herbswanson.com

Introduction

The general purpose of these five questions is to test how the respondents look upon their relationship with people of other faiths. It deals with the important question of evangelism as an element in that relationship (Questions 6 and 7), how people of other faiths view Christians as the respondents see it (Questions 8 and 9), and who is the source of friction between Christians and people of other faiths (Question 10). One of the goals of these questions, particularly the last three, is to see whether or not the respondents feel constrained in any way in their attitudes towards people of other faiths and their religion. We will find that the data suggests that they do feel somewhat constrained by the traditional Protestant emphasis on evangelism. On the other hand, they evidently do not feel constrained socially by being members of a small religious minority.

(Readers are again reminded that all of the percentages contained in this report are valid percentages, that is they include only those respondents who actually answered the particular question under consideration.)

These two questions test the respondents understanding of how evangelism relates to their attitudes about and relations with people of other faiths. From the missionary era down to the present, northern Thai Protestants have placed special emphasis on evangelism as being the first and most important of all of the ministries of the church. As an outreach ministry, evangelism presumably has a major impact on the ways in which Protestants look on their relationships with people of other faiths. These two questions are also related to Questions 4 and 5, it being assumed originally that the responses in both sets should mirror each other. That is, respondents who gave pluralist responses in the first two questions will likely give the same response in these two questions; and, by the same token, those who tested exclusivist in Questions 4 and 5 should give similar responses here.

Question 6 begins with the statement, "The Bible teaches us to love our neighbors." It then asks, "What does loving our neighbors of other faiths mean?" Five possible responses are provided: [a] "do everything, both in speaking and acting, to bring them to faith in God"; [b] "share in their joys and sufferings with the hope that they will know God; but do not emphasize conversion"; [c] "show them compassion as Thai brothers and sisters without expecting anything in return"; [d] "this is not a matter to worry about or think a lot about"; and, [e] "I'm not sure on this question." Respondents were asked to select only one response.

It is assumed that the first response is exclusivist and the third is pluralist in intent. The second response is taken to be a compromise response but probably is inclined slightly towards pluralism. It is intended to capture the position of those who see good deeds, rather than verbal presentations of the Christian message, as central to evangelism. The purpose of the fourth response is to see whether or not the respondents even feel that the question of evangelism is personally important to them.

Table 18 shows that the respondents were almost evenly divided between those who stated that loving one's neighbor means overtly evangelizing them (38.3%) and those who agreed that loving one's neighbor means showing them compassion without any thought of converting them (36.2%). Overall, 58.0% agreed to statements in Question 6 that eschew overt evangelization of people of other faiths (that is, responses two and three). It should be noted that only 1.1% of the sample agreed that one should not worry about loving one's neighbors, suggesting that the issue of how to relate to one's neighbors is an important one for virtually all of the respondents. It should also be noted that just 2.5% of the respondents felt uncertain on this question, indicating that the great majority of them have thought about the question and formed an opinion about it.

Table 19 shows that on the whole pastors (55.0%) and elders (50.0%) more frequently selected the first, exclusivist response, which holds that loving one's neighbor of another faith means evangelizing them than did the general membership (34.9%). Elders were the least likely (21.4%) to agree to the pluralist statement that loving one's neighbor means showing them compassion without hoping they will convert .

Table 19
Frequency Distribution for Question 6 by Positions
The Meaning of Loving our Neighbors of Other Faiths

Table 20 shows that 43.4% of less well-educated respondents tend to equate love of neighbor with uncomplicated compassion where respondents with both medium and higher education show a greater inclination to love their neighbors by evangelizing them. In terms of how one expresses Christian love of neighbor, in other words, the higher the educational level the more likely are respondents to equate that love with overt evangelization of neighbors of other faiths. In every case, however, the majority of respondents do not affirm the exclusivist choice of the first response, evangelism. If we accept the premise that the second choice of sharing in the sorrows and joys of people of other faith is conscious but covert evangelism and a step away from an exclusivist commitment to evangelization, then the old-time missionary approach to people of other faiths remains the favored choice of only roughly 30% to 40% of the sample when the variable of educational status is considered. Table 20 also shows that the percentages for the total urban sample does not differ greatly from that of the particularly exclusivist Fa Ham Church and, in fact, are even slightly more exclusivist.

