S.M. Michael, S.V.D. - Christianity and Culture Authentic in Dialogue: Beyond Relativism and Ethnocentrism

S.M. Michael, S.V.D.
Christianity and Culture
Authentic in Dialogue: Beyond Relativism and Ethnocentrism

INTRODUCTION

The last few centuries of world history have seen many changes, cultural and social upheavals on a global level. On the one hand we have witnessed the height of colonialism but also the spirit of nationalism and freedom movements which eventually paved the way for widespread Communist revolutionary activities and the emergence of the nation state, especially in the 1940s in Asia. Today these nation states are strengthening and consolidating their identity through the activities of cultural, religious and ideological (often Communist) oriented groups. Christianity is most often associated with the West from whose dominance they want to disentangle themselves. Christian mission in Asia today has to work in the midst of cultural, religious, and political opposition, if not hostilities; moreover the Zeitgeist, the intellectual, and philosophical climate of the present day, is opposed to any form of cultural hegemony and favours a doctrine of value relativism. Many developing countries obtained independence in the years following the Second World War and today they increasingly want to assert themselves and do not want to be told what to do or to have anything "foreign" imposed on them. We witness cultural and religious revivalism in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism in Asia as a means to counteract the influence of Christianity and Western economic and cultural dominance. Christian evangelization in Asia is looked upon with suspicion and Christian missionaries have often been accused of undermining and destroying the local cultural heritage. It is against such odds that the Indian Church is called upon to tell the Christian story, to strengthen her people morally and refresh them spiritually. Dialogue will be an integral part of her mission work.

People of the Church are invited to reflect on the major issues involved in the dialogue with cultures and religions. A comprehensive understanding of the term culture is needed as well as the role of Jesus and the implications of his message for all cultures. This paper tries to clarify, with a special reference to India, some of the major issues in a dialogue between culture and Christianity, a dialogue, authentic to the voice of Christ and the teachings of the Church, and in openness to the truth and goodness in cultures.

CULTURE IS RELATED TO MAN

The term culture is one of the basic concepts in social science, and it has been defined in different ways by social scientists (see Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952). It is central to the definition of man in anthropology. According to many anthropologists the essential distinguishing factor between man and animal is that men have culture. Hence, culture is specifically related to man. Wherever human beings are, they adapt to a way of life, which is their culture. Culture is looked upon as universal but also seen as the unique possession of a particular community.

1. Problems in Defining Culture

Though the term 'culture’ is used so often in everyday language, we face several difficulties when we have to define it. An idealist’s notion of culture is different from that of a materialist. A believer may define culture in one way, and a non-believer in another way. The question of the origin of culture is another element which might complicate matters further (see Crane, 1994; Polity Reader 1994).

Kroeber and Kluckhohn have attempted to bring together various definitions of culture. They uncovered almost three hundred definitions, and at the end, they concluded that there are as many definitions of culture as there are anthropologists (1952). Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), one of the first anthropologists from the 19th century came up with an inclusive definition of culture in 1871. "Culture or civilization" according to him "is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (1871:1).

Tylor’s view includes things of the mind (knowledge, belief, and morals), the way people behave (custom and habits), and things that people produce (art and law). Inclusive definitions of culture along the lines of Tylor’s definition have served anthropology for a long time and still do. Many recent definitions still echo Tylor. For example, Robert H. Lowie has defined culture as, "the sum total of what an individual acquires from his society – those beliefs, customs, artistic norms, food-habits, and crafts which come to him not by his own creative activity but as a legacy from the past, conveyed by formal or informal education" (1937:3). Linton, another important anthropologist has defined culture as "social heredity" (1936:78). According to Kluckhohn culture is, "the total life-way of a people, the social legacy which the individual acquires from the group" (1949:17). We may cite one more definition. Felix Keesing understood culture as "the behaviour acquired through social learning" (1958:18). For more definitions on culture, see Luzbetak (1988:133-135).

It is important to note that most definitions have been "descriptive rather than essential in nature" (Luzbetak, 1988:134). Today most anthropological definitions of culture are based on a theory or a model (Luzbetak, 1988:135). Though there is a general agreement among anthropologists that there is a dynamic elationship between the physical, social and ideational aspects of culture; i.e. between technology, social organization and ideology, yet anthropologists differ among themselves with regard to the prime mover of human history. For example, Marxian oriented anthropologists insist that economic factors with the rigour of a natural law will assert themselves in culture more than others do and will be primarily responsible for the nature of that particular culture. Historically oriented anthropologists tend to stress more the impact of man’s decisions and choices in the course of history on the economic, social, political and religious components of culture.

In spite of different theoretical orientations, most definitions of culture may be subsumed under three general categories: (I) as a way of life typical of a group, (ii) as a system of symbols, meanings, and cognitive schemata transmitted through symbolic codes, and (iii) as a set of adaptive strategies for survival related to ecology and resources. These three views are now seen not as mutually exclusive but rather as complementary.

2. Aspects of Culture

a) Culture as a Way of Life Typical of a Group:

Every human being adopts a way of life influenced by customs, beliefs, social organizations, etc. Herskovits has drawn attention to the universal as well as the particular aspect of culture. He says, "Culture is universal in man’s experience, yet each local or regional manifestation of it is unique" (1950:18).

The group aspect of culture is brought out by Wagner who says, "The notion of culture focuses attention not on isolated individuals and whatever personal characteristics they happen to possess, but instead on communities of persons occupying a certain extended and usually continuous space and on the numerous features of belief and behaviour that are held in common by members of such communities" (Wagner, 1962:2).

