was nearing his chin, but he was still confident about being rescued in time. Interestingly, it was his home that served as the meeting place for the indigenous church’s gatherings.

Background Information on the Two Churches

This section describes the history of the indigenous church, the members’ attitude toward language, and the relationship between the indigenous church and the majority language congregation.

The Indigenous Language Congregation

The members of the indigenous church are villagers who come from an ethnic group comprised of some 3100 people living in the Southwest coastal islands area of the country, 98% of whom are defined as belonging to the ethnic religion, and 2% of whom are Christian (1% Evangelical). They prefer living along the seashore, which made them highly susceptible to the powerful effects of the tsunami on that fateful day.

Christian Work in the Indigenous Village

Christian work among this ethnic group was started about fifty years ago by cross-cultural workers belonging to a Protestant denomination from a western country. Formerly, this ethnic group did not have a written language of their own, nor did they have scriptures translated in their own language. Through the years, reading primers for children and adults, some Bible story books and easy readers with Bible stories, alphabet books, number books and a dictionary were all produced. This laid the groundwork for translation and publication of an entire New Testament, which was completed in 1988 along with an audio Bible (Ethnologue). The translation was approved by the national Bible Society of that country which in turn belongs to a Bible society at the international level. Hard copies of this New Testament were printed and used in worship by the indigenous church as well by as a sister congregation located in the vicinity. Some but not all of the church members had their own copy of the New Testament in their homes, but this must be understood in the context of the people group being primarily an oral culture. The project to translate portions of the Old Testament was already in process before the tsunami occurred and continues up to the time of this writing.

A handful of people in the village of the indigenous church came to faith in Jesus through personal evangelism and medical care. Regular Sunday morning worship services took place every week in the home of one of the church members. There was also a mid-week Bible study. In those days the church had about 20 members. They had an indigenous leader who served both this congregation and the sister congregation previously mentioned.

Language Issues for the Indigenous Church

Their language is categorized as Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Malayo-Chamic, and Malayic (Ethnologue). All but a very small number of the older people understand the national language of their country as well as the indigenous tongue. In comparison with one another, the national language is certainly considered the more prestigious language. The indigenous language is not at all understood by people outside of the village. Usage of the national language by these villagers differs between the young people and their elders. For example, if two young people go outside the village, they are more likely to speak to each other in the national language while the older people would speak to each other in their mother tongue. It is similar to how the young generation of displaced language groups use the national/dominant language rather than their mother tongue.

The younger generations, having had less exposure to the non-dominant language and culture will often adopt a main identity more associated with the dominant language and culture. They often have a greater appreciation for the advantages of assimilation into the larger language and culture (Karan 2018, 75).

In addition to potential assimilation into the national language and culture, speaking both languages makes them to be part of each of the two particular speech communities (Edwards 2009, 248).  

This indigenous people group has a strong identity and they want to keep their identity and language. Part of their income is derived from the tourism that comes from them being an attraction, something different or unique in the country. In the past, none of them had surnames. A very high-ranking person provided them all with a last name meaning, “those whose occupation is fishing.”

Ethnic identity is allegiance to group—large or small, society dominant or subordinate—with which one has ancestral links. There is no necessity for a continuation, over generations, of the same socialization of cultural patterns, but some sense of a group boundary must persist. This can be sustained by shared objective characteristics (language, religion, etc.), or by more subjective contributions to a sense of “groupness,” or by some combination of both. (Edwards 2009, 162)  

Prior to the arrival of the cross-cultural workers, the language of this people group did not have its own orthography. There never has been a large body of written literature in the indigenous language. Despite the many efforts on the part of the cross-cultural workers at improving the illiteracy situation among the people, literacy has always been low and remains so to this day. Incentive for becoming literate in the indigenous language is fairly low given the fact that it is not particularly useful to their daily life other than being able to read the indigenous language Bible translation. Young people studying at government schools outside the village become proficient at reading and writing the national language. This does not bode well for the future of the indigenous language, especially in written form.

The Majority Language Congregation

The other church in this tale of two churches is the congregation of a different Protestant denomination that uses the majority national language of that country. At the time the tsunami occurred, this congregation belonged to a larger movement which had member churches in every region of the country. (This Majority Church has since withdrawn its official membership from that movement and it currently belongs to another denomination). Geographically, the Majority Church is located at least a 40-minute drive away from the Indigenous Church. Sunday morning attendance in the days back when the tsunami occurred was around 100-150 worshipers per week. The Majority Church worship facilities are not located in the geographic area directly impacted by the tsunami. Prior to the tsunami the Majority Church had never had any contact with the Indigenous Church. However, about one month after the tsunami, when disaster relief efforts were well underway, the Majority Church joined as one of many entities providing disaster relief and assistance to the village where the Indigenous Church is located.

The Tale of the Two Churches

Corbett and Fikkert state the stages for helping without hurting are relief, rehabilitation, and development.

Relief can be defined as the urgent and temporary provision of emergency aid to reduce immediate suffering from a natural or man-made crisis… Rehabilitation … seeks to restore people and their communities to the positive elements of their previous conditions…. Development is a process of ongoing change that moves all the people involved – both the “helpers” and the “helped” – closer to being in right relationship with God, self, others and the rest of creation (Corbett and Fikkert 2012, 99-100).

