Finally got my book updated. Previously, I was trying to finish the book “Ministry in Diversity” quickly so that it could be used in my Cultural Anthropology class. So I was a bit… sloppy. My son helped me fix a lot of it. We got most of the problems fixed now (HOPEFULLY all of them). Also added another chapter. Chapter 17 is on Interreligious Dialogue (IRD). Additionally, I expanded my chapter on Language a bit. However, because of changing the formatting, it is now about 60 pages shorter, despite having more content. That also reduced the cost a bit. Kindle version will be up soon,
Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary (www.pbts.net.ph) will start its 2017/18 academic year starting June 13th. Looking forward to it, as I will be teaching three courses I love.
- I will be teaching Cultural Anthropology again. This will be for the M.Div. program. I will be using the book I wrote, “Ministry in Diversity,” as the main text book. Still trying to think about what project I want to do with that. Traditionally, I ask people to do either an ethnography or an RRA (Rapid Rural Assessment). However, we are doing some ministry work in a jail this year, and it would be an exciting exercise in sub-culture contextualization. Not sure yet.
- I will be teaching “Contemporary Issues in Missions.” This is a BTh course. I taught it years ago, but in more of a modular, rather than semestral, format. Additionally, the book I used back then is probably a bit long-in-the-tooth to be thought contemporary today. I may have to teach the course without a single textbook. I will probably make it more research-oriented.
- Celia and I, and maybe one or two more, will tag-team to teach “Clinical Pastoral Orientation.” It is a mini form of Clinical Pastoral Education, designed to fit a bit better into a semestral system. Might use our book “The Art of Pastoral Care” but not sure. It depends how many have already used the book for Intro to PC&C. This is a cross-over class in the sense that both Bachelor level and Master level students can take it.
My wife Celia will be teaching Intro to PC&C for the BTh Students. I will also be supervising theses and dissertations at Asia Baptist Graduation Theological Seminary, and thesis students at PBTS and Maranatha Graduate School.
My wife is working with Drug Surrenderers here in Baguio, and both she and I (and our team from Bukal Life Care) will be continuing to expand work in two jails here. Some people find it strange that I teach both Missions and Pastoral Care. However, I believe it is in places like jail ministry, and drug treatment, where Missions and Pastoral Care overlap quite nicely. It is also in such ministries where the argument that social ministry is not really missions is shown to be without merit.
It should be an exciting year. I am not sure whether I will be so busy that I can’t keep this blog updated, or whether the classes and ministries will inspire me to write more.
Imagine that you are walking along the bank of a river. You look into the river… but you have difficulty seeing much beyond the surface. Sure, you can see the surface of the river. You can see the ripples on the surface. But below that is rather obscured. Reflections of light off of the surface obscure the view. Refraction of light as it is affected by the water and the ripples on the surface distort objects below. Finally, sediments in the water absorb light and make it murky, further making it difficult to see below the surface. To see clearly what is below the surface, one really needs to get into the water
Now, imagine that you are not looking at a river, but looking at a culture. You are an outsider to a culture. You have no problem seeing the surface of that culture. Such surface things may be what people in the culture wear, how they sound, what they eat, and so forth. However, deeper issues within the culture are hard to see and are distorted.
As an outsider, it is hard to understand their values and family systems. It is difficult to see clearly their aspirations, their fears, or their adaptive mechanisms. To really understand what is going on in the culture, one needs to immerse oneself in that culture.
<NOTE: This is mostly from a chapter of the book that I am MOSTLY done with… “Ministry in Diversity.” The ideas here in Part 1 are to a large extent from Dr. Dan Russell, although I not totally sure where he got them from. But then I will add a final section that connects the metaphor for culture to theology. That part is not in the book.>
Returning to the river metaphor, suppose you want to jump into the river. Perhaps it is a warm day, and the cool water appears inviting. When you jump into the water, especially if the river has a cold source, there is an initial shock to your system. In part, this is because one’s body has already adapted to the air along the bank of the river. But diving in, the difference of temperature, combined with the differences in conductive and convective cooling of the flowing water startles your body. However, often in a few minutes, your body has adapted, and the water now feels comfortable… perhaps even more comfortable than being out of the water.
