“Christ and Culture and its implication for doing mission and ministry in the present Mizoram context.”
“Christ and Culture and its implication for doing mission and ministry in the present Mizoram context.”
Date: 16th of August, 2010.
________________________________________________________________
I. Introduction:
Throughout the history of the church, the relationship between Gospel and Culture has ben a perennial problem. No single Christian solution has, to date, been found for this problem. The question has been of vital importance since the day of Pentecost an Acts chapter 2, “when we hear them, each of us in one’s own native language,” to the present day, for the life and mission of the church. As Richard Niebuhr put it, “Christianity, whether defined as church, reed, ethics, or movement of thought, itself moves between the poles of Christ and culture.”[1]
When we look at the church and its relationship to Culture we can see that question of relevancy is a covered version of consumerism. In a world where everything is new all the time, we think of being relevant in terms of newness. In other words, in seeking relevancy, as a mirror of what goes on in our culture, we unconsciously adopt a secular capitalist way of thinking of thinking about mission. Relevancy (as understood within a consumer society) as the primary question for the church and its mission is motivated by an underlying presupposition that the church is old and traditional, and that old and tradition are inherently bad things. It also assumes that theirs is some universally accepted “culture” that we can attain, and once it’s attained we will be relevant.
II. What is Culture?
There are almost as many definitions of culture as there are students of culture. It is not difficult to see why! The more deeply we take something for granted, and the more intimately it is tied to our thought processes and ways of living, and the less it is on a conscious level, the more difficult it is to define it. In the broadest sense, we may consider culture to be the diverse and dynamic pattern for living which is shared by a people and transmitted from one generation to another as part of the fabric of life. Without drawing out the metaphor too far, we may consider culture as a type of mental software.4 More specifically, we may define culture as a total complex, involving 1) our world view, which refers to a set of assumptions through which we filter our perceptions of life 2) a methodological plan embodying functional, structural, and cognitive elements for applying those assumptions in interpreting and explaining everything around us as well as determining how to live in the world; and 3) the manifestations of the assumptions and methodological plan, seen in the system of living exhibited by the people of the culture (the symbolic and ecological elements.)[2]
Because culture is a transmitted pattern, it is dynamic rather than static. Isolated or alienated individuals within a culture may change rapidly, but the culture as a whole changes far more slowly. Because we are reared in an ethos of culture, we naturally tend to assume that our culture is the best or right one. On a practical level, one result of this is that the members of a given culture will be predisposed to prefer certain methods of systematizing their religious views or doctrine over others.[3]
The term culture is the label anthropologists give to the complex structuring of customs and the assumptions that underlie them in terms of which people govern their lives. Every society has its own cultural way of life.[4]
Culture is not monolithic. There seem to be three levels of culture recognized by social scientists as well as Christian communicators. The first level consists of the universals we all share as humans. They are the dimensions or elements found in every human society, and include things such as language, institutions, values, sociability, and so on. The second level is that of cultural particulars. These are defined and developed in every cultural pattern. They are the means by which a particular culture meets its universal human needs. While there is a bewildering array of approaches to the study of culture, there are commonalities which every discipline recognizes, as Edward T. Hall notes,[5]
In spite of many differences in detail, anthropologists do agree on their characteristics of culture: it is not innate, but learned; the various facets of culture are interrelated— you touch a culture in one place and everything else is affected; it is shared and in effect defines the boundaries of different groups. Culture is man's medium; there is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problem's are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function.