This section describes the helping process of the Majority Church, both beneficial and detrimental, using the steps Corbett and Fikkert presented. For the indigenous village’s experience, relief is defined as the stage of total dependence on outside help in terms of food and shelter. Rehabilitation is defined as the period of rebuilding or repairing their homes and boats so that they could stand on their own feet. Development is the process of making their lives to be in better condition spiritually, relationally, psychologically, socially, and economically.

Disaster Relief in the Indigenous Area

In the village where the Indigenous Church was located, no rescue or recovery operations were necessary, because there were no injured, missing or dead to deal with, unlike many other areas impacted by the tsunami. The initial disaster relief phase involved providing ready-to-eat meals, bottled water, and cash to the villagers. With everything in their kitchens having been destroyed or washed away, including all equipment, supplies, and food staples, the people were initially unable to prepare meals for themselves. This kind of help, though not highly structured, arrived immediately at the hands of other local churches and organizations.

As would be hoped in a situation involving a natural disaster of this magnitude, financial donations began pouring in. The most critical issues in the relief stage are a timely response and temporary help to stop the emergency but not enough to create dependency (Corbett and Fikkert 2012, 104). The Majority Church was not involved in this initial relief stage; they came on the scene about a month following the tsunami.

Disaster Rehabilitation Process in the Indigenous Area

The water eventually receded in the village, and then surveying of damage to housing structures could be carried out. In some cases, the houses could be rebuilt or repaired by their owners if they were provided with building materials. In other cases, where the owners were unable to carry out the rebuilding or repairs to their homes by themselves, it had to be done for them. Many able-bodied persons volunteered assistance in the repair/rebuilding process, even traveling internationally at their own expense to be involved in helping the victimized area. Volunteers were both nationals of that country as well as expatriates. Some came as organized teams and others as informal walk-ons. Some were affiliated with organizations and others were unaffiliated.

The rebuilding phase continued on for many weeks. It was in this context that the Majority Church was observed beginning to assist the villagers. They were only one of numerous organizations providing assistance by bringing in material goods to provide to the villagers. The Majority Church offered definite help in tangible ways, bringing into the village large quantities of household items and supplies that were needed. This included bags of rice, drinking water, mattresses, kitchen staples, etc. Along with that they also brought and distributed copies of a Gideon New Testament, a diglot edition containing both English and the national language.

The Majority Church joined with foreigners who had come to assist in disaster relief efforts, also holding evangelistic activities with the children and with some of the adults in the village. The Majority Church also began sending a vehicle to the village on Sunday mornings to pick up villagers and take them to the Majority Church for the Sunday worship service. All of this seemed to be with the intent of getting villagers to join the Majority Church. Villagers reported that they had been offered financial help in rebuilding their homes if they were willing to sign a document indicating that they were now affiliated with the Majority Church.

The Majority Church workers who brought goods in for the villagers knew about the existence of the Indigenous Church, its indigenous leadership, and the New Testament in the indigenous language. While the Majority Church was indeed helping, at the same time they seemed to be proselytizing the villagers to their own church. Understandably, the Indigenous Church began to feel uneasy about the Majority Church and its efforts. The Majority Church was not sensitive to the indigenous language situation and became a threat to the Indigenous Church in two ways. First, the bilingual young people schooled outside of the village could easily be lost to the Majority Church and lose their indigenous identity. Second, if they signed a document affiliating themselves with the Majority Church, financial help was available to fix their home. By intentionally pushing them to align with the Majority Church, it was unintentionally pushing the indigenous people to align with the majority culture and language, which was contrary to the desire of the indigenous people to keep their language and culture.

The Majority Church used this situation to create dependency on themselves, which creates unhealthy relationships.

Relationships built on need are seldom healthy. There is an implicit expectation (at least a hope) that the recipient of charity will use that assistance to better himself. The recipient feels controlled by the strings attached by the giver, and the giver feels deceived by the recipient’s lack of candor. The relationship eventually dissolves (Lupton 2011, 60).

Most of the indigenous people stayed with the Indigenous Church and the membership increased from 20 to 45 during the rehabilitation stage. This was attributed to the fact that the villagers could understand the indigenous language and they had received repair/rebuilding help from Indigenous Church’s denomination. Thus, the Indigenous Church experienced growth during the rehabilitation phase.

Disaster Development Process

In addition to offering financial assistance for repairing/rebuilding of homes to people if they signed a document indicating that they were affiliating with the Majority Church, that church also offered financial assistance for micro economic startups to villagers in exchange for joining the Majority Church. Around 50 or more people, including children and adults, attended the Majority Church in the months following the tsunami. Included in this number were as many as 10 Indigenous Church members who initially joined the Majority Church, but later trickled back to the Indigenous Church. Because of the distance from the village to the Majority Church, there was no way the Indigenous people could attend the Majority Church without ongoing transportation provided by Majority Church or the planting of a daughter church in the Indigenous village. The Majority Church created a dependency for the Indigenous people’s church attendance by providing ongoing transportation.

