| THE INFLUENCE and use of the social sciences, particularly cultural anthropology, has increased in mission schools and mission programs and in many First World institutions in the preparation of missionaries or in the study of mission trends and church growth around the world. Most agree on the positive value of using anthropological concepts in the missionary enterprise and analysis. Although the openness of modern missionaries from the West to the insights of anthropology and related social sciences is undoubtedly positive, it is also true that very little reflection has taken place about the theoretical and methodological orientation used by contemporary mission schools and researchers. One often gets the impression that a particular socioanthropological approach to missions and church growth studies is the only one available; whereas it may only be a Peruvian Ruben Tito Paredes is currently working with CEMA (Evangelical Center of Andean Missiology) as a consultant for Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia. He earned his Ph.D. from UCLA in anthropology. reflection of the pragmatic payoff for what is considered successful mission. Since modern missions is no longer considered an activity circumscribed by the Western church, it is of crucial importance that mission and church growth studies begin to reflect on their own theoretical and methodological orientations which have often been adopted uncritically. Just as Third World peoples have differing world views and experiences about their own reality, it is expected that the Third World Christians involved in missions may have different ways and methodologies of studying their sociocultural reality, church growth and mission. As a Latin American Christian engaged in the mission of the church in my context I am struggling to come to grips with the variety of socioan th ro po logical, methodological and theoretical orientations in my own reflections about the mission of the church in Latin America. I am not completely satisfied with current mission and church growth approaches in the study of world missions. This does not mean I do not recognize their positive contributions. In my own search for a more adequate theoretical and methodological orientation to missions and church growth studies I have organized the following reflections. By presenting them here I hope to establish a dialogue, a bridge, among Third World Christian researchers and missiologists and those from the developed world. These different alternatives have helped me make my own synthesis of approaches to explain Latin American society and church reality. Sociocultural theory is not to dictate how the church should carry out its mission; rather it is the Word of God and the Spirit that have the last word. This is not intended to diminish the fact that the social sciences have been tremendous tools that help us understand society so that we may more faithfully obey the Word of God in our moment of history. Different Views of Culture Change There are many views of culture change within anthropology. A chronological study of the development of anthropological theory since the 19th century when anthropology arose as a field in its own right and a parallel study of culture change theory along the same chronological lines are possible. For the sake of clarity here we will deal with two basic contrastive theoretical and methodological orientations within the field of anthropology and much of the social sciences which have influenced the diverse theories of sociocultural change in existence today: the functionalist-relativist approach and the conflictive approach. The functionalist premises are mainly identified with most American, British and some Latin American schools, while the conflictive approach is the legacy of Karl Marx and has greatly influenced the social sciences in the Communist countries, Cuba, much of Latin America, and recently some in the US. Dependency theory, a Latin American response derived from Marxist thought, will also be referred to. A general look at these perspectives helps explain the attitudes of anthropologists towards change and particularly missionary activity from the West. Cultural systems include three interrelated subsystems: the ideological, the sociological and the technological. The ideological subsystem is composed of ideas, beliefs, knowledge, expressed in articulate speech or other symbolic form, and includes mythologies, theologies, legends, literature, philosophy, science, folk wisdom and common sense knowledge (White 1949:364-5). The sociological subsystem is made up of interpersonal relationships expressed in patterns of collective as well as individual behavior. It includes social, kinship, economic, ethical, political, military, ecclesiastical, occupational, professional and recreational institutions (White 1949:365). The technological subsystem includes the material, mechanical, physical and chemical instruments, together with the techniques of their use, by means of which people interact with their natural habitat. Here we find the tools of production, the means of subsistence, the materials of shelter and the instruments of offense and defense (adapted from White 1949:365). Depending on your point of view, one of the above subsystems may be more basic to the others. One may be the determinant of the others. For example, for Leslie White The primary role is played by the technological system. This is, of course, as we would expect it to be; it could not be otherwise. . . The technological system is therefore primary and basic in importance; all human life and culture rest and depend on it (ibid). In contrast to White, Weber places the emphasis on ideological factors and this is exemplified in his classic, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Culture change may be defined as any modification of the ideological, sociological or technological subsystem of a people due to internal or external influences impinging upon them. Conversion to Christianity from a native religion is change at the ideological level. The modification of traditional authority and prestige patterns is change at the sociological level. The introduction of pequi, pequis (outboard motors) or the invention of the canoe where it did not exist is change at the technological level. Since these subsystems are interrelated, change in one system usually affects the others. The Functionalist-Relativist Approach The well-known British anthropologists, B. Malinowsky and A. R. Radcliffe -Brown, are generally considered the founders of what has become known as the Functionalist School of Social Anthropology (Keesing 1966:151 ). Both anthropologists shared a strong concern with the interrelationship of the several elements and institutions within a given society; both also had some reservations about their contemporary historical approaches to the study of society (Lowie 1938:230). Malinowsky's approach had a more psychological orientation which led him to emphasize the individual's needs and relationship to the culture, while Radcliffe-Brown emphasized the social structure and the interrelations of social ties. The underlying premise of functionalism is that any cultural system is made up of interrelated parts which function for the upkeep and preservation of the society to which it belongs. Thus a cultural system is like a human organism in which the functions of an organ such as the heart or liver contribute to the upkeep and welfare of the human body. Radcliffe-Brown, inquiring into the social function of the punishment of crime or the totemic rites of Australian tribes or the funeral rites of the Andaman Islanders, wanted to know how these social functions contributed to the existence and continuity of` the social system (1940:10).
|
