Many Asian Americans churchgoers struggle to accept the concept of grace. In presentations of the gospel message, we hear that God’s gift is free and without obligation: There is nothing we need to do but accept the gift. However, in East Asian cultures, gifts largely come with reciprocity. Whether it is a present or favor, an act of giving invites a relationship—gifts are to be reciprocated.
Asian Americans might be reluctant to apply the Asian notions of reciprocity as recipients of God’s grace. However, it is precisely at this point that we should embrace the insight of Asian cultures. While we might be tempted to reject Asian reciprocity, this notion of a gift without return is based on a faulty view of grace that stems from Western Christianity, not the Bible.
“Western” vs. “Global” Grace
Ben Shin and Sheryl Silzer, Asian American professors at Talbot School of Theology, previously had a similar misunderstanding of grace. In Tapestry of Grace: Untangling the Cultural Complexities of Asian-American Life and Ministry, they explain that they:
“used to think that Asian culture was completely devoid of grace. But now [we] realize that it was just a different type of grace, not the Western kind that [we were] used to knowing as an evangelical, Western Christian” (59).
In their book, they distinguish “Western grace” from “Bilateral Global Grace,” which is far more common historically and globally.
“Western grace” is free in the sense that God does not expect us to respond with reciprocity. Thus, one should not feel indebted to God. On the other hand, “Bilateral Global Grace” says precisely the opposite: God’s grace makes us have an infinite debt to God. The only proper response is reciprocity. I’m sure most readers will think the latter is blatantly false, but that is because people misunderstand the logic of grace.
John Barclay’s study Paul and the Gift is so helpful and clear on this point. He contrasts grace in the ancient biblical world with a Western “one-way” view of grace.
“What distinguishes the sphere of gift [from payment] is not that it is ‘unilateral’ but that it expresses a social bond, a mutual recognition of the value of the person. It is filled with sentiment because it invites a personal, enduring, and reciprocal relationship—an ethos often signaled by the use of the term charis.
[By contrast,] the one-way gift establishes no relation, creates a permanent and potentially humiliating dependency, and frees the recipient of all responsibility.” (31, 75)
In short, grace, biblically speaking, is a natural way of establishing and perpetuating relationships!
Barclay traces how the Western church has veered away from ancient perspectives of “grace” in Paul and the Gift (79–188). Generally, Westerners separate grace and reciprocity such that grace is “non-circular,” i.e., expecting nothing in return from the recipient. But Barclay points out,
“This is not a common conception of perfect gifts in antiquity…it was rare to find the gift perfected as a “one-way, unilateral donation” (74).
So Western Christianity has misunderstood reciprocity.
In Western churches, we often hear that our good deeds do not earn salvation from God. We learn that grace is not a reward for the things we do.
Now if we introduce words like “earn” and “wage,” we can invert the order of grace. Because grace is given first, a debt is created. Now the person who received grace can reciprocate with worshipful obedience. But his actions are not earning a wage as one cannot earn something that has already been given as a gift. There is a reaction to the grace but not a (fill in the blank). We see that grace is only nullified if God inverts the order in that we first obey, then God grants us a relationship with him. But God takes the initiative in giving grace “without regard for the worth of the recipient” (71–72).
We are Debtors (Praise God!)
It is important to note that global grace is not completely foreign to us. When we in the Western church talk about doing good deeds because it honors God or gives him his due, we often unwittingly use debt language. In fact, “Giving God what he’s due” is quintessential debt language!
Our confusion seems to come from our misunderstanding of (1) the nature of a Christian’s debt and (2) the meaning of “repay.”
Western Christians may recoil at the thought of obligation with God. However, the implicit assumption behind this reluctance is that “obligations” (i.e., debts) are cold and non-relational. But this is far from a biblical way of thinking. In Romans, for example, Paul says,
“So then, brothers, we are debtors [ὀφειλέτης], not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh” (8:12).
“Owe [“Be indebted to,” ὀφείλω] no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (13:8).
Paul urges the church to be unified in Romans 14. In so doing, he says,
“We who are strong have an obligation [“are indebted,” ὀφείλω] to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” (15:1)
Then, when discussing the Gentiles’ gift to the poor in Jerusalem, Paul adds,
“For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe [ὀφειλέτης] it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought [ὀφείλω] also to be of service to them in material blessings.”Paul explicitly and repeatedly appeals to people’s debt as a reason for them to serve others in love. Debt or “obligation” is an inherent part of every close relationship. I explain this further in a previous post.
Repay God?
What is the meaning of “repay”? For many Western churchgoers, this seems to be a fundamental error. We often hear that Christ has already taken upon himself our debt. We are reluctant to consider that any payment is to be made.
We do not “repay” God in the sense we can get out from under our obligation to him. We will forever be in his debt (praise God!). That, however, does not nullify the reciprocal nature of grace. To respond reciprocally (i.e., according to our obligation) is simply to honor God as the Sovereign Giver!
Imagine the audacity of ignoring His grace. If we truly take “Western grace” seriously, people are not obligated to respond to God in obedient worship.
In fact, one might even say we ought not to respond in worship or obedience since the response itself would effectively imply it isn’t “free.” Of course, such thinking is ludicrous.
We need to learn from Asian reciprocity. There is no doubt that some people might try to use gifts to manipulate or cajole people into doing what he or she wants. However, that does not undermine the fundamental way that gifts are intended to work.
Loving people entails many “oughts.” To disregard reciprocity is to destroy an essential part of relationships. If you want to avoid “debt,” you must avoid relationships.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article was posted on Jackson Wu’s blog on Patheos.