Saving Grandmother's Face: And Other Tales from Christian Teachers in China

Aminta Arrington, Editor

Grandmother was nearing the end of her days, and as was the traditional custom, was having her tombstone engraved.  Although she had fulfilled her familial (and societal) responsibilities of bearing children (including sons), her children had yet to produce any grandchildren.  This posed a problem in that, according to custom, the names of her children and grandchildren must be engraved on the tombstone along with hers.  For a woman to have a tombstone without the names of any grandchildren would be a terrible loss of face.  In an effort to save grandmother’s face, her family consulted local religious monks to predict the gender of her grandchildren so that names could be chosen and engraved on the tombstone.

In order to find what the monks predicted and if their predictions came true, you’ll need to read “Saving Grandmother’s Face,” edited by Aminta Arrington.  The book is a collection of 17 stories and essays written by American teachers in China, of which the story of the grandmother is one.

While they are all written by Americans working in education, the stories are varied. Some explore the complexity and cultural meanings of Chinese characters.  Some are stories of relationships built and nourished through communication styles and behaviors that are different from ‘back home,’ but are always deep and meaningful.  Other stories give insight into student lives and experiences, as well as exploring the unique challenges that American teachers face in a Chinese classroom.  Along the way the readers learns about important Chinese cultural rules as well as how to handle being a foreigner in China.

If you are preparing for a teaching stint in China, this book should be near the top of your ‘to read’ list.  It will be extremely helpful as you prepare for your sojourn in a Chinese classroom. And if you have spent any time teaching in China, you will recognize these stories, as they are no doubt variations of your own.  

To order on amazon, click here.

1. Mothers and children are special, Fathers are not.

o When asked to describe or extrapolate the idea of “special” not one person could. So I’m still not sure I understand this distinction, but they seem to since it’s the #1 answer given by far. (And this answer is by far the most fascinating considering the unapologetic male child preference. Maybe Father’s Day would be more of a hit if it was called Men With a Child Day instead.)

2. We don’t have that holiday in China.

o Interestingly enough, this answer was given by all ages, not just older people as you might think would be the case. So the group mentality of all thinking the same is still very much a part of Chinese culture amidst the growing capitalism boom. (I chose not to reply that Mother’s Day is a new holiday and Father’s Day could be too.)  

3. Fathers don’t have time for Father’s Day.

o If you follow this logic through, it leads to: Mothers and children do have time for their holidays. Based on the women and children I know, they don’t seem to have more free time than men in this culture. But women and men alike gave this as the #3 answer.

Short term, second career/retirees, non-resident, itinerant, indigenous, career... so many different ways and approaches for trying to bring transformation across cultural barriers. I certainly have opinions---very strong ones!---on which of these methods are most effective, and which cause more harm than good. And I am well aware that these are contentious issues, producing very emotional responses that are often less than godly.

But despite these disagreements---which in some cases are disagreements worth having---there is an area where we should be able to find agreement. Unfortunately, our passionate opinions cause us to lose sight of what should be common ground and to see only opposition. Because while we can argue extensively on how valuable or "strategic" each of the above ways of working in China may or may not be, we should all be able to agree on the strengths and limitations of each of these particular approaches.

For instance... Short-term and second career/retired workers are much less likely to attain linguistic fluency. This does not make them "worse" at ministry than others, but it does mean we should not put them in language dependent or language intensive ministry situations.

Likewise, career workers take immense time and training to produce---with many fields now calling for still longer and more focused periods of pre-field training. This doesn't mean they are a "waste of resources", but it does mean rapidly evolving plans should not be dependent on the rapid introduction of career workers. Financial costs, theological sophistication, cultural awareness, perceived local value...

a whole host of important factors in effective field work all vary in ways that are fairly obvious for each of these different kinds of workers.

Rather than fighting about which one way is best or most harmful, we need to think carefully about what we are trying to do, and then choose the tools that work best. Matching our methods to our intended results is something we can all agree on, and it will produce happier workers and better results.