As we learn our culture. We organize ourselves biologically and environmentally according to it. Human biology requires that we eat. Each environment provides a certain range of edibles and imposes limitations that tend to keep us fro obtaining other edibles. But it is in terms of our cultural patterns that we choose to eat certain things provided in our environment and refuses to eat other things. We ordinarily follow cultural guidelines concerning what to eat, where, how often, at what times, and with what implements.[6]
As Louis Luzbetak has said, “The concept of culture is… the anthropologist’s most significant contribution to the missionary endeavour” (1963:59). All down through history there have been very important discussions about whether people are more influenced by their biological heritage or by their environment. When anthropology came along, we began to discover that we must take biological heritage seriously. Then there is the environment around us. That also has to be taken seriously.[7]
But there is something in between the physical and the environmental, something intangible but very real and very influential in human life. This is the thing we call “culture”. It consists of all the things that we learn after we are born into the world the enable us to function effectively as biological beings in the environment. We are each carefully indoctrinated from before birth into the patterns of behaviour that the adults around us feel to be appropriate. By the time we became aware of what is going on, we have already been pressed into a cultural mould. Though anthropology is not the only discipline that deals culture, anthropologists have contributed most to our understandings of the concept. I fact, one definition of anthropology is that anthropology is the discipline that studies human culture.[8]
Anthropologists regard culture as essentially equal to one another. They find no evidence of any given cultural structuring that is superior to another in every respect. It looks, rather, as though one structuring can be rated superior to another in certain aspects but will fall below that other structuring in other aspects. Anthropologists don’t believe it is right to line up in a sequence from supposedly “inferior” to supposedly “superior” as westerns have tended to do.[9]
Popularly, however, westerners have looked at the cultures and the people of the Two-Thirds World and often called them “primitive” or “underdeveloped” because they don’t do things the same way we do. We have often then lined up the culture of the world so that those that look technologically most like ours are considered “superior”, while those that look technologically least like ours are at the bottom end of the scale. This is our ethnocentric way of looking at things. Anthropologists, of course, cannot agree.[10]
Though people are creative and some very creative in devising new strategies, most of what we do and think is more habitual than creative. It is our regular habit to follow the cultural guidelines (roads taught to us as we grow up. The apparent power of a culture to govern a person’s behaviour lies in the human propensity to live by habit. Culture has no power in and of itself.[11]
We need to study the people we serve. Without knowing the people, we cannot effectively communicate the gospel to them.[12]The study of humans also helps us understand and communicate. Moreover, we need to understand them not only from our own point of view (etic analysis) but also the people understand themselves (emic analysis).[13]
Culture is the vehicle of religion in any society. How a truth is communicated within a culture may well determine whether it is accepted or rejected. Culture provides the reference point which gives direction and meaning to life. To destroy or discredit one’s culture is to make communicating the gospel to them an impossible task. The presentation of the message, and how it relates to felt needs within the culture, may determine the degree of acceptance.[14]
III. Christ and Culture and Its Implications in the present context of mission and ministries of Mizoram church:
“Christ and culture” – this theme has occupied the minds of many as long as Christianity has had a place in this world. Rather, it did so already many centuries before. For the name “Christ” is nothing but a translation of the word “Messiah.” Even during the days of the Old Testament, when the Messiah was still expected, people thought, struggled, and prophesied about as well as rebelled against the “Messiah” (Christ) and “culture.” If what we are about to write is true, then this age-old theme will continue to strain the attention in joy as well as in sorrow until the end of time. The complete solution also of this problem will not be reached in the course of time but is reserved for the day that will put an end to time. It will not be obtained in the way of evolution but along that of the catastrophic parousia of Christ Himself. Therefore the great joy and the deep sorrow about the final outcome of the struggle concerning Christ and culture can be expected at the end of the ages. Here one utters two heavily charged words: heaven and hell.[15]
The above already makes it clear that the theme which we are broaching here must not be inserted in the list of subjects that the hasty heathen takes into his sphere of interest before and the careful Christian only after the academic discussion thereof. The problem of the relation between Christ and culture immediately concerns the fundamental questions of Christian thought and action. Therefore a Christian must continually contend with it. The one who does not touch it neglects his direct calling. The definition of a Christian’s life- task as it is given in Lord’s Day 12 of the Heidelberg Catechism and in which a Christian is considered as a prophet, a priest, and a king, is so ample and comprehensive that the matter of the relation between Christ (and the Christian) on the one hand, and cultural life on the other, is under discussion as soon as the question is raised how the pertinent words in this section of the Catechism must be interpreted. For this reason in particular, a confessing Christian is not allowed, before entering into the cultural struggle, to wait quietly (ad calendas graecas) for academic resolutions regarding the cultural problem. Neither has he (cif) permission to wait for what is more and more becoming their substitute, the resolutions or conclusions of a conference. [16]
Also, our concept of Christian mission does not confine only to the non-Christian region any longer; rather it has to be an agency which brings about change in the world so as to create and restore Missio Dei on earth. Here it implies that not a single community is free from deformity. So, a Christian mission has to do a great deal of job even in or outside a Christian context to fight for social evils and to bring up the Kingdom value in this earth. The hope of heaven has to be actualised and has to be brought near in our daily context. So, where ever we may be; we, as Christians are indebted to perform in this kingdom-task.
