Missions Textbook 27
Cultural Anthropology

We Never Saw It Coming: An Introduction to Christian Missions (textbook)

Humans create and develop their cultures based on their worldviews. The best way to study another culture is to begin with a study of cultures in general and move toward the specifics of a given culture. Begin with Cultural Anthropology, then move to one’s own culture, then to other cultures.

Anthropologists study the origins of humans, how humans have changed over time in a given culture, and how they relate to other people, both within their own cultures and with people from other cultures. Social anthropology focuses on social groups and organizations within a culture. Cultural anthropology focuses specifically on the different aspects of the culture of each social group and describes how people who share a common cultural system organize and shape the physical and social world around them. They also are in turn shaped by those ideas, behaviors, and physical environments in a given time period. Cultural anthropology also compares and contrasts cultures. A person raised in animal-skin yurts in the Far East lives in a very different culture than someone brought up among German emigrants in Minnesota.

Bronislaw Malinoski developed the ethnographic method, which requires that a cultural anthropologist spend extended time living among the people of the culture being studied and documenting their daily activities in order to determine why they do what they do. Cultural anthropology was never intended to change a culture. Franz Boas taught this ethnographic method in the United States. Boas' students, such as Alfred L. Kroeber, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, applied his methods in their own research.

Cultural anthropology has developed into four semi-distinct subfields, each of which has its own guidelines for study. They do, however, overlap with each other. Archaeology is the study of the pre-written, pre-history past – from a million years ago to 5,000 years ago. Biological anthropology is the study of ancient fossil remains of human ancestors and the evolution and ecology of humans and animals (primates as they are called). Medical anthropology is a subset of biological anthropology. Sociocultural anthropology focuses on the politics and economics of social change over time. Linguistic anthropology is the study of languages of cultures. Physical anthropology deals with human remains, past and present, while forensic anthropology, a subfield of physical anthropology applies skeletal analysis and techniques in archaeology to solving criminal cases. Applied anthropology is the study of how culture affects present-day situations.

In most cases, a person usually needs a PhD in one of these fields to get a job working as an anthropologist. A Masters and PhD requires the student to actually go and live with people in a different culture to learn that culture from the inside. Then they must produce a thesis or dissertation on the differences and similarities between that and other cultures. The job market is so small that part-time and full-time positions are highly competitive. This website lists available jobs for this field: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/top-jobs-for-anthropology-majors-2064049. None of the openings concern missionaries.

So, what does this have to do with taking the Gospel into another culture for the purpose of bringing people to Jesus? Most cultural anthropologists are not followers of Jesus, and they believe in Darwin’s view of Evolution. There are even fewer job openings for Christian anthropologists. Although very few PhD institutions teach anthropology from a Christian worldview, a Christian anthropologist once told me that cultural anthropology is just one tool in the missionary’s toolbox. Some understanding of cultural anthropology can help the missionary to better contextualize the Gospel for a given culture.

In Bible college we took one undergraduate course in cultural anthropology. We used the textbook Christian Anthropology: A Christian Perspective by Stephen A. Grunlan and Marvin K. Mayers. That book made us aware of the things we needed to learn the language and the culture.

We learned that we would need to fit in with the culture while recognizing and accepting the good aspects of the culture and rejecting the bad aspects of the culture. During our fifteen years in Austria we were often praised for learning their language enough to not offend them (formal and informal). We adapted to their culture by wearing their clothing, changing our meal schedules to fit in with theirs and choosing which alcoholic beverages we could reject without hurting their feelings. Christine went to Europe planning on drinking wine, even though she strongly disliked it. When we met our first unsaved Austrian who refused to drink wine, Christine realized that she would not hurt the feelings of other Austrians.

We realized that our cultural mistakes were cumulative. The fewer cultural mistakes we made, the more the Austrians accepted us because they saw our desire to learn their culture. The more we asked for their help with the language, the more they accepted us. The more we studied the language and observed our friends’ behavior (cultural anthropology), the more we recognized those aspects of culture that were not negotiable, like shaking hands when meeting or leaving someone. You might refuse to drink a beer, but you were never allowed to greet someone or say goodbye without shaking hands. We came to understand their wine and alcohol customs and which ones we could break without hurting their feelings. Many years later in Russia we did the same thing, and the Russians were flattered at our choices to accept their hospitality but reject their vodka. When they asked us why we didn’t drink vodka, we explained that we hated to see so much alcoholism in Russia that was destroying the people we were beginning to love. They accepted us more quickly when they heard that explanation.

