Introduction
The
word “culture” is an all comprehensive one. In fact, it can be used with
anything in the world, as we shall see below. Unfortunately it came to be used
in all its richness –both positive and negative- only recently. Its role in the
evangelizing mission of the Church is crucial. It reached its highest meaning
when the saintly Pope John Paul II wrote “faith must become culture” or as
Joseph Ratizinger, the future Pope said, “faith is culture!”
As
we proceed with this paper we hope to clarify its various contours/aspects, as
far as possible.
A recent study on the cultural
communities of North East India by Don Bosco Centre for Indigenous Cultures
(DBCIC) and supported by the North Eastern Council (NEC) brings to light that
there are over 200 different cultural communities in North East India alone.
Here by North East India we mean the seven sister states of Arunachal Pradesh,
Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and a young brother
called Sikkim - making a total of 8 states in India’s North Eastern region. I
am serving in Meghalaya.
The various cultural communities have a
rich cultural heritage of languages, proverbs, stories, folklore, mythology,
music and dance and art forms. Their food habits and their lifestyle express
what is deep down in the heart of each culture. Each cultural community has its
own spirit, a way of living and doing proper to it (ethos). The same thing can also be applied to the other cultural
groups in India and anywhere in the world. Not to pay sufficient attention to
people’s cultural richness and not to respect each cultural sensibilities may
affect adversely the nation’s effort to bring about socio-economic progress. It is said that 70% of international
ventures fail, because of cultural differences[1].
Differences are good. How we deal with them is very important.
If the concept of culture is so important
it is also true for the evangelizing mission of the Church.
The few pages that follow will first look
at the concept of culture from a non-technical perspective and from a
lived-experience and conclude with a few practical anthropological insights.
Culture
and Cultures
The word “Culture”
stands for the entire way of life of a particular people: their history, their
language, art forms, food habits, architecture, laws and customs, the
characteristic spirit manifested in their attitudes and aspirations (the ethos). There are as many cultures as
there are distinct human groups. In understanding their cultures, it is
necessary to make a distinction between a classicist notion of culture and
an empirical notion of culture. The classicist understanding
assumes that a particular culture is that against which all other cultures are
to be measured or judged. This of course would lead to considering some
cultures as “high” and others “low”. It might also lead to more cultural
conflicts. Instead, the empirical or anthropological notion of culture describes
culture as a way of life of a particular human community allowing it the
freedom to express itself according to its genius. Culture understood in the latter
sense, namely, empirical or anthropological, would help to promote respect,
appreciation and collaboration among the different cultural communities. It
also gives birth to a mosaic of cultural expressions interfacing and enriching human
lives.
Going closer to the concept of culture,
we must immediately acknowledge that “Culture”
is a difficult term to deal with. In fact, the word culture can be used
with any concept. One may speak of a philosophy of culture, a theology of
culture, Khasi culture, Naga culture, Assamese culture, Bengali culture, Nepali
culture, and Garo culture and North Indian culture and a South Indian culure. We also speak of a cricket culture, football
culture, study culture, research culture, a reading culture, and also a lazy
culture. We refer to a business culture,
a culture of indiscipline and also a culture of corruption.
The fact that the word culture can be
used with any concept shows its unlimited
horizon. It also tells us that the
first key to understanding culture is to realize its non-simplicity. Culture is
a rich word and it is not easy to understand it fully, since the word culture
includes everything a person or a group of persons does. It stands for –as we
have already mentioned above- the entire way of life of a particular people.
Every human culture is the patrimony of a
group, and as such it is the heritage of every individual of that group.
Cultures with their rich heritage of language, art forms, customs and
traditions form the wealth of a nation and of the world. In other words, each culture
is a social heritage. Every nation should be proud of its myriad cultures. By
saying “social heritage” or “social wealth” we mean that every culture has a
history steeped in the past. It has its own roots and is communicated from one
generation to the next. Culture provides a structure for living together. It is
so personal that it stands for one’s identity too. A person’s culture is where one feels at home, or where one makes
himself or herself feel at home. Culture by definition, therefore, is that
overall environment, that all-pervading conditioning where one feels at home and develops himself or
herself gradually.
Every culture functions as an adaptive system containing both
normative and formative elements. It
helps the members of a group to cope with life in ways that have been tested
over centuries. Being something alive, a culture can
change, it can grow, it can also die! With the death of the last person in a
particular culture, that culture with all its richness disappears. And so the
death of a culture is an irreparable loss to society. For example, think of the
passing away of a tribal medical practitioner who has amazing knowledge of
medicinal herbs of his locality and who is specialized, say, in healing broken
bones. He may have been practicing for decades brining relief to dozens of poor
people. His death would be a big loss to people, especially poor people. With
his death the knowledge he had of herbal medicines too is lost! Hence, all effort to document
unwritten oral wisdom is praise-worthy and calls for support.
An aspect of culture that is very
important is its non-neutrality. Non
neutrality would imply that any culture absorbs what it is exposed to over a
period of time. If one is exposed to a violent culture, there is every
likelihood that that person may become violent. In the same way if one is
exposed to positive values which are noble and praise worthy, then it is probable
that that person grows up with positive values of life.
For us human beings everything that
happens takes place in one culture or another. We are never without a culture. In
fact, we live and move and enrich ourselves in and through culture/s. Culture
is like the air we breathe. It is like water for fish. Culture is something
like a second nature to us in our social life, in our relationships. It is the
matrix in which human existence is lived, allowed to grow and develop.
A simple way to understand culture is to
see it in terms of human needs and the way they are answered. As human beings
we have several needs: physical needs:
the need for food, care of the body, clothing, shelter and rest. Social needs: such as love, friendship,
gratitude, forgiveness, relationship, communication and the need for privacy.
Then there are also spiritual needs,
such as finding meaning in life, understanding where we come from and to where
we go. A world-view through which and in which we understand ourselves, see the
other and experience the transcendent too is part of one’s spiritual need. Here
let me conclude by saying that human needs –whether physical, social, or
spiritual – are universal. All over the world people have these needs. However,
the way we answer them is cultural.
All cultures are human constructs. As such cultures are touched by sin. In every
culture there are positive and negative aspects. Positive aspects need to be
enhanced, and negative aspects call for purification and transformation. Transformation of cultures is possible
because at the heart of culture are values that can enrich us, strengthen us
and provide us with hope. The duty and purpose of education is precisely to develop
these values. It is a pity that the common
understanding of culture is reduced to what is seen and heard only. We forget
that what is seen and heard (say, colourful shawls, beautiful dances, and
lovely music) are the result of certain values deep down at the heart of any
culture worthy of human being. What is seen can be compared to leaves and
fruits and the values at the centre of a culture can be compared to its roots.
It
is said that the Saintly Pope John Paul II knew how to count upto 1 only! Meaning,
his desire to treat each person as unique and singular. He never saw people in
terms of crowds but rather as individuals, says Joaquin Navarro-Valls.[2]
The saintly Pope used to mention often the relationship between faith and
culture, according to Navarro-Valls. In fact we read, “A faith that does not
become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted, not thoroughly thought,
not faithfully lived.”[3] Faith
can be incarnated and become a lived culture.
A
brief philosophico-theological reflection[4]
As we have mentioned above, the reality
of culture refers to the entire way of life of a person as part of a group, to the
total existential situation of man. Man is an incarnate spirit –body-soul-mind-
placed in a world of other beings - living and non-living. Man relates with all
of them. It is relationship with
other human beings that enriches one’s personality, gives quality to a culture
that is lived. The quality of his/her culture depends, therefore, on the
quality of one’s relationship. His/her relationship is not only with the beings
of this passing world, but also and especially with the transcendent. God our
beginning and end from whom we come, with whose blessings we live and work and
towards whom we journey gives the fullest ever meaning to human existence in
various cultures.
Hence, culture consists of visible and
invisible, material and spiritual, tangible and non-tangible aspects of life.
This would mean that culture has to do with everything that is related to life.
Human culture makes sense only in a human context, not in a context unrelated
to man. Here let us remind ourselves that the term “culture” is related to cultus meaning worship. Agri-culture and all other forms of culture
–perishable as they are- get their meaning from man and his relationship with
the transcendent expressed in cultus. Many years ago when I visited the then
existing Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, I remember having
noticed in one of the panels the explanation of how man started agriculture. He
collected the grains from the earth and threw them up in an act of worship. The
grains fell to the ground and to man’s surprise he noticed after a lapse of
time that they were “growing”! And, it is said that was the beginning of
agriculture!
