Culture as Grammar

Structural anthropologists have been investigating the grammar of culture for the past few decades. Prominent among these is the name of Claude Levi-Strauss whose work on the universal grammar of culture is well known. (Nicholas B. Dirks, Geoff Eley, Sherry B. Ortner, Culture/power/history: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory (Princeton University Press, 1993) p.380)

Some philosophers have recently been trying to interpret culture as grammar. For instance, Chengyang Li in Philosophy East and West proposed an interpretation of Li in Confucius’ Analects as “cultural grammar”, metaphorically speaking. He writes, “a culture is analogous to a language, a person in general observance of li in a culture is analogous to someone who follows the grammar of a language that he or she speaks....” (Li, Chenyang. “Li as Cultural Grammar: On the Relation between Li and Ren in Confucius' ‘Analects.’” Philosophy East and West, vol. 57, no. 3, 2007, pp. 317. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20109408.)

Kristijan Krkač and and Josip Lukin have tried to prove that Wittgenstein's "forms of life" can be interpreted as "forms of culture". (Forms of Life as Forms of Culture. (2007) Papers of the 30th IWS (eds. H. Hrachovec, A. Pichler, J. Wang) http://wittgensteinrepository.org/agora-alws/article/view/2653/3030)


See Also:
Religion and Culture: Differences

Culture Doesn't Define Ethical Principles and Lifestyle

I do not think that it is right to turn to cultural anthropologies in order to either affirm or negate a doctrine. Human experience is not the criteria of biblical doctrine. For instance, there have been cultures where people lived nude, without any covering whatsoever, and felt no sense of shame--that doesn't falsify the Genesis account in which Adam and Eve felt ashamed that they were naked, after the Fall. There have been certain cultures where cannibalism was practiced and people ate their neighbors--that doesn't become an experiential argument for the ethical innocence of cannibalism. I think we must be careful not to bring in the experience of man in a culture to validate or invalidate a biblical doctrine.

God-Christ-Man-Woman Relationship in 1 Corinthians 11

It is important for us to affirm some of the absolutes that Paul highlights about God-Christ-Man-Woman relationship:

1. The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (1Cor.11:3). Certainly, this is not with reference to the Church; for, Christ is the head of the Church and in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal.3:28). So, this is with reference to creation-order of authority.
2. Man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:7). However, in the absolute sense, both male and female are created as man in the image of God (Gen.1:27).
3. Man is not from woman, but woman from man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:8).
4. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1Cor. 11:11-12)
5. Man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:9)

National Integrity: Neighborliness, Not Culture is the Answer

In the past, empires and regimes identified national integrity with a cultural, ideological or religious unity of some kind. Thus, from Nebuchadnezzar's Golden Image and Alexander's Hellenization to Nazi Fascism and Soviet Communism, the attempt was to unify on the basis of symbols, forms, and slogans. However, it didn't unite but only divide turning a nation against itself and its own people, in some cases leading to persecution by the government of the very people it was called to protect.

Opposed to such false ideals of national integrity, modern secular constitutions envisage justice, equality, fraternity, and liberty as the chief principles of nationhood. In an increasingly globalizing era, cultural pride and cultural monism can never be the answer. The parade and propagation of symbols and slogans don't help much in the improvement of the nation. Pride goes before destruction.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the best illustrations of the real need. The Samaritan was a cultural and religious "outcaste", one who violated the integrity of the Jewish nation. However, when the man robbed by robbers lay beaten and bruised on the side of the road, it was not the religious priest (symbol of religious pride) or the Levite (symbol of racial or tribal pride) who came to assist the man; they simply turned away; it was the Samaritan who not only gave first aid to the bruised citizen, but also lifted him up, took to the nearest inn, paid an amount to the keeper and assured that the man was properly taken care of till he returned to pay back the expenditure incurred. He was the true neighbor not because he shared the same culture and religion, but because he became a friend in time of need.

A culturally and religiously aflame society is the very opposite of the Good Samaritan ideal. In Nazi rule, "neighbors" turned against their neighbors, betrayals became common, shops were looted, homes were plundered, and things were done against humanity that humanity is still very ashamed of. But, why? Because one individual tried to identify national integrity with racial pride. Hatred is always damaging to self and nation.

But, look on the other hand the lives of the true saints, who don't discriminate humans on the basis of creed, caste, and culture, but know that humanity is one, that men are equal, that justice is the right of all, that liberty is the right of all. These are the ones who display fraternity in their actions. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is the answer. The Golden Rule is: "Do to others as you wish them do to you!"

Dying to the Elemental Principles of the Universe (Col.2:20)

Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-- "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. (Col 2:20-23 NKJ)

Paul is referring here to an essential principle of Christian doctrine: Commandments that relate to perishable things are basic to the material world, but not basic to the Kingdom of God. In such a sense they are relative to the world but are not absolutely absolute.