Table 21 shows that those respondents who were born in Christian homes tend to be more pluralist in their responses than do those who were not born in Christian homes. Some 47.7% of the latter, thus, equated love of neighbor with overt evangelization while only 35.4% of those born in Christian homes did so. On the other hand, the differences between the two groups in terms of the pluralist response of showing one's neighbor uncomplicated compassion is not that great. The reason is that 7.3% more of those born in Christian homes chose the medium response of covert evangelism (24.0%) than did those not born into Christian homes (16.7%).

Table 21
Frequency Distribution for Question 6 by Birth in a Christian Home
The Meaning of Loving our Neighbors of Other Faiths

Regarding the other variables, women showed a stronger tendency to show uncomplicated compassion (39.5%) compared to the men (30.2%). Rural Christians also showed a less inclination towards overt evangelism (35.8%) than did urban Christians (50.0). There was only a slight difference among age groups with people ages 11-30 tending to be just a little more pluralist (37.1% selecting the third response) compared to those ages 60 and above (39.7% selecting the third response).

Question 7 asks, "Do you agree that it is not necessary for Christians to evangelize people of other faiths?" The question is phrased negatively for two reasons: first, to reduce the chance that respondents would go through the questionnaire selecting one response automatically; and, second, to encourage the respondents to stop and reflect on their evangelistic commitment. Responses disagreeing with the statement in this question are taken to be exclusivist; responses affirming the statement are considered pluralist.

As is seen in Table 22, the respondents, in general, strongly affirmed the necessity of evangelizing non-Christians. Some 79.6% of the total sample disagreed to one degree or another with the statement that Christians need not evangelize people of other faiths, a particularly strong response esp. given the negative and perhaps slightly awkward wording of the question. Only 19.0% agreed.

Table 23 shows that younger people, ages 11-30, disagreed with the idea that evangelism is unimportant at a rate (85.1%) considerably higher than those ages 60 and over (69.6%). Of all of the variables sampled, those over the age of 60 agreed with the proposition that evangelism is unimportant at a rate (30.4%) higher than for any other category.

Table 23
Summary of Frequency Distribution for Question 7 by Age
It is not necessary for Christians to evangelize people of other faiths

Table 24 shows that those with a higher education disagreed with the idea that evangelism is unimportant at a rate (84.9%) higher than those with a medium education (80.1%) or with a lower education level (72.1%). That is, as in the case of Question 6, there is a positive correlation between level of education and valuation of evangelism.

Table 24
Summary of Frequency Distribution for Question 7 by Educational Status
It is not necessary for Christians to evangelize people of other faiths

In terms of the other variables, women disagreed with the statement that evangelism is not important at a rate (80.1%) slightly lower than men (81.6%). Rural respondents tended to agree that evangelism is not important at a higher rate (24.1%) than those living in amphur centers (15.7%), suburbs (11.7%), or cities (11.2%). Pastors, again, disagreed with the statement that evangelism is not important at a much higher rate (95.5%) than those holding other positions in the church, particularly the general membership (79.1%). In their high valuation of evangelism as reflected in Question 7, there are not appreciable differences between those born in Christian homes and converts or between those who have people of other faiths living with them in their homes and those who do not.

Reflections on Questions 6 and 7

The data obtained from Questions 6 and 7 begin to reveal the complexity of northern Thai Protestant pluralist and exclusivist thinking about and attitudes towards people of other faiths. Theologically or ideologically, as we have seen in the first five questions, Protestants in northern Thailand are apparently somewhat more pluralist in their thinking than exclusivist, and the trend seems to be somewhat away from exclusivism.