The
term culture is related above all to the realm of human relationships seeking
meaning and value in life.
Another aspect of culture is its use of symbols. Symbols are visible signs
expressing realities invisible to the physical senses. The national flag could
be a powerful example. The flag may look like an ordinary piece of cloth, but
it stands for the country with all its heritage, values and history. Hence, to dishonour
the national flag is tantamount to dishonouring the country and its citizens.
Symbols are used to create and recreate meaning. Like the national flag there
are other symbols too. The language is a symbol. So too are stories, folklore,
music, dance, myths, artifacts, celebrations, etc. in a culture. Culture,
therefore, is symbols arranged in such a way as to make human life meaningful.
Staying on this reflection of symbols we
can say that the elaborate use of symbols in any culture is the expression of
an endeavour to transcend the physical and the concrete to move into the world
of meanings. At the same time our experience teaches us that there is also a
tendency to close oneself and be satisfied with the minimum present in every
culture. “All tensions, conflicts and competition that ensue from cultural and religious
identity are evidence of an inbuilt ambivalence in every culture. This ambivalence
can be overcome to a great extent through dialogue of cultures and dialogue of
peoples. Dialogue is so important
for mutual enrichment that it is also the only remedy for fundamentalist attitudes in cultures. A culture closed in on itself will slowly degenerate leading to its
death and disappearance.
Faith and culture
To understand the
relationship between faith and culture or faith becoming culture (as we have
mentioned it just a while ago, it is necessary to leave behind the classical
and colonial understanding of “culture” and embrace the anthropological idea of
it and to travel to the heart of the notion of culture.
The classical notion of
culture meant that only those who are “educated” or trained or skilled are
cultured persons. The others are not. It is easy to see, that this classical
understanding would lead to a hierarchical view of culture: high culture and
low culture; the culture of a majority and of a minority; subaltern cultures
and a culture of the marginalized; it would also make certain cultures
normative and non-normative, the normative culture acting as a norm for other
cultures! It would lead to divisions among cultures and peoples.
Instead, the
anthropological understanding of culture sees culture as a way of life, each cultural
group having its own way of life or culture. This would mean that there is
space for a plurality of cultures. The
anthropological understanding of culture, therefore, does not divide peoples.
It unites them. Diversity would then be seen not as an obstacle but an
enrichment.
Keeping in mind this simple
understanding of culture, it would be helpful to highlight a few other aspects
before we make a comment on the relationship between faith and culture, and the
necessity of faith becoming culture.
Thanks to the Good News of
Jesus Christ which is not linked to any particular culture, all human cultures
can be purified, transformed and transcended. Just as Jesus born in a Jewish
culture was able to help that culture to purify, transform and transcend itself,
all cultures are invited to do the same in the power of the Good News of Jesus.
To affirm that faith (in
Jesus Christ) must become culture
would mean that the Gospel values can and should permeate the ethos of a
people: their attitudes and way of judging, their institutions and structures,
their sources of inspiration and models of life. For the Church, we read in Evangelii Nuntiandi [EN], evangelization
“is a question not only of preaching the Gospel in ever wider geographic areas
or to ever greater numbers of people, but also of affecting and as it were of
upsetting through the power of the Gospel, mankind’s criteria of judgment,
determining values, points of interest, lines of thought which are in contrast
with the Word of God and the plan of salvation”19.[5] All this, continues EN,
could be expressed in a single sentence, “… what matters is to evangelize man’s
culture and cultures …”[6], culture understood as the
total way of life of a people.
To take the concept of
culture further, we must say that the Gospel is not good news unless it engages
the way of life [cultures] of its hearers. There is no pure gospel, no abstract
culture. Though the Gospel is independent of cultures, the Kingdom that it
proclaims has to be lived by people within their cultural realities. Gospel and
culture are in constant interface. In this interfacing of faith and culture
“culture” is both dangerous to faith and essential to it, for faith is “lived,
clothed, enveloped, and expressed” in cultures (Yves Congar). Religion –understood
as faith lived in everyday life- is the “substance of culture, and culture
celebrated in multifarious ways is the form of religion” (Tillich). Whereas St.
John Paul II used to repeat on several occasions that “faith must become
culture”, Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI) had earlier observed, “faith itself
is culture” thus highlighting the inseparability of the two in one’s life and
practice here on earth.
A journey to the heart of Culture
A journey to the heart of
culture will make us realize that a truly cultured person is a compassionate
one, a merciful one, one who can pardon like Jesus Christ and take the first
step to help those in need. Let us sum up this life’s journey of faith and
culture in a few small steps: Some comments on each step may be in order.
1. All
people are part of a culture, depend upon it and shape it.
2. Lying
deep in each culture is a movement towards fulfillment, and having an intrinsic
capacity to receive divine revelation.
3. Every
culture is invited to purify, transform and transcend itself in the light of
and in the power of the Paschal Mystery. [7]
4. It is the
power of the Paschal Mystery that one’s faith in God is lived in the “flesh and
blood” of a culture. It is known as Inculturation of faith.
5. We can
say that evangelization of cultures and Inculturation of faith go together.
They are an inseparable pair.
6. Evangelization
of cultures ensures the identity of each culture safeguarding all its genuine
richness and cultural heritage.
7. The
Incarnation [of the Word made Flesh] sheds light on the encounter between faith
and culture. In other words, Jesus Christ becoming Man in the Jewish culture
has become the norm for all forms of Inculturation.
8. Faith’s
encounter with different cultures creates sisters and brothers, members of the
household of God.
9. In Christ
who is our peace and who breaks down the walls of hostility all cultures can be
made to feel at home in the Good News.
10. A faith
that does not become culture – as we have mentioned earlier- is a faith that is
not fully accepted, not thoroughly thought, not faithfully lived. In other
words, a faith that is not proved by one’s life is no faith at all!
11. The
Church has need of cultures in order to manifest the unsearchable riches of the
Good News, and the cultures have the need of the Good News in order to reach
their fulfillment.
12. Here we
may conclude by saying that religion/faith is the substance of culture and
culture is the form of religion.
13. To proceed to the heart of culture, we need the
help of something in which culture and Good News merge into one, and that is inculturation, something similar to incarnation. Inculturation for us means
“the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their
integration into Christ’s message and the insertion of Christ’s message in the
various human cultures.”[8]
14. At this point the concept of culture finds
itself in the holiest of holies and becomes the vital space within every person
wherein the human person comes face to face with the Good News of Jesus.
15. To arrive at this understanding of culture is
possible because, every culture is an expression of the human spirit, the image
and likeness of GOD WHO IS RICH IN MERCY.
16. Hence, a truly cultured person, is one who is
–like God- merciful and compassionate towards others, thus reflecting proving
that God who is rich in mercy is active in him/her.
Anthropological Insights for Faith-Culture Interface
Anthropology
teaches us to have a holistic view of
people as members of a cultural community to avoid segmenting humans into
various compartments such as
psychology, philosophy, history, language, etc. Anthropology understands people
in relationships. A major part of
relationship is exercised in communication. Hence, the paramount importance of
learning languages.
Along
with underlining the importance of language, the discovery of the concept of a worldview (basic beliefs about God,
world, nature and humanity) too is Anthropology’s contribution to us.
Anthropology
also tells us that every culture is a sincere attempt to meet people’s needs
and to make life as meaning full as possible. Hence, we cannot speak of a
superior or inferior culture. Jesus’
command to go into the whole world [of
cultures] implies that his disciples should learn the different cultures:
language, proverbs, stories, folklore, dance, mythologies, music, dance, etc.
of each and every culture. Hence, let us respect all cultures. If anyone is
able to make a native [say, a Khasi, for example] affirm “you are making me
proud to be a Khasi Chistian, it would be the greatest credit for the one who
works with indigenous peoples.
Anthropology
in consonance with each one’s religious upbringing also teaches us that we
should avoid any domineering attitude
when we work with people. Instead, influence and animate them rather than
command them. Jesus came not to be served, but to serve. As we move ahead with
different peoples, we shall also realize that we should not undervalue their
indigenous belief system. Even in magic and witchcraft there could be some
underlying values. Understand what they do as closely as possible and initiate
a dialogue rather than give solutions. As early as possible establish local
leaders as we minister to the peoples. Follow strict disengagement from any one
regional / national cultural and political affiliation. Be native, be Catholic.
As ministers /servants of the people we belong to all and all peoples become
our brothers and sisters.
