Tag / philosophy

by daviddawson462742281

Short-term Missions in a Postmodern, Postcolonial World

Various social institutions and sociological theories influence cross-cultural engagement. A postmodern anthropology looks at economics, development, religion, and social class. In this text, I will look at some sociological theories examining short term missions (STM).

Economics and Development

Christian anthropologist Mike Rynkiewich (2011) analyzes postmodernism and postcolonialism in his book Soul, self, and society. Attempts to provide a form of international assistance engage dynamics of reciprocity and exchange. A gift gives symbolic representation to a relationship, having “value and meaning beyond its appearance” (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 81). Colonialism embodied the category of exchange known as redistribution, where goods move toward a center and then out from it. Globalization has brought the market exchange model where individuals bring their wares to a common market – physically or online – and seek exchange. Anthropologists have increasingly critiqued the notion that development and modernization are equivalent, and that advances in technology represent the most important aspect of development (Rynkiewich, p. 82-84). 

Practitioners of STM should be sensitive to each one of these paradigms of economics and development. Attempts by richer nations to help poorer ones as an expression of Christ’s love must not ignore the cultural dynamics of reciprocity and exchange. STMs runs the risk of inadvertently using colonialism’s paradigm of redistribution by acting as if Christ’s kingdom is centered in the sending country. This colonial association of Christianity with a particular culture – most notably the West – has been so destructive and yet runs the risk of being reproduced in the Global South. What makes students of church history think that the temptations of power will not affect the megachurches of the Global South. Why wouldn’t new emergent poles of Christian power assume that they are now the true people of God, as did the Portuguese and Spanish, Christened by the pope in the 15th century to colonize the New World (Coben, 2015)?

Perhaps the most accessible starting place for STMs in addressing cultural perspectives on economics and development is reciprocity and exchange. The giving of gifts is a universal mode of interaction between groups potentially symbolizing and communicating “the value of a relationship between groups” (Caillé, 2013). Reciprocity generally emerges through the “obligating social indebtedness” created by participants independent of the “coercive power of an external social institution” (Carrier, 1991). The spiritualization of reception is a process that “converts unequal material gifts from foreign hosts into spiritual understanding among STM travelers” (Addler & Offutt, 2017, p. 600). What is perceived as repayment takes the form of “spiritual gifts of self-understanding, growth, and awareness”. For example, American travelers in foreign countries become “aware of the blessing or bounty of their current life”. This is a hopeful example of how international partnerships can be done in a way that is “made meaningful across inequality” (Addler & Offutt, 2017, p. 612-617). 

Concept of Religion

STM must also consider the prominence of the Western concept of religion in the development of modern missions. It can be argued that the concept of religion as a belief system chosen by the individual is a Western construct. What Westerners conceived of as religion when they met with spiritual practices and traditions overseas was, for the indigenous peoples, a “way of life” consisting of many beliefs and practices that cannot be separated from each other (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 99). For most peoples in human history, beliefs and rituals were understood as part of everyday experience, connected to land and community. To these premodern civilizations, spiritual forces were more conspicuous and evident than to the enlightened Westerners (p. 99). And contra the secularization hypothesis of the 20th century that predicted the demise of religion, the everyday reality of spiritual forces continues to be the majority opinion of the world population (Riesebrodt, 2000). Thus, STMs must account for the disruption that can occur when integral aspects of an individual or community’s identity are denigrated by the proclamation of the Christian gospel.

In a postcolonial world, STMs must abandon old paradigms of cultural development from simple to complex, used to justify Europe’s position “at the top of the ladder” (p. 99), simply because of their military superiority. Evolutionary theories of religion that posit progression from animism to polytheism and ultimately monotheism depict primitive peoples being benevolently guided to enlightenment by Western tutors (p. 101). But Western theories of the function of religion as a means of social cohesion and facing adversity negate humanity’s deep connection to spiritual belief and practice. Many in the West are content with explications of religion that provide a pretext to ignore it. But practitioners of STM must recognize the importance of the “middle range of religion” (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 106) – the immanent, mystical experience of spiritual phenomena in the daily life of most Majority World cultures. 