Imagine now that you are not jumping into a river, but “immersing” yourself in a new culture. Very often there is an immediate “shock” in the experience. You were well adapted in behavior and language to the culture you were in… but now your are disoriented. The language is different, the routines are different, the social connections are different. The disorientation associated with this is called Culture Shock.
In time, however, you, if you are like most people, will adjust. You learn the language enough for basic communication, you learn how to eat, maneuver, and deal with various social activities. You might even get to the point that you would rather stay in this new culture. The process of adapting to the new culture is called Acculturation. More on acculturation will be covered in a later chapter.
Let’s stay with the river metaphor but add animals. Which animal would understand the river best? That is, which animal would have the highest level of experience-based understanding of the characteristics of water in the river.
The first animal to consider would be a Fish. A fish should have a pretty strong understanding of the water and the river since the fish spends all of its time in that environment. While that makes sense, there are limits. A fish doesn’t have much to compare to. It has no experience of land except the mud and rocks at the bottom of the river. It has no experience of the air except the tiny amount of experience it may have at the surface of the river. There is a saying that goes, “If you want to know about water, do NOT ask a fish.” And that makes sense. A fish would have a hard time explaining water since it doesn’t have much of anything to compare it to. We tend to understand things by comparing them to other things.
The second animal to consider is a Cat. Most cats don’t really care for the water. They will swim if they they have no choice. They will drink water if they can find a quiet pool. But for the most part, cats (with the exception of tigers) generally stay away from all but the edges of rivers. Their understanding of the river is superficial. They can taste the water of the river and can see the surface of the river. They may see distorted images of fish swimming below, but not much else. Cats have a limited understanding of rivers.
The third animal to consider is a Duck. Ducks live in several environments. Ducks make their nests on land or, for some species, in trees. They often walk on land. They fly in the air. They also swim on the surface of the river. Many types of ducks also dive. They dive into the river and swim underwater to get food.
A duck has a considerable advantage over the fish and the cat. The fish may know a lot about rivers but lacks the knowledge of other environments to effectively explain the characteristics. The cat has only a superficial understanding of the river. But a duck knows the surface of the river intimately, and the environment underwater reasonably well, although less than a fish. However, its advantage over the fish is in its considerable knowledge of other environments that it can compare the river to.
Let’s bring this back to culture. Suppose we have two cultures: Culture A and Culture B. Suppose we want to know about Culture B. Who would know Culture B the best?
A fish corresponds to someone who has only lived in Culture B. He knows a lot about his own culture, but very little of other cultures. He is a Monocultural individual. As noted in a previous chapter, a person who is monocultural is limited in understanding his own culture because he lacks knowledge of other cultures for comparison. He does not know what makes his own culture different from others because he doesn’t know what is unique to his culture and what is common to all humanity. One can describe him as having an Emic perspective. Emic means that he has the perspective of an cultural insider. That perspective has both positive and negative aspects for understanding.
A cat corresponds to someone who lives in Culture A, but looks in on Culture B This is an Etic perspective, or outsider perspective. This perspective gives opportunity for comparison between cultures A and B, but the perspective is hampered by the superficiality of the understanding of Culture B.
A duck corresponds to someone from Culture A (etic perspective) who also has considerable experience in Culture B. The cross-cultural perspective involving intentional crossing of cultural bounds to learn another culture is methodologically described as “participant-observation.” That means that one is actively involved in culture B (participant) but doing so as one from an outside culture (observer). The goal is that one has the understanding of diverse cultures for comparison… something lacking in a strictly emic perspective, while having a deeper understanding of the new culture… something lacking in an etic perspective.
Part 2 relates this to Theology… particularly Contextualized Theology.
