3 Responses to “Cultural Anthropology Colloquium #1”

1. #  David Sills, D.Miss, Ph.D. 8:58 PM

   Rob P said...
   Hello Dr. Sills and classmates...Flexibility is a key to good ministry!
   Missionaries must be students of the culture in which they seek to reach people with the Gospel. As the study of human culture, anthropology can provide invaluable clues as to how to do that ministry effectively. Nida indicates three primary questions anthropolgy is concerned with:
   1. What makes a culture click?
   2. What makes a particular member of a society acts as he does.
   3. What are the factors involved in a culture's stability or change.
   The answers to these questions provide the missionary with essential tools for reaching a people. Considering that, according to Nida, the "messenger of Christianity provides the greatest problem for the non-believer" (251), it is apparent that a better understanding of culture is needed.
   Nida is careful to make it clear that he does not accept the assumption of absolute cultural relativity that many social scientists seem to embrace. Yet, he does give room for cultural practices that seem unacceptable to us and, in some cases, even contradict the teaching of the New Testament (i.e. polygamy)(p. 264).
   Overall I find Nida to be "on the money" in his assessment that good missionaries have always been good anthropologists. And, I would add, those ministering in the U.S. would do well to do anthropological work as they seek to reach "our" culture.
   
   10:59 PM
   
   
   Grady said...
   God has given us a great privilege and responsibility in carrying the good news of Jesus to others. As we consider our mission and calling, Nida reminds us, “The task of Christian missions is essentially one of communication, making known in human language the nature of that life which comes from God” (23). We are not merely sharing a story, but we are helping living people see how the Christian message can be a reality in every area of their lives (91). Thus, our crucial message must be understood by people in terms of the only way of life they know - their own (23). With being given such a great commission, it is imperative that we become good anthropologists. To fail to understand the people and their culture is to fail in communicating the Gospel message in an understandable way. If we fail as such, we fail in our responsibility to carry out the Great Commission.
   
   Nida provides a number of insights to help us become good anthropologists. Most importantly, he states that there is no way to gain an adequate understanding of people’s lives without considerable participation in their lives (270). To be fruitful in our missionary or evangelistic endeavors, we must remember that “communication is essentially a two-way experience” (252). I find in my own life that I do not take time to really listen to the lost before I share with them. I find myself looking down on their way of life (i.e. their culture) without really taking time to understand from where they are coming in their beliefs and actions. Such judgmental approaches stem from pride.
   
   Similarly, Nida reminds us that we tend to see ourselves as the only ones who make accurate judgments (7). However, he quickly shows us that some of the things we do are unnatural in other’s eyes and even border on animistic ways. I appreciate his indirect call for humility throughout the book. His reminders of valuing people as people and seeking to understand their beliefs and cultures should serve as a challenge for every believer who reads Customs and Cultures. Nida’s discussions reveal that he practices what he preaches. He has a very obvious grasp on understanding various peoples and the underlying beliefs and assumptions that explain their culture. Through his challenges and his own grasp of culture, I have come away from this book with a realization of my own need to humble myself and become a better anthropologist if a desire to reach someone in Beijing next summer or my next-door neighbor here in Auburn today.
   
   9:42 AM
   
   
   Grady said...
   RESPONSE TO ROB...
   Rob, you make a great point about understanding our own culture. In the preface of this book, Nida speaks of people’s ways of life as being "the channels by which their needs take form and through which the solutions to such needs must pass" (xi). In thinking about our own nation, which is an ever increasing mission field, I wonder if the decline in evangelical presence and influence is a result of ministers not being good anthropologists. I fear too many churches want to do ministry as they did forty or fifty years ago without realizing how drastically our culture has changed. By failing to understand today’s culture, is it any wonder that so many people see the church as irrelevant?
   