1. These commandments concern things which perish with the using; therefore, they cannot be imperishable. Thus, for instance, customs related to washing of hands and feet before sitting for dinner may apply in one culture but they don't apply in another.
2. These commandments are according to the commandments and doctrines of men; they are not based directly on the nature of God. They may relate to the nature of the world (e.g. considering the environment, ecology, and climate of a region), but they don't matter to the environment of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, for instance, there are dietery customs on earth, but these are relative only to the ecology of the world. In the absolute sense, dietery customs have no significance (There are no dietery laws in heaven). One must not confuse customs enacted as a matter of convenience with absolutes that cannot be compromised with matters of convenience.
3. These commandments indeed (practically) have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion. When these customs and commandments refer to a religious doctrine, they may have the appearance of wisdom (may look very cogent and logical). But, elevating these to the status of religion (or spiritual discipline) doesn't elevate them essentially; for, essentially they are elements of the universe alone.
4. These may have appearance of false humility. Abstaining from certain foods or things natural to the body are not actually practices of humility. For instance, a person who chooses to use the old type-writer when he can get a modern computer is not practicing humility. Such humility is false. Similarly, one is not proud if he is wearing a costly garment (Note that Jesus had a seamless robe and yet He was the meekest of all). Humility is a spiritual attitude.
5. These commandments may have the appearance of a neglect of body. One must remember that neglect of body is not a Christian virtue at all. The Bible is positive about the human body. The New Testament compares a man loving his wife with him loving his own body (Eph.5:28). Ascetic methods like growing long hair without grooming them, not washing for weeks, and the like are only attempts to neglect the body, but they don't strengthen the spirit in any way.
6, But, all of these have "no value against the indulgence of the flesh." For, as a matter of fact "with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (Rom 7:25 NKJ). In other words, carnal methods cannot fulfill the Law of God.

A person who has known Christ doesn't spiritualize natural elements, because he knows that salvation is not from beneath but from above. His affections are set on things above, not on things below (Col.3:1,2,3).

Religion and Culture: Differences (Table)

NOTE: This is not a dogmatic stance, but only an hypothetical exploration attempting linguistic clarification.

Culture and Religion are not the same, though they are very close. There are various theories that suggest a model of relationship between them. One of them tries to see Religion as the soul of culture. This view doesn't consider the fact that there could also be non-religious cultures. Perhaps, one may quote the Pirahas as an example of such a culture. (Wiki) Of course, this doesn't rule out the fact that some kind of belief-system may be involved in a culture.

Another view looks at Religion as an organic part of Culture, but in such a manner that it affects the other parts.

We suggest here that the elements that can be altered through religious effect are religious elements, and the basic elements that religion may use (e.g. language, art, science) for its own purposes are cultural. Of course, there are cases where the usage takes on religious flavors; however, the basic "culture" is still distinguishable from the adoptions. Purely cultural elements are essentially different from the religious ones. Culture and Religion can be identified separately from each other if we keep this distinction clear. The cultural elements must not be confused with the religious elements. Thus, people having differing beliefs can still follow one culture and only disagree with regard to religious elements or belief-related elements (such heterogeneity is intense in metropolitan cities); however, there usually is a particular spirit of the age and world view in general. Also, certain cultural traits may be identified as grammatical directives of a particular culture providing the functional rules for interpreting the meaning of symbols within or from its context.

Hypotheses

Let’s introduce the following two hypotheses as the formula for identifying and distinguishing elements of culture from elements of religion (in religion, also including anything of a religious nature, including ideological elements):

• Any element that is grounded on a belief-system of a metaphysical nature is religious.
• Any element that is grounded on nature and the natural, even if it were an imitation of it, is cultural.

On the basis of the above two hypotheses, let’s preliminarily suggest the following table of elements of culture and religion (noting also that some elements mentioned here may not necessarily be present in every religion or culture):

Table of Differences

ELEMENTS OF CULTURE	ELEMENTS OF RELIGION/FAITH
Science/Reason	Beliefs/Faith
Entertainment	Worship
Taboo	Sin
Society	Community
Progress/Development	Salvation
Shame	Guilt
Aesthetics	Ethics
Arts	Morals
Relatives	Absolutes
Language-Grammar	Scriptures/Rites/Rituals
Communication	Prayer
Life-style	Life-values
Dynamics	Fundamentals
Change or Transition	Reformation
This-Worldliness (Secularity)	Spirituality
Vocation/Profession	Calling/Concern
Market/Shop	Temple/Shrine
Throne/Scepter	Altar/Sacrifice

Principle1: If anything has the characteristics of culture and is relative, it falls under culture and not under religion.
Principle2: Changes in culture don't necessarily imply change of religion; change of religion doesn't necessarily imply change of culture.

---

Objections

Now, certainly objections are bound to arise against differentiating the cultural from the religious for the following reasons:

1. Traditional definitions of culture included religion as a part of culture. In fact, theologians such as Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) maintained that culture is the soil of religion and Paul Tillich (1896-1965) believed that religion is the soul of culture. To Troeltsch, transplanting a religion from its cultural soil to any other culture would mean fatal to it. However, for sure, the soil theory doesn’t stand the test of anthropological studies. For instance, Buddhism took root in India, but is more at home now in China, Sri Lanka, Korea, and Japan than in India. Similarly, Christianity took root in Palestine, but "is" (?) more at home now in the West. As far as the soul theory is concerned, identifying a religion with a culture can pose problems in modern pluralistic experiences; for instance, it is possible that people sharing the same Western culture may be having a variety of different religious beliefs.

2. One of the most influential definitions of culture was given in the book Primitive Culture (1871) by Edward Tylor who defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” Of course, Tylor saw culture and civilization as synonymous in this opening definition of his book. However, later scholars have found such a definition to be too general and much inclusivist. In addition, there is also the debate about whether anthropology can be best studied as one of the humanities or as a science. Various responses to Tylor’s definition tend to either look at culture in terms of its external elements (e.g. artworks) or in terms of the internal mental states (psychological behavior) of individuals sharing a culture. But, again perhaps the width of Tylor’s definition can be narrowed down by not treating culture and civilization as fully synonymous.