Theology means Study of God (at least etymologically). Anthropology means Study of Man (again, etymologically). I would like to suggest that Theology has cultural anthropology as a powerful tool (perhaps most powerful tool from the human sciences) in its development from revelation and context. The material here is a bit heavy (for me at least) but I think it suggests a healthy move away from over-reliance on historical or philosophical analysis.
“I am persuaded that historical inquiry is a useful and necessary procedure but that theological reading is the reading of the text, and not the reading of a source, which is how historians read it. Historical inquiry, while telling us many useful things, does not tell us how we are to understand the texts as texts. I am persuaded that in the search for an answer to the question of how to understand the texts as texts, the closest discipline to theology is not history at all. When I ask what external discipline is potentially most useful in theology, I come up with an answer that surprises me, and it is in a certain kind of social anthropology that bears some relationship to a kind of literary inquiry also. Why? Because I take it that Christianity, on which theology reflects, is first of all a religion. It is not a network of beliefs, it is not a system, first of all. It may be an intellectual system also, but not in the first place. Further, it is not first of all an experienced something, an experienced shape, an essence. Rather, it is first of all a complex, various, loosely held, and yet really discernible community with varying features– a religious community of which, for example, a sacred text is one feature that is typical of a religion. And the sacred text usually (and certainly in Christianity), in the tradition of interpretation within the religion, comes to focus around a sacred story. The word sacred is terribly loaded, let’s simply say it focuses around a central story, certainly in the Christian religion, in the Christian community. It is this kind of approach that I discern in looking at religion, the Christian religion, not under any high-powered comparative system, but under the aegis of the rather humdrum science, anthropology.”
–“Types of Chrisian Theology” by Hans W. Frei. Yale University Press, 1992. pgs 11-12.
Again… a bit heavy, perhaps, but let’s consider what I believe is being said. Theology is tied to sacred text and to a faith community. To develop theology requires understanding of the faith community and the understanding of the sacred text as it exists in the faith community.
Christianity is a religion… an area of study of cultural (social) anthropology.
A faith community is a culture and as such is understood anthropologically.
A sacred text provides meaning to a religious community and has meaning bestowed on the text by that same community. As such, understanding the text is, in part, a cultural anthropological activity.
Often theology is seen as being assisted more by historical analysis (or philosophical/critical analysis) rather than cultural analysis. Historians like to look at a text as source material for analysis. However, understanding a text in terms utilizing the tools of the historian is fraught with problems when it comes to sacred text… such as the Bible.
The problem is that historical analysis is built on presumptions that is problematic in most religions… including Christianity. Historical analysis seeks to find meaning in past data based on the presumption of natural (and local) progression and causation. This seems fairly reasonable. But what happens when it comes to sacred texts. Consider the question of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. Historical analysis starts from the assumption of natural occurrences and so it is ill-equipped to deal with the miraculous (unless of course the proper response is rejection). Likewise, the Bible points to an eschatological history— God working in and through history with a long-range active plan. This implies a plot to history… placing itself more in the area of literature than history. History books have authors, but the assumption of these same books is that history itself has no author. Additionally, and for similar reasons, historical analysis cannot deal with predictive prophecy, except to reject any such predictions beyond educated hunches.
If this is not obvious, consider the following: Suppose you were writing a history of the stone images on Easter Island. Suppose you did a lot of research and finally turn in your findings for peer review. Your findings were that in approximately 1325AD, a miracle happened and all of the statues suddenly appeared on the island. <NOTE: I am making no such claim… just making up an example.> Such a viewpoint would never make it through peer review. It might make it onto the Internet or “Ancient Aliens” on television. But for historical analysis, there is a presumption that events connect through natural and local causation. One cannot deny the (highly unlikely) possibility that something amazing MIGHT have happened and the statues suddenly appeared around 1325AD. Rather, such an unlikely possibility is not considered in historical analysis.
Therefore, theology grounded on historical analysis will inevitably be pulled into a naturalistic worldview.
This is, of course, not to say that understanding sacred text is not potentially aided by historical analysis. This is particularly true of the Bible.
The Bible was written in history, and, in fact, over a considerable period of time historically. This is unlike the view of adherents to the Quran who believe that it existed and exists ahistorically.