Missionaries have often been accused of destroying the nationals’ cultures. Yes, that has happened, but we need to look at each scenario to evaluate whether this is good or bad. Every culture, including the missionary’s culture has good, bad, and neutral aspects within it. Professor Gerald Vreeland of Great Northern University in Spokane, WA, once noted that “All cultures are fallen because all people are fallen. Some aspects will be worse than others. All non-biblical cultures are a surrogate at best. They are a substitute, serving only to give some structure to people from the cradle to the grave.”

The major implication that surfaces from this realization is that improving a culture does not save people’s souls. It only improves their lifestyles, and improving someone’s lifestyle does not always motivate a person to seek God. After Jesus had healed ten lepers in Luke 17, only one returned to thank Him. Jesus asked, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?” Mark 1:38 makes it clear that Jesus healed people in order to get them to listen to the message of the Gospel. His compassion for their suffering went far beyond their physical comfort. However, He focused primarily on getting them to accept the unpleasant message of their sin against God, which had separated them from God and was bringing God’s wrath down on their heads, rather than on making them more comfortable.

You can’t fully understand and evaluate a culture without first understanding God and his view of humanity. God doesn’t develop cultures; humans do. If you don’t see a culture through God’s eyes, you will mis-evaluate it. A missionary, however, needs to learn the culture well enough to avoid rejecting the good and neutral aspects of that culture. If a missionary has taken the time to discover the different aspects of a given culture, then the biblical missionary will have attempted to destroy only those aspects of a culture that are harmful to that society.

Which aspects of a culture should a missionary reject? The type of clothing worn? The kinds of food eaten? Cannibalism? The type of music practiced? The moral relationships within that culture? In order to answer these questions, the biblical missionary has to study the culture in depth AND follow the lead of the national believers.

The best way to understanding a culture is from a national’s perspective. Here is the testimony of a Native-American who came to faith in Jesus and was later asked about her native culture.

That night I went to church. It was a small, informal prayer meeting and afterward many other people stayed behind to visit.

Sally was there, and I told her the good news and that I would be joining the church soon. She was overjoyed.

A lady beside us said, “We are happy to have you join our church, but it’s a pity to turn your back on your culture and your heritage. I always thought the Indians were ‘children of nature’ and that the Indian religion was beautiful. After all, haven’t you always worshiped the great spirit? Isn’t he the same as God?“

I squirmed my chair, I wanted to speak, but I was afraid. Then I saw Audrey and Sally and Reverend McPherson giving me encouraging smiles, and I found the courage to speak.

“The Indian religion is only beautiful to outsiders. To those of us who know the terror, hopelessness, and fear, it is not beautiful. I remember a young man who lost his bride, and he went to a medicine man for help. I remember him running through the night, screaming and terrified.

“No one ever saw him again. If the Indian religion is beautiful, why do more Indians commit suicide than any other race of people?

Why are there more Indian alcoholics? The great spirit I called to was not the true God. People say it does not matter what name you call God, but it does matter or God wouldn’t have said, ‘Neither is their salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.‘” I looked around. Everyone was watching me. I had said too much.

The lady spoke again. ”But isn’t there anyway to save the Indian culture by incorporating it into Christianity? Couldn’t the Indians have a church and use their symbols and change their legends into the Bible truths? Don’t you think that would help more of them feel at home with Christianity?“

“No, I think that would be a mistake. I cannot see peyote beadwork without thinking of the drug peyote that represents. I cannot think about Indian legends or symbols without thinking of the past. People must be willing to turn their back on the past and change to be Christians. The symbols and beadwork of the old way are not just decorations, they represent false gods. The Indian will have to be willing to give up something. God gave up His Son. Heritage is important, but not more important than salvation. Preserving the past is important, but not more important than where you will spend eternity.“[1]

It bears repeating: The absolutely best way to discover another person’s world view is to learn that person’s language as thoroughly as possible. I must add here, however, that person can find Jesus by reading the Bible in their own language without any contextualization from the missionary. Our ministry was proof of that.

[1] Crying Wind, Crying Wind, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1980), 175-177.

We Never Saw It Coming: An Introduction to Christian Missions (textbook)

SHOP

Privacy Policy