This view of culture as the total way of life of a group calls attention to the fact that culture spans the whole range from the physical to the spiritual. It includes such items as housing, travel, food production, and the application of various levels of technological knowledge and skill, means of communications as well as norms for the interaction of people such as kinship relationships, political guidelines and rules for correct and polite behaviour in society, private and professional etiquette. On the mental and ideational level there will be an intricate web of ideas and norms affecting such matters as knowledge, art, magic, science, philosophy, ideology, and religion (Beals and Hoijer, 1965).

b) Culture as a System of Symbols

The cultural process is rooted in man’s capacity for self-awareness and in the interplay of man’s creative and imaginative faculties (Bidney, 1953:23-53). Levi-Strauss emphasizes man’s capacity for symbolization, his ability to act on, and shape, the natural flow of his experiences, to organize and codify them in a system of signs, a fact which made it possible for him to preserve and transmit them within a space-time dimension independent from, and larger than that of their original occurrence (Zevedei Barbu, 1971:116).

Some anthropologists see culture "as cognitive, i.e., consisting of shared ideas, strategies, plans, and guidelines, and expressed in behaviour.… This cognitive process constitutes a system of internal contexts of meaning and guidelines that are shared with others and learned from early childhood, not genetically transmitted. It forms the basis from which individuals perceive and then respond to the world around them. Speech and other patterns of behviour and the use of artifacts are the outward manifestations of such shared guidelines" (Dubbs and Whitney, 1980:27).

In symbolic anthropology, "culture is viewed as a shared communication network that sends messages along vast and elaborate interconnected routes. Culture is therefore a web of signs (bearers of messages and their meanings). These signs may be verbal or non-verbal (persons, things, or events)" (Luzbetak, 1988:154). The emphasis of the symbolic nature of culture is on meaning which requires constant interpretation (Geertz, 1973). Several anthropologists stress the importance of the emic perspective of culture, i.e. understanding culture from the insider’s point of view. Many ethno-scientists feel that to be able to understand a culture, the way, someone who was born into it, understands it, the fieldworker will have to study nonlinguistic behaviour in a manner analogous to the approaches made in linguistics; after all, language reflects the cognitive system, and verbal and nonverbal communication are very similar (Luzbetak, 1988:150).

c) Culture as a Set of Adaptive Strategies

Some anthropologists study the relationship between geographical factors and the variety of cultures found in the world. While cultural ecologists stress the influence of natural environment on culture, the cognitive and symbolically oriented anthropologists emphasize the influence of culture on the selection and shaping of environments. Geographical determinists give primacy to climate over culture. According to them "environmental forms dictate cultural ones and, herefore, cultural phenomena can be explained and should be predictable to a large extent by reference to their contemporary environments" (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968:469).

A number of leading scholars has reacted to the approach of geographical determinism. According to them, climate, location, topography, and soil condition did influence culture in its simple stages. Even at such stages of culture we cannot reduce human culture to a passive outcome of environmental conditions. Men are seldom submissive slaves to their environment; rather, especially in modern times, they have tended to become masters of nature. Today, a number of anthropologists stress the reciprocity between ecology and culture (see Michael, 1989). Such a reciprocal view on the man-environmental relationship assumes that neither man nor environment is totally dominant. Reciprocation is assumed to exist not between abstract culture and environment, but between men living and acting as local populations and the organic and inorganic components with which they interact (Anderson, 1973:185).

3. Every Culture is Embedded in a World-view

Culture is the way of life of a community seen in its totality. Experiences have been stored and preserved in language, customs, traditions, and myths. Thus, culture exemplifies the cumulative and shared experiences of a community, which are transmitted from one generation to another. The way one community faces a challenge may be different from that of other communities. Hence, cultures are greatly variable; cultures are in fact unique (Herskovits, 1950:18-19). In the words of Clyde Kluckhohn, "culture refers to the distinctive way of life of a group of people, their complete 'design of living’" (1949:17). The various components of culture are mutually related and interdependent. They complement each other. Malinowski (1922) and Radcliffe-Brown (1922) have convincingly argued that cultures can be properly understood only if their constituent parts are viewed as interrelated and as having definite purposes or "functions" in relation to the whole.

Cultural elements are not only interlinked with each other in order to facilitate the smooth running of a society, but they are also as a whole in the service of a higher purpose which aim at achieving certain ultimate goals which are implicit in the overall worldview of a particular community. Thus, culture is more than its functionally organized parts; it too has a "soul" that gives direction and a sense of purpose. Philosophers and historians have often pointed to the existence of such a "soul". Anthropologists have taken up the idea and offered various theories to explain the nature of this principle of life or "configuration" as they call it.

Configurations are dominant, underlying premises, values, and goals that permeate the various aspects of culture and give it a characteristic wholeness (Benedict, 1934; Opler, 1945). The cultural configuration is also defined in terms of a world-view, Geist, or Weltanschauung, and ethos (Kroeber, 1944; Sorokin, 1937). This unifying mental construct has been given various names such as, geist, genius, philosophy of life, world-view, or the inner logic of a culture. It is also known as the "ethos", "mainspring", "patterns", or "style" of a culture (Benedict, 1934).

Such unifying concepts and common values are the motivating force of action in every culture. They control behaviour and stimulate activity. They are the key to a deeper understanding of the character, special direction, and dynamics of a culture.

The dominant values of a culture are implicit in its basic worldview. The way we arrange or interpret our perceptions of the real world is to a large extent determined or modified by the mental grid we have acquired from our cultural environment when growing up. Philosophers of science have alerted us to the fact that the "real world" out there, and our perception of that world which is in our minds, are never completely isomorphic (the same). We always perceive through a cultural lens. Hence, "the world view of a people is their characteristic outlook. It is the inside view, the ways in which a person of the group typically sees himself in relation to his world. It includes his mapping of the world, that is to say, the categories he uses in his perception of the familiar and of the strange. It includes the emphasis he places on what he sees, the choices he makes from among the alternatives he knows" (Mandelbaum, 1955:223).

The great variety of cultures in the world may lead some to conclude that there is nothing common in them. Yet, on analysis we discover a common ground in all cultures.