Therefore,
identify with the people, speak a
language that is simple and which people understand. St. Paul was able to
brilliantly connect the Good News with the Greeks by placing his emphasis on
“Grace” [charis = a term which they
understood]; whereas with the Jews, he and the other New Testament authors
focused on “Wisdom”. Always keep open a two-way communication [teach and learn
=mission in reverse]. Do not just speak only, but demonstrate : Jesus said to
Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father too” (Jn 14:9). Earn
respect rather than demand respect. Deal with specific people/ situations and
not with people in general. Teach only as much as the people can take in. Avoid
information overload. Place great trust in the people, “As the Father sent me,
so I send you” (Jn 20:21). Trust is the best expression of loving. We say we
love all peoples, but do we trust them too. Study, analyse, strategize as you
plan and make projects. Keep evaluating from time to time. with the help of
people to see whether we have achieved the objectives we had set before us.
Share the burden with the people.
Anthropology
also asks of us to avoid stereotyping
[putting people into one fixed category], or categorizing peoples into “us”
[in-group] and “them” [out-group]. “It is not enough that we understand others
[this can be a subtle form of patronizing]; they must also understand us”
[Eugene Nida]. This would be an antidote to ethnocentrism and to its extreme
form “racism”.
It is
not enough to have a general idea of culture. It is important to understand a
culture’s interrelated component parts
such as sub-systems, institutions, patterns, complexes, traits [ say, Khasi
culture with its =Economic, Political
and Religious sub-systems; its institutions such as hunting,
gathering, style of building, ways of doing trade; its patterns such as hunting on foot, hunting in summer, hunting in
winter, hunting deer (ki skei); its complexes like bow and arrow, quiver,
and the particular Khasi ways of shooting; and finally traits: the material with which bows and arrows are generally made,
and their size]. It will help us to analyze a culture as a whole and more
clearly in its component parts. Every culture is a living organism, the various
parts are well knit together.
Art,
literature, music, dance and drama are what is known as “expressive culture”.
They are excellent means to convey and share a message. The core values of a culture can act as entry
points. It is important to know them. One should also be acquainted with
the moral code of each culture and ways of behaviour too. The link between form and meaning in some
symbols is so close that the two cannot be differentiated (Mecca for Muslims
and Cross for the Christians). We may choose a symbol other than the Cross to
speak of death, but we cannot change the facts of history, namely, that Jesus
died on the Cross for our salvation. When we introduce change in one part of a
culture, there are often unforeseen side effects in other areas of the culture.
Summing up:
·
The concept of culture
is anthropology’s gift to evangelizing mission.
·
Culture can be
understood in its tangible and intangible and inclusive aspects.
·
Art, literature,
music, dance and drama, documentaries are what is known as “expressive culture.”
They are excellent means to convey Gospel teachings.
·
Find out core values
of each culture and learn which of them acts as entry points for deeper
evangelization.
·
Each culture has its
own moral code and ways of behavior. It is necessary that the missionary is
acquainted with them.
·
Make use of existing
tribal institutions/associations/clan loyalties before starting new ones.
·
Give importance to tribal
leaders.
·
Avoid domineering
attitude…influence and animate rather than command.
·
It is not enough that
we understand others; they must also understand the missionary and what he/she
preaches.
·
Relationship in
missionary service must take priority over doing particularly at the beginning.
·
Anthropology
understands people in relationships. A major part of human relationship is
exercised in communication. Hence, the great importance of communication in
mission. Learning language, for example.
·
Jesus’ command to go
into the whole world implies that his disciples learn the different cultures.
·
The gospel must be distinguished from all human cultures. It is divine
revelation, not human speculation. Since the gospel belongs to no one culture,
it can be adequately expressed in all of them.
·
On the one hand the
Church relies on culture to express and communicate the truth of the Gospel and
on the other hand the cultures of the world need the Gospel to purify
themselves and to be transformed according to the fullness of Christ.
Culture and Sustainable Development of
Indigenous Peoples
The power of
culture for development is immense. The International Terra Madre in Shillong
and in Mawphlang two years ago brought together representatives from over 50
indigenous communities from across the world shows the resourcefulness each
culture group has in the area of indigenous food, indigenous music, dance and
art forms. Awareness of these resources is critical for sustainable
development. Each culture is an embodiment of unity in diversity. Indigenous
peoples as such should find a stronger voice in the development of the nation.
The government should invest more resources in capacity building, in promoting
each group’s cultural wealth and in preserving its cultural heritage. Encouraging
culture based projects and promoting traditional industries can be a source of
income for the nation.
Innovative
access to funding and public-private-partnership are essential to improve
access to capital for cultural entrepreneurs. Traditional forms of investing in
culture such as subsidies are insufficient. UNESCO’s Policy Guide on culture and creative
industries provides policy makers with a hands-on approach to
strengthen indigenous people’s economy according to their own cultural genius.
Deeper Dimensions of
Culture
Each
one of us is born into a culture. But none of us is born with a culture.
Culture is acquired by living in society. It distinguishes us from every other
kind of creatures. It includes everything that goes to make our life as social
beings: myths, symbols, languages,
rites, music, art and paintings, dances, style of buildings, worship forms,
values, customs, proverbs, stories and
folktales, food habits, the way we think, speak and behave, etc. As human
beings we make culture, and are also the product of culture.
In
its deeper dimension it is the human spirit that expresses itself through
culture/s. Every culture is essentially oriented to truth, goodness and beauty.
Culture begins in the heart. Hence, no
culture is superior to another culture. All cultures are equal as cultures.
Since human kind has been touched by sin, cultures too feel the effect of sin.
The Good News of Jesus Christ and the teachings of religion can help to purify
cultures, so as to enjoy the cultural riches of one another like brothers and
sisters in the family of mankind.
A Note on the word “Encounter”
In
its original meaning the word “encounter” carries a negative connotation. It
denotes a meeting that is unexpected and adverse (en-contra = against). But the word has gone beyond this first
meaning. It is now used for any meeting wherein both the parties are affected
by coming together. In the encounter between the Good News of Jesus Christ and
the cultures of peoples two things may
be noted: one the one hand the Church relies on culture to express and
COMMUNICATE the truth of the Gospel; on
the other hand the cultures of the world need the Gospel to purify themselves
of their defective or inhuman features so as to be transformed according to the
fullness of Christ. However, the real encounter takes place between peoples who
belong to one culture or another and who come face to face with the Good News
of Jesus Christ. which too is embodied in a culture or cultures.
It is “Persons” we encounter in culture
A small precision at this point may
not be out of place.[9] It
is people we encounter, people who bear Christian and cultural values. Here it
is also necessary to distinguish between actual and ideal values. Encounter may
occur in four ways. First, between ideal faith values and ideal cultural
values; second, actual faith values and actual cultural values; third, ideal
faith values and actual cultural values; and fourth, actual faith values and
ideal cultural values. As can be easily seen, of these four possibilities, the
second and the third are more applicable to real life.
In the encounter between a Christian
Preacher and one who is not a Christian,
we can distinguish two phases.
The
first phase:
P F H
(P stands for the preacher of the Gospel. F represents the Faith he preaches and wishes to be accepted.. H is the hearer of the Gospel, who P hopes will receive the gift of
Christian Faith. [[ p]] stands for the culture of P and [[h]] for the culture of H.)
The diagram contains the following
points: (1) The faith (F) that (P)
preaches cannot be expressed except in its incultured, that is, if he is an
Indian, he cannot but offer the faith in the culture in which he was brought up and in which he experienced
the Christian faith. His culture acts as screen through which the message of F in its ideal form is filtered. (2) F therefore is the actual faith, not
the ideal faith of the Gospel, even though P
tries his best to come as close as
possible to the ideal faith of the Gospel. In fact, in transmitting it he must
have been convinced that he is offering the “ideal” faith. H hears P talking about F, but
as P cannot talk of F except through his culture, so
likewise H cannot receive it (F) except through the screen of his culture. In
concrete, this First Phase of inculturated process of faith is basically a dialogue of cultures
(of P and of H) for
the transmission of faith.
Let us move on to the second phase:
H
F HS
The new element here is HS. It stands for the Holy Spirit.
First, H receives the gift of Faith(F) becoming a Christian. P has moved out of the picture. H’s main partner in dialogue now is the
Holy Spirit (HS). And the object of
dialogue between H and HS is not the incultured faith of P, but that of H. The more H enters into a salvific dialogue with
the Holy Spirit (HS), the more
personal becomes his faith, and hence better prepared to express it through and
in his cultural forms. This second phase is also a phase of purification and
sublimation of H’s cultural values
in the light of the Gospel values. Perhaps we have been too slow in Mission History and Pastoral
Practices in moving from Phase One to Phase Two.
