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.

Anthropological Insights for Faith-Culture Interface

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.

1.     Perceptions of time in different cultures [12]

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 18^th and 19^th 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

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.

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)