Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues | Book Review

Reviewed by Thomas Scarborough

Paul G. Hiebert is a well known anthropologist and missiologist. He begins this book, unusually, with a prototheological phase -- a careful examination of epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. "Most Christians," he writes, "do not examine their epistemological foundations." Thus he describes six major approaches to epistemology, showing carefully how these apply to theology and ultimately to missiology.

HOW DOES HIEBERT EMPLOY SET THEORY?

One of the highlights of the book is an analogy that Hiebert draws between the Church and set theory. A set is essentially "a group" of things. However, the nature of sets can vary significantly. Two types of set receive particular attention, namely the "bounded set", and the "centered set". A bounded set, as the term suggests, has well defined bounds, while a centred set "groups things on the basis of how they relate to other things". Therefore in terms of a bounded set, "we would classify a Christian on the basis of what she or he is", and the Church as a group of people who are "all the same in essence". The trouble is, writes Hiebert, that the applied definitions in this case may become too exacting and exclusive. However, in terms of a centred set, "Christians would be defined as followers of the Jesus Christ of the Bible", and "the church would be defined by its center, the Jesus Christ of Scripture". A primary advantage here, considers Hiebert, is that Jesus Christ becomes the focus of all that the Church is and does. This having been said, some questions arise as to how far the analogies may be carried, and to what extent Hiebert's interpretations are appropriate. For instance, what does he mean that one is "defined by . . . the Jesus Christ of the Bible"? This means, he offers vaguely, that Christians are defined as a people who "follow Christ". I shall return to this in a moment.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE?

It was Hiebert who first introduced the term "excluded middle" to theology. This is originally a philosophical term which refers to the exclusion of "middle cases" between logical alternatives (Blackburn 1996:129). The theological "excluded middle" has been a pervasive characteristic of the Church in the West. The Church has had "a theology of God in cosmic history" -- that is, a God who is "the origin, purpose, and destiny" of all He has created -- and "an awareness of God in natural history" -- that is, a God who ordains "social relationships [and] the natural world". However, the Western Church has tended to exclude "a theology of God in human history". This may refer either to the reality of "the spirit world", or to God's present acts in "human history and . . . personal biography". Thus Western missionaries (not to speak of ministers in the West) have frequently found themselves in situations where they have been unable to address questions of "the middle level", relating the gospel e.g. to demonic influences or the need for divine guidance. There are two dangers against which we must guard, writes Hiebert, and both have to do with extremes. The first is to tend too much towards "denying the spiritual realm". The second is "a Christianized form of animism in which spirits and magic are used to explain everything".

HOW DOES ANTHROPOLOGY RELATE TO MISSIOLOGY?

In Hiebert's view, in order to contextualise the Christian faith, one needs to begin with two certainties -- at least, with two "maps". In this, he relies heavily on philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce proposed an "ultimate logical interpretant" (Audi 1996:567), which corresponds roughly with Hiebert's "metacultural grid". Further, Hiebert proposes the necessity of a "metatheological truth". In Hiebert's view, once one has established these two universal systems, one may begin to "compare and translate", with a view to changing "old beliefs and practices". This having been said, his emphasis is clearly on "beliefs" (plural) rather than "faith" (Gk. pistis) -- and on "practices" (plural) rather than "fruit" (Gk. karpos). This would seem to suggest that Hiebert's earlier description of Christians as those who "follow Christ" is intended to describe persons who modify various beliefs and practices. Here is, I suspect, a problem inherent in his thinking. His universal "maps" are possible because, he writes, "no people confuse cows with pigs". That is, we may establish (by and large)

objective universals for our task, since these reliably refer to reality. Yet things are surely not that simple. One may worship cows on the one hand, or create a boeuf bourguignon with them on the other. This being the case, one surely would require something far more radically transformative than "maps" to overcome the basic beliefs that drive both metacultural grids and metatheological truths, not to speak of cultures themselves.

SYNTHESIS

At the "heart" level, a lot of this book resonated with me. At the "head" level, I felt that Hiebert's arguments, after starting out with such a thorough prototheological phase, began to fray. The overall impression was one of a scrupulous anthropologist working piecemeal at the task of translating pagan to Christian culture, rather than the true power of a transforming relationship with Christ.

CITATION OF REFERENCES

Audi, Robert (Ed). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1994.

Thomas Scarborough continues to be chased by professors to turn out book reports in fulfilment of the requirements of a Master's degree. He is the minister of a Congregational Church in central Cape Town.