Anthropological Insights on Anthropological Insights

Recently a friend recommended to me Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, knowing my interest both in anthropology and in missions. There I stumbled upon a review by Jack D. Eller, an anthropologist, in which he writes:

This is a terrible book with a terrible message: that you should use the understanding of other cultures in order to infiltrate and change them. That is NOT the message of anthropology. As an anthropologist, I resent this book profoundly. Anthropology is based on tolerance for other cultures, interest in their own ways of being and believing, and the concept of cultural relativism--that a culture's values and morals can only be understood in their own terms. The one thing we do NOT do is try to impose our own "truths" on others. If missionaries want to learn what anthropology really is, then read an anthropology book. But this text merely steals from anthropology in the most primitive way and turns that stolen material into the guidelines for cultural judgment, invasion, and destruction. It is arrogant and misguided.

I'll post my comment here as well:

It seems to me that Mr. Eller has convictions just as strong as this "terrible book" by which he makes the cultural judgment that others (but not he himself) are "arrogant and misguided." I would hope that all readers would be aware that his "tolerance of other cultures" extends only to those that accept his understanding of anthropology. For while claiming that, "The one thing we do NOT do is try to impose our own 'truths' on others," he has done precisely that in his critique of this book.That is not to say that cultures cannot and should not "be understood in their own terms." It is to say that they will be valued or devalued from the perspective of the observer, just as Mr. Eller has done in his review, and I have done in my comment.

Why post this on my blog as well? The issue is much larger than anthropology. It is one of commitment to a system of value by which we view all other things. The modern scientific worldview, as exemplified by Mr. Eller's review, shows a commitment to a view of things that imposes its own view on others while denying others the same privilege. The hegemony of the modern scientific worldview is precisely that it considers that it views things rightly, and that others who differ are arrogant.

I think it is of utmost importance that as parents we teach our children to humbly, politely and articulately answer such voices (which are dominant in the public education system) to the effect that,

"Our faith commitments determine what we value. You (if I hear you right) are committed to a modern scientific worldview, which says that those things that can be known are subject to the rules of science. Your view entails cultural relativism, which says that people are allowed to believe whatever they choose (so long as they agree with you), because questions of value and meaning can't be answered with scientific reliability.

I am committed to to the good news of Jesus Christ, which says that what is known is known by faith, including those things in the realm of scientific inquiry. The good news of Jesus commits me to cultural pluralism, which means that I believe that it does matter what I and others believe, but that persuasion, not coercion, is the means by which we dialogue. Religious pluralism founded on the gospel requires me to try to understand other cultures and values on their own terms and compels me to share the good news of Jesus on its own terms, not mine, or those of the receptor culture.

Or the shorter version:

In saying that one must not impose their "truth" on others, you are doing precisely that - telling me that your "truth" forbids me to speak mine.