Richard Niebuhr’s (1894-1962) five-fold classification of the relationship between Christ and Culture does certainly point to the fact that the religious can be distinguished from the cultural. Niebuhr’s classification saw the following ways in which Christ encountered Culture:

• Christ against Culture (Antagonistic). In this model, Christ is seen as against human culture, especially the pagan one. This approach looks at culture as anti-Christian.
  
• Christ of Culture (Accommodating/Agreeing). In this model, Christ is seen as not against culture but conformable and interpretable by its context.
• Christ above Culture (Augmenting). This model doesn’t see culture as against Christ, but it also doesn’t see culture as being equal with Christ. It is based on Thomas Aquinas’ bifurcation of Grace and Nature; divine revelation is superior to human reason.
• Christ and Culture in Paradox (Absurdity). This model was represented by Augustine (Two Cities), Martin Luther (Two Governments) and Soren Kierkegaard (Faith as Absurd) who saw in the relationship between Christ and culture a paradoxical tension between faith and reason. In essence, culture is this-worldly and impermanent, but Christ is from above and eternal.
• Christ Transforming Culture (Altering). A more Calvinist and Reformed view sees culture as divinely instituted (God gave language and the first skin garments) and historically developed; at the same time culture is seen as tainted by human sinfulness and redeemable or transformable by the presence of Christ.

For anthropologists, however, taking the evolutionary and a-theistic approach to religion and culture, religion may be looked at as something that grows out of culture (evolving from animism on to more philosophical forms of religion). Such attempts tend increasingly towards religious relativism and the discouragement of absolutes. But, the evolutionary approach is not necessarily fool-proof. In fact, more recent studies point out that monotheism, not animism, explains several historical facts that are intractable on the evolution of religion hypothesis. Certainly, one can clearly notice that the elements of religion are distinguishable from the elements of culture.

---

Religion and Culture - Relationships

Case 1: Customs and Manners Knowledge of the culture within which a religion originated plays an important role in the cultural retention of certain aspects of a religion. However, in process of time as historical understanding develops, prior misunderstandings may be clarified. For instance, look at the paintings below:

by Joan de Joanes, c. 1562

by Manuel de Araújo Porto-alegre, 1840

The artist, in the first painting, attempted to keep the original cultural elements like dress forms, vessels, etc intact within the painting; however, wherever knowledge of elements went missing (for instance, table customs and manners), he supplied it from his own cultural heritage. In the second painting, however, we find the Lord's Table to more resemble the middle-eastern format (e.g. persons reclining on couches with a shorter table in the middle; also, it's not the wafer but a middle-eastern bread that is shown).

Case 2: Dress Forms and Tools
But, in cases where such historical understanding of origins may be vague or none, the cultural form is retained. For instance, there have been historical attempts to trace the origins of Aryan religion in Europe. One attempt sees relationship between the Hindu Agni and Ignus (Latin, Fire), Mithra and Mithra (Persian, Friend), Varuna and Ouranos (Greek, Heaven). However, such historical tracings are absent in the Indian narratives; consequently, the cultural forms are very local. However, where historical knowledge is present (as in Hinduism that spread to South Eastern nations), the original forms remain intact. Thus, we see that the Indian Hindu deities are adorned in the cultural dress forms (saree, dhoti); similarly, the biblical angels appear in white dress with harps and trumpets. Also, the heavenly warriors appear with swords (not with machine guns and bayonets). In other words, while cultural forms may change, cultural elements historically fixed in religion don't appear to change.

Goddess Saraswati by Raja Ravi Varma

Guido Reni's Michael

Case 3: Language
The Scriptures of Christianity were written in Hebrew and Greek. However, globally now, translated versions are the ones in use and language is not a dogmatic element of worship. In fact, the New Testament was written not in the Jewish tongue but in the more popular Greek tongue (embracing a form of cultural globalism of the day). But, in a few other religions, the original language plays vital role. For instance, in Islam, Arabic is considered as the heavenly language and in Vedic Hinduism, Sanskrit is considered as the language of the gods (See Wiki).

---

Further Notes from Discussion at Philpapers

Rationale for Differentiation:

1. When I put Science or Reason in Culture, I point out to the non-dogmatic nature of culture, which is open to change. This doesn't mean that religion doesn't embrace or is not born in cultures. It only tries to separate the one from the other. For instance, the gods and goddesses of Hinduism are still always portrayed as wearing Sarees and Dhotis (General Hindu Dress). It might be considered an offence to portray them in Western clothes. This talks about the stagnancy of "religion's culture". However, Hindus don't necessarily wear only sarees and dhotis. They don't find wearing jeans or western coats as offensive. But, in a ceremony where religion (its stagnancy) is dominant, for instance during a Hindu marriage, what one wears can be an ethical issue. Similarly, modern armies use guns and bombs, but the gods and goddesses of religion may still be only pictured with swords and arrows. That depicts the difference between what culture is by itself in historical development and how religion differs from it in its conservative holding to the "original culture" in which it originated. Another example would be the dynamics of linguistic development versus the language-culture of religion. For instance, in Islam Arabic is considered to be the divine language. However, modern Arabic has a dynamic history of development and modern Arabic is not totally the same as the Arabic of the 4th century. Similarly, in Vedic Hinduism, Sanskrit is considered the language of the gods; but, in modern times Sanskrit is no longer used for conversation. It is taught in the schools but never used. That talks about the dynamics of culture versus culturalism of religion and should highlight that their difference. Religion will have to use cultural elements for sure, because it is always born in some culture or the other. However, cultures don't remain stagnant; they progress, inter-change, embrace new patterns. But, there is a kind of dogmatic stance, an absolutist aspect to religion in general. There are many such examples that can be cited in this regard. However, it also seems that certain cultural practices (e.g. Birthday Cakes and Candles) will remain unchanged and may even be absorbed by other cultures due to their simplicity and appeal. Yet, the difference between what is cultural and what is religion will be evident in that the cultural element, unlike the religious one, doesn't have metaphysical issues attached to it.

