Lessons in Anthropological Correctness

My buddy Roger from Vanguard College sent me a quote which he discovered reading for a Cultural Anthropology course he is taking.

“…Westerners think in terms of full-time trained specialists who are paid for their work. They find it hard to think of self-supporting lay leaders in charge of the church, and doing the preaching and teaching. For the most part, Western formal ways of organizing the church [overseas] have failed because they do not fit the ways common folk organize their activities. Ironically, Western missionaries have often been more willing to contextualize the gospel than church polity.”

Interesting thought - though I'm not sure the church overseas has failed to be organized effectively. I guess taking ‘western’ ecclesiastical forms to un-western places is not the anthropologically correct thing to do. Who knew!?! Westerns just assume that the way we do things is the way things should be done regardless of the cultural context. Do we really do that? Is this an unfortunate colonialistic blind-spot, or are we just plain dumb? Or is this just politically correct babbling?

Another aspect to this discussion could revolve around the question of whether the ‘full-time trained specialist’ is appropriate or effective for the western church. From an anthropological perspective I guess our culture does look to the skilled professional in most areas of life, and it has been the preferred pattern of the western church throughout history.

But for the church, is this the right way, the best way, or the only way? Praxis can be a pitfall. Is it enough that our church structures are shaped and validated by our westernized ecclesiology and cultural tendencies, or is this another of our cultural blind-spots the church needs to recognize and make some adjustments to? When it comes to church leadership, isn’t an effective leader a legitimate leader, be they paid or not? Does our culture’s perception of the need for the full-time specialist dictate the church’s preferred form of organization?

What happens when the western context you are in is evolving and may eventually be better served by the ‘lay leader’? Do we really have to call this person a ‘lay leader’? What qualifies this individual as a ‘legitimate’ leader in the church - calling, gifting, and involvement, or a theological degree from some institution, formal credentials with a denomination, and a position and pay cheque from a church? What can we do to recognize that these people are an essential and strategic element for the development of the new faith communities the western church is desperate for (or should be desperate for) and do everything we can to foster and release this largely untapped leadership resource? Will we as the western church be willing to experiment with church polity?

Stay tuned. The next 50 years should tell the story…