Other than creating dependency, there was not much activity reported in the development process by the Majority Church. The Majority Church’s activities do not show any sign of helping the Indigenous people to be in better condition spiritually, relationally, psychologically, socially, or economically. Rather they brought disharmony and jealousy over the financial help in the Indigenous village. “Development is not done to people or for people but with people” (Corbett & Fikkert 2012, 100). The Majority Church’s development effort clearly shows that it was done to the indigenous people for the benefit of the Majority Church, not for the indigenous people.

Epilogue of the Two Churches

A year or two following the tsunami, the Majority Church was sending buses and picking up crowds of people from the village. This continued until they found out that people were getting bored with the arrangement. From that point on they started to have meetings right in the village. Eventually the Majority Church established a daughter church in the village, which meets in a community center that was constructed by the government. Handouts of food and some money are reportedly given out after the services. Since that time up through the present, there have been two churches in the village.

Currently the Indigenous Church meets in their own facility in the village and is reported to have about 60 to 70 members. The Majority Church’s daughter congregation has a membership of 50. There is no relationship at the leadership level between these two congregations, but there is relationship among the believers.

Analysis of the Two Churches

A charity project fails if the giver focuses on the reward and satisfaction they have in giving, rather than on the benefit received by the recipients. This toxic charity fosters dishonest relationships, weakens those being served, destroys personal initiative, disempowers the recipients, erodes recipients’ work ethic, deepens dependency, and decreases the recipients’ dignity. Many organizations with good intentions not only failed in helping but also harmed the people they intended to help (Lupton 2011).

To avoid toxic charity, Lupton gives the following principles. “Never do for the poor what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves…. Limit one-way giving to emergency situations” (Lupton 2011, 8) “Subordinate self-interests to the needs of those being served” (Ibid., 9) “Getting to know community leaders first requires us to listen and respect indigenous leadership and learn the dreams of the people.” (Lupton 2011, 131, emphasis added). According to the principles that Lupton stated, the Majority Church violated the Indigenous Church’s capability of caring for its own spiritual needs by taking villagers to be part of the Majority Church. The Indigenous Church would have been able to hold separate worship services in the Majority Church’s building, for example. The Majority Church had clear self-interests in absorbing the Indigenous Church into their church because at that time the Majority Church was part of a movement trying to plant a church in every locality. From the Majority Church’s viewpoint of self-interest, the tsunami provided an opportunity to expand the church in the indigenous area.

This tale of two churches portrays an unfortunate obliviousness and resultant insensitivity on the part of the one church (the Majority Church) to the delicateness and fragility of the ethnolinguistic situation of the other church (the Indigenous Church). It is true that villagers did receive tangible help from the Majority Church, despite the possibility of questionable motives. These efforts drew villagers into their national language congregation and years later into the daughter congregation they established inside the village, ultimately resulting in an increase to the Majority Church membership numbers. At the same time, it failed to show even the smallest degree of sensitivity to an ethnic minority group having a culture and a language of its own, a language very much in danger of extinction. The Majority Church’s biggest issue was not listening to the Indigenous Church when indigenous leaders expressed their concerns. This can be a common occurrence when churches attempting to be helpful are not sensitive to cultural issues.

Conclusion

This case study clearly demonstrates important lessons for helping disaster victims. First, the helper must listen to the helped. The Majority Church’s attitude of not listening to the needs of the indigenous people threatened the indigenous culture and language by drawing away the young generation of the indigenous people. In addition to that, the Majority Church was not sensitive to the culture of the indigenous people and conducted all the work from the perspective of the Majority Church itself.

A second lesson is that the relief and development work has to be focused toward the ones being helped. The helper should not take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. Intentional extension of the prolonged relief stage by the Majority Church created dependency of the indigenous people, and money given for the rebuilding of homes and the startup of businesses was not solely for the benefit of the ones being helped, but ultimately for the helper in this case. The helper might feel good about giving away finances, but it matters how that kind of help was receive. Unless the help benefits the one in need spiritually, relationally, psychologically, socially, or economically, any helping activities are not actually helpful at all.

References

Corbett, Steve & Brian Fikkert. 2012. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor—and Yourself. Chicago: Moody.

Edwards, John. 2009. Language and Identity: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ethnologue. 2018. www.ethnologue.org (accessed January 18, 2019).

Joshua Project. 2019. https://joshuaproject.net/ (accessed January 24, 2019).

Karan, Mark. 2018. The Dynamics of Identity: How Migration and Diaspora Impact Identity and Multilingualism. In Language and Identity in a Multilingual, Migrating World, edited by S. Quakenbush and G. Simons, 67-78. Dallas: Pike Foundation.

 Kraft, Charles H. 1996. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Lewis, M. Paul & Gary F. Simons. 2016. Sustaining Language Use: Perspectives on Community-based Language Development. Dallas: SIL International.

Lupton, Robert D. 2011. Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (and How to Reverse It. New York: Harper One.

Mooney, Annabelle & Betsy Evans. 2015. Language, Society & Power: An Introduction. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.