Cultural Anthropology Colloquium #2
3 Comments
Published by David Sills, D.Miss, Ph.D.
on Monday, January 30, 2006 at 2:48 PM. 
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries In this book, there are two initial points of consideration that I would like us to address. You may have others, and if so, I invite you to jump in with them.1. As you understand the "form and meaning" discussion, how would that play out in the discussion of whether or not evangelical Christian missionaries may refer to the God of the Bible using Allah? How does the "form and meaning" apply here and to what extent?
2. The failure to communicate the Gospel in culturally appropriate ways has resulted in confusion and syncretism around the world. On the other hand, the effort to do so through contextualization has often resulted in the same confusion and syncretism. How does Heibert's emphasis on critical contextualization avoid these dangers and provide the necessary steps?
Cohort class,
You can see that I made some changes from the last blog and posting. I see you have found your way here. Let's get to it.
Dr. Sills,
Nice new blogspot...now, to the questions at hand.
Form and meaning and the use of Allah. From my understanding, cultures use symbols to represent ideas. When these symbols are agreed upon by a group of people, they become infused with meaning. Often the form of these symbols become closely associated with and filled with meaning to the point that the form and meaning become difficult to separate.
An example of this in our own Baptist church culture might be the elements for the Lord's Supper. As a pastor, once the service is over and there are cups of juice and wafers remaining, the form/meaning lines are blurred. While the juice is simply grape juice, it doesn't seem appropriate to let the kids drink it up or to snack on the wafers. Yet, it is just juice and wafers. This type of form/meaning tension, common to most of us in the cohort, should give us a bit of pause before criticizing other cultures for their form/meaning tension.
What of references to God? Should a missionary use Allah as a reference to the God of the Bible? Certainly the discussion on critical contextualization comes into play, but I would be hard pressed to find it helpful to use "Allah" in this way. Since forms are filled with meaning, the missionary must be conscious of what "Allah" conveys within the culture. Since the Quoran's description of Allah is fundamentally, significantly, and consequentially different than the Biblical description of God, particularly as expressed in and through Jesus Christ, I am not sure the name "Allah" could be used without serious reprecussions.
Critical Contextualization discussion - I found Hiebert's approach to be one filled with common sense and wisdom. Certainly the blanket rejection of a people's culture is not an appropriate missiological approach. As Hiebert points out, to do so only leads the traditional culture to go "underground" (184).
Should the missionary uncritically accept and endorse the traditional culture, terrible confusion and a diluting of biblical truth follows. Critically evaluating the traditional practices of the culture and teaching the people to evaluate those practices in light of biblical teaching seems the best approach.
Hiebert's brief mention of "our culture" is worth great consideration. We need to be better students of the meanings implied by the forms of our culture, so that we use them discerningly. I recall our church using a classic rock song from the '70s one Sunday morning. The song was "innocent" enough, but one guy told me it evoked memories of his days in the bar. For him, the song (and the style) were filled with meaning that could not be overcome. I am still working through some of the implications for ministry in 21st century USA.
I am sorry for not checking back more often...obviously a good discussion has been transpiring while I am reading other things!
I originally posted that I thought using the name Allah may have "serious reprecussions" and that I would be "hard pressed to find it helpful." While I don't back away from those comments entirely, the comments by Matt and Grady (and their missionary friends) have given me pause. After all, I must acknowledge my own ignorance of Arabic culture and my - potential - cultural bias.
Grady raises an interesting issue concerning the use of "God" in our culture. There is no doubt that the majority of those in our culture who hear the word "god" come from the mouths of evangelical Christians do not define the word as "we" do. Yet, we use it anyway.
I am curious as to the use of Dios in Latin American contexts. Is it used of false gods? If so, how can we use it?
At the end of the day, apart from an agreed upon definition words have little meaning.
I have to disagree with David regarding Grady's argument being illogical. David, you state that comparing the use of "Allah" in Arabic contexts to "God" in American / Western contexts is not consistent due to the "specific and pervasive meaning" as a reference to a "false God." Yet, it appears from those in Muslim contexts, Allah is not used exclusively this way, but as a general reference for "god." Therefore, both words seem to have a dual function - one that is a quite general reference to deity and another that is a specific reference loaded with theological consequences.
It would seem to me that the key issue is the vitally important work of distinguishing the general meaning from the specific as we use these words - both in our context and in the Arabic context.
Rob
PS On a much lighter note...Brandon, before you smash any good rock 'n' roll records check with me first! I might want them! By the way, our band is preparing to do "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own" by U2 for an upcoming sermon on Galatians 6:1-2.