2. When I put Altar/Sacrifice in Religion, I only indicate that wherever such ideas are found, these are not cultural symbols but religious symbols.

3. When I say culture is about aesthetics, but religion is about ethics, I mean that cultural context plays an important role in what is considered beautiful or valuable and what is not (for instance, in some cultures a long neck would be considered beautiful and in some cultures girls are fed to make them look stout because leanness is considered unattractive). However, religion/ideology is very prescriptive, more in the ethical sense because it gives the rationale about why an action is wrong and why it is right and describes the consequences, in religious/ideological/philosophical terms. For instance, one cannot say "In modern American culture, homosexuality is not wrong." One can say that most Conservative Evangelicals believe homosexuality is sin; and, many liberals and atheists consider homosexuality to be okay. In this case, ethics is certainly not a cultural but an ideological/religious issue.

4. When I put entertainment in culture and worship in religion, I am using the terms only as exemplary symbolic representations. Culture contains entertaining elements like dance, arts, drama, and music. Religion will use these elements and give them a particular form (for instance, church music or Hindu bhakti bhajan). In some cultures, religion even becomes the patron of some form of arts. For instance, the god Shiva Hinduism is called the god of dance. But, those are religious attempts to claim cultural elements. Shiva has only a particular form of dance; and for sure, the orthodox dance-system doesn't approve modern dance or non-traditional dance forms (even the Western). Yet, one sees as fact of matter that the common man (not the traditionalist) would be more attuned to modern and popular art-forms and appeals of entertainment than to the traditional.

See Also

---

Culture and Religion
29 Ways to Cultural Change According to Raimon Panikkar
Christianity and Culture
Religion and Culture: Problems in Definition
Discussion Page at Philpapers

Last updated on November 6, 2014

Apathy and Evil

Apathy may be defined as the absence of interest, empathy, sympathy, concern, and care. It is the breeding ground of evil. There are at least three sources of apathy that are evil-prone:

1. False Understanding (Ignorance, Dehumanization, Deindividuation)
It may come from a false understanding of facts regarding life and the world. Philip Zimbardo highlights two mechanisms that steer the mind towards evil: dehumanization and deindividuation. If a person treats other humans as less than humans (dehumanization), then he cannot sympathize (feel along) with them. Similarly, if one can't see the other as persons, one cannot sympathize. For instance, it is easier for a man to push a button to launch a missile and kill thousands, without feeling moral pain, than for one to kill people in person. This is a form of "ignorance" in which you "do not know" the others; they might just be numbers and statistics.

Daily Example: People who feel nothing about, but feel exultant, when a movie hero shoots down enemies (hurdles) in a movie.

On the other hand, regarding even a tree humanly can generate feelings of sympathy; regarding a tree above humans may prompt worship.

*Usually, in this first case, a person may still have sympathy and empathy for his own, the ones he "knows". A classic example is of officers during the Nazi regime, who would go and kill Jewish children in gas chambers; but, go back to their homes and play tenderly with their own children.

2. Narcissism
A narcissist is someone who overly loves himself/herself. Such a person will speak highly of self and spend much time on self-love. Narcissist self-love destroys any room for love of others. Such a person may have little room for any moral lines or taboos of culture. Incest, rape, fraud, deception, dishonesty, cruelty, sadism and such evils are overpowering in a narcissist. He will usually be ruled by lust for pleasure and power. In some cases, people may worship a narcissist as being god-like for his/her exhibitionism of intelligence, beauty, self-boasting, and optimist declarations. However, the narcissist doesn't even value his/her worshipers personally (but only as fans and supporters). A narcissist will never give his/her life for his friends - he/she has no friends and is godless. A narcissist may witness evil, but not even wish to do anything about it. He cannot function as a light in this world because he himself is a black hole (of intense self-focus). A narcissist feels nothing about acts of willful injustice against others.

Daily Example: (a) When looking at a group picture of yours, are you looking more at yourself in it than looking at the group? Does your focus on yourself blur off the others?
(b) When traveling in a train or bus, do you look first for your own comfort or do you show sympathy to women, children, the aged, and the sick?
(c) Does it ever bother your conscience that a bribe given in order to gain preference or precedence does injustice to others in the queue? Or is it just out of willful ignorance (#1 above)?

3. Merciless Justice (Condemnation, Vengeance)
Biblical justice is always associated with mercy. However, apathy is merciless. A person who considers another person as an "enemy" will feel no sympathy and empathy for that person. Once the other stands "condemned" and deserving of punishment, any sense of sympathy vanishes. Propaganda, caricaturing, name-calling and vilifying can label others as "enemy" and deserving of punishment. Such campaigns were ruthlessly used by the Nazis against the Jews.

Daily Example: When watching a movie, notice if you wish that the vile villain is badly beaten, blown apart, and exterminated.

