Chauvet Cave rhino 

Visual Art That Imagines God: The Imagination that gave us the Chauvet Caves Paintings and Christian Art. 

((tags:dmingml))  #dmingml  #dyrness  #chauvet cave art

 

Imagine viewing visual art perhaps produced 30,000- to 33,000 years ago.  The Chauvet Cave paintings in southern France are palaeolethic and may be the earliest visual art yet discovered. Paintings of animals - bears, horses, owls, lions, rhinos – predominate painted upon the stone walls.  Why are they there?  Are these paintings representation of meaning that go beyond the aesthetic of beauty?  Did the painters interpret these animals and their depictions as having merely practical meaning, for example sources of danger, were these paintings used to teach the young as a type of pictorial dictionary, or were they representing some spiritual meanings.  Perhaps all of these or none of these, yet these paintings give contemporary peoples a glimpse of a world long gone.  These paintings meant something to the people who painted and viewed them.  The Chauvet Cave paintings have a contemporary relevance in that they remind us that humanity have used visual arts to represent meaning from ancient time – and often this meaning have religious and spiritual meaning.  This is seen in the Christian tradition in which visual art have been used to represent  theological truth about God, the world and humanity. 

 

William Dyrness in his book, visual faith: art & theology and worship in dialogue, provides a brief survey and discussion of the interaction of visual art, theology, and faith [9, 12]. His concern is primarily tracing the loss of imagination and use of visual art within the Protestant evangelical church post Reformation, particularly for use in worship and direct representation of Christian themes.  Dyrness acknowledges that there has not been a total dearth of Christian art and of artists who were Christian during this time, and that there has been a renaissance of visual art used within churches during the latter part of the 20^th c. Yet he believes that visual art, and the beauty and goodness that it can represent, remains estranged from the evangelical church with its attendant contribution for worship and witness [22].  Dyrness suggests this is a loss opportunity for the church for two reasons: visual art can be powerful representation of theological ideas, and that ‘the contemporary generation has been raised and nourished by images’ and as such it has an image driven imagination [22].  In other words, the church in recovering an imagination that values, creates and uses visual art [‘a new vision for the arts’, 155] may be able to engage in a renewal of its worship life and practise, and its witness to an image driven generation that finds meaning, religious and other, in the images that are produced and viewed [20].  

 

Dyrness speaks of reclaiming an imagination that, among other things, values visual art as a significant carrier of theological and biblical meaning for the Christian church.  This imagination would be explicitly Christian, a way that Christians perceive and understand God, the world and their relationship to both [adapted from Charles Taylor’s idea of social imaginaries].  If visual art carries religious meaning for Christians would it also do the same for palaeolithic peoples; might the paintings in the Chauvet Caves be ‘loaded with symbolic possibilities’ [85] including religious and spiritual meanings particularly relevant in a pre-written word culture?  Do the Chauvet Cave paintings represent symbolic meaning that were the product of a cultural imagination, an imagination informed by a world full of mystery and forces neither understood nor controllable by the Chauvet people? Were they used as artefacts for some sort of worship or religious reflection?  If so this would suggest that the use of visual art for religious purposes has antecedents that go back thousands of centuries.  This may not be appreciated by many contemporary evangelicals [and emerging church people] attempting to use visual art in worship and witness, but it does highlight that what they are doing is not new or unique.  And it brings a much deeper meaning to ‘ancient-future’!

Exploring the past to know the present:  Photo-elicitation for Callingwood Road Presbyterian Church

((tags: dmingml))  #dmingml  dmingml  ‘photo-elicitation’

Introduction

A local congregation like any social grouping has a history.  Often this history is formalised in a written ‘formal history’ yet behind the significant events and prominent people lies an implicit history – experiences, emotions, thoughts and meanings – that is carried by the corporate group and by individuals.  This implicit history, similar to the explicit history, is an interpreted history dependent upon how the context of the meaning invested in the ‘historical moment’ is ‘read’ or viewed by those persons recording or reviewing the history.  One method to ‘read’ a historical moment, explicit or implicit, is with the use of photographs as Harper suggests. [Harper, 13] The use of photographs to glean knowledge about the past has the benefit of enabling the researcher or enquirer to gain insight into memories and experiences [meaning], “to capture the impossible, a person gone, a past event” [Harper, 23] that otherwise may remain hidden. Attaining such knowledge requires reflexivity on the part of the audience [enquirer and viewer] concerning the interpretation of the content of the image and any subjective meanings given to the content. [Pink, 118-119]

 

Henk de Roest in an visual ethnography study used photographs to research the implicit and explicit meaning that church buildings that were being closed had for the people who had been connected with them. He writes of his intent, “through the photographs taken or chosen by the informants, I tried to learn which places and signs in the church building had become important or precious to them....