a) “Jesus Christ” and “cultural life” have alternately been called enemies and friends, or even complete strangers one to another. The one, with Tolstoy, sacrifices “culture” to (his) Christianity”; the other, with Nietzsche, abandons Christianity in favour of “culture”; a third one flares up in anger as soon as he hears that Christ and culture are considered to be connected with one another.[17]
This is so true even in the context of the Mizo people. Of course we could not deny the fact that Christianity has brought a large number of blessings to the state and is due to what Mizoram is today. But the Welsh missionaries who worked in Mizoram neglected so many cultural values and practices of the Mizos that so many educated Mizos consider ourselves as almost losing identity. Taking a dark side first, we the Mizos have our own traditional way of singing in a diverse forms and styles. But the entry of Christianity simply shooed away from Christian worships. Our ancestors used to say that a festival is incomplete without a drum. Even a drum was not used inside the church for a number of decades. This disallowed of drums inside the church resulted to the emergence of many sectarian groups in the history of Mizo churches. The missionaries adopted a strategy of making good relationship with the British officials which let them look authoritative even in socio-political matters as well. This sowed a seed of self submission towards the colonizers and an idea of believing whatever is of the whites is the best whether it is of politics or religious matter. Even up till now it has been one of the endemic problems of the society is the influence of western pop culture among the youth.
Moreover when it comes to copying of other lifestyle, the bad ways comes much faster than that of the good ways in respects of fashion, music, info-techs, etc. The effect of colonialism could still be found in almost every aspects of life of Mizoram.[18]
b) We could think of the early Jesus followers as a society-within-a-society. But it was a society that took its host culture very seriously, while at the same time not accepting its rules and virtues. Jesus did not reject culture; it is where he started with people. He engaged them and spoke their language. Jesus was not countercultural as much as he was not conformed within culture. As a cultural insider, he embodied a message of life in those places where the culture advocated death. Jesus lived in two realms simultaneously–both within human culture and submitted to the reign of God.
So, this is the case of Jesus in relation to the Palestinian culture in the first century AD. The task is ahead of us to make Christianity a Mizo for of religion which incorporates different cultural values into the realm of Christianity. The mindset of the people needs to be transformed. I myself also have realized that there are still who in no way want to praise God by using traditional style of Singing[19] while the western Hip Hop, Rap Music and Heavy Rocks are already there in their sitting rooms when they make no complain of it at all.
c) The way of Jesus is, however, to honour a people’s culture, not to wrest them from it. Just as he entered the cultural life of the first-century Palestine in order to communicate with people, so we are to enter the cultural matrix of the people we seek to win. If we are to witness effectively to human beings, we have to take account of the culture in which these human beings live. If we fish for fish, we have to know whether the fish are swimming in deep water or shallow water, in water that is running rapidly or is stagnant, in water which is stagnant, in water what is clean or dirty, cold or warm. We have to know these things if we’re going to fish for fish.[20]
This shows that Christianity does not necessarily need to wrestle with the cultural reality of the place where it is sown. It has to pick the goods of the society incorporating with the gospel to make use it of fighting the social evils and upliftment of the society to a higher ground. In Mizo society, we have a very good practice which no scholar could yet give an appropriate antonym for it in any other language called “Tlawmngaihna”. Tlawmngaihna is a virtue which a person does things for others without any expectation of reward, and also ability to sacrifice for the cause of the safety of the community.[21] And respect for elders, and other cultural moral virtues are also dimming in the present context. It is the challenge for theologians to Christianize the terms and actualize them in the reality of the people.