That
the Church Universal may experience more and faster the riches of human
cultures in experiencing and in living out the Christian faith it is imperative
that we breathe the openness to and appreciation of the cultures of peoples in
greater measure. A few lessons from
anthropology for mission that
follow may be helpful.
GOSPEL CULTURE ENCOUNTR
This
topic is as old as Christianity itself. Hence, the temptation “we know it all”
may lurk in some minds. On the other hand, it is a topic that will never be
exhausted. It will be relevant as long as the world lasts. Here too there is
the danger of getting “used to” it. Once anyone gets used to something, it
loses its freshness and stops challenging. It would lead to the loss of new
insights. Large areas of knowledge would remain unexplored.
If there is anything in the world
that will continue to engage our attention and to which we can never really get
used to, it is the Good News of Jesus Christ along with the Cultures of
humankind. No wonder then that Louis J. Luzbetak’s one time classic The Church and Cultures : An
Applied Anthropology for the Religious Worker (1970) went into six reprints
and was translated into five languages. Its thoroughly revised and updated
version, The Church and Cultures : New Perspectives in Missiological
Anthropology (1989, second printing) is yet another precious possession for
anyone engaged in Gospel Culture Encounter anywhere in the world. Of course,
there are other very helpful tools in this area and which we cannot forget.
Anthropology for Mission
With the renewed missionary spirit
seen in most part of the world and with greater interest in indigenous
population, there is a greater sensitivity to peoples and their cultures.
Without going into the on-going debate on “indigenous”[10]
peoples or definitions of “culture”,[11]
See how diverse our multicultural world is!
Americans
prefer to shake hands. Mexicans embrace. People in India say Namaste with joined hands, whereas among
the Siriano of S. America people prefer to spit at each other’s chest as a sign
of welcome! In stead in Panama they would such one another’s mouth. In Japan it
is seldom that any one walks into a bed room with shoes on. Floors are clean
and people sleep on them. Imagine if someone walks on our bed with shoes on! In
Arabia only slaves come on time. The master comes a few minutes late. If the
American Sahib comes on the dot, the Arabs may think he is a slave!
Latin
Americans, Africans, Arabs, and others think that the North Americans are cold and distant because they stand so far away from one another when they talk with people. North
Americans feel uncomfortable talking to someone who stands face to face with them
at close range. The Japanese business
person is annoyed when a client is late
for a meeting and a client may be no
more than five minutes late!. Zulu women may wait for their relatives coming
from a nearby village even for three hours and more. When they do arrive there
is no hot exchange of words about timing. All rejoice seeing one another.
Yap
women wear grass skirts reaching to their ankles. Whereas, South Sea islanders
wear only lip plugs. Dinka men coat their bodies with ash. And Muslim
women are hidden in public in burkas. The Masais of Kenya draw blood
from a cow through hollow arrows and consider it a great delicacy, often mixing it with fresh milk. The Chinese
for the most part reject dairy products but are fond of pork; whereas Muslims
and Orthodox Jews abhor pork and like milk.
Some
African tribes make butter, but instead of eating it they smear it on their
bodies for decorative purposes. In some cultures people show reverence by
taking off their hats, in other cultures by removing their shoes.
Humorous
Mail
is cooked ! Years ago missionaries to
the Marshall Islands received mail once a year
when sailing boats made their
rounds of the South Pacific. One year
the boat was a day ahead of schedule, and the missionaries were away on
a neighbouring island. The Captain of
the boat left the mail with the Marshallese, who finally had in hand what the
missionaries spoke about so often and with such anticipation. Unacquainted with
the strange ways of the foreigners, they tried to find out what made the mail
so attractive. They concluded that it must be good to eat, so they cooked the
letters and found them unpalatable. When the missionaries returned, they
found their year’s mail turned into
mush!(63-4)
Difficulties
Two
missionary women working in central Mexico were circumspect in their
relationships with men, but thought nothing of drinking line juice at breakfast
for their health. The Indians, however, were certain the young women had
lovers, for the locals used lime juice, which they called “baby killer”, to
produce abortions.
In
New Guinea the nationals accused missionaries of being stingy because they did
not freely share their foodstuffs and such belongings as clothes, blankets, and
guns with those around them.
North
Americans in India are terrified at the sight of salamanders (palli!) on their
bedroom walls (they keep down the mosquitoes).
Among
the Yorubas of West Africa, when a twin dies, the people make a roughly
fashioned human shape, which the mother carries with her.
This not only keeps the living child
from missing its lost twin, but also gives the spirit of the dead child
something to enter so that it will not disturb the living child.
The
Aida of north western coast of North America carved totem poles in
memory of their anscenstors. Others make
fetishes, icons and idols and build temples, mosques,
In
all cultures people pray. Villagers in Ghana pray to their ancestors at the
burial ceremony.
A
child does not become a human being
merely by biological birth. He or she must be transformed into a social being,
a member of the society. This is often done by mystically creative rites in
which a baby is made human. Among the Chagga of Africa, for example, the baby
is formally presented to the mother’s relatives on the fourth day after birth.
A week later it is made a member of the father’s clan with elaborate ceremony.
After another month it is taken outside and lifted toward the snowy summit of Kilimangaro with
the prayer, ”god and guide, lead this child, guard it and let it grow up and
arise like smoke!”
After
a birth the Gikuyu of East Africa bury the placenta in an uncultivated field
and cover it with grain and grass to ensure the strength of the child and the
continued fertility of the mother. The father cuts four sugar canes, if the
child is a girl or five if it’s a boy, gives the juice to the mother and child,
and buries the scraps on the right side
of the house, if the child is a boy and on the left, if it is a girl. He
sacrifices a goat to celebrate , and the medicine man is called to purify the
house. The mother and child are kept in seclusion for four or five days, and
the husband sacrifices sheep of thanksgiving to God. Among the most feared
rituals are the funerals. Missioanrie in India rejected red saris for brides,
for this was the colour worn by Hindus. Instead, they introduced white saris to
symbolize purity, not realizing that in India red stands for fertility and
white for barrenness and death.
The
Bible speaks of the tax collector “beating his breast” as a sign of repentance.
This may seem strange to West Africans,
in whose language the idion “to beat the breast” can only mean to take pride in
one’s accomplishments. When speaking of
repentance they would say “He beat his head”!
Cultural
sensibilities have to be kept in mind with regard to food habits, dress,
buildings, language, ways of greeting, thanking, expressing feelings various
other occasions as we evangelize peoples.
We ourselves need to be evangelized first.
The
Southeast Asian story of the Monkey and the fish. The flood came. The monkey
managed to climb higher. He found a tree
and climbed. He looked down and out of compassion for his friend, he looked
down and found the fish getting drowned in the flood waters. So the monkey pulled the fish out of the water and kept it
warm with him. One can easily imagine the fate of that fish!
We
human beings like fish can live inside a culture, and not outside. Hence any
person rescued from any one culture will be able to live only, if they are
quickly immersed in another. Eugene Nida says,” Good missionaries have always
been good anthropologists.
Behavioural
All people
see the same world, but they perceive it through different cultural
glasses.
American
farmers raise crops to feed their
families. Men in Trobriand Islands raise crops to feed their sisters and their
sisters’ children. These men and their children, in turn, live on food provided
by their wives’ brothers.
The
Shilluks of Sudan speak of scorpions and crocodiles as their relatives; the
American Indian of the Southwest eat
peyote buttons to have visions of guardian spirits; and aged Eskimos walk out
on the ice to die so as not to consume food, which was scarce in winter.
Attitudes to time may differ between different cultures in
often quite significant ways. For example, being late for an appointment, or
taking a long time to get down to business, is the accepted norm in most
Mediterranean and Arab countries, as well as in much of less-developed Asia.
Such habits, though, would be anathema in punctuality-conscious USA, Japan,
England, Switzerland, etc. In the Japanese train system, for example, “on time”
refers to expected delays of less than one minute, while in many other
countries, up to fifteen minutes leeway is still considered “on-time”.
· Monochronic – where things are
typically done one at a time, where time is segmented into precise, small
units, and where time is scheduled, arranged and managed. In such a culture,
time is viewed as a tangible commodity than can be spent, saved or wasted, and
a paramount value is placed on regimented schedules, tasks and “getting the job
done”. This perception of time is probably rooted in the Industrial Revolution
of the 18th and 19th Century, and the archetypal examples are the United
States, Germany and Switzerland, to which could be added Britain, Canada,
Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and the Scandinavian countries.