The Bible writes about identifiable historical events over a wide range of history. This is unlike the Book of Mormon that, although written in a historical style, does not appear to link to identifiable “real” history.
The Bible emphasizes the relevance of history in its message. This is unlike much of the Hindu sacred texts in which history is not really seen as relevant to the message.
So historical analysis is an important tool, but not as important as the tool of cultural anthropology.
The next post will continue the thought from Frei. The third post will look at the role of context in theology and its relationship to cultural anthropology.
This next term I will be teaching two classes. One of them is Missions History. I will be teaching that at a seminary here in the Philippines. At the same time, at a different school, I will be facilitating (hate to use the word “teaching” since it is doctoral level) a class in Cultural Anthropology.
As I have said before, Evangelical Christians tend to be ahistorical. They do not focus on the past (at least if the past is more than a few decades old) and tend to rejct a lot of symbology. That is a shame in some ways. Part of the errors we find in Evangelical groups today often comes from a “grab a verse and wing it” theologizing. In missions, there is a tendency to hold that “doing something is always better than doing nothing.” Not true… lots of times it is better to do nothing. A bit of historical perspective can do a world of good.
But what about Cultural Anthropology? Why might that be useful? And why, oh why, would it be conisdered a Missions subject. Instead of being clever, I will list 8 reasons that I got from one of the classes I took in Cultural Anthrolopology. It was taught by Dr. Flint Miller, and he got these reasons more or less from Dr. Darrell Whiteman. To the best of my knowledge, he drew these loosely from Kraft, Nida, and Hiebert.
- It’s about People. Missions is people-focused. It might sound more holy to say that missions is God-focused, or Christ-focused, or even Spirit-focused. But the target is people, and much of the aim of missions is to understand people to express God’s love and message in such a way as to be understood and responded to– leading, hopefully to holistic transformation. Cultural Anthropology tries to understand people via their behavior in groups (cultural groups particularly). It would be difficult (to say the least) to understand a single person without understanding the culture they are immersed in.
- It deals primarily with non-Western groups. Most academic studies (in seminaries and universities) are Western-focused. Cultural Anthropology has historically been focused on non-Western cultures. In fact, it has only been in relatively recent times that the tools of cultural anthropology have been directed back to studying Western cultural groups. It helps Westerners (particularly) to lessen ethnocentrism (or cultural bias) to train in an area whose greatest insights are non-Western.
- It is a Behavioral Science. As valuable as systematic theology or philosophy may be, it is focused on thoughts and ideas (idealistically). Theology and philosophy tends to start from how one should think and then goes to how one should behave. But in missions, we are seeking to bring people to Christ, not impose a single culture’s answers and actions (after all, theology and philosophy have a strong subtle cultural element). But by looking to actions and artifacts, one can go backward to thoughts, feelings, and motivations of the culture. In a sense, we are attempting to “reverse engineer” their theology and philosophy. From there, a missionary is better positioned to see what parts of their culture are harmful, neutral, and beneficial.
- It seeks to generalize about human behavior. It helps us to understand what is common to all and what is culturally conditioned. In other words, it helps us understand what it is that makes us universally human (that part of us that is like everyone else), what makes us part of a cultural group (that part of us that is like some of us), and what makes us individuals (that part of us that makes us individually unique). God’s love and message has a universal quality that meets universal needs. Buty it also has value contextualized (adapted) to specific cultures. A failure to adapt the message to a culture can lead to “scratching where it does not itch.”
- It uses a research approach that is useful for cross-cultural ministry. Participant-Observation works good for cultural anthropology and it works well for missionaries. Ethnographic research and inteviewing is very instructive in how missionaries can gain useful insight into a culture.
- It places great importance on communication. Culture is very much tied to language, verbal communication, and non-verbal communication. Behavior itself is a very strong form of communication. Understanding culture is often critical to good communication and good communication (verbally, non-verbally, behaviorially) is necessary for effective dissemination of God’s truth. In cultural anthropology we learn that communication needs to be respondent-focused rather than communicator focused. And if it is respondent focused, then the respondent must be understood for effective communication.
