The Validity of Cultural Anthropology in Mission: Approaching Cultural Differences

Cultural Anthropology – a major branch in the study of Anthropology – concerns the study of cultural variation amongst human societies. The need for cultural anthropology in preparing missionaries for cross-cultural work first gained strong recognition at the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh 1910 and, since then, much had been written about it. This paper aims to analyse and compare the views of Whiteman in his article "Anthropology and Mission", with that of Van Rheenen in his book "Missions: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Studies", and Ligenfelter in his book, "Ministering Cross-Culturallly: A Model for Effective Personal Relationships", on the relevance Cultural Anthropology in Mission, for both theological and practical reasons.

The Incarnation was cited by all three authors as the fundamental theological reason for cultural anthropology in mission. To reach out to humans, God sent his son, Jesus, to enter into the human culture in order to effectively communicate God’s salvation plan for humanity. Both Lingenfelter and Van Rheenen quoted John 1:14 to demonstrate Jesus as the ultimate example of God’s cross-cultural missionary – that he "became flesh and made his dwelling among us". According to Whiteman, the incarnation demonstrated that God took "humanity and culture seriously" and argued that the incarnation as a model makes the "important connection between anthropology and mission". In the same way that Jesus came into the Jewish culture on earth, Whiteman propounded that missionaries must be willing to enter the culture of the people they desire to serve - to make lifestyle adjustments to fit in, and to understand their values and worldview. It was for this purpose that anthropology would serve to provide invaluable insights that could help missionaries in their endeavours.

To Van Rheenen, because God called on his people to imitate God’s character, incarnation is more than a methodology or strategy – it defined "the missionary’s existence in the world". He asserted that Christian ministry had to occur within cultural contexts, and missionaries must therefore be equipped to understand the different cultures that defined the people’s worldview, in order to identify with them in an empathetic and authentic way like Jesus did. Therefore, in developing an integrated model of learning to prepare missionaries, Van Rheenen presented the Missional Helix, in which Cultural Anthropology (termed as Cultural Analysis) formed the second key element, after Theological Reflection. Lingenfelter shared the view that as a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith, the incarnation has significant implications on the approach to mission. However, in a slightly different take, he was of the opinion that the incarnation of Christ was a divine act that could never be replicated by humans. Hence, it was but a metaphor for us to free ourselves from cultural biases. He urged for a shift from "incarnational ministry" which he claimed implied the learning of a single culture, to one of "radical discipleship" – to follow the example of Jesus in whatever culture we are called to serve.

The incarnation of Christ was established by all three authors as the theological connection for Cultural Anthropology and Mission, although with slightly different postures. Whiteman used the incarnation as a model for mission, Van Rheenen stated the incarnation was the very reason for the existence of mission, while Lingenfelter put forth the incarnation as a metaphor of how Jesus became one of us in this world, and therefore not an act to be imitated literally as ‘humans could never "fully incarnate" into another culture’ like Jesus did. In my personal opinion, all three authors were looking at different sides of the same coin. The incarnation is indeed a fundamental Christian doctrine that defines the existence of mission to communicate God’s salvation plan for humanity, and it is a worthy model of how mission should be done. However, with our human limitations, we will never be able to do what Christ did, but it should not stop us from striving to be like him. In tracing history, Whiteman demonstrated that it took centuries for the application of Anthropology in Mission to move from mere translation of scriptures into the concept contextualisation – where people should be able to "have the mind of Christ within their own culture".

Whiteman stressed that the lack of cultural knowledge would result in missionaries falling into a blinkered outlook and approach to mission. Failure to appreciate cultural differences is contrary to the biblical concept of the cultural diversity of the Kingdom of God as depicted in Revelation 7:9. He therefore submitted that to be incarnational in mission, missionaries must be will willing to give up their personal cultural preferences and biasness, including lifestyle, to reach out to the people. At the same time, Whiteman warned that it did not require them to try and "go native" as such attempts could be received with contempt. Harriet Hill, in her article "Incarnational Ministry" which was based on her personal experience, had also criticised attempts by missionaries to "go native" as hypocritical. Whiteman maintained that missionaries, while learning to adapt to local culture, must remain as a vessel of ideas and be able to present the values the gospel would bring to the people.

In conclusion, Whiteman proposed seven practices for missionaries to help them approach cultural differences: start with the people where they are in their own culture; take their culture seriously; approach them as learners to see the word from their perspective; be humble and lay aside personal cultural ethnocentrism; willing to be vulnerable, and, to identify with the people by living among them, loving them, and learning from them.