Quotes

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Mat 7:12 NKJ)
"A righteous man regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (Pro 12:10 NKJ)
"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." (2Ti 3:1-4 NKJ)
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron..." (1Ti 4:1-2 NKJ)

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
― Martin Niemöller

“All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.”
― Noam Chomsky

“...so much attention is paid to the aggressive sins, such as violence and cruelty, and greed with all their tragic effects, that too little attention is paid to the passive sins, such as apathy and laziness, which in the long run can have a more devastating and destructive effect upon society than the others.”
― Eleanor Roosevelt

“We shall have to repent in this generation not so much for the evil deeds of the wicked people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”
― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Clothing and Culture

Clothing and culture are closely knit together. Often, clothing is identified with culture. However, in modern times, people in most parts of the world are embracing a plurality of inter-cultural dress culture. The dominating influence is Western. People of some cultures have protested against the new dress forms (imported or innovated) as threatening the indigenous forms. Much can be written on the variety of issues that concern the dress ethic and theology. However, that is not the goal here.

One can take any of the many approaches to understand the origin, nature, function, and end of clothing. For instance, one can take the historical approach and study the origin and evolution of one or many dress forms; similarly, one can take the psychological approach and study human behavior and attitudes towards clothing from childhood to old age. Likewise, one can also take the religious approach and see what religion has to say about clothing with regard to sin, purity, ritual, and salvation, and religions have lot to say of this. A Christian theological approach would attempt to understand not only the historical dimension of clothing, but also its ethical and eschatological dimensions.

One important thing to note is that the Bible doesn’t lament a culture if that culture properly functions to safeguard the Christian virtues. However, it does oppose any culture that turns the natural into unnatural, that promotes a false sense of shame and honor and despises what God has divinely instituted in nature. Therefore, whenever a clothing or even hair style is culturally distinguished as masculine or feminine, violation of the same within that culture is considered unnatural by God – not because a dress form is absolutely masculine or feminine, but because the dress form in the language of the particular culture means either masculine or feminine (Deut.22:5; 1Cor.11:14). Therefore, violation of the dress form becomes a violation of nature itself in the same manner that one cannot violate grammar of a particular language and still make sense in that language. The argument that the violation doesn’t exist in another language will not apply in this particular language.

The 7 Purposes of Clothing
1. To cover nakedness, not expose it (Gen.3:21)
2. To protect shame, not promote shamelessness (Gen.3:7,21) 
3. To honor, not rebel (not rebellious dress forms, not for attracting through shock or provocation) (e.g. dress to honor various occasions like wedding. Jesus mentioned in his parable of the rich man's banquet that the man who didn't wear the wedding garment was thrown out, because he didn't honor the occasion, Matt.22:11; Gen.24:65)
4. To aid the body, not violate it (There are different clothing for different seasons - winter, summer, rainy; different clothing for different purposes: to protect against sun or wind or rain - hats, headgears, etc, 2Tim.4:13,21)
5. To celebrate fidelity, not become feast to the eyes of everyone (Sol.4:12).
6. To display modesty and humility, not trot out arrogance and pride (Isaiah 3:17-23; 1Pet.3:3,4)
7. To focus on inner beauty, not distract with or compensate with outer one (1Pet.3:3,4; Prov.31:30; Jer.2:33; 2Kings 9:30)

Gods and Goddesses of Modern Times

.. if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you. (Exo 23:33 NKJ)

1. Gods of IMAGINATION - The Gods of Craving (Deut 4:28; Jer 1:16)
They are unreal and based on human imagination and wishful desire.

Examples: Barbie doll, Heman, James Bond, Playboy, False ideals, etc.

2. Gods of INSPIRATION - The Gods of Charisma (Ex.32:1)
They are figures that inspire at the cost of the gifts that God has given to us. The Israelites got the jewelry as God's gift from the Egyptians; but, now the devil is taking all of that so that they can have dead gods (powerless in themselves) to lead by false inspiration.

Examples: Career icons, Movie stars (the Hero-worship, Fan culture), Charismatic personalities (empty within themselves), Musicians, Artists, Skeptics, Ungodly peers & friends, etc

3. Gods of INFIDELITY - The Gods of Compromise (EX. 34:15,16)
These are gods that promote infidelity and immorality and compel you to cheat on God and sell children to harlotry with the devil.

Examples: Secular Novelists, Movie makers, Libertinists, Relativists, Liberal theologians, Self-prolaimed and Self-promoting Leaders (not Shepherds but Thieves)

4. Gods of INVEIGLEMENT - The Gods of Commerce (Ex.23:33; Jdg 2:3; Josh 23:13)
These are gods that ensnare people by deception and sly.

Examples: Prosperity Cults, Utilitarian Gurus (even among Christians- those who make themselves center of everything and look at God as someone who is there to satisfy their selfish desires), Pharisaic Gurus (those who self-humiliate and put down others to show themselves superior)

5. Gods of INNOVATION - The Gods of Curiosity (Deut 3:17; Jdg 5:8)
These are the new gods that satisfy the curiosity of those who seek for new things every time.

Examples: New Music (in rebellion that despises forms - musical idolatry), New Doctrines (that try to put down others, teaching out of pride rather than in humility), New Loves (Church hopping, Faithlessness, Self-seeking)

6. Gods who are IMPORTED - The Gods of Culture (Gen 35:2; Deut 6:14; 13:6; Josh 24:20)
These are gods that are imported from ungodly cultures, traditions, and philosophies.