4. Stability and Change in Culture

Culture is a living system. A culture will often have to adapt to changes occurring in the world. Inventions, discoveries, conquests, and contacts to other cultures often bring new challenges which necessitate adaptation to new situations. Hence, cultures will often be in the process of change. Today the wind, if not hurricane of change, is present everywhere and almost all cultures are affected by modern global trends and the enormous technological innovations. The ability of cultures to adapt to change differs. Some cultures tend to stress the need for stability in order to preserve their cultural identity in the fast changing world of today. Others adjust their institutions fast to fit into the process of change.

III

CULTURE & BIBLE

The Bible Itself Emerged in a Multicultural Environment

The message of the Old and New Testament has been preserved for centuries in the Christian Church and regarded as a priceless treasure. It offers guidelines and direction for human life this side the grave and beyond. The Biblical message has in the course of history wrought wonders in societies where it has been seriously and gratefully accepted. Some accuse Christianity for having destroyed cultures and the Church for not having taken non-Western cultures seriously. This must be kept in mind when we enter into dialogue with cultures.

The Bible is the holy book on which the Jewish and Christian religions are based. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was aware of the importance of the Bible for the comparatively high ethical and cultural standards in Jewish and Christian communities at his time. Jews and Christians were called "people of the book", and the religion he subsequently founded was also based on a book. The Bible of the Jews (Torah = the law), the Prophets, and the Writings has been their "portable fatherland" (Brasch, 1955:59). In spite of migration, enslavement, exile, invasions, assimilation, conquests and diaspora, the Jews managed to survive for more than 3000 years as a cultural group due to the possession of their Holy Scriptures. According to Dimont the Jews survived even the Greco-Roman period of their history "not by the might of their arms but by the might of their cohesive ideas" (Dimont, 1964:19).

Because of the staggering success of the Christian religion right from the outset and its impact on other religious cultures many scholars have devoted much time to the study of the Bible itself and the cultural and political environment in which it saw the light of day. Biblical archaeology, which is developing as an independent science, has brought to light the cultural links between the Bible and the culture of ancient Palestine. Excavations by Biblical archaeologists help recreate the cultural setting of former times. According to Bridgwater and Seymour, "After almost 100 years of biblical archaeology, it is possible to read the Bible in a new light. It has become clear that ancient Palestine was an integral part of the whole cultural tradition of the ancient Near East. Many obscurities have been cleared up, theories in biblical criticism based on internal evidence have been disproved, and the historical data of the Old Testament have been proven more accurate than suspected" (1968:213-214).

Jewish culture evolved in ancient Palestine and was later subjected to many foreign influences. Jewish history unfolds not within one but within six civilizations. Hence, biblical ideas have been influenced by many cultural sources. "Palestine was from the beginning a thoroughfare where East and West met and mingled and it became the melting pot of different civilizations. Foreign civilizations, Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian, and Indian, have left their traces in Judaism, and especially in Jewish myths and legends which, side by side with the Law, were developed and handed down from generation to generation" (Rappoport, 1928:xx). At the same time it should be noted that the writers and compilers of Biblical texts put their own stamp on material borrowed from other cultures in order that it might yield profound insights into the nature of God and man.

According to the Bible God is our Father, and we are His children. He has created us in His own image. And this endows man with a high degree of dignity. The central message of the New Testament is the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Faith in Him leads to eternal salvation. Thus, love of God and neighbour is the most important commandment of the Bible. Jesus said: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second most important is this: 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself’. You shall love God and your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment than these two" (Mk: 12:30-31). He also said: "He has sent me to bring the good news to the poor" (Lk 4:18). By this Jesus establishes a priority giving love of God, first priority, the natural consequence of which is charity and love of neighbour. Jesus expresses a high view of man. According to His teachings man, created in the image of God, is meant to live forever, therefore men and women as individual persons are worth far more than empires and civilizations, which are all doomed to extinction.

The message of the New Testament is focused on the death and resurrection of Christ. His life, teaching and miracles are substantiated by His Resurrection. Without the Resurrection of Christ, He could at the most be a good man and a good teacher. But His resurrection makes Him unique among the religious teachers of the world. The acts and promises of Christ are handed down to us in the Bible. Christianity is rooted in history. This rootedness in history is the hallmark of orthodox Christianity and reminds us that we should not lose ourselves in a maze of myth and legends. The four Gospels were written by four individual men and although differing in minor details bear witness to the same epoch making events: the Incarnation, the miracles and teachings of Jesus, His death and resurrection at a particular point in history when a historically known Roman was Governor in Palestine.

Studies on culture and the Bible reveal that while the Bible has been influenced by many cultures for several thousand years, yet three essential Biblical truths were never compromised over the years, namely (I) fidelity and adherence to Yahweh (in spite of occasional apostasy), (ii) faithfulness to the covenant (in spite of repeated failures), and (iii) the faith in the Risen Lord as the Saviour of the world. The Bible can serve as a valuable guideline and model for inculturation and dialogue in India.

2. Bible and Universal History

The birth of Christ, the subsequent experience of the early Christians recorded in the New Testament and the rapid spread of Christianity soon began to influence the cultures of several civilizations. As noted earlier, culture is conceived as the values, norms, beliefs and attitudes of an entire population or of subgroups within the population. The Greco-Roman civilization was substantially modified by the message of the Bible in its cultural components of values, norms, beliefs and attitudes. Several other aspects of culture like music, art, architecture, law, customs and manners, education and the like were also molded by the teachings of the Bible. It has often been claimed that no other book ever produced has been read by so many people worldwide or played so significant a part in the history of mankind as that of the Bible. Many historical studies on the impact of religious values on social and economic institutions have attested to the influence of biblical ideas in the modern world (Weber 1958; Dawson, 1949).

