Beyond Ethnocentrism - Further thoughts on Accepting difference

In light of Keller's statement about religion and ethnocentrism, I have been thinking more about the nature of both ethnocentrism and whatever is beyond it (Bennett calls it ethnorelativism), especially from the perspective of religious faith.

I would like to reflect a bit more on Bennett's first ethnorelative stage, Acceptance, from my personal journey. As I wrote yesterday, 

"I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of 'Christian' that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be 'Christian' was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of 'Lutherans' around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a 'confirmation' class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade 'Catholics' flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were 'Christian,' but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly 'right' as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, 'those people aren’t good Christians,' and 'those people don’t know what they’re talking about,' and 'they don’t read the Bible correctly,' and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that 'Christian' was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong..."

My ethnocentrism – again, speaking here in relation to other Christians – was further challenged when I moved overseas, and began meeting Christians who were further beyond the range of my known boundaries of being Christian. These included Pentecostals and Anglicans, at first, and later Catholics and Orthodox (among others). Step by step, my boundaries, my ideas of the range of belief and understanding and interpretation and practice that could be “truly Christian,” were challenged.

Acceptance, for me, has meant respecting these other Christians as equally Christian. It has meant accepting that there are different ways of being Christian, including different interpretations and practices related specifically to Christian faith and church life (e.g., different ways of understanding and practicing baptism or the Lord’s Supper or church government or worship services or the working of the Holy Spirit), and different historical traditions, different ways of using language to talk about faith, etc. It has meant being curious to learn about the views and experiences and convictions, the uniqueness, of other Christians, rather than trying to defend my own way of being Christian.

The difference that growing into Acceptance has meant for me can be illustrated in my response to Brian McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy. At an earlier point in my journey, I am sure I would have reacted against this book, considering it to be “fuzzy,” blurring boundaries, soft on “truth.” I read it, however, after having worked through the issue of whether Lutherans and Pentecostals and Anglicans, and even Catholics and Orthodox, could be “truly Christian,” and when I read A Generous Orthodoxy, it was with an eagerness to expand my horizons further, to gain insight into some of the unique contributions of different “streams” (as Richard Foster calls them, in his book Streams of Living Water) of Christian faith in the world. A Generous Orthodoxy, in fact, represents an ethnorelative perspective on the Christian faith, an openness to understanding and learning to see the world from the perspective of the “different other” (in this case, the “other” being located within one’s extended family of faith).

Coming next… Adaptation

Can Christianity be Reconciled with Feminism: Further Thoughts

I have been thinking quite a bit about this question of reconciling feminism with Christianity, and decided to write up some further thoughts.

First, about “feminism.” Of course, this term may cover a wide range of phenomena, so to discuss the question in depth would necessitate specifying what exactly one means by feminism. 

My conviction as a follower of Jesus is that his teaching to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, plus Paul’s teaching that “there is in Christ no male or female,” plus the statement at the beginning of Genesis that male and female are created in the image of God, would clearly indicate that men and women have equal value in the sight of God, and should be treated accordingly. My conviction is that Jesus’ teachings should lead us to actively work for human and civil rights for all people, and certainly for women. And that we should decry all mistreatment of women, in history and today, and do our best to put an end to it.

Or as my daughter recently put it, feminism might be defined as meaning that women are human. Full stop.

More can be built on this core, of course, but as I understand both feminism and the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, they are compatible; in fact, feminism defined in this way is an essential element of Christian faith. This is to say that it is not relative, i.e., that it is not okay (though it has happened throughout history), to conceive of a “Christianity” in which women are considered to be of less value than men, can be treated as possessions or sex objects, etc.

I also want to say more about “Christianity.” The heart of things, as I read the Bible, is relationship with God through Jesus – i.e., faith in God, through Jesus, and a life that consists of living out that faith, living according to his teachings. That faith, however, must be lived out in a specific human context – a sociocultural, religious, political, historical context. (This is what some of us refer to as “contextualization” – living out faith in a particular context.)

Those who follow Jesus, and who are generally known as “Christians” (note that there is a range of variation as to what those who self-identify as Christians, mean by that identification, and also a range as to what others take the name to mean), live out their faith in various ways, and differ in their beliefs, convictions, practices, etc. In many respects, those beliefs and practices reflect the sociocultural context in which they find themselves. And of course there are different churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and many variations within those), with different interpretations, beliefs, practices, rituals, and other outworkings of their faith.

One might call all of that, “Christianity”; and one might argue about what is “true” Christianity and what is not, and talk about extrabiblical practices, folk religion, etc. And one cannot always or easily draw boundaries between what is “religious” and what is not (when trying to pin down what exactly is meant by “Christianity”).

It is also worth noting, from an anthropological perspective, that feminism has many more complex variations than simply the view that women are human; that feminism itself, in those more complex outworkings, is a cultural phenomena (and not an absolute, outside of culture set of values or truths); and that having a high view of women does not necessitate being “feminist” (depending on how it is defined in detail). In other words, it is possible to be a true and faithful follower of Jesus, but not be a “feminist” as some people define the term. Being a “feminist” is a possible but not necessary component of being a “Christian” (depending on how that feminism is defined – and again, I am not talking about mistreatment of women, but of culturally different ways of defining the relationship between men and women, their roles, etc.)

I would maintain, for example (as an anthropologist and as a Christian), that it is not against the view that women are human, to believe that there are different roles for men and women in the church. And it is not an essential outworking of the view that women are human (conversely), to say that women should be able to be pastors. Either view and practice could be an outworking of a commitment to treating women as human; i.e., there can be different cultural expressions of being Christian (based on different interpretation of relevant biblical passages) that are compatible with feminism defined as “women are human.” (And there could be outworkings of being Christian, or outworkings of feminism, that are not compatible with each other, with the possibility that incompatibility lies either with the understanding of being Christian being off center to the Gospel, or with the definition of feminism being off center to the Gospel).

At the end of the day, then, I suppose the answer to the question must be, it depends on what you mean by “Christianity,” and it depends on what you mean by “feminism.” And people who claim to be Christian, and people who claim to be feminist, and those who claim to be both, disagree on the essence of those categories. And so the discussion goes on… And this process of definition and expression (both of Christian faith and of feminism) is at the heart of the relationship between faith and culture.

***

P.S. If you are "Christian" or "feminist" or both, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.