The encounter of different cultural groups can cause the social constructions of each to come undone (Offutt, 2011, p. 805). As STM practitioners engage in the local world-building activities of indigenous peoples, they much take care not to cause harmful disruption. Hosts and travelers can mitigate against such damage by seeking “common stocks of knowledge” shared between them. What is shared can begin at the level of global culture such as international sports and then move to shared Christian beliefs. Once rapport is established between traveler and host, more profound dialogue can ensue as trust has been established (Offutt, 2011, p. 805). 

One ambitious STM model that has emerged is multicultural joint teams which recognizes that mission is now truly “from everywhere to everywhere”. This strategy mobilizes teams from two different cultures and perhaps different denominations. The two groups are then sent to a third cultural context where it is hoped that new forms of missional engagement may emerge. Another aspiration is that this practice bring reconciliation to cultural and denominational differences (Mulieri, 2020). 

Caste, Class, and Ethnicity

Rounding off this analysis, STMs must take account of caste, class, and ethnicity in its cross-cultural endeavors. Westerners may sneer at the concept of caste in Asia, but the idea of hierarchy is found in the West as well. The difference is that in most societies religion is used to provide the explanation and justification for social inequality (Rynkievich, 2011, p. 115). Ambiguity related to the conversion of indigenous peoples to Christianity for social advancement is something STM participants should be aware of. Since most STMs have come from richer countries endeavoring to serve poorer ones, the reality of class difference must also be considered. The influence of Western concepts of class associated with income, residence, profession, and education has come into stark conflict with non-Western communities concepts of identity. The Western concept of ethnicity has arisen in the colonial confrontation between different cultures, languages, and customs. Ethnic identity has been formed not within a community with certain biological, linguistic, and geographical connotations, but through this community’s interaction with others. As STM participants go into the world, they must consider how the context of caste, class, and ethnicity can undermine cross-cultural relationships (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 117-123).

Research indicates that STM can help foster a “thicker global civil society within Christianity” (Offutt, 2011, p. 810). STM still currently consists of most Western teams and long-term missionaries going into the Majority World. But those Majority World churches that do send STMs feel enabled to engage in missions themselves locally and internationally. STMs result in the establishment of “overlapping networks that criss-cross the globe” establishing “higher levels of trust” between cultures. Unfortunately, research also indicates that STMs from the new non-Western centers of Christianity often have little or no intercultural training resulting in cultural misunderstandings and offenses (Offutt, 2011, p. 810). 

Other research, however, indicates that harmful attitudes about ethnicity are hard to mitigate against in the context of STMs (Huang, 2019, p. 55). International travel offers helpful challenges to the identity of STM participants. However, the inherent privilege of STM participants is often invisible to themselves. This level of privilege has led some to the conclusion that STM has little potential to reduce participants’ prejudice. More optimistic voices suggest STMs seek to be aware of the power and privilege of its participants and the “invisible ways” these “penetrate their organization”, intentionally embracing “ways that counter these tendencies” (Huang, 2019, p. 68-70). 

References

Adler, Gary J. & Offutt, Stephen (2017). The Gift Economy of Direct Transnational Civic Action: How Reciprocity and Inequality Are Managed in Religious “Partnerships”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(3):600–619

Caille ́, Alain (2013_. Anti-utilitarianism and the gift-paradigm. In Handbook on the economics of reciprocity and social

enterprise, edited by Luigino Bruni and Stefano Zamagni, pp. 44–48. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Carrier, James. 1991. Gifts, commodities, and social relations: A Maussian view of exchange. Sociological Forum

6(1):119–36.

Coben, L. A. (2015). The Events that Led to the Treaty of Tordesillas. Terrae Incognitae, 47(2), 142–162. Complementary Index. https://doi.org/10.1179/00822884.2015.1120427

Huang, Lindsay A. (2019). Short-Term Mission Trips: Developing the Racial and Ethnic Consciousness of White Participants. Journal of Sociology and Christianity, Volume 9, Number 2

Mulieri Twibell, Simone (2020). Contributions, challenges, and emerging patterns of short-term missions. Missiology: An International Review, Vol. 48(4) 

Offutt, Stephen (2015). The Role of Short-Term Mission Teams in the New Centers of Global Christianity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(4):796–811

Riesebrodt, M. (2000). Fundamentalism and the Resurgence of Religion. Numen, 47(3), 266–287.