The data from Question 6 seems to confirm that trend. As we saw in Table 18, only roughly two-fifths (38.3%) of the respondents affirmed the overtly exclusivist response that loving one's neighbor means doing "everything, both in speaking and acting, to bring them to faith in God." Most of the remaining three-fifths (58.0%) selected the second and third responses to that question, which affirm either covert or overt pluralism. While the matter is made more complicated by the fact that the second response may also be taken to be somewhat exclusivist, the fact remains that the solid majority of respondents did not choose the historical missionary position of overt, aggressive evangelism. In spite of the fact that evangelism is still highly valued by the leadership of most local churches and widely believed to be the most important ministry of the church, a strong minority of 36.2% affirmed the pluralist response, which uses the more Buddhist than Christian term of "compassion" (maeta karuna) to describe loving relationships with one's neighbors of other faiths.

The data from Question 7, however, suggests that a strong commitment to evangelism remains central to the respondents understanding of their relationship to people of other faiths. Virtually four-fifths (79.6%), as we saw from Table 22, disagreed to one degree or another with the statement in Question 7 that it is not necessary to evangelize people of other faiths. While many of the respondents may have an understanding of evangelism that is not overtly exclusivist, as the data from Question 6 suggests, it is important to understand that the respondents continue to value evangelism highly even when we would expect differently. It might be assumed, for example, that those who agreed in Question 6 that the best way to love one's neighbor is by uncomplicated compassion would not value evangelism. Such is not the case. Table 25 shows that 73.9% of all of those who chose the pluralist response of uncomplicated compassion in Question 6 still affirmed, to one degree or another, the importance evangelism in Question 7.

Table 25
Comparison of the Total Frequency Distributions for Question 7 with the
First and Third Responses in Question 6 to Question 7

	Question 7	Question 6 Exclusivist Response	Question 6 Pluralist Response
Disagree Entirely	33.1%	46.1%	23.3%
Disagree	38.9%	35.2%	42.0%
Disagree Somewhat	7.7%	6.4%	8.6%
Agree Somewhat	5.0%	1.9%	7.4%
Agree	9.9%	5.2%	14.8%
Agree Entirely	4.0%	4.9%	1.2%
Uncertain	1.4%	0.4%	2.7%
Number	717	267	257

We should note, on the other hand, that those advocating uncomplicated compassion in Question 6 tended to be somewhat less strong in their response to Question 7 compared to the whole sample. As Table 25 also shows, they "disagreed entirely" with the idea that it is not necessary for Christians to evangelize people of other faiths less frequently (23.3%) than did the total sample in Question 7 (33.1%). The shift to a less strong response is especially clear when compared with those who answered Question 6 with the first, exclusivist response that loving one's neighbors of another faith means evangelizing them.

The matter of pluralism and exclusivism, in sum, is clearly more complex than we might have suspected. Each option remains embedded in northern Thai Protestant thinking about their non-Christian neighbors.

Questions 8, 9, & 10

These three questions seek to discover how the respondents view their relationships with people of other faiths, as opposed to Questions 6 and 7, which are normative questions dealing with how the respondents value evangelism. The intent, especially in Questions 8 and 9, is to ascertain whether or not a sense of being forced to submit to social prejudice or feelings of alienation might influence the respondents' attitudes towards people of other faiths. We should also note that these three questions are not classified according to pluralist or exclusivist responses. A comparison of answers to these three questions with Questions 5 and 6, categorized according to pluralist and exclusivist responses in those two questions, show only a slight correlation for Question 5 and virtually none for Question 6. The respondents, that is, show only the slightest of inclinations, if at all, to answer Questions 8, 9, or 10 on the basis of their pluralist and exclusivist attitudes as expressed in other questions.

Question 8

Question 8 asks, "Do you agree that generally the Thai people look down on Christians as ones who follow the religion of foreigners?" The purpose of the question is to determine the degree to which the respondents feel that their religion alienates them from their general society. In the past, Christians were widely criticized for taking up a foreign religion.