Examples: Cultural Nationalism, Racism, Clan-ism, Feminism, Sodomism, Class-ism, University-ism (that idolizes the secular University even within the Church)

Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Jos 24:14-15 NKJ)

For all that is in the world-- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life-- is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. (1Jo 2:16-17 NKJ)

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2Co 4:3-6 NKJ)

29 Ways to Cultural Change According to Raimon Panikkar

In his paper "Indic Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism" (K. Pathil (ed), Religious Pluralism, ISPCK, 1991, pp. 252-299), R. Panikkar points out 29 ways in which cultural change can be brought about. Below is a short outline of them:

Cultural change can be brought about by:

1. Growth. It comes from a natural exchange with the surrounding cultures. Growth comes from within, but it is nourished from the outside.
2. Development. Its meaning extends from a shared belief generating compulsory practices transforming "social relations and nature into commodities to be bought and sold on the market" (Gilbert Rist) to any type of social progress according generally to modern Western standards.
3. Evolution. It implies a change promoted by a more or less natural selection of cultural values. The fittest culture, that is well adapted, will survive.
4. Involution. It expresses the retrieval from more recent changes, in one particular society, because the latter changes are seen as a denial of the own cultural identity. It is a resistance to the extrinsic pressure of allegedly foreign cultural values.
5. Renovation. It is the attempt at renewal from within the culture itself.
6. Reconception. It is re-interpretation or creative hermeneutics by means of which the culture enlarges its own interpretation so as to be able to include other forms which until then seemed incompatible with orthodox ways.
7. Reform. It implies that something has gone wrong with the culture and stresses the need for reform. The impulse is generally endogenous, although a "prophet" is normally needed in order to trigger the reaction.
8. Innovation. It relates to the former with an emphasis on exogenous factors bringing about the renewal. While renovation looks back to the sources of a culture, innovation is more sensitive to the present.
9. Revivalism. It attempts to revive some aspects of a particular culture that are thought to have died through the passing of time.
10. Revolution. It entails an upside down of the cultural values produced generally by some small "party" of either endogenous or exogenous character.
11. Mutation. It implies a certain rupture in cultural patterns (brought about by revolutions or other causes like wars, catastrophes, etc).
12. Progress. It refers to a somewhat peaceful cultural change with a positive value.
13. Diffusion. It is used to express the inner vitality of a particular culture which by its own dynamics tends successfully to penetrate into neighbouring cultures.
14. Osmosis. Almost synonymous with the previous one. It is a physical name suggesting that the cultural influence proceeds in one particular direction due to the superior or more powerful character of the influencing culture.
15. Borrowing. Relates to the two previous ones and suggests an adoption of foreign cultural values because they are found "useful" to the borrowing culture. The impulse is from within and unrelated to external pressures.
16. Eclecticism. It generally denotes a choice (eklego, I select, choose) of different ideas or practices belonging to different systems, religions or cultures.
17. Syncretism. It implies a fusion similar to the previous one, but not by virtue of a conscious choice but as a result of historical inertia or a fruit of the spontaneity of the spirit.
18. Modernization. It particularly refers to the adoption of the present day "modern" values which, having originated in one particular culture, are presented or seen, with or without reason, as capable of bringing the host culture "up to date".
19. Indigenization. It goes in almost the opposite direction to the previous one. It involves a culture's getting rid of its customary garb and adopt the indigenous cultural forms of the culture in which it happens to live.
20. Adaptation. It is a kind of adjustment to the host culture for different motives like survival, influence, merger, etc.
21. Accommodation It connotes a certain acceptance of the foreign value for the sake of a peaceful co-existence or simply tranquility.
22. Adoption. It connotes a conscious introduction of the external idea, symbol or practice for the benefit of the host culture.
23. Translation. The transforming powers of cultural change brought about by literary translations.
24. Conversion. Cultural change brought about by religious conversion.
25. Transformation. It refers to the internal change of the basic structure of a culture.
26. Fecundation. It suggests an internal cultural change due to an external seed which has been introduced into the host culture and given birth to a new type of self-understanding and ultimately of culture.
27. Acculturation. Overtaken popularity after the failure of the word enculturation. In its most general sense it is used when a particular cultural group lives in constant contact with another one. Or it can also indicate a conscious effort at producing such a homogenization.
28. Inculturation. Used in preference to the above. Panikkar suggests to reserve this to indicate the conscious effort at adopting another culture.
29. Interculturation. The word was introduced in 1980 by Bishop Joseph Blomjous. The very word underlines a two-way traffic, and underscores partnership and mutuality.

Child Rights and Existing Cultural Systems

‎
"...on some occasions, child rights are violated and even justified in the name of preserving cultural practices and tradition. When there is a conflict between culture and child rights, children’s rights must take precedence and old cultures and traditions must adjust to give primacy to children’s needs and rights."

~ Shantha Sinha, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
Please download the latest In Focus here.

The advertisers know the primacy of children as targets of their products. If they are won, they'll woo their parents anyway. But, rights? The rights activists understand. Where do theologians and Christian workers stand? What are we offering to transform the system in order to protect the child? What contextual questions in this area have we addressed yet?

Methodology Required
"to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 27:18).

Unless their eyes are first open, there is no use of light.
Unless they have turned to light, they can experience no deliverance.

1. Become Eye-Openers. Those who are within a system are blinded by that system. They have learnt to fit into it and so view the world with eyes that the system grants them. In order to be eye-openers, we must be able to challenge the irrationality of a system, and brace up to help people up learn to use their eyes. The system paralyses abstract and sound reasoning, because of its authoritative structure. The men in the cave (cf. Plato's Republic) must be declared the good news of freedom. They must learn to open and use their eyes.

2. Become Light-Bearers. This not only consists in clear and cogent communication of truth in words and images, but also in our deeds by which we stand as light-bearers and witnesses of God's heart in the midst of this generation.

"...that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life...." (Philippians 2:15,16).