- It distinguishes between forms and meanings. We tend to filter behavior we see through our own cultural meanings. This can be a big mistake. Westerners may feel that putting flowers on a grave of a deceased relative. The same Westerners may see people from the East have a picture of a dead relative in their house with fruits and other gifts put in front of it. The Westerner would probably consider the flowers perfectly healthy… a memorial and a demonstration of love. The same Westerner may be tempted to describe the picture and fruit as a “shrine” and the behavior of the house residents as ancestor worship. But is that the case… or is it simply a Westerner seeking to apply a Western-based interpretation to an Eastern practice? Cultural Anthropology seeks to understand actions from the people’s own worldview and ideology. This can and should reduce a lot of misunderstandings in missions interactions. Meaning is more important than form.
- It seeks to understand how and why cultures change. Only dead cultures don’t change. Christianity seeks to transform people and cultures. Yet it is unhealthy to destroy a culture by imposing another culture’s forms on it. It is also unhealthy to try to prevent change since change is normal and healthy in any culture. A missionary needs to learn to be both an Agent of Change and an Agent of Preservation.
- What is Anthropology and Why is it Important? (rbruneauanthropology.wordpress.com)
- A Simple Introduction (anth234.wordpress.com)
- 5 Ways to Create Fantastical Beasts and Peoples!: Cultural Anthropology (dragonplume.wordpress.com)
I have been dabbling with communication models (such as the 3-culture model). I thought the basic appearance could be applied to cultures and interaction of cultures. I am very open to thoughts on this.
Figure 1 shows two people groups.
P People Group N Natural World (objective reality) associated with the people group C Culture associated with the people group S Society associated with the people group Figure I. Two People Groups
“P” stands for a people group that can be characterized by its unique real setting, unique culture, and unique society.
“N” stands for the natural or real setting of a people group. This could involve its geography, its local weather, and other aspects that we would not consider to be subjective.
“C” stands for the culture. Culture here is defined as a set of symbols that bridge the gap between human society and the natural or real world. It provides filtering and meaning to perceptions. (Although for many people, thinking of culture in terms of symbols seems odd, a number of cultural anthopologists such as Ernst Cassirer, L. A. White, and Claude Levi-Strauss, view culture in this way.)
“S” stands for the society… the social bonds in a society. To some extent one can think of society in terms of institutions and laws.
Some thoughts based on this model:
The people group triangle is always changing in shape since the natural or real world is always in flux. Likewise, the natural world affects culture and society and is ultimately affected by it.
Culture is the lens through which people understand/interpret the world around them. People in society affect the world around them based on the perception they have from culture. This is why the natural world (N) and culture (C) is connected by a solid line. Likewise, culture (C) is connected by a solid line with society (S).
- The interaction between the natural world and society is typically indirect (via culture) that is why a dotted line connects (N) and (S).
- I have chosen to show the line connecting the natural world (N) and culture (C) with a curved line. I would love to give some clever reason for this. However, I really want to show that the relationship between culture (C) and society (S) is different from relationship between culture (C) and the natural world (N). This is because the natural world is not so much a human construct… certainly far less than culture and society.
<Continued in Part 2>
J.W. Berry (1980) described 4 modes of acculturation.
- Assimilation. One’s cultural identity is lost in the dominant culture
- Integration. One Seeks to integrate one’s cultural identity with the dominant culture.
- Separation. One maintains one’s unique cultural identity, rejecting the dominant culture.
- Marginalization. One loses important parts of own cultural identity, while having those parts inadequately replaced with parts from the dominant culture.
While these 4 options are not equally good, probably the only one that is clearly broken is the fourth one— marginalization.
Consider the Three Culture Model for Mission Communication. Missionaries (from Culture A) need to do proper exegesis/interpretation to carry the message of the Bible (set in Culture B) to recipients (in Culture C).
Acculturation can occur at all three cultural interactions.