· Polychronic – where several
things can be done at once, and a more fluid approach is taken to scheduling
time. Such cultures tend to be less focused on the precise accounting of each
and every moment, and much more steeped in tradition and relationships rather
than in tasks. Polychronic cultures have a much less formal perception of time,
and are not ruled by precise calendars and schedules. The arbitrary divisions
of clock time and calendars have less importance to them than the cycle of the
seasons, the invariant pattern of rural and community life, and the calendar of
religious festivities. Many Latin American, African, Asian and Arab cultures
fall into this category, especially countries like Mexico, Pakistan, India,
rural China, the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
· Variably Monochronic – a group of “in
between” countries, including Russia, Southern Europe and much of East-Central
Europe are sometimes referred to as variably monochronic cultures.
Even within a country,
different sub-cultures may regard time quite differently. In
the United States for example, Mexican-Americans differentiate between “hora
inglesa” (the actual time on the clock) and “hora Mexicana” (which
treats time considerably more casually); Hawaiians regularly juggle two time
systems, the rigorous Haole (American) time and the much more
lax Hawaiian time; and native Americans often distinguish between “Indian time”
and regular time.
In today’s globalized
world, understanding the time orientation of a culture is critical to the
successful handling of diplomaticand business situations.
Misunderstandings of chronemics can lead to a failure to understand intentions,
especially in business communication. For example, monochronists may view
polychronists as undisciplined, lazy, irresponsible and untrustworthy, while
polychronists may consider monochronists to be obsessed with rules and
formalities, and emotionally cold.
To go still deeper into culture it would be good to listen to
the science of anthropology. In fact, it is said that the concept of culture is
anthropology’s gift to us.
Nature and Scope of Anthropology[13]
The
word anthropology is derived from the Greek anthropos (human being) and logos
(word, discourse, study),
Anthropology enquires into the basic questions about who human beings
are, how they came to be what they are, how they behave, and why they behave as
they do. Because the mission of the Church is to human beings, and because
anthropology is the systematic study of
such beings, a basic knowledge of this science is a must for anyone engaged in mission. Anthropology is a coordinating
type of science. It is composed, however, not just of bits and pieces of all
sorts of sciences, but is rather a science in its own right. It is such, first
of all, because it has a very distinct object of study – our humanness. The
physical, biological, cultural, social, and psychological understanding of what
it means to be human is examined with a view to arriving at as complete and
integrated a picture as is possible of what we understand by anthropos.
Anthropology
is a science in its own right also because
it has an overall method of its own that we might simply call
“comparative”. The two basic features of
anthropology are : holism and the comparative method.
Holism
Holism
or holistic means whole or complete. It may sound presumptuous for any science
to claim for itself “the science of human beings”, for other sciences too study
human beings –history, psychology, biology, to mention just a few.
There
are a number of reasons for regarding anthropology as the science of human kind
par excellence. (i) Its holistic
approach to man. It is best described as a coordinating science of humanness. (ii) Whereas other
sciences may study human beings from a particular (for instance, from
the physical, biological, psychological, social or historical perspective), anthropology
focuses on something more than an understanding limited to any single point of
view. Anthropology helps us avoid the mistake of the four blind men spoken of
in the ancient Indian fable (leg = trunk of a
tree, side =wall, tail = a rope, tusk = spear)!
Comparative Method
The
second essential and distinctive characteristic of anthropology is its comparative method. In order to have
holistic picture, the anthropologists must compare
one group of human beings with another. The comparative approach seeks to
uncover general “laws” regarding society and culture. (i) At times a comparison
of constituent parts of a given culture will reveal a consistency and harmony
that serves to buttress such cultural parts. For example, permissiveness
(great and excessive freedom of behaviour) on the part of educators may be
looked upon as correct, proper and logical, for “that is the way our benevolent
ancestors and gods always behave”. It may also be impossible and unthinkable
for a society to sell land to the local missionary for a needed hospital or
school, “because the only thing one can sell is what one has actually made –
and we certainly have not made this land”.
(ii)
Sometimes cross-cultural comparisons are made between similar lifeways within a relatively limited geographical area. Here
the purpose of the comparative approach might be, for instance, to find an
explanation for the presence of slavery in a particular society when the
practice is totally unknown in otherwise similar neighbouring cultures (other
examples could be sati, untouchability, child labour). (iii) Sometimes large-scale comparisons of fifty or more cultures, or
for that matter on a worldwide basis,
are made in the hope of discovering
broad laws of human behaviour. Identify
a few of the best known and perhaps the most comprehensive cross-cultural
project in India. Modern computer technique has large-scale cross-cultural
comparisons easier and faster.
Anthropology
is divided into : (i) Physical Anthroplogy (studies human beings as biological
organisms, the biological processes of the human body. But it does so by relating
the various biological processes to other anthropological perspectives, such as
the cultural and social. (ii) Cultural Anthropology (studies
human beings under the distinctive
aspect of Cultural Beings).
Physical
and Cultural Anthropology are further subdivided according to the
particular orientation of the
discipline in question. If the primary goal of the discipline or sub-discipline is to discover and document the uniqueness of
facts, the discipline or sub-discipline
is historical or descriptive. If the primary goal focuses
on the formulation of generalizations
(“laws”), the discipline is regarded as
scientific.
Physical Anthropology
Physical
Anthropology studies human beings as biological organisms. The field is
sometimes regarded as “Biological Anthropology” or “Human Biology”. When
Physical Anthropology focuses on the origin and evolution of the human body,
the discipline is called Human
Paleontology or Paleoanthropology.
When
Physical Antrhopology assumes a
scientific orientation with a focus on structure and function of contemporary forms, it is
called “the study of race” or somatology. It has recourse to highly specialized
auxiliary fields such as anthropometry, biometrics and human genetics.
Somatology branches off into such subfields
as human morphology and comparative human physiology.
Although
at first Physical Anthropology seems to
be unrelated to the mission of the Church, it nevertheless is, inasmuch as the discipline provides some of the most basic
scientific arguments that support the universal brotherhood of all peoples. It offers
strong scientific arguments against claims of racial superiority of one group
over another. It makes important contributions also to the general health of
peoples, a major element of the social mission of the Church. Moreover,
Physical Anthropology provides much
useful background information for
Cultural Anthropology, the chief mission-related
form of Anthropology.
Cultural Anthropology
Cultural
Anthropology analyzes, describes, and compares the distinctly human aspect of
peoples, namely, Culture. It explores lifeways and mentalities of living
societies as well as of those from past ages. Cultural Anthropology, unlike
Physical anthropology, studies human behaviour that is learned rather than genetically inherited. Depending on its
orientation, Cultural Anthropology may
be historical, descriptive, or scientific. Anthropology’s ultimate concern is
not description by a better understanding of why people are what they are.
Today
Cultural Anthropology is subdivided into
three major areas: Archeology (prehistory), Linguistics, and Ethnology.
Whereas Archaeology focuses on the description and historical interpretation of extinct cultures, Ethnology is concerned with living cultures. Linguistics
is the study of one of the most distinctly human characteristics, human speech,
the area deals with both living and extinct languages.
Scientifically Oriented Cultural
Anthropology
Social Anthropology : Social Anthropology is the comparative study
of social systems. Sometimes it is referred to as Comparative Sociology. Social
Anthropology examines a society’s values, institutions, and activities. It
observes their interdependence and aims to establish “laws” of social
behaviour. Social Anthropology is frequently referred to simply as “Functionalism”
inasmuch as the concept of function is the unifying element. Some of the
insights of Functionalists are directly
applicable to the Church’s mission (insights on puberty rites, ancestral
worship, etc.) .
Archeology ( a historical subfield of anthropology, it studies various artefacts of extinct peoples, but it does
so only with other human models in view.
(iii) Ethnology (it is primarily interested in the ways and values of living peoples, but at the same time it asks how
these ways and values are affected by the other human dimensions and how they
in turn affect and modify other perceptions. (iv) Further subdivisions of
Anthropology are : Psychological Anthropology,
Ecological Anthropology, Urban Anthropology, and Economic Anthropology. Some
anthropologists focus their attention on art, music, cognitive systems, laws,
or religion
Just as the architect views a building holistically with the help of a number of
blueprints ( basic floor-plan which provides the functions, locations and
dimensions of each room and floor , the location of the windows, doors, and pillars; of the
structural engineer who will
indicate in detail the type and size of the foundations and footings and
the arrangement and dimensions and exact locations of the girders; of the
mechanical engineer who studies location and type of pipes and ducts for
heating, air conditioning, plumbing and the like. Carpenters and other
craftsmen will draw up plans for
cabinets and shelving, all of which must be integrated holistically with the other perspectives of the building.