Rynkiewich, M. (2011). Soul, self, and society: A postmodern anthropology for mission in a postcolonial world. Cascade Books.

by daviddawson462742281

Missiology for Plural Realities and Plural Christianties

In the 1980s, anthropology took a postmodern turn expressed in deconstruction and a “loss of certainty” in the social sciences and philosophy (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 12). In the West, the individual was traditionally thought of as the “basic unit of society”. But neuroscience has increasingly cast doubt upon the objectivity of the individual’s perception of reality. It turns out that people do not perceive the world “as it is”, but in a highly fragmented and subjective way (p. 16-17). Thus “grand theories” of early anthropologists came to be seen as founded more upon their own Western philosophical tradition than observable human practice (p. 20). In my highly culturally diverse context of Western Europe, Christian witness that makes sweeping claims about the world are expected to come with the disclaimer, “in my opinion”. 

Since the emergence of anthropology as a discipline, a variety of successive attempts have been made to define culture. Some modern anthropologists believed that cultural differences could be explained by a universal evolutionary process. From a Western perspective, the peoples of the world could be conceived as moving from being savages, to barbarians, to civilized (Whiteman, 2020, p. 2). Another extrapolation from the notion of cultural evolution held that societies processed from “magic to religion to science” (p. 2). But the Darwinian theory was countered by historical particularism which argues that “historical, geographic and environmental factors” cause cultural development rather than a uniform evolutionary trajectory (Whiteman, 2020, p. 2). Later, missionaries found the interpretive definition of culture helpful, which defines culture as consisting of symbolic forms used to communicate and propagate knowledge and feelings about life (p. 3). These symbols may appear to have a straightforward meaning but have deeper meanings only discoverable through extensive field study (p. 4). In Portugal where I live, the religious symbols of Catholicism are present everywhere. As an Evangelical, it is easy for me to interpret Catholic architecture and liturgical art superficially versus seeking a thick understanding such as Geertz would recommend (Hua Cai, 2024). 

A common denominator in postmodern conceptions of culture is that it is a means people use to adapt to their environments (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 20). “Entangled in language”, culture gives shape to the phenomena of our world, in a process that is learned and shared (p. 21,22). And culture is “peculiar” as a lens we acquire for seeing and interpreting the world while soon forgetting that culture is a “social construct” (p. 22). The linguistic turn of modern philosophy in the work of Wittgenstein and others ended up not offering a universal conception of language. I find this evident in my conversations with Europeans about spiritual matters as strident affirmations regarding the correct use of terms is perceived as arrogant. 

Postmodern anthropology critiques a modern ethnocentrism that seeks to understand non-Western cultures through its own unique perspective (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 24). Cultural relativism, pioneered by anthropologist such as Franz Boas holds that each culture possesses knowledge which is original and constitutional, only to be understood within its own context (p. 25). I agree with the approach of methodological relativism which seeks to keep prejudices from distorting the interpretation of culture. Judgement is suspended initially while the anthropologist seeks to understand a culture. But aspects of a culture that undermine justice, for example, should be judged at the right stage of research, but not prematurely (p. 25). Even the most postmodern interlocutors I encounter in Portugal generally agree to the appropriateness of some degree of judging cultural phenomena. 

While modern anthropology tended to treat culture as something existing apart from human beings, the postmodern turn deconstructs culture by restoring agency to human beings (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 30). This account reminds us that culture doesn’t do anything, people do. However, people’s actions are always contingent on their environments (p. 30). A constructivist view like this holds that while culture has powerful influence over people, it is also contingent on the materials and agency of people (p. 31). I find this perspective helpful in dialoguing with a population who values individual freedom and the subjectivity of human experience. As I witness to my experience of Christ to another human being – no matter what culture they represent – a constructivist account unites us in our shared experience of making sense of the world with the resources available. 