   9:44 AM
   
   
   Rob P said...
   Grady,
   I would say that the decline of evangelical influence is absolutely a result of poor anthropology, or, in the least, a failure to approach American culture with a missionary mindset. I think our discussion in December regarding the influence of Dr. Mohler is a good case in point. While Dr. Mohler is a leading evangelical thinker, and, arguably, one of the sharpest minds in America, his influence in limited to intellectuals (many of whom sharply disagree with his biblical worldview) and conservative evangelicals. Again, this is not a reflection of anything Dr. Mohler has done wrong. It is simply an acknowledgement that our culture needs to be engaged at multiple places and in multiple ways, rather than - as I would argue we have done in the past - relying on one or two key spokespersons to represent the biblical perspective.
   
   2:56 PM
   
   
   Rob P said...
   ROB'S RESPONSE TO ROB:
   I suppose, in light of Dr. Mohler's able defense of biblical sexuality on Larry King Live, I may have to retreat abit from my assertion about his cultural impact. May God increase his opportunities to share the Good News and may God sustain him as he does!
   
   12:50 AM
   
   
   Steve said...
   While I affirm Nida's statement that "all good missionaries are good anthropologists," I would broaden it to say all good ministers are good anthropologists. It is essential for all ministers, not just missionaries, to understand the culture with whom they seek to serve and minister. Generally I am uncomfortable with statements that use words like "always" because only one exception needs to be found to challenge the veracity if the declaration. Nida wisely adds the qualifying adjective "good" to modify both "missionary" and "anthropologist." Still this begs the question of how a "good missionary" and "good anthropologist" are defined.
   
   If good missionaries are defined as those who understand the culture where they serve, use this understanding to help shape their approach to ministry, and demonstrate effective cross-cultural ministry, then they are good cultural anthropologists. "Shocks and Surprises," the first chapter in Nida's book, cites several examples of how missionaries' lack of understanding for a culture limited or eliminated the missionaries potential for ministry.
   
   Nida states, "It is impossible to judge or understand the customs of others unless we appreciate their point of view" (3). Perhaps comprehend might be a better word than appreciate. Effective missionaries must comprehend the culture in which they serve, but they may not "appreciate" a practice that is clearly a violation of biblical teaching. I agree with Rob that Nida has a tendency to be too culturally accommodating. Missionaries must be sensitive to the mores of the culture in which they are immersed; however, they must not violate or compromise the teachings of Scripture.
   
   Like Rob and Grady, I appreciate Nida's approach of reminding us that we have a tendency to maintain an egocentric cultural perspective. Holding to the belief that western culture is more advanced and superior to other cultures is arrogant and in many cases in error. Every element of culture must be examined by the believer through the lens of Scripture. Where the cultural standards deviate from scriptural mandates, the error of culture must be challenged.
   
   11:12 PM
   
   
   M. David Sills, D.Miss, Ph.D said...
   These are good comments and Steve has touched on an excellent point. You say "I agree with Rob that Nida has a tendency to be too culturally accommodating." It would be helpful to identify some of those points where you think Nida may go too far. This is where we really need to examine the need for cultural appropriate ministry and where it goes too far.
   
   8:11 AM
   
   
   Matt said...
   I agree with Nida that good missionaries have always been good anthropologists. I think the most compelling reason that Nida gives for such a statement is communication. Communication is the key to relationships and to teaching, both of which are essential to the missionary task. Nida said, "one must understand before he can talk, one must learn before he can teach" (252). Nida made this comment in the context of properly learning the language of those you are trying to reach. I think, however, the point he is making and the principle he is communicating is throughout the book, and applicable universally. We cannot properly communicate through our actions or our words until we first understand how our actions and words are going to be interpreted and understood. We cannot know how best to communicate a truth or principle until we first understand thinking patterns and their effect upon behavior. We also cannot efficiently and effectively apply Scripture to the culture until we first have a clear understanding of the culture. I do not think there is any doubt that good missionaries will always seek to be good anthropologists. If we passionately desire to communicate the gospel and the Word of God, we cannot neglect the pursuit of all relevant knowledge advantageous to that end.
   