Excerpt from In Focus, August 2010

Safeguarding Railway Children’s Rights

An estimated 11 million street children live in India. Most of
these children live in and around railway stations. In Delhi,
Mumbai and Kolkata, street children, approximately 1,00,000
– 1,25,000 in each city, figure in the list of missing, runaway, abandoned
or trafficked children. Lack of support puts them at risk
from various forms of abuse and deprivation of rights that denies
them a childhood.

The situation of the children living in railway stations is of
grave concern as they are often overlooked. The National
Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), which was
asked to look into the issue of safeguarding the rights of children
at railway platforms, set up a 19-member working group and conducted
several consultations during the period August 2008 to
February 2010. Meetings were held with representatives of railway
administration, railway protection force (RPF), government railway
police (GRP) and civil society organizations....

Check Missing Children List Here

The Culture of Shame and the Shame of the Cross (Hebrews 12:2)

Message delivered at Pentecostal Church, Itarsi. Tuesday, March 16, 2010.

"looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrew 12:2

He despised the shame....
The consciousness of shame that the world has is warped, distorted, confused; its values are determined by the shame culture.

Luke 16:15: "what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

Note: It says "abomination in the sight of God", NIV - "detestable": it denotes the extent to which man's system of beliefs, world-view, is opposed to the mind of God.

The Evil Spring: Autonomous Heart:
"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man." John 2:23-25

"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat loaves with unwashed hands? But He answered and said to them, Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. However, they worship Me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the dippings of pots and cups. And many other such things you do." Mark 7:5-8


THE COVER
Genesis 3:7: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings." (NKJV)

Sin brought in immediately a warped world-perspective. Sin creates its own world-frame, world-system, mind-set, in which sinful concepts steeped in godlessness have perfect meaning. The shame is felt; but the covering is made to hide it. Shame is symbolic of the warpness into which the soul of man has fallen, without any hope. There are 3 ways in which the world tries to cure it by itself:

The autonomy of deciding for self what is good or evil.

A. Intellectual Games - World-views that have inbuilt coherence, absolutes, and grids of meaning: Religions, Cultures, Traditions, Philosophies - They look self-sufficient and have little or no place for God, the Cross, and for Jesus Christ. Culture is not Christian. Human culture sprang from Edenic cover-attempts.
One loses ones mind in the intellectual soup of world-meanings. Glory, Virtue, and Wisdom is warped - Maya (Delusion) is just this nothing else: A world created within the minds of humans, having nothing to do with and separated from Reality.

B. Indulgent Follies - The world of pleasure, indulgence, intoxication, mindlessness, drugs, mysticism, irrationality; like the swine that forgets the world around when its nose is sunk in the gutter.

C: Nihilism. Nonsense. Absurdity. Suicide.

Layers of covers intensify and make intricately complex the framework and false world that grows around imagination: the simplicity of the child is long lost.
No wonder Christ talked about being "born-again" and the Scripture talks about "renewing the mind"


THE VEIL
The Blockade. The Obstruction.

A. The Veil over the Mind - Enmity with God.
Colossians 1:21: "alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works"

B. The Veil over the Heart - Estrangement from God
Mark 7:6: " "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."

C. The Veil over the Understanding - Darkness
2Corinthians 3:14-16: "But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."


THE CROSS
Through Shame. Beyond Shame.

Hebrews 10:19,20: Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh.

He gave His body to be ripped open, violated, mutilated, and torn on the cross...
By His stripes we are healed. His cross pierces through our false worlds, shattering them, reconciling us to the Reality of God. "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free". He is the Truth, the Way, the Life.

He was broken like the bread He broke in His New Covenant, to give us life.
He despised the shame, for the shame and shamelessness of culture are false having their springs in sin.

No movie or picture can ever repeat that scene of triumph, where sin was scorched on the cross, man's wisdom was invalidated by the reality of divine justice and salvation, and heaven and earth bridged through the body of the blessed Lord.

Therefore, He doesn't condemn. He gives confidence.

John 21:
Jesus met the disciples while they had gone into the world of man out of the sense of failure (false).
Peter, when he knew it was the Lord, wrapped a cloth around and jumped into water for he was naked.
When he came to Jesus, He only asked him one thing: "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?"

That is reality. Everything else that doesn't center on this is false. Every world-system, idea of the "real life", and feeling that can do without Christ is the fruit of  living in a world-system founded on wickedness.

Through His cross, that stigma of the world, the Christian is crucified to the world and the world to the Christian. This is freedom. This is truth. This is redemption. This is love.

© Domenic Marbaniang, March 16, 2010. Tuesday.

Christianity and Culture

Any religion best relates to a culture by relating well with other components of the culture. A healthy religion is one that contributes to the constructive development of the whole culture by elimination of destructive elements and development of edifying ones. Since man is a rational, emotional, truth loving, political, sociological, and religious being, each of his needs must be healthily met. And so it is not practically possible for any religion not to contribute in any way to the culture. But the question is "Can Christianity maintain a healthy relationship with culture by being a significant factor in its development?"

Relationship with nature has been a significant feature of many religions. Totally segregating from any relationship with nature is impossible since survival requires relationships with nature. Even in religions like Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Jainism ascetism has been the pursuit of a few, while the majority liberal, considered the common laymen, are left to pursue in accordance to the religious values vital relationships with nature. As a matter of fact, the blessings of the ascetics are often sought for natural prosperity. Any purely ascetic religion paralyses material cultural progression. And such asceticism doesn't appeal to the common folk. And so cultural developments, despite presence of ascetic elements in religion, are very obvious in India, China, Sri Lanka, and Japan.