In addition to the above there will be the blueprints provided by the
electrical engineer, reflecting the
complexities of the electrical system.
In
short, (i) each and every human
characteristic , (ii) human
commonalities as well as human
diversities, (iii) human beings of every
time and place are the concern of anthropology. Anthropology enquires from the
group, not the individual. Individuals are, after all, members of an organized
interacting group.
The
task of coordinating and integrating the
various scientific perspectives of what it means to be a human
being is the unique task of the science of anthropology.
Applied Anthropology: Nature and Scope of Applied Anthropology
Applied
Anthropology utilizes anthropological
knowledge and skill for practical human needs.
It does this in much the way the
science of medicine utilizes for the purpose of health and illness the knowledge and skill of physiologists,
biologists, chemist, geneticists, and other scientists. Applied Anthropology
belongs to the area of Social Science. The findings of Anthropology has been
used with profit by educators, social
workers, lawyers, judges, city planners, health specialists, military experts,
technicians, government administrators,
overseas representatives, and church-workers. The latter serve in different
capacities as cultural interpreters,
programme evaluators, consultants,
planners, strategists, bridge-builders, and “trouble shooters”. They serve
private organizations , industry, churches, governments, and such international
operations as UNESCO, FAO, the World Bank and Peace Corps. Missiological
Anthropology is a form of applied
anthropology .
History of Applied Anthropology
The beginnings:
Among
the early anthropologists who recognized the applicability of their field to practical human problems were evolutionists like the American Lewis
Henry Morgan (1818-1881) as well as the British Sir Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917),
and Sir John Lubbock (1834-1913). As evolutionists , they interpreted all cultural development according to the
inflexible, preconceived, unilineal set of laws that required the simpler to
precede the more complex, the less perfect to precede the more perfect. Their
assumptions about progress were held as true, whether they considered bodily
forms, marriage, religious beliefs, or any other socially shared behaviour.
The transitional years (1920-1944)
Earlier,
it was thought that getting involved in action was unbecoming of serious scholars. But this attitude began
to change in the 1920s. The change seems to have been due to (i) interest in
contemporary rather than past cultures, (ii) the growth of functionalism, and
(iii) concern for knowledge about all cultures, including those of the
anthropologists themselves. New types of studies were made: (some of the
prominent authors at this time are Robert Redfield, Ruth Benedict, Margaret
Mead…Bronislaw Malinowski , and Radcliffe-Brown). In 1928 Margaret Mead
published her Coming of age in Samoa, in
which she compared adolescent Samoan girls with their counterparts in America. The works of Robert and Helen Lynd (Life of the American
Community in their classic Middletown
[1929], Elton Mayo [applied anthropological concepts and methods to problems of modern
industry] and of others who applied anthropological insights to productivity,
workmanship, absenteeism and other industry-related issues prepared the ground for the blossoming
of Applied Anthropology.
World War II: The Birth of Modern Applied
Anthropology
During
World War II of some 303 anthropologists in the USA over 295 were involved in
the war efforts as anthropologists.
Observing the British war effort and the role played by anthropologists,
Kluckhohn notes how: “British anthropologists held important posts in the
Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the British Information service, the Wartime
Social Survey, and in the field. One man was political adviser for the whole
Middle East, another carried the main administrative burden for the vast
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, still another
handled liaison problems with native peoples in Kenya and Abyssinia”. He also
points out how the Japanese invation of India would have had an entirely
different history if it had not been for the confidence that a woman
anthropologist, Ursula Graham Bower, enjoyed with the Zemi Nagas, a
strategically located tribe on the Assam-Burma frontier.
It
was in mid-1941 that anthropologists organized themselves into the Society for
Applied Anthropology. They also founded their first professional journal, Applied Anthropology (later renamed Human Organization). The journal
emphasized such concerns as community development, industrial relations, health
services and psychiatry, food production, and the administration of peoples.
In
1945 Ralph Linton edited an insightful anthology entitled The
Science of Man in the World C Crisis,
in which outstanding anthropologists discussed
such practical issues as the role of their discipline in dealing with internationalism, war, use of
resources, population control, the changing way of life, etc. This anthology was an important milestone in
the progressive maturing of Applied Anthropology.
The
forties and fifties witnessed an ever-greater involvement of anthropologists in studying and writing about contemporary issues. It was
also at this time that Clyde Kluckhohn of Harvard published his prize-winning Mirror of Man, in which he graphically
presented the countless contributions that applied anthropology was making in the contemporary world.
The
post-war years were a time of rapid
expansion for anthropology all over the world. Research on “Pure” anthropology
increased somewhat to the detriment of applied anthropology. Excellent works
were carried out in medical as well as in educational areas. Medical
anthropology developed so rapidly that in 1967 a professional association known
as the Society for Medical Anthropology was founded.
Growing
disagreement among anthropologists themselves
and the ensuing quarrels weakened the discipline to a great extent in recent
years.
Contemporary Applied Anthropology
Anthropologists
are recruited to work in areas such as development, health and education, urban
planning, forensics, museum management, national park service, drug and alcohol
rehabilitation, social work, domestic and overseas industries,
church-related activities, etc. The number of those who are engaged in the
academia too is on the increase, though they are still a small group compared with other disciplines.
Applied Anthropology and Value Judgements
Whenever
anthropology is applied it is applied to what we would call “human needs”. And
when we speak of human needs we are making a value judgement. The application
of anthropology is for the betterment of human conditions. For the educational
or technological advancement of a social group or for the rights of the
defenceless or needy individuals. And all these are done with a certain amount
of responsibility. Hence, a value judgement is implied in any instance of
applied anthropology. It is at no time a value free science.
It
may appear that in certain situations no value judgement is implied. But if the
situation is dealing with human needs
value judgements too have a place
in it. Take the case of a medical doctor.
What is medically possible, medically permissible, medically correct, and
therefore medically advisable, observes Cardinal Ratzinger, is not by that very
fact ethically correct and advisable. In the same way what
appears a brilliant idea anthropologically looked at may not be permissible
ethically[14]
If a culture were its own ultimate measure of rightness or wrongness,
headhunting, racism and perhaps most social evils, inasmuch as they are
integral parts of that “sacred” and “untouchable” whole would be right and
proper. The opinion that the best ethical measuring rod would be a catchword
lie “self-preservation” or “survival value” is incomplete. Instead, a more
complete concept would be “human dignity” or “human self-realization”. This makes us ask ourselves, “When is a human
being “self-realized”? The sub
discipline called Christian Anthropology
seeks to provide a more objective and more complete answer to the question.
Christian
Anthropology studies the redeemed human
person with all that human existence implies
culturally, socially, personally and spiritually. We believe that as
Christians our understanding of our
humanness outstrips even the loftiest perceptions offered by materialists and
positivists. Outstanding thinkers examined
and are examining such concepts
as “human dignity”, “self-realization”, “self-interpretation” and
“self-expression” in light of revelation and the Christian perception of God,
Christ, universal brotherhood and our
common God-intended human destiny.
Applied
anthropology presupposes a fourfold commitment and responsibility to (i) one’s
solidly based personal values or conscience, (ii) strict scientific standards,
(iii) the rights of the people at the micro as well as at the macro levels, and
(iv) the goals of the client for whom the anthropologist works.
Missiological
Anthropology: Nature and Scope of
Missiological Anthropology
Missiological
Anthropology might best be regarded as a specialized form of applied
anthropology. Scope and purpose are missiological, while the processes and
analyses are anthropological. Missiology proposes the basic issues and goals,
and anthropology supplies the perspective, approach, and standards for studying
them. More specifically missiological anthropology seeks (i) to bring together
in an organized fashion the various concepts, insights, principles, theories,
methods, and models of anthropology that
seem to be particularly relevant to the mission of the Church, and (ii) to show
how such an organized body of
knowledge might be employed for a better understanding and realization of
that mission.
The
specific object of missiological anthropology is the context in contextualization. It investigates the context in which
the Gospel must be viewed, understood, proclaimed, and lived. God through His
revelation, especially through the Incarnation,
set the agenda for the Church. The Church is commissioned to carry out
this agenda without compromising “the smallest letter of the law, not the
smallest part of a letter” (Mt 5:18).