   6:50 PM
   
   
   david prince said...
   Greetings cohort and Dr. Sills! I have been away from my computer for several days and just got an opportunity to post my thoughts. I hope they are helpful.
   Eugene Nida’s declaration, that “Good missionaries have always been
   good ‘anthropologists,’” (xi) flows from his central message that we must present the truth within an understandable framework of the other man’s experience. While recognizing that cultural anthropology is not “the answer to the problems of Christian missions” Nida believes that it can “aid very materially in the process by which the missionary endeavors to communicate to others the significance of the new way of life made possible through the vicarious death of the Son of God” (22-23).
   Through humorous anecdotes, illustrations, and examples Nida steers the reader away from confusing ones own culture with the gospel’s message and advance. Nida confronts excessive cultural pride that can harm the missionaries ability to communicate the biblical message in his of her new cultural context. He makes it abundantly clear that missions is more than learning a new language, moving to a new location, and preaching the gospel message. This monograph convincingly argues that to effectively communicate the gospel one must not only have a knowledge of the gospel but a knowledge of the ways, customs, and worldview of those who will hear the gospel message. As soon as the command was given from the authoritative Christ to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . .” (Matt 28:18) anthropology became forever wedded to the task of Christian missions.
   Interestingly, Nida, not only confronts the pride in our own cultural orientation that so often gets in the way of effective Christian missions he also confronts the missionaries own self-pride that causes us to start with the presupposition that we are the only ones who make accurate judgments as we evaluate people and cultures (7). This powerfully reminds us that our pursuit of anthropological awareness begins with a humbling look in the mirror. The missionary must embrace the presupposition that “other people in the world have also shown ingenuity and initiative” (74).
   Not only do I affirm Nida’s assertion that “Good missionaries have always been good ‘anthropologists,’” but I would broaden it and contend that “good Christians have always been good anthropologists.” It is certainly not only missionaries who must “identify themselves with the people” and “communicate their message in terms which have meaning for the lives of the people” (250) to be effective in the advance of the Kingdom of Christ.
   
   11:12 PM
   
   
   Steve said...
   As to how Nida goes too far in regard to cultural acceptance and not far enough in regard to submission to biblical authority, his discussion of premarital and extramarital sexual practices and polygamy are cases in point. In the chapter on race Nida rightly presents a strong case as to why the widely accepted practice of racism is inconsistent with Christianity. In regard to the above sexual and marriage issues, he simply relates practices of various cultures without addressing biblical issues involved (104). Nida also appears to use economic factors as a way to justify polygamy (105). He goes to great lengths to address many issues related to polygamy, defending the logic of the practice in many cultures. Nida states, "It must not be implied that because there are so many problems involved in introducing monogamy one is justified in defending polygamy" (130). Yet it seems to me that Nida goes on to do just that.
   
   8:48 PM
   
   
   david prince said...
   RESPONSE TO STEVE . . .
   Steve I would not agree that “Nida also appears to use economic factors as a way to justify polygamy (105).” I certainly felt uncomfortable reading that section as well but Nida is simply attempting to help us understand how they think about issues like polygamy and point out that such behaviors are often motivated by reasons that we have never considered. In footnote 24 of chapter 5 Nida reminds “The reader is cautioned against drawing any conclusions as to moral rightness or wrongness from such statements. These are only attempts to present the data in terms of the indigenous culture and involve no evaluations based upon moral judgments. Such problems are treated in the last chapter” (288). I think his position on polygamy in the last chapter that “More and more missions are sympathetic to permitting polygamists to become church members (but not to hold office) if such persons became polygamists before becoming acquainted with the gospel” (264). This bears some similarity to the situation of someone who has been unbiblically divorced and remarried who is permitted into the church but not permitted to hold biblical offices. Certainly we could not recommend divorce as the corrective for past sinful choices.
   