While it is true that at one time the Bible absorbed cultural ideas of several civilizations, now it is true that biblical ideas have penetrated almost all the civilizations of the world. The idea of a weekly day of rest is of Biblical origin, and has become universally accepted. Mohammed created Islam on the foundations of a book taking his clue from Christians and Jewish communities in South Arabia, he even called it "the religion of Abraham" (Brasch, 1955:230). Today, Biblical ideas are having an impact on cultures worldwide. World history is reckoned from the birth of Christ as before and after. The biblical notion of justice is operative in many cultures. For example, when the so called Hindu Renaissance took place in the 19th century and a campaign was launched to abolish sati (widow-burning), child-marriage, and untouchability the ideas of justice and ethics involved could be traced to Christian and Biblical roots. Instances of head-hunting, cannibalism and infanticide have also in many places been curbed and crticised by people influenced by Biblical ethics. Similarly, in several other parts of the globe, the Christian message have had a tremendous transformative role.

In our time the world is being transformed by information technologies and turned into what has been called a global village. Such huge transformative processes may sometimes best be understood in terms of the scientific and conceptual vocabulary of culture. In essence globalization is an ever-growing fine-meshed network of interconnections and inter-dependencies that characterize modern life (Tomlinson, 1999: 2). How to make Christian teaching and Biblical views influential in such a world is a challenge which faces Christians and others as, for instance, editors, educators, and politicians, etc. with a Christian outlook.

3. Bible in the Midst of Differing Worldviews

While it is true that biblical ideas have been highly influential worldwide in the course of human history, representatives of other religions now increasingly claim a similar validity and recognition for their scriptures and cultural outlook. Some Western scholars supporting atheistic ideologies blame the Biblical view of man and nature for the ecological crises of the modern world. They recommend that we propagate a worldview which will impart divinity to nature in order to counterbalance what they see as the "Christian" exploitation of nature. Others are hostile to the idea of conversion to the Christian religion. They argue that the outcome will be that the diversity of cultures will be replaced by one monolithic culture. In order to safeguard their own cultural identity, some nations now revive the past in order to fuel fundamentalist movements. As a response we see, for example in India that marginalized groups organize counterculture movements to fight oppressive forces in their own culture. Dalit and tribal movements in India are opposing the hierarchical oppressive Brahminical culture. They aim at establishing a just society in India based on the principles of equality, fraternity and social justice (see Michael, 1999). So, culture itself has become highly politicized today by Hindu cultural nationalism and Hindutva ideology (Michael, 1996:294-310; 1998b:65-83; 1998a; 1999). Hindu fundamentalists blame Christians that their Biblical values have caused the conflict between the upper castes and the Dalits on the Indian sub-continent.

Similarly, other religious and cultural groups express their dominant views on the basis of their respective worldviews. If the West is becoming more and more secularized today, and there is an increasing tendency to achieve progress and prosperity without reference to God, reducing the religious dimension to the private sphere (see Ecclesia in Asia, No.29), many parts of Asia are characterized by a religious, cultural and nationalist upsurge. It has been argued in India that the major religions are the natural and inalienable possession of the various regions of the world, Hinduism and Buddhism are native to Asia, Islam to the Middle East whereas Christianity belongs to Europe and America. Conversion to Christianity is considered anti-national, and public opinion is inflamed against Christianity and anti-conversion laws promulgated.

Religious and cultural pluralism, however, is now a fact that has to be taken into consideration by Christians. Can the world-views of different scriptures co-exist or will one or the other world-view ultimately gain the upper hand in an attempt to achieve global influence? The New Age movement based on eclectic and syncretistic approaches, attempts to combine spiritual traditions from several cultures and is being received enthusiastically by many people in the West in these years.

Apart from these trends, there seems to be at least three major worldviews which vie for dominance in the modern world: Theism, Atheism and Monism. Theism is the fundamental and perhaps the oldest worldview. Several religions like Judaism, Islam and Sikhism are monotheistic in their orientation. It is also the worldview of the Bible: God who has created everything and sustains His creation, is the prime reality. He is personal and has a moral character delineated and defined through the Ten Commandments and the ethical and moral injunctions of the New Testament. This view, of what constitutes ultimate reality, has been propagated by the Christian Church for centuries. In modern times, however, it has been rejected by Atheists. Atheism, as such, is perhaps not so much an independent worldview as a parasitic growth on Theism as its main characteristic is the denial of the basic assumption of Theism. It has, however, had an enormous impact in the form of, for instance, Naturalism (prime reality being Nature) and Marxism (ultimate reality being social, economic and political realities) and certain schools of Existentialism (prime reality being man's independence and ability to create values by an act of choice). The third major worldview, which seems to expand in the modern world, is Monism. It has been well known in the East for centuries. It postulates the view that reality is basically divine and constitutes one unitary organic whole with no independent parts. Being inclusive it tends in its more advanced spiritually stages to be morally indifferent to human suffering and to issues of social justice.

Atheistic trends have been promoted by certain philosophical systems like Positivism. Positivism denies any validity to speculation and metaphysics. It maintains that the goal of knowledge is not to explain but simply to describe the phenomena experienced. The term is specifically applied to the system of August Compte (1798-1857) who coined the name and developed a coherent doctrine. It was a dominant theme of 19th century philosophy. The tradition of positivism was taken up in the 20th century by the school of philosophy called Logical Positivism. It was the fountainhead of the modern trend that considers philosophy an analytical rather than a speculative inquiry. One of the most prominent proponents was Wittgenstein who maintained that the object of philosophy was the logical clarification of thought; philosophy was not a theory but an activity. Philosophy was to become the logic of science. Statements were divided into two groups. Statements that referred to things and situations that could be registered by the senses were "real" statements that could be either true or false. Statements that referred to things or situations that could not be the object of sensory perception such as metaphysical statements, statements about God, morals and values were purely emotive and could be neither true or false.