This must be done not in some absolutistic manner but in accord with the given
social, cultural , and psychological laws that govern human existence. The
Gospel must be preached to human beings as
human beings and where they happen to
be at this particular point in time and place.
The lifeway, mentality, tradition, and social conditions of the local
community are the context in which God’s agenda must be viewed and interpreted
and as much as possible allowed to unfold. The specific task of missiological
anthropology , therefore, is not to set an agenda –God has already done that
for the Church. Our task as missiological anthropologists is rather to help determine the concrete
priorities and the how of mission. We
must help identify the proper emphases and the most effective manner of
expressing a society’s faith and obedience to God in terms of its ways, values
and soul.
The Justification for a Mission-Related
Anthropology In Mission theology
When Jesus sends us out in mission he justifies
cultural interventionism on our part. It is implied in his command to “make
disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19), to be “fishers of men” (Mt 4:19), to work
toward the establishment of a worldwide
Kingdom that is to continue into eternity (Lk 11:12), to set the world on fire
with the values of that Kingdom so that
the world might be totally consumed (Lk 12:49), to set oneself up as
“the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (Mt 5:13f.). And again, “Jesus Christ … yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8) and “at Jesus’
name every knee must bend in the havens, on the earth, and under the earth, and
every tongue proclaim to the glory of God the Father: Jesus Christ is Lord!”
(Phil 2:10) demand cultural interventionism.
Mission
Anthropology finds a basis for this interventionism in Mission Theology outside
anthropology. (See, LG 1-17; GS 1-3; AG 1-9). Mission anthropologists have the
same four basic commitments and responsibilities that all applied
anthropologists have: (i) a commitment to their conscience [their values,
worldview, and religious beliefs]; (ii) a commitment to strict scientific
standards; (iii) a commitment to the people served; and (iv) a commitment to
the goals, values, and policies and programmes of the client (in the case of mission anthropologists, to
the institutional Church, the particular
diocese / Congregation, Organization.
HISTORY OF MISSION ANTHROPOLOGY
The Beginnings of Modern Mission
Anthropology
There have always been outstanding mission
strategists, scholars, and explorers in the Church who knew how to apply cultural concepts to
mission even long before applied anthropology was born. There was the apostle
Paul, who strongly opposed the Judaizing tendencies of the early Church; there
was Pope Gregory the Great who in the
words of Schmidlin, “treated with utmost forbearance all national, political,
social, cultural, and even religious peculiarities, and, when these were
unusually deep-rooted, even admitted them in a purged or modified form into
Christianity”. There was Raymond Lull (d. 1316) who believed in what is called
today in anthropology “the participant observation” field technique, Lull
having made four field trips to Africa.
Even centuries ago, this great missionary emphasized the need of specialized cross-cultural
training. There were also such experts in cross cultural communication as Matteo
Ricci (d. 1610) and Robert de Nobili (d. 1656); there were such champions of
human rights as de las Casas (d. 1566). There were also numerous linguists and
ethnographers among missionaries, not all as recognized as were Sahagun (d. 1474), Lafitau (d. 1740),
or R.H. Codrington (d. 1922). Much of the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and
Greenlandic folklore is derived from early missionary ethnography. Contributors
included Monk Regino (d.967), Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (d. 1019), Canon
adam of Bremen (d. 1076), Nestor (d.1100) and Bishop Kodlubek of Krakov
(c.1210).
The
following three centuries (1200-1500) produced even more missionary ethnography
that is appreciated by historians to this day: for example, John de Plano,
Carpini, Wiliam Ruysbroeck, Prince Hayton, John of Corvino, John of Marignola,
and Jordanus Catalani. During the period of the great discoveries it was again
missionary ethnographers who excelled in describing the cultures and languages
of the inhabitants of the Americas, Africa, and Oceania. Among these were
Christoval Molino, Jose’d’Acosta, Dobrizhoffer, de Charlevoix. In fact, the
work of the French Jesuit Lafitau. Is regarded by anthropologists as the very
first truly anthropological study ever written. .
The
real beginnings of modern mission anthropology might best be traced to the
mission Society of the Divine Word when anthropology in its strict sense of the
word was still in its infancy. Credit goes to a large extent to the efforts of
Fr. Wilhelm Schmidt SVD.
Recent and Current Mission Anthropology
The
first anthropological handbooks of the 1930s and 1940s and1950s…
Among
them significant missionary impact was made by the writings of Eugene Nida’s (Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions, 1954)
and the many writings of Fr. Wilhelm Schmidt.
Important too were the journal Practical
Anthropology (1953-1972) which brought considerable cultural awareness to
Protestant grassroots missionaries and such earlier culturally sensitive
periodicals as the International Review
of Mission (since 1922) and the International
Bulletin of Missionary research (since 1950).
In
the 1950s and 1960s the world – and this includes the Christian world – became
particularly sensitive to cultural differences. The chief reasons for this
development were (i) the self-awareness, the national pride, and the hunger for
independence on the part of the Third World Countries, and (ii) the impact of Vatican II.
The
1970s and early 1980s were years when mission anthropology, like all
missiology, took on a strongly ecumenical and interdisciplinary direction in
professional publications, associations, meetings, and training programmes. The
journal Missiology (founded in 1973),
assumed and expanded the work of Practical
Anthropology.
The
very characteristic of the 1970s was the rapid development of local theologies
in Latin America, Africa, India, and in fact, throughout the world. Of
particular importance was the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization the
proceedings of which were published
under the title Gospel and Culture
(1979). Also significant was the establishment of the Pontifical Council
for Culture in 1982. Establishing which John Paul II wrote, “A faith that does
not become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted, not thoroughly
thought, not faithfully lived”.[15] Characteristics
of our times is the growing importance of interfaith dialogue, emphasis on
communication, study of cultures, excellent writings on Church and Cultures.[16]
Concluding thoughts
The
Church exists in order to evangelize (EN 18). Evangelization in its integral
sense would mean “bringing the Good News into all the strata of humanity, and
through its influence transforming humanity from within and making it new” (EN
18). It implies, of course, transformation of individuals in the power of the
Good News, the reception of the sacraments, prayer life and works of charity.
After
explaining the witness and mission of Jesus, the first evangelizer, who
proclaimed the Kingdom of God –describing it in many ways- and showing the
profound link between Christ, the Church and evangelization, EN hints at the
complexity of evangelizing action and warns against any “partial and fragmentary”
understanding of the rich reality of evangelization. For the Church
evangelization would mean “not only preaching the Gospel in ever wider
geographic areas or to ever greater numbers of people, but also of
· “…affecting
and as it were upsetting, through the power of the Gospel mankind’s criteria of
judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines of thought, sources of
inspiration and models of life which are in contrast with the Word of God and
the plan of salvation” (EN 19).
· In
other words, evangelization should bring about attitudinal change of people in the light of the Good News.
All
this and much more regarding evangelization – EN affirms, by saying that
evangelization is evangelization of cultures (EN 20)
At
this point we are making a big jump from a classical understanding of “culture”
to an anthropological one. The classical understanding would divide mankind
into “cultured” (the educated ones…) and “non-cultured” (the poor who have no
chance of going to school or college, or who have no skills). In stead, the
anthropological understanding of culture helps to unite peoples by understanding culture as a way of life, and all
peoples having one culture or another. Since the Good News is not linked to any
one culture, but is able to transform all cultures (precisely because it is not
a prisoner to any one culture), Jesus and his Good News can be born in all
cultures as it happened with the Jewish culture in which Jesus was born.
Our
discourse on “ a faith that does not become culture…” begins here.
St.
John Paul II often used this phrase, “Faith must become culture”. He continued,
“A faith that does not become culture is a faith that is not fully accepted not
thoroughly thought, not faithfully lived”. Simply put, the proclamation of the
Gospel in order to be received and understood must be inculturated. Think of
yourself explaining the teaching of Jesus to someone and you don’t know his
language. Extend “language” [the door to someone’s culture] to all other
aspects of the listener’s culture! The more you know your listener’s language
and cultural expressions, the better would be his or her experiencing the Good
News in all its dimensions.
What
is said above would lead us to affirm, that a faith that is unable to
demonstrate how it has entered into one’s way of life [culture], into one’s
work and relationships is a weak faith. Hence, it is a necessity for the faith
to become culture, that is, faith seen and experienced in one’s way of life.
Just as there is no pure Gospel, there is no abstract culture. “Faith is lived,
clothed, enveloped and expressed in a culture” (Yves Congar). And Card.