   11:58 AM
   
   
   Matt said...
   Response to David
   I think you are right that Nida is not saying polygamy is an acceptable practice. However, like Steve, I think Nida should have been clear to condemn the practice and then state what he was trying to do, which is give the perspective of the polygamists. It would have only taken a sentence or two. I think it is helpful to understand how those who practice polygamy look at it and the reasons they use to justify it. One question I had is when you said "certainly we would not recommend divorce as the corrective for past sinful choices", did you mean that statement in the context of someone who has divorced and remarried into a monogamous relationship or in the context of someone who is married to multiple wives? I think you meant it in relationship to the former, but I just wanted to clarify the issue.
   
   1:11 PM
   
   
   david prince said...
   RESPONSE TO MATT . . .
   I meant the former. I was using it as an illustration of the complexities of these kinds of situations. Few, if any of us have ever faced a situation of polygamy in our churches but almost all of us have had someone who unbiblically divorced and remarried prior to conversion and though we allow them them to become church members, in most churches, it limits their ability to serve in certain offices (pastor/deacon). My point was that the solution to that problem would not be to instruct them to divorce their present wife because of their past sinful actions. In the same way, the missionary faces such sticky moral dileema's when confronting an issue like polygamy. Calling polygamy sin and condemning it is easy. How to respond to a situation where a man married multiple wives prior to conversion is difficult.
   
   2:47 PM
   
   
   Steve said...
   It seems to me that Nida is at a minimum inconsistent in his book in making moral judgments. In the chapter on race, he consistently makes moral judgments against the practice. In the chapter on sexual and marriage issues he buries his disclaimer in a footnote on page 288. Granted, it would have been helpful if the publisher had used footnotes rather than endnotes at the end of the book, but the very fact that Nida used a footnote in chapter five and repeated statements of moral judgments in the text of chapter three indicates that he has much stronger feelings in regard to racism than he does about the issues discussed in chapter five. I would argue that all practices that are a violation of biblical teachings should be treated in the same way. As Matt stated, Nida could have used a sentence or two in the text for clarity. I, too, appreciate Nida's attempt to help us think outside of our own cultural biases, but the inconsistency in the way that he treated these issues is a concern for me. In my studies of cultural anthropology and sociology as an undergraduate, I found that most writers tend to lean toward an acceptance of cultural relativism and away from making any moral judgments. In fact many of them would say that too do so would be intolerant. Our culture has bowed its knee to the God of secular tolerance. I expected a more balanced treatment from a Christian anthropologist. At the same time it is not my intention to downplay the very real problems involved in addressing polygamy as a believer in the context of a mission field where it is a common and culturally accepted practice. I would have preferred for Nida to give greater attention to biblical authority in his discussion.
   
   9:36 PM
   
   
   david prince said...
   RESPONSE TO STEVE . . .
   I do think your point about some of the imbalance in addressing various issues is a valid point but I do not think a fair reading of Nida can yield a conclusion that "he is tending toward cultural relativism" or that he is suggesting acceptance of the practice of polygamy in any way.
   
   5:44 PM  

2. #  Dr. Rob Pochek 12:19 AM

   This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.  

3. #  Dr. Rob Pochek 12:26 AM

   I think my reaction was more like Steve's with regard to the whole issue of polygamy. I realize that Nida is wanting us to understand the issue from the worldview of the culture in question. At the same time, he makes almost no moral judgments about those sexual practices. Rather, he regards those practices as nearly totally culturally driven. I wonder how he would view the sexual practices (particularly pre-marital and homosexuality) in our own culture. Isn't the argument of some that efforts at abstinence are a waste of time, based on the notion that pre-marital sexual activity is a given in our culture? At some point biblical teaching must inform and reform the culture. In light of Hiebert's book, I guess I didn't see as much "critical contextualiztion" as I might have liked on that subject.