Missionary Culture (A) can interact with Biblical Culture B via assimilation, integration, separation, or marginalization.
Biblical Culture (B) can interact with the Recipient Culture C in these 4 same ways.
Missionary Culture A can interact with the Recipient Culture (C) also in these same 4 ways.
However, Biblical culture is static since the message of God was transmitted to man in history. The culture of the Bible does not presently exist, so it can’t be affected by present cultures (although its interpretation can be affected by the present.) The result is that the viable interactions are:
B affecting A (Bible culture affecting Missionary culture)
B affecting C (Bible culture affecting Recipient culture)
C affecting A (Recipient culture affecting Missionary culture)
A affecting C (Missionary culture affecting Recipient culture)
Suppose we focus on the Recipient Culture C as the affected culture. Then we are dealing with A affecting C and B affecting C. It is generally (NOW) felt that culture A (culture of the missionary) should not affect culture C (culture of the recipient) if possible. Often the argument is that it should not because that is a form of cultural imperialism or diffusion. That may be true, but that is not necessarily the biggest problem.
The bigger problem is when A and B both affect C, but the recipient (C) is unable to distinguish which is which…. which comes from A and which comes from B. So another affect can be described as
(A + B) affecting C Two affect recipients but unable to distinguish them.
It is dangerous to confuse people as to what is God’s truth, and what is the missionary’s cultural novelties.When the message of God reaches the recipient via the missionary culture, the message goes through marginalization and assimilation. Aspects of the message of God gets removed and/or replaced by the filtering process of the missionary culture. The result is that for the message of God to reach the recipient culture, some assimilation and marginalization between cultures A and C must occur. The message of God is damaged in the process.
Culture C should not be destroyed, replaced, torn, spindled, or mutilated by another culture. Acts 15 provides the model for God’s ability to transform a culture and create a church within that culture. Culture C (recipient) is not to be changed by Culture A (missionary).
This is well-known and well-documented. Here in the Philippines, marginalization and assimilation degradation of the message of God is rampant, both within “orthodox” and “heterodox” bodies. It is understandable, but not acceptable.
But consider the next possibility. Is it possible that there is also a problem of degradation of the message in the interaction between the Biblical Culture B and the Recipient Culture C? Absolutely. The message of God was given to people in a Jewish/Greek/Roman/ Persian/Egyptian mix of cultures. The message was given within this cultural context, but the message is NOT this culture. Some Messianic movements seem to spring from the assumption that the culture of the Bible must be transplanted into recipient cultures, replacing many neutral or even positive aspects of the recipient cultures.
Not only can missionaries err by trying to bring their own culture along into the recipient culture as part of God’s message, they can also err by bringing the Biblical culture (cultural aspects that are over 2 millenia or more out of date) into the recipient culture as if it is part of God’s message as well.
This is common. We see it in the “search for the New Testament church.” We should not seek to create the New Testament (1st century) church in the 21st century. Some look to the churches of Timothy and Titus as the ideal. Some look to Corinth. Some look to the church of Jerusalem. None of these churches are 21st century churches. We should seek to create God’s church in the 21st century. Such a church can and should be quite different from the 1st century church because the culture is so different.
We can also see it with attempts to define eating rules of ancient Israel as timeless patterns for today. We see it in attempting to define relationships between individuals and other social entities by cultural standards of the Hellenized world. The result of bringing cultures along with the Gospel tends to create marginalization and assimilation of cultures which degrades and confuses the Gospel message.
In short, bringing the message of God into a Recipient culture C needs to be done where Separation is maintained not only with the Missionary culture, but also with the Biblical culture.
Can Integration (the healthy interaction and combining of cultures) ever be healthy. Of course… and in some way it is nearly inevitable. Cultures will always change due to interaction with other cultures. But the message of God should be carried out with cultural separation. Otherwise the recipient will have difficulty knowing what is culture (and thus variable) and what is God’s message (and thus eternal).
- Importance of understanding the culture of the “Other” (kaweesa.wordpress.com)