Ratzinger went to the extent of saying, “Faith itself is culture”. The new
cultural reality inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
the source of this intimate link between faith and culture and of the power to
bring about the needed transformation of cultures.
·
What the Church says
about “culture” (for group study & discussion)
1. VATICAN II Gaudium et Spes Ch
II Art 53-62 [1962-1965, Dec 7, 1965]
2. 1975 : Paul VI, Evangelii
Nuntiandi 20 : … All what has been said about Evangelization can be summed
up by saying that Evangelization is Evangelization of cultures. “… what matters
is to evangelize man’s culture and cultures…” Culture as a way of life…
classical and anthropological understandings…
3. 1990 [Dec. 7, 25th Anniversary of the Conciliar Decree Ad Gentes] St. John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, Ch. V The Paths of
Mission, “Incarnating the Gospel in Peoples’ cultures” Art Nos 52-54.
4. 1999 [New Delhi, Nov 6] Apostolic
Exhortation Church in Asia Nos 21-22.
In 21 we read, “Culture is the vital space within which the human person comes
face to face with the Gospel…” (vital = living space or way of life…).
5. 2013 [Rome Nov 24] Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation The Joy of the Gospel , Ch 2 “Amid the
Crisis of Communal Commitment”
Closing thought
THE
GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST: The Gospel of Jesus Christ is something so unique
that anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ will experience it as a source of inexhaustible
strength. For the believer in Christ there is nothing like the Good News of
Jesus Christ. The essence of being a believer in Christ, in the words of Karl
Rahner, would mean that the believer prefers the well-being of his/her
neighbour to one’s own well-being. This can be very challenging even to the
point of martyrdom. In the simple and ever fascinating words of Blessed Mother
Teresa, to be a Christian means to “give until it hurts”! Jesus widened the
meaning of “neighbour” so much that it goes beyond all boundaries.
The
good news is that we are saved by God’s Grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We
are saved not by doing good works, but in order to do good works. Our salvation
is God’s gift to us; how we live it is our gift to God. And COMMUNICATING the
Good News in a variety of ways – especially to people who have not had the
opportunity to receive it - is certainly the best gift we can offer to God.
At
the heart of the Good News is the
unconditional love of the Father, the self-emptying love of the Son and the
unifying and fructifying love of the Holy Spirit. This particular love which we
call the Trinitarian Love distinguishes the Good News of Jesus Christ from all
other good news. Or rather, all other good news can find a “Home” in the Love Jesus
teaches us with his word and example. Happy are those who are fortunate to have
known Jesus’ love. If millions of people do not know Jesus and have not
experienced his love it is mostly because they do not know him. They do not
know him, mostly because there are not enough COMMUNICATORS capable of making
the Good News reach the people as flesh and blood of their cultures.
In
the process of COMMUNICATION and TRANSMISSION OF FAITH there comes a moment when the dialogue between the two cultures of
the preacher and of the listener gives way to the dialogue between the LISTENER
and the HOLY SPIRIT, and that is when the preacher and the “techniques” of
COMMUNICATION give way to the Holy Spirit. The faster it happens the better it
is.
We are cultural beings
A
South East Asian story of the Monkey and the Fish concerns all of us. It goes
somewhat like this: The monkey and the fish were thick friends. As the flood
rose higher and higher, the monkey too climbed
higher and higher. Looking down from the tree where he was sitting, the
monkey saw his friend the fish. Out of concern, he helped to pull the fish out
of the water! Needless to say what happened to the fish! In no time it was
dead!
Human
beings like the fish live in, and not outside a culture. If one is removed from
a culture he/she must immediately be immersed in another one. And the BEST
culture in which we can all be born, live, develop and genuine BROTHERS AND
SISTERS -ready to give one’s life for
the other (such is the LOVE JESUS has
taught us with His life, teaching and example) is found only in Jesus. And further, only in Jesus can I find Eternal
Life already in this world. In the degree I experience and possess JESUS in
this world, I already experience and possess ETERNAL LIFE, for he is the only
one -Son of God and Son of Man- who DIED and ROSE FROM THE DEAD to give us
undying life already here and now. In Jesus’ name to offer this new life to
others and to help to live it more fully is the essence of CATHOLIC[17]
CHRISTIAN MISSION.
(J.
Puthenpurakal)
[2] Joaquín Navarro-Valls,
M.D. (November 16, 1936 – July 5, 2017) was a Spanish journalist, physician and
academic who served as the Director of the Holy See Press Office from 1984 to
2006. His role as the press liaison between the Vatican and the world press
corps gave him perhaps the highest visibility during the papacy of St. John
Paul II.
[3] John Paul II’s Letter
instituting the Pontifical Council for Culture, 20th May, 1982, AAS,
LXXIV(1982) 683-688.
[5] EN, 19.
[6] EN, 20.
[7] By Paschal
Mystery is meant the power that transforms believers in Christ. They are
able to experience joy in suffering, glory in humiliation and life in death. The passage (paschal or pass over)
from suffering to joy, from humiliation to glory and from death to life
is the gift of the Spirit for those believe in Jesus Christ.
[8] RM, 52.
[9] Here I am indebted to Bishop Francisco F.
Claver, S.J.,s article, “The Encounter
Between the Gospel and the Values of Indigenous Peoples” presented at the FABC
Consultation on Indigenous Peoples in Asia and the Challenges of the Future at
Pattaya, Thailand, December 2001.
[10] See, B.K. Roy Burman, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples : Gathering Mist and New Horizon, New
Delhi: Mittal Publications,1994. See
also “Magareta Weisser Foundation for Indigenous People in Asia” E-mail: office@indgasia.org “ It is estimated that there are some 5000 indigenous / tribal groups with a population
of 300 million in more than 70 countries
on five continents. Of these some 190 million are in Asia. India has the
highest number of indigenous / tribal population in the world. India’s 95
million indigenous/tribal population is
distributed into nearly 500 tribes and
sub-tribes. About 85% of thse are in Central India (maily in Jharkhand,
Chattisgarh, M.P. and Rajasthan). North
East India is home to 11% of India’s Indigenous / tribal population. The
remaining 4% are spread over the rest of the country”, see, Anikuzhikattil, J. and Palackapillil, G. and
Puthenpurakal, J., eds., Understanding
Tribal Cultures for Effective Education, New Delhi: CBCI Centre and
Shillong: DBCIC Publications, 2003, 9.
[11] Though each one of us is born in a
culture, none of us is born with a culture. Culture is acquired by living in
society. It distinguishes us from every other kind of creatures. Culture is a
mode of living and thinking that affects every sphere of life. This
all-inclusive concept of culture accommodates meaning from the superficial to
the essential. Though one of anthropology’s most significant contributions in
the first half of the twentieth century was the clarification and diffusion of
the concept of culture, the word calls for a specific meaning depending on the
context wherein it is applied. In its deeper meaning cultures have an inner
capacity to receive divine revelation (See, Fides
et Ratio, No.71).
[12] Source: Internet.
[13] What follows is mostly from R.
Khongsdier, “Anthropology Today with Special Reference to North East India” in Anthropology Today: An International Peer
Reviewed NEIRA JOURNAL, Vol. I, No. 1, 1-20 (Don Bosco Centre for
Indigenous Cultures [DBCIC], Shillong India).
[14] See the case of the practice of
polygamy in Paul G. Hiebert, Anthopological
Insights for Missionaries, Grand Rapids, Michigan:Baker Book House,
1985, 177-179.
[15] Letter instituting the Pontifical
Council for Culture, 20 May 1982, AAS
LXXIV [1982] 683-688.
[16]
To mention a few of them that deal with Church and cultures are : Luzbetak, Louis J., The Chruch and Cultures: An Applied
Anthropology for the Religious Worker, Techny, Illinois: Divine Word
Publications, 1963 and reprint 1970. Its thoroughly revised and updated edition
under the title, The Chruch and Cultures
: New Perspectives in Missiological Anthropology, Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1988, and second printing 1989. Hesselgrave, David J., Communicating Christ Cross Culturally,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978. Kraft H. Charles, Anthropology for Christian Witness, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1996. Hiebert G. Paul, Anthropological
Insights for Missioanries, Gand Rapids, Michigan: Bajer Book House,
1985.Fitzpatrick, Joseph, One Church Many
Cultures, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1987.
[17] From two small Greek words: kath= connected with, related to; holon = totality, fullness of or ALL. So
the adjective “Catholic” would mean anyone, or anything is related to the
totality of tradition, teachings, etc. Hence, Catholic Church or Catholic Christian
or Catholic Christian Mission.