d) Solid culture change is a matter of changes in the worldview of a culture. Just as anything that affects the root of a tree influences the fruit of the tree, so anything that affects a culture’s worldview will affect the whole culture and, of course, the people that operates in terms of that culture. Jesus knew this. When he wanted to get across important points, he aimed at the worldview level. Someone asked, “Who is my neighbour?” So he told them a story and then asked who was being neighbourly. He was leading them to reconsider and, hopefully, change a basic value deep down in their system.[22]
Changing worldview is a daring challenge of course in the present scenario. But is really the need of the hour. Our attitude, our mindset and worldview form our culture. In order to incorporate and revive the cultural values in Christianity, the first task should be challenging the worldview of the society. Though we cannot particularize a single person from the public the western influence of individualism has solidified its root in our culture which really neglects the said cultural values as well. Individualism considers only oneself; in short, we can say that individualism supports selfishness. Such will be the first opponent of changing worldview. Even though we have left most of the primitive worldview of the pre Christian era the present globalism, and its counterparts are still ruining the society vehemently. So, in some aspects the challenge of changing worldview rather prescribes going back to the former worldview.
The culture of modernity is an unprecedented missionary frontier. It is the first culture which has had a long encounter with the Christian faith, but where vast numbers of people live post-Christian lives. Tho non-missionary church of Christendom remains a dominant form of church in modern culture. This ecclesial reality can be made salvifically and socially relevant only if reshaped by basileia to become the means of incarnating the reign of God in modern culture.[23]
IV. CONCLUSION:
There is no doubt but that God’s message is relevant to each culture and intended for people of every culture. It is not a message for first-century Christians alone. It is a message to be communicated to every people in their own culture. Thus the missionary is challenged with the responsibility to communicate an absolute truth, given in a cultural setting and pertinent to that setting, into another cultural context and to make it relevant to the people in that setting.[24]So, for the context of Mizoram also, the church, theologians have to play pioneer role in reshaping Christianity a Mizo religion by pick the left over cultural values which are appropriate to be incorporated to Christianity. Care should be taken not get into syncretism that there could be nothing much difference to be availed from Christianity in comparison with the former or traditional religion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
v Engen, Charles van Gilliland Dean S. and Pierson, Paul The Good News of the Kingdom, New York: Orbis Books, 1993.
v Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994.
v Kraft, Charles H. Anthropology for Christian Witness, New York: Orbis Books, 2001.
v Pentecost, Edward C. Issues in Missiology: An Introduction, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972.
v Philip, T. V. Reflection on Christian Mission in Asia: William Carey Lectures and other Essays, Delhi: ISPCK, 2000.
v Schilder, Klaas Christ and Culture, British: G van Rongen and W. Helder, 1977.
JOURNAL:
v International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 12:3 Jul.-Sep. 1995, 121.
[1] T. V. Philip, Reflection on Christian Mission in Asia: William Carey Lectures and other Essays, (Delhi: ISPCK, 2000), 79.
[2] A. Scott Moreau, The Human Universals of Culture: Implications for Contextualization (A three level model of how man, his nature and culture helps mold the contextualizer’s task: Effective communication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ). in International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 12:3 Jul.-Sep. 1995, 121.
[3] A. Scott Moreau, The Human Universals of Culture: Implications for Contextualization (A three level model of how man, his nature and culture helps mold the contextualizer’s task: Effective communication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ). in International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 12:3 Jul.-Sep. 1995, 121.
[4] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 31.
[5] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 31
[6] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 6.
[7] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 6.
[8] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 6..
[9] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 7.
[10] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 7.
[11] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 31.
[12] Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, (Michigan: Baker Books, 1994), 13.
[13] Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, (Michigan: Baker Books, 1994), 13.
[14] Edward C. Pentecost, Issues in Missiology: An Introduction, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), 29.
[18] I just take it for granted that the good things brought to us by the missionaries and the gospel they preached as needless to say.
[19] One I asked one of the church elders of a big sub town named Kawnpui where I worked as a teacher of Church run school about traditional singing incorporated in the worship as I was planning to teach the choir a song in traditional Mizo tune to be performed in the church conference.
[20] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 32&33.
[21] Tlawmngaihna could be interpret in different aspects, so I would not go any detail of it. F. Hrangkhuma called Jesus as Tlawmngai (verb form of Tlawmngaihna (n)) per excellence.
[22] Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, (New York: Orbis Books, 2001
[23] Wilbert S. Shenk, The Culture of Modernity as a Missionary Challenge, in “The Good News of the Kingdom” Edited by Charles van Engen, Dean S. Gilliland and Paul Pierson, (New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 198.
[24] Edward C. Pentecost, Issues in Missiology: An Introduction, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), 29.
Comments
Post a Comment