Table 26 indicates that virtually two-thirds (66.4%) of respondents did not agree, to one degree or another, with the proposition that their society looks down on them as followers of a foreign religion. Only 28.7% of the total sample agreed with that proposition.

Table 26
Frequency Distribution for Question 8
Thai people look down on Christians as ones who follow the religion of foreigners

	Number	Valid %
Disagree Entirely	177	24.9%
Disagree	212	29.8%
Disagree Somewhat	83	11.7%
Agree Somewhat	83	11.7%
Agree	91	12.8%
Agree Entirely	30	4.2%
Uncertain	35	4.9%
N = 711

In terms of the variables of age (Question 16), gender (Question 17), locality (Question 18), position in the church (Question 19), educational status (Question 20), and whether or not the respondents were born into a Christian home (Question 21) or have non-Christians living in their homes (Question 22), there is a strong degree of consistency throughout the sample. None of the categories within each variable vary by more than 10.0%, and there are no discernable patterns in those variations.

Question 9

Question 9 asks, "How willing are the Buddhists in your village or community to accept Christians?" This question parallels Question 8 and has the same general purpose of seeking to determine the extent to which Christians feel alienated from the general society. The word "accept" (yom rub), although somewhat nebulous in meaning, indicates a positive attitude lacking any prejudicial aversion against the person or group accepted. Table 27 shows a very large majority (85.1%) of the total sample agreed to one degree or another that the people of other faiths in their community accept Christians. Only 11.5% disagreed.

Table 27
Frequency Distribution for Question 9
Willingness of the Buddhists in your village or community to accept Christians

	Number	Valid %
Disagree Entirely	3	0.4%
Disagree	11	1.5%
Disagree Somewhat	69	9.6%
Agree Somewhat	227	31.6%
Agree	297	41.3%
Agree Entirely	88	12.2%
Uncertain	24	3.3%
N = 719

In terms of the variables of age (Question 16), gender (Question 17), locality (Question 18), position in the church (Question 19), educational status (Question 20), and whether or not the respondents were born into a Christian home (Question 21) or have non-Christians living in their homes (Question 22), there is again a strong degree of consistency throughout the sample—just as was the case in Question 8. Every category of every variable sampled, agreed at a rate of at least 80.0% that Buddhists in their community are willing to accept Christians. The highest rate of acceptance for Question 9 is among those aged 60 and over (91.4%). The lowest rate is among those with a lower educational status (82.2%). There are no clear trends apparent in the variables.

Question 10

Question 10 asks, "When Christians have problems have people of other faiths, do you agree that usually Christians are not the source of the problem?" The purpose of this question is to test the degree to which Christians feel victimized when there are tensions with people of other faiths. Table 28 shows that slightly more than half (51.7%) of the respondents agree that tensions between people of other faiths and Christians, where they exist, are usually not caused by Christians.

Table 28
Frequency Distribution for Question 10
Christians are usually not the source of problems with people of other faiths

	Number	Valid %
Disagree Entirely	37	5.3%
Disagree	119	17.2%
Disagree Somewhat	96	13.9%
Agree Somewhat	109	15.8%
Agree	201	29.0%
Agree Entirely	48	6.9%
Uncertain	82	11.8%
N= 692

In terms of the variables of age (Question 16), gender (Question 17), locality (Question 18), position in the church (Question 19), educational status (Question 20), and whether or not the respondents were born into a Christian home (Question 21) or have non-Christians living in their homes (Question 22), there is a strong degree of consistency throughout most of the sample—just as was the case in Questions 8 and 9. Every category of every variable sampled but one, agreed at a rate of at least 80.0% that non-Christians are usually the source of tensions between Christians and non-Christians. The only variable for which a larger degree of difference is apparent is that of whether or not the respondent was born in a Christian home.

Table 29 shows that respondents who were not born into a Christian home were less likely to agree that non-Christians are usually the source of friction with Christians.