It has been argued that what unites postmodernism is: 

a commitment to a set of cultural projects that privilege heterogeneity, fragmentation, and difference and a widespread mood in literary theory, philosophy, and the social sciences that question the possibility of impartiality, objectivity, or authoritative knowledge (Whiteman, 2000, p. 5). 

It is easy to see why the postmodern turn in anthropology has received much criticism. Its attack on the objectivity of ethnography undermines the scientific legitimacy of anthropology as a field (p. 6). The obsession with polyvocality (multiple versions of reality or truth) and reflexivity threatens to make anthropologists overly anti-objectivist and introspective (p. 6,7). 

I believe that the concept of culture should still be used by missiologists as a heuristic descriptive device which acknowledges that culture is “contested, contingent, constructed, contextual, complex, changing, and creative” (Whiteman, 2000, p. 9). What is problematic is when missionaries use the concept of culture “prescriptively instead of descriptively”, such as in essentialist paradigms of people groups and honor/shame cultures (p. 9). We do a disservice to the field of missions studies when we try to reduce the complexity of the cultural phenomenon of our world in ways that “papers over complexity and camouflages important and critical differences in human beings” (p. 9). Polycentric missiology is a promising paradigm which recognizes the existence of “plural realities” and even plural Christianities (p. 9-10). If we hope to be able to combat racism and ethnocentrism, we must embrace the beneficial points of postmodernism such as cultural relativism without relinquishing critical thought (p. 10). 

References

Hua Cai. (2024). The predicament of social sciences in the 20th century: A dialogue with Clifford Geertz’s essay “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture” (Part I). International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, 8(1), 1–20. Directory of Open Access Journals. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-023-00102-2

Rynkiewich, Michael A. (2011). Soul, Self, and Society: A Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World. Cascade Books  

Whiteman, D. (2020). The Concept of Culture in Missiology: To abandon or adapt considering the rise of postmodern anthropology. Biola University. 

by daviddawson462742281

Anthropology has Moved on, Should Missiology?

Claude Stipe’s (1980) analysis of anthropologists’ negative attitudes towards missionaries is based on two prevalent assumptions. These are that “primitive cultures are characterized by an organic unity and that religious beliefs are essentially meaningless” (p. 166). Based on functionalism, the organic-unity concept sees primitive cultures as possessing an internal equilibrium and integrity. Therefore, unless internally motivated, cultural change amounts to “upsetting a delicate machine” (Colson, 1976, p. 267). This anthropological perspective posits that options are bad for pristine ancient cultures. But inconsistently, options are good for the West to “free ourselves, and our peers, from constraining tradition” (Colson, 1976, p. 276). 

The religion as meaningless concept can be connected to the experience of most early anthropological writers on religion. Not surprisingly, this was negative, and probably led to their subsequent attitudes towards religion (Stipe, 1980, p. 167). By discrediting primitive religion as “outmoded superstition” of a prescientific age (Evans-Pritchard, 1972, p. 205), higher religions can also be dismissed (Stipe, 1980, p. 167). The religion as meaningless position holds that its study should focus “on the rites rather than the beliefs” (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952, p. 155). Since religion does not produce an integrating theory of the world, human experience of the divine can be dismissed as a manifestation of the “supreme archetypal social relationship” (Horton, 1971, p. 96). This would explain anthropologists dislike of missionaries, who take seriously the religious beliefs of the cultures they encounter which anthropologists have rejected (Stipe, 1980, p. 168). 

A more helpful attitude today on the part of both missionaries and anthropologists has been proposed. Since both hold positions regarding truth and a desire to protect the people they work among, missionaries and anthropologists can build relations based on these similarities (Salamone, 1977, p. 409). 

The concept of culture as “homogenous and patterned” and attempts to totalize culture “from one small community into a country and even a continent” has led missiologists to an exaggerated focus on understanding and changing worldview (Yip, 2014, p. 401). Globalization has led to a view of cultures as fragmented and non-discrete, overlapping each other resulting in a lack of clear-cut boundaries (Yip, 2014, p. 403). Postmodern missiologies are needed that focus on the multicultural and diasporic (Yip, 2014, p. 403). A helpful anthropology of religion is bricolage – that a person’s beliefs are a loose assortment of diverse sources (Vroom, 2003, p. 74). Based on postmodern concepts of instrumentalism and idealism, a missiology can be formed that recognizes the limitations to scientifically knowing the cultural “other” whether such a reality exists (Hiebert, 1999, p. 51,37,38). Yip’s (2014) polythetic and progressive contextualization helpfully recognizes the variations and exceptions present in any culture (p. 408). This approach recognizes the presence of diverse subgroups within a culture as well as its constant mutation (p. 409). 

Another helpful suggestion for missiology within a global community constantly in flux is that the field of study be placed within applied theology (Rynkiewich, 2020, p. 336). This subfield sees to “utilize anthropological knowledge and skill for practical human needs” (Luzbetak, 1988, p. 34). By observing applied anthropology in other fields such as medicine, missiologists can identify different critical phases (Rynkiewich, 2020, p. 341). Medical anthropology progressed from assuming that culture was the problem to the people are the problem. Finally, the conclusion was reached that we are the problem (Rynkiewich, 2020, p. 338). The first two phases can be seen in missiology up to present, but not the third critical phase, that we are the problem (Rynkievich, 2020, p. 340-1). Returning to Yip’s (2013) polythetic and progressive contextualization approach, postmodern missions training should focus on teaching research methods and data analysis (Rynkiewich, 2020, p. 343-4). Challenges to contextualization include migration, cultural hybridity, multilingualism, and multiculturalism (Rynkiewich, 2020, p. 345), all of which require a missiology focused on constant inquiry and adjustment of theory and praxis. 

References

Colson, Elizabeth (1976). Culture and progress. American Anthropologist, 78:261-71.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1972). Religion and the anthropologists. Practical Anthropology, 19:193-206. (Originally published in Blackfriars 41[480]:104-18, April 1960.)

Hiebert, P.G. (1999) Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts. Trinity Press International.

Horton, Robin. 1971. African conversion. Africa 41.

Luzbetak, Louis J. (1988). The Church and Cultures: New Perspectives in Missiological Anthropology. Orbis Books

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). “Religion and society,” in Structure and function in primitive society. Edited by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Free Press.

Rynkiewich, Michael A. (2020). The Challenge of Teaching Mission in an Increasingly Mobile and Complex World. International Bulletin of Mission Research, Vol. 44(4) 

Salamone, Frank A. (1977). Anthropologists and missionaries: Competition or reciprocity? Human Organization, 36.

Stipe, Claude E. (1980). Anthropologists versus Missionaries: The Influence of Presuppositions. Current Anthropology, Vol. 21, No. 2

Vroom, H.M. (2003). Bricolage and fullness: on multiple participation. In Daneel I, Engen C Van

and Vroom HM (eds) Fullness of Life for All: Challenges for Mission in Early 21st Century. Rodopi

Yip, George (2014). The contour of a post- postmodern missiology. Missiology: An International Review, Vol. 42(4)

by daviddawson462742281

What Ancient Societies Teach us about Giving?

Can Contemporary Societies Learn from Ancient Economic Systems

            The Gift is as an excerpt from Marcel Mauss’ (2000) studies of economic systems in primitive societies (p. 3). Among diverse social phenomenon, the book addresses the question “What rule of legality and self-interest, in societies of a backward or archaic type, compels the gift that has been received to be obligatorily reciprocated” (Mauss, 2000, p. 4). Mauss (2000) contends that the market is a human phenomenon common to all societies, but with differing systems (p. 5). Mauss seeks to explore how the market functioned before modern forms of contract and sale to shed light on how primordial forms of “morality and organization still function in our own societies”. It is hoped that this inquiry may yield helpful conclusions regarding contemporary challenges related to modern economic systems (Mauss, 2000, p. 5). By exploring “primitive” economic institutions still extant today, we can better understand how our modern societies developed (Mauss, 2000, p. 60). Indeed, Mauss (2000) intends to show how modern systems of law and economies emerged from archaic ones (p. 61). 

Examples of “Archaic” or “Primitive” Societies and Activities

            In ancient Germanic societies, a system of exchange was “clearly defined and well developed” by which clans, tribes, and kings made and maintained alliances (p. 77-8). The obligation to reciprocate was known as the angebinde, and the term gaben refers to gifts given on special occasions that the whole village participated (p. 78). Transactions resulted in each part possessing something of the other, creating a bond by virtue of the inherent power of the object (p. 79). The significance of this obligation is expressed in the fact that diverse Germanic languages have a term for gift that also implies poison (p. 81). A ubiquitous theme in Germanic folklore is the “fatal gift, the present or item of property that is changed into poison” (p. 81). 

In classical Hindu societies, the danadharma – “law of the gift” – determined the duty of giving among the elite Brahmin class (Mauss, 2000, p. 70). A gift generates an equivalent reward for the giver in this life and an increased reward in the next life (Mauss, 2000, p. 72). Gifts are personified as “living creatures with whom one enters into a dialogue”, who desire to be given away and with whom an agreement is established (Mauss, 2000, p. 72). A Brahmin’s property is identified with himself, which can visit harm upon a transgressor (Mauss, 2000, p. 73). Many sanctions exist related to gift giving, such as being directed to another member of the Brahmin caste (p. 73). Brahmins take care to avoid residual benefits from receiving a gift because this makes him dependent on the donor, which would be demeaning (p. 75-6). Thus, “all kinds of archaic precautions are taken” so that “no error is committed” in the gift giving (p. 77). 

            In traditional Chinese law, an unalterable link exists between a think and its original owner (p. 81). Therefore, even after an item has been passed on, a contracted alliance puts the giver or seller and receiver or buyer in “perpetual dependence towards one another” (p. 82). 

Promising Paradigms from Antiquity for Modern Economic Systems

            Mauss sees as “fortunate” the fact that the “atmosphere of the gift” still exists in modern societies, so that everything is not defined in terms of “buying and selling” (p. 83). By analyzing ancient societies, Mauss seeks to demonstrate that charity is still “wounding for him who has accepted it”, “we must give back more than we have received”, and “things sold still have soul” (p. 83-4). The Gift argues that the “old principles react against the rigor, abstraction, and inhumanity” of modern legal codes (p. 85), and contemporary social security schemes represent attempts to return to a “group morality” (p. 87). Mauss promotes such a new morality as consisting of a “moderate blend of reality and the ideal”, amounting to a return to elements of archaic society (p. 88). Listed among the benefits of such a proposal are joy in public giving, generous sponsorship of the arts, hospitality, and private and public celebrations (p. 89). 

            Mauss advocates for a return to a time when man was not a calculating, utilitarian machine (p. 98). The most beneficial economy is not to be found in the “calculation of individual needs” which ends up harming the peace of all, ultimately rebounding upon the individual themself (p. 98). Only by considering society as an integral entity can we perceive what is essential (p. 102). The progress of societies has depended on their success in “stabilizing relationships, giving, receiving, and finally, giving in return” (p. 105). This positive development has occurred as far as societies, subgroups, and individuals succeeded in “stabilizing relationships, giving, receiving, and finally, giving in return” (p. 105). 

            Ancient economic systems teach us that societies built of clans, tribes, and elites can learn to “oppose and to give to one another without sacrificing themselves to one another” (p. 106). The principles of wisdom and solidarity found in the ancient societies Mauss’ studied represent a primordial morality for economic systems (p. 106). Mauss sees the possibility of recovering a balance of both individual and common endeavor as well as the accumulation and redistribution of wealth. Such harmony is possible only through a society-wide education program that encourages “mutual respect and reciprocating generosity” (p. 106). Mauss’ defends the value of researching “civics”, i.e., the “aesthetic, moral, religious, and economic motivations”, and “diverse material and demographic factors” which form the shared life of a society (p. 107). 

References

Mauss, M. (2000). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge Classics.