Troeltsch expressed his conviction that Christianity was the only religion that can be endured or lived with by European culture. He viewed religion as a necessity of every culture but thought that trying to transplant any religion into alien soil was doomed to failure. A religion grows only in a certain soil and a certain climate. Separate it from that environment, and the results may be fatal. Troeltsch, evidently, was assuming too much. Christianity was born and grew up in Palestine but is the major religion, not of Palestine but of Europe, America, and important parts of Asia, Africa, and Australia. This despite the fact that it was already a dominant 'Way' in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. Buddhism was born and grew up in India but is the dominant religion of Korea, Japan, Sri Lanka, and other Asian countries except India itself. Facts prove that Troeltsch was wrong.

But perhaps Troeltsch is not totally wrong! This because any religion transplanted anywhere cannot survive unless it has adjusted itself there (contextualised) through interaction with the already present cultural heritage, failing which its survival there becomes difficult as either it doesn't appeal to the people or it seems to be meaningless to them.

Culture and Religion

An adequate definition of either religion or culture is not easy to come by. Normally, by religion we understand a system or system of systems that on the basis of certain authorities (like scriptures or traditions) provide its adherents with guidelines of belief and practice. Psychologists view religion as one's response to the supernatural power or powers in keeping with given or discovered beliefs resulting in religious behavior. As such religion is both an individual and conglomerate experience.

The word "culture," today, often refers to customs and civilization of a particular time or people. A particular culture is made up of world views (religious and secular), values, society (family, social systems, educational systems, law and order), and customs. It is well accepted that cultures are not static but dynamic. As the elements of culture undergo change, so does culture undergo change.

It can be seen that religion influences the various elements of culture in a variety of ways and degrees. Its influence can be observed in the economic organization, social organization, political organization, ideology, art, language, and technology of a culturally united people. In the modern generation, we find an accelerated impact of the developments within indigenous cultures on the global scenario. Cultural absorptions and interchanges range from food, clothing, and housing varieties to ideological and technological assimilations. This has been greatly made possible through the inter-communication system provided by transports, media, trade, and migrations. In India, the impact of cultures can be easily seen in the differences one sees between villages and cities, clearly expressed in the various art forms, of language, pictures (paintings, films, etc), dance, and music. More obvious are the impacts of "foreign" cultural elements on Indian religions or at least members belonging to particular Indian religions (educationally, politically, economically being impacted). The "foreign" cultural elements also includes "foreign" religious elements as seen in the impact of Christianity on Gandhian Thought, on Raja Ram Mohan Roy's reformatory efforts, etc. Yet it is the scientific elements and the material culture of the West and also East that have the greatest impact on modern India. But the religious influence of Christianity on politics, law, education, art, language, etc of India cannot be ignored.

Organical Relationship
Thus, the relationship between religion and culture can be considered as to a considerable degree organical. Religion is a part of culture. Culture is the comprehensive under which religion falls. Religion as a part can influence cultural dynamics and culture as a whole can influence religious dynamics. In the process, the nature of each influence each other in an organic way. Religious beliefs, organization, traditions, and values can be partially or entirely transmitted into another culture through either expulsion of the other culture's religion (partially or entirely) or filling up of a gap left through a lack of religion. The religious void of any culture cannot be perpetual. Since culture is was man is (his developments or degressions) and man is equally a religious being as much as he is a philosophical, political, and social being, any culture for long cannot tolerate a lack of the religious elements. The transmission of religious elements (beliefs, values, etc) and their attachments (e.g. dress, food, shelter ways, like the saffron robe from India-Buddhism, and Western culture from the West) can impact the particular recipient culture in many ways. Religious responses (individual primarily) to any religion can move the consciousness into the reordering of life. Consciousness rules the whole man. Thus, an individual becomes transformed in many ways in keeping with the new beliefs and values that are being embedded deeply in his consciousness. A single man's culture is meaningless, since culture is collective. Though individually retained, maintained, and developed it is referred to as the culture of a people of which the individual is a part. Therefore, a convert to any religion, if he is transformed in a way in which all elements of his earlier culture in him are destroyed, also converts to the new culture he has absorbed. Where many individuals have converted in the same manner, a new unit often arises in the society.

But, total cultural transformation of an individual and group is a myth. It never happens and cannot happen in an instant in any case. This so because no human can absorb and relate to a whole complexity of ideas and practices in one sitting. In addition, cultural elements like customs, habits, language, and music cannot be totally renounced. All the elements cultivated in a person cannot be cut off at once.

And so a religion which is transmitted to or absorbed by other cultures becomes contextualized and contemporized as it saturates in that particular culture. In this contextualization process certain elements in the culture which were hostile to the new religion may either be eliminated or modified. This contextualization is an ongoing process; since as the organism called culture develops through the development of its elements and parts, each part affects each other in which process religion is also affected.

Thus, religion relates to culture organically.

______________
Oct 2014
In modern times, we can no longer say that religion is part of culture. For instance, Christianity is a global religion and Christians hail from various cultures. Thus, a Christian in Mexico follows Mexican culture while a Christian in China follows Chinese culture. Some differences between non-Christian Mexicans and a Christian Mexican may be spotted in their cultural life; however, usually it is possible to keep both religion and culture distinct. That is to say, if a particular custom poses religious-belief issues, intrinsically speaking, so that adherents of a particular religion cannot observe it, then that custom is no longer cultural but religious in essence (since it involves belief-issues). Consequently, religious elements of people following a particular culture will change when they conflict with beliefs newly embraced; but, cultural elements don't necessarily change.