Table 29
Frequency Distribution for Question 10 by Birth in a Christian Home
Christians are usually not the source of problems with people of other faiths

	Born in a Christian Home	Not Born in a Christian Home
Disagree	9.8%	15.4%
Agree	88.5%	78.3%
Number	470	221

As stated above, there is otherwise no major differences in the variables.

Reflections on Questions 8, 9, and 10

The responses to Questions 8 and 9 indicate that the respondents generally feel secure in northern Thai society. They do not feel that people look down on them because they are adherents of a foreigners' religion, and they generally feel accepted by their relatives and neighbors of other faiths. Only slightly more than one in ten (11.5%) stated that they do not feel accepted as Christians by the people of other faiths in their community (Table 27).

Things may not be quite as rosy as these figures suggest since, in my experience, northern Thai church members tend to look on questions regarding their relationship with their Buddhist neighbors as having a "right" and a "wrong" answer. The "right" answer is that everything is fine; we get along just fine. Admitting to tensions or problems between Buddhists and Christians is a "wrong" answer. The matter is partly one of not admitting weaknesses or failures, poor relationships within a community being seen as a failure and weakness. More largely, local people deeply value communal unity, so that it would be "wrong" to answer a question about communal unity negatively whatever the reality on the ground. On the other hand, many older Christians tell stories about how relationships used to be seriously strained between Christians and Buddhists in most communities, and they claim that things are much improved today. There is reason, then, to accept the respondents' overall claim that people of other faiths do not look down on them and do accept them, understanding that the situation may not be quite as definite or as positive as our data here suggests.

The responses to Question 10, however, suggest that the majority of the respondents still retain some sense that when there are inter-faith tensions, Christians are more likely to be the victims than the victimizers. Whatever the basis for this response, there is no indication from our sample that it is ideologically motivated, that is exclusivists seeing persecution where pluralists do not. Table 30 compares the responses to Question 10 with the exclusivist (first) and pluralist (third) responses to Question 5, where the respondents were queried concerning the prospects for salvation of people of other faiths. It shows that there is very little difference in Question 10 between those who answered Question 5 with a pluralist response or with an exclusivist response compared to the answers given by the total sample. Indeed, those who gave an exclusivist response to Question 5 actually disagreed that non-Christians are more often the source of tensions between Christians and non-Christians slightly more frequently (40.0%) than did those who gave a pluralist response (38.1%).

Table 30
Comparison of the Total Frequency Distributions for Question 10 with the
First and Third Responses to Question 5

	Question 10 Total Sample	Question 10 compared to Exclusivist Response in Question 5	Question 10 compared to Pluralist Response in Question 5
Disagree	36.4%	40.0%	38.1%
Agree	51.7%	52.3%	50.8%
Number	692	195	236

It is hardly surprising that the respondents more often feel that generally non-Christians are the sources of inter-faith tensions rather Christians. What may be somewhat surprising is the relatively large percentage of the respondents (36.4%) who disagree with that proposition—who recognize, that is, that Christians can be as much a source of those tensions as people of other faiths. It may well be a mark of the general sense of security in their Christian identity that allows nearly two-fifths of the sample to be so self-critical.

By and large, by way of summary of the data for Questions 8, 9, and 10, a solid majority of the respondents feel comfortable socially with their identity as Protestants. Experiences of social coercion or a sense of being ostracized are not factors in the their attitudes towards people of other faiths. A substantial minority is even capable of seeing Christians as being as much of a source of inter-faith tensions as are people of other faiths. The fact that the respondents do not seem to feel constrained or pressed upon by their social environment suggests that the exclusivist and pluralist strands in the respondents' thinking are largely cultural and historical in nature. They are not shaped by a contemporary sense of being an oppressed minority.

Conclusion

The responses to Questions 6 through 10 establish two important general facts. First, they indicate that the inter-mixing of pluralist and exclusivist themes in northern Thai Protestant thinking is more complex than the responses to the first five questions, above, might have led us to believe. Second, northern Thai Protestants are evidently not constrained by adverse social conditions in their understanding of people of other faiths.