Although the philosophical tradition of positivism for more than hundred years as the handmaid of natural science has done much to clarify the meaning of concepts and through linguistic analysis pointed out how important it is that we define the terms and concepts we use carefully, it has also created some confusion by dividing the world into facts devoid of value and values devoid of truth. Value relativism was given a philosophical basis. Many scholars today are dominated by the conviction that values cannot be assigned a universal and absolute status. Social scientists often look at each society as an autonomous group, its culture and basic assumptions form a unity which can only be fully understood from within. Each society should be judged by its own values. To create a hierarchy of values and regard some as universally and self-evidently true could lead to cultural arrogance. Ethnocentrism became the cardinal sin and cultural relativism the acknowledged good. All these philosophical trends affect the religious belief of modern man.

Today, the world is moving towards a global civilization. What part is Christianity going to play in the new global culture of the modern world? Will the Bible be able to revitalize cultures as it has done so often in the past? What will be the role of Christ in the future world? As Christians do we still believe that the hand of God is visible in world history? What impact will the Biblical view of man and human dignity have in the Indian context of caste discriminations? To what extent will it be a formative influence on Dalit, tribal, and women’s movements as well as other suppressed groups, who struggle for equality and better living conditions? Since such issues are central to the conversion controversy today, we might ask what the Biblical answers would be?

All the above concerns have to be seen in the context of struggle for cultural independence in contemporary times. The 19th century cultural evolutionist thought that mankind had progressed through the stages of savagery, barbarism, to civilization. European civilization was considered most advanced and other cultures were assigned a level of development on a scale somewhere below Western culture. Many European missionaries – being children of their time – were led to believe that Christianity was more or less identical with Western civilization. After independence, however, many Asian countries have manifested a national pride in their indigenous cultural and religious traditions and multiculturalism is an issue which is being widely supported by scholars, political thinkers, social activists, and religious leaders. Today, Christianity is in the midst of multiculturalism. We shall, therefore, now turn our attention to the concept of multiculturalism, to its origin, to its main concerns, and to its relationship to Christianity.

THE CHALLENGE:

AUTHENTIC DIALOGUE IN A CONTEXT OF MULTICULTURALISM

1. What is Multiculturalism?

According to Willett, "Multiculturalism has not yet been fully given a theoretical foundation. In part, the lack of a unifying theory stems from the fact that multiculturalism as a political, social, and cultural movement has wanted to preserve a multiplicity of diverging perspectives in addition to the dominant traditions" (1998:1). According to Bill Martin, "the whole issue of multiculturalism raises the question of difference in a way that would seem to be irreconcilable with inherited forms of philosophical or social theoretical system building" (see Willett 1998:1). The development of the concept of "multiculturalism" is rooted in distinct social, cultural, and historical experiences of the last few centuries. Hence, in order to understand the meaning and the evolution of the concept of "multiculturalism" we shall need to clarify the terms "Modernism and Postmodernism".

2. Modern and Postmodern Context

a) Modernism and Culture

Modernism has its root in 17th century Enlightenment philosophy. The Enlightenment was a period of remarkable intellectual development and activities within the field of philosophy. A number of traditional ideas and beliefs were overthrown and replaced by modern ones during the Enlightenment. Overall the Enlightenment was characterized by rationalism, skepticism about traditional doctrines, and supporting the empirical method in science. The proponents of the Enlightenment were critical of traditional authorities and discarded the idea of Biblical revelation as superstitious. They had supreme confidence in man as a rational being and believed in a rational, scientific approach to religious, social, political, and economic issues and promoted a secular view of the world and a general sense of progress and perfectibility.

With supreme faith in rational man, they sought to discover and to act upon universally valid principles governing humanity, nature and society. In the light of these developments anthropologists began to study the social laws by which human society and culture was developing. They were interested in studying the progress of human culture and detected a grand law, something similar to the Darwinian principle of biological evolution. Anthropologists came up with the hypothesis that human culture was also progressing from simple beginnings to complex stages of cultural growth. It was assumed that European culture was the peak of human civilization and all other cultures were in different stages of progress towards a more advanced level.

Such ideas of degrees of civilization dominated the thinking of the intellectual world during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Western science and technology were becoming increasingly powerful, and their superiority in comparison with the sciences and technologies of other cultures was self-evident. Moreover, Western governments were turning many technologically less developed countries into colonies. It was not surprising that in this context the idea of "progress" found ready acceptance as an explanation of cultural differences. Clearly the West was "civilized" " and the rest of the world was "primitive". These thoughts gave a moral justification to the colonization of the third world countries.

b) Anti-colonialism and Cultural Assertion

For the colonial governments, however, all was not plain sailing. They often had to face discontent and hostilities in the colonies. Anti-colonial movements challenged the arrogance of Westerners and their civilization and began to launch campaigns to assert themselves and promote their own indigenous traditions. In the years immediately after World War II most colonies obtained independence. They began to plan native, developments, and make their strategies. Western (colonial) ways were increasingly discarded. The cultural assertion in the developing countries emerged as a response to the monolithic dominance of the Western world. Moreover, population shift and migrations in the modern world has led to new trends in philosophy and the social sciences. The concept of postmodernism and multiculturalism have hit the headlines within the past few decades.

c) Postmodernism and Multiculturalism

Postmodernists question all types of grand theories and generalizations. A coherent, general understanding across cultural boundaries is seen as virtually impossible (Bhargava, 1999). Key analytic categories may not be as universally applicable as we had once imagined in modernism. Paul Heelas explains this by saying, "The cultural becomes disorganized; less black and white. The distinction between high and low fades away. The claim that one tradition should be adhered to because it, and it alone, is valid, is rendered invalid. And rather than authority and legitimacy resting with established orders of knowledge, authority comes to rest with the person" (1998:4-5). In the words of James Beckford, post-modernity consists in a "willingness to abandon the search for over-arching or triumphalist myths, narratives or frameworks of knowledge" (as quoted in Paul Heelas, "Religion, Modernity and Post-modernity", Oxford: Blackwell, 1998:4). The Postmodern critique of "grand theory" has been one more argument in favour of multiculturalism and value relativism.

3. Globalization and Multiculturalism

Globalization is a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon that involves economic, political, social, cultural, technological, and environmental aspects. The whole world has become smaller. Political and economic development tends to have global implications. Migrations and population shifts in the wake of wars and natural catastrophes as well as new job opportunities in technologically developed countries have become a common phenomenon. This has added a new dimension to the debate on multiculturalism among Western scholars. In the U.S.A., England, and the rest of Europe the population composition is undergoing rapid change in these years. A few decades ago the Western world consisted of mainly Whites with a common civilization and Christian by religion. But today the situation is fast changing. Immigrants from Asia and Africa are settling down in U.S.A., England and other Western countries. The racial and religious composition of the population and the socio-cultural components of these countries are no longer the same. This is a new situation in America and in Europe, which traditionally have been mono-cultural. For example, in England there is a substantial number of Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Afro-Caribeans. The internal make-up of the country is undergoing transformation. As Bhikhu Parekh points out, "Today you have a landscape with as many mosques as churches. As a result, the Brits are beginning to ask themselves: What are we? Who are we likely to become?" (Parekh, 2001:5). They are being confronted with the new situation of multiculturalism. The subject of multiculturalism is often in the headlines in the Western media these years.

4. Multiculturalism in the Indian Context

The Indian society on the other hand has been multicultural for ages, multilinguistic, multireligious, and multiracial. India has been known for her cultural and social diversity since time immemorial. Why, then, do the debate on multiculturalism deserve our attention now?

In spite of her history and multifarious traditions there are now emerging powerful social movements the goal of which is to impose on India a mono-cultural Hindu identity. Anybody who does not subscribe to the vision of the Hindutva ideology is considered an enemy of the nation. To avoid submersion or cultural extinction tribals, Dalits, and other linguistic, ethnic and religious groups in India strongly advocate the secular and pluralistic nature of Indian society (Michael, 1996:294-310).

5. Theological and Missiological Challenges

Ethnocentric Orientations

Scholarship in the 19th and the early 20th centuries was often dominated by "ethnocentric" attitudes on the part of the Europeans. Evaluating other cultures in the light of one’s own is known as "ethnocentrism". The superiority of Western culture was taken for granted and other cultural traditions were critically evaluated and often labelled "barbaric" or "savage" if they deviated in one way or another from what was the norm or common usage in Europe.

Many European missionaries, who were children of their time, sometimes expressed ethnocentric attitudes and equated Christianity with Western culture. They believed with Kipling that the "white man’s burden" was to civilize backward and primitive communities by introducing them to the blessings of the Western way of life. For example, in 1890, T.W. Pearce pointed out that merely introducing Christianity in China was not enough. Western civilization, in its entirety, had to "overcome" Chinese civilization (Jonathan 1987:12).

This approach to mission has been called " The Ethnocentric Model of Mission Work". It contains elements of (a) paternalism, (b) triumphalism and (c) racism. In colonial times it was not uncommon that Western churchmen felt that in order to make natives real Christians they had to be "civilized", that is, Europeanized. Few Westerners took indigenous cultural traditions seriously and evaluated them in terms of their own cultural heritage.

b) Relativistic Orientations

With the rise of anthropology as a professional science, however, many began to view the still popular attitude of ethnocentrism with revulsion. After independence many former colonies began to assert and glorify their own cultural traditions. Indigenous anthropologists began to study their own heritage and developed an insiders view of culture.

It was largely as a reaction towards ethnocentrism that anthropologists began to examine each culture on its own terms. Each cultural entity was seen as an integrated whole with its own conceptual paradigm. No society had the right to judge another by its own values; to do so was cultural arrogance. Anthropologists, especially of the school of functionalism, tended to highlight how specific culture traits might satisfy particular needs or expectations of the people concerned. If they were cannibals, for example, they asked whether or not the eating of human flesh was acceptable according to native values. If so, it could not be condemned by any value judgement by outsiders. In this way of thinking culture relativism and value relativism reigned supreme.

It is the stand of the relativist that each culture and society has its own integrity, its own system of values, and its own web of customs. The values of any culture, the relativist says, are to be understood and evaluated according to the view of life or mental outlook of the people belonging to that particular culture. Scientifically speaking one culture cannot be graded better or worse by members of another culture because no absolute standard by which to judge can be established. The relativist argues that "experience is culturally defined". Hence, what is "good", what is "right", what is "beautiful" do not exist by themselves as objective or absolute entities, even though our language sometimes seems to imply this. "Mankind is one; civilizations are many", the great anthropologist Franz Boas used to say.

The concept of cultural relativity states that standards of right and wrong (value) and of usage and effectiveness (custom) are relative to the given culture of which they are a part. In its most extreme form, it holds that every custom is valid in terms of its own cultural setting.

Cultural relativism has very much influenced the theological and missiological thinking of the present day. All religions are considered by many to be essentially the same – different paths leading to the same goal. The view that "all religions are the same" is quite similar to and basically the same as "all is relative". To hold that any religion is intrinsically better than another is felt to be somehow wrong, offensive, and narrow-minded. God is one, but manifests itself in several forms and names (an important statement in Hindu scriptures). Hence every religion is good and salvific and missionaries should not disturb the belief patterns of people. Claim for the uniqueness of Christ is looked at with indignation.

Hence, the emphasis is on dialogue and not so much on proclamation. On one level dialogue may be understood as a way to better understand other religions in order to be more able to make the message of the Gospel known to other religious groups. Proponents of religious relativism and pluralism, however, define dialogue as a process by which we learn from other religions in order to arrive at a religious synthesis that eliminates our differences. Such a consensus is often found in common worship services, spiritual exercises, and creation theologies. What is sacrificed in this approach is the uniqueness of Christ and his Salvation, as this is considered to be an offense to non-Christians.

c) Christian Response: Beyond Ethnocentrism and Relativism

While cultural relativism is vastly preferable to the ethnocentric approach, both positions represent extreme viewpoints. The anticolonial reaction which was in favour of cultural relativism was a necessary corrective. It called into question Western cultural arrogance, and it forced Western Christians to differentiate between gospel and culture. All the same, cultural relativism has its limitations. It leaves us as separate islands of subjective being.

It is true that the opposition to the ethnocentrism of earlier theories has led anthropologists to understand other cultures in greater depth. Recently, however, the uncompromising position of relativism as an outlook on life has not only been called into question by anthropologists but has come under attack from philosophers and others as well. Redfield, for example, believes that the viewpoint of "ethical neutrality" is an unrealistic one. He points out that anthropologists have been comfortable enough while looking with equal benevolence upon all kinds of values among small and remote peoples, but are hard put to it to maintain the position, say, in the face of Nazism, or of a highly disorganized culture where the individual have lost his "desire to live". Raymond Firth, following the same lines of thought, says of such a view that "the affirmation that we should have respect and tolerance for the values of other cultures, is itself a value which is not derivable from the proposition that all values are relative". To maintain the position of relativism you must assume the existence of an absolute to make sense of it all. The cultural relativist fails to see that cultural ideologies are effective precisely because they are believed and acknowledged to have absolute value. If a given value system were not accepted as objectively valid, it would soon lose its effectiveness as a motivation for conduct. The practical and effective alternatives are not cultural ethnocentrism versus cultural relativism, but rather rational norms with a potentiality for universal acceptance and realization.

The important point to be kept in mind is that relativism has its limitation. Although the term "god" is used by different religions, it seldom denotes the same thing. For example, the concept of god in Hinduism is different from the concept of god in Christianity. The moral and ethical implication of the concept of god in Hinduism and Christianity is widely different. The Christian concept of God implies a certain moral and ethical attitude which is basically different from a Hindu ethical understanding. Untouchability and rebirth is justified in Brahmanical Hinduism on the basis of its philosophical ideas of "karma", "dharma" and "moksha" (Michael, 1990a:27-42). But such an understanding is unacceptable to Christians.

Hence, today there is an urgent need to go beyond "ethnocentrism" and "relativism" in Christian theology and missiology (see Michael 1998:5-11). The strategy of going beyond ethnocentrism and relativism should be adapted to Christian mission in the twenty-first century. The confusion, which cultural and religious relativism has caused, has given rise to two responses. Some, sensing the void of relativism, have turned back, looking for certainty in more subtle forms of fundamentalism. Others look ahead in search of deeper foundations beyond. Berger’s metaphor may be helpful. When we enter the river of pluralism, the water rises to our necks. Some retreat in fear to the solid bank behind them. Some proceed and are swept away by the river. Some swim to the firm bank beyond. What is that bank beyond? For Christians certainly it is the Christian faith and all its cultural and religious implications. The confusion, which cultural and religious relativism has caused, may be overcome within the confines of the theistic worldview of Christianity. Jesus has been revealed as Christ and God and this is the permanent basis for values for people with a Christian outlook; to communicate this fact and these values to mankind will always remain the ultimate goal of a Christian mission, faithful to the message of the Bible and the teaching of the Church. Much wisdom could be ours if Christians approached the different cultures of the world with sensitivity and respect and were guided in their understanding by the teachings of the Gospel.

6. Gospel and Culture

Proponents of multiculturalism and value relativism will often emphasize that all cultures have values which have a positive function within the boundaries of the culture under consideration. Christians and others, therefore, should not pass judgement on them. It is probably true that Christians should be more concerned about reviving the Christian faith and expressing Christian values in their own lives than decrying those of others.

When we contemplate the relationship between Gospel and culture, it is important to keep in mind that basically the Christian faith is the same everywhere but the way it finds expression may differ from culture to culture. The Bible bears witness to God’s saving acts in history and to the influence of His Holy Spirit on prophets and saints through the centuries of its genesis. Studies on culture and Bible reveal that the community in which the Holy Book was compiled and edited was itself for many centuries influenced by several civilizations and cultures, but what is unique for the Bible is that the material borrowed or incorporated from other cultures were transformed into profound insights into the nature of God and man (see Legrand, 2001; Michael 2000: 94-107). Two essential Biblical truths should never be compromised by orthodox Christians: Monotheism and the Resurrection of Christ, i.e. faith in the Biblical God of creation and faith in the Risen Lord as the Saviour of the world.

When we consider the interaction of Gospel values with those of other cultures, we should be careful not to mix up form and content or to mistake the husk for the kernel. The basic message will remain permanent and unchangeable although the external trappings may vary. The 19th and early 20th century ideas of ethnocentrism and a Western monocultural world is untenable today. All the same, a relativistic worldview, making all cultural values equally good is also impossible to hold. We need to go beyond ethnocentrism as well as relativism. Hence, the role of the Church in the modern world should be simply to proclaim the Death and Resurrection of Christ and its implication for modern man. The Christian worldview has universal implications as well as meaning for particular cultures. We can go beyond ethnocentrism (the goal of which is to impose the values of one culture on all others) and transcend relativism (all cultures are equally valid) and proclaim a universal message for all cultures. We may have Christianity with an Indian face, an African face or European face but the basic message is the same. By way of example, the human stomach and digestive system does not vary from one culture to another. What was poisonous to the Stone Age man will be poisonous to a modern, what will nourish a child in Africa will nourish a child in Germany. We may vary the art of cooking endlessly and develop a taste for Italian cooking, the German Kuche, the French Cuisine, or the Indian Kitchen but please do not try to improve on the stomach or bungle the digestive system. What is important to remember, when Christianity is to find expression in a particular culture, is that we should refresh ourselves spiritually at the fountainhead and not mistake external trappings for the living water.

7. Christianity & Multiculturalism in the Context of Globalization

In the modern epoch of globalization cultural contact between different communities will increase tremendously. This will not result in a monocultural world. Communities and religions will be able to preserve their cultural identities. Many religions are bound to claim a universal validity with a sense of universal mission.

It is very important to understand that every religion expresses a specific world-view. Each religion motivates its people to order their lives according to an ethical standard. There are basic differences between religions. For example, the Brahmanic Hindu world-view is based on the ethical principles of (i) Karma, Dharma and Moksha; (ii) the concept of rebirth; and (iii) the notion of purity and pollution. This world-view justifies the hierarchical caste system and untouchability (Michael, 1990a:27-42). The world-view of classical Buddhism emphasizes that everything is in a constant flux, there is nothing permanent neither god nor soul. We are to meditate and concentrate on the inner self for enlightenment and guidance in our moral and ethical lives. Similarly, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism and tribal religions will embody a particular view of the world. The theistic worldview of Christianity emphasizes that the prime reality is the Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons and yet a unity of One. It was a real streak of genius when the church fathers came up with the idea of trinity to explain the relation between the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit as expounded in the Bible. By this they succeeded to incorporate conceptually into the Godhead itself the Christian concept of love and charity. In the Gospel of John it is said that the Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world. It means that before the universe was created, before man was created the three persons of the Trinity existed and they loved each other. The concept of love and charity in the life of a Christian is not something external, added like spices to food, but rooted from all eternity in the very Godhead. Charity is an essential component in the Christian worldview.

Christianity has to coexist with other religions and worldviews in the modern world, which faces many changes and challenges in terms of globalization, consumerism, materialism, mental problems, dehumanization, and an exploitation of nature. A comprehensive worldview, which can give meaning beyond the grave and provide viable ethical and moral guidelines to a world paralyzed by value relativism, is much needed. The Christian Church and individual Christians must demonstrate to a watching world that they have something to offer in terms of values, commitment, beauty, joy and happiness. The coming decades will be a great opportunity as well as a great challenge to Christianity.

8. Christianity and Multiculturalism in India

The Christian presence in India in the midst of many cultures and ethnic communities bound to challenges us to be inventive and creative. Indian civilization is a composite one, the home of several religions and cultural traditions. Today the diversity of India is under attack by the monocultural ideology of the Sangh Parivar. Even some Indian theologians are trying to Hinduise Christianity. This will be a fatal mistake. Now Christians with one voice should insist on the multicultural nature of Indian society. India is a pluralistic country and Christianity as a religion has already been rooted in the soil for many centuries. The process of inculturation in India should be done very carefully. Despite the extreme importance of inculturation, the Indian Church must learn to look at her own cultures critically in the light of the Gospel (see Michael, 1990: 6-18). The symbols that Christians choose should be authentic to the Christian faith. It should not be a mere copying or imitating of any religion of India but an independent creative choice expressive of a Christian spirit, identity and meaning. Indians rooted in the Christian worldview should put their stamp on Indian ethos and values. Christianity rooted in native soil in India and nourished and refreshed by her diversity and cultural variety should be a fountainhead of charity, practical Christian virtues and spiritual values.

CONCLUSION

The above observations make it clear that cultures comprise a great variety of components and represent different ways of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting. The most important aspect of a culture is its configuration or world-view. The material and mental aspects of culture do not have the same grip on people. "A study of the cultural development of mankind shows that a people change more easily elements of material culture, but cling more tenaciously to forms of social structure and abandon with great reluctance its traditions, and elements of mental and religious culture" (Fuchs, 1979:23). That is why our missionary task becomes so difficult. While people are ready to change their material culture which is the outcome of technological and scientific progress, they are much more reluctant to change their beliefs which give meaning to existence.

In present day India there are cultural movements related to militant Hindu revivalism but also the movements of marginalized groups. The rise of Hindutva is due to an attempt to consolidate an upper caste monolithic Hindu hegemony. Dalits and other suppressed segments of the population respond in protest by counter-movements. This context is very important for the Church in India. Inculturation, dialogue, issues of social justice and the theological training of Church personnel should be organized and planned with this cultural reality in view.

Hindu revivalism is based on the presumption that the ancient Hindus had already achieved an ideal society with the varnavyavastha. Such a vision of society is being threatened by the presence of Christians with their egalitarian values. Hence, they are declared unwanted elements. The oppressed masses on the other hand look for ways to demolish the varnavyvastha. For example, Ambedkar, the great Dalit leader, pointed out that an ideal society had yet to be achieved in India. He advocated a society without caste based on equality and social justice. Subsequently he rejected Hinduism and embraced Buddhism.

Multiculturalism is an ubiquitous aspect of the modern world. Urbanization, industrialization, and globalization will tend to uproot many communities. In the spiritual disorientation and moral confusion of value relativism and religious and cultural pluralism in the modern world, the committed Christian will have to reflect daily on what constitute the essentials of his faith, otherwise he shall no longer be the "salt of the earth" or be able to present a living alternative to the vague, syncretistic religious feelings of many a modern, who can no longer clearly distinguish between the just and the unjust, true and false, right and wrong, the beautiful and the ugly. The Christian Church should be present in the midst of a multicultural world, often in search of direction, with charity, openness and a sense of hospitality. It should be an oasis of stable values, peace and joy made up of Christians firmly rooted in their faith, committed to Christ, yet open to other cultures and religions. Then Christians will make a difference in a world in need of redemption.

Note

1. Paper presented at the Seminar on "Prophetic Dialogue: Challenges and Prospects in India" held at Ishvani Kendra, Pune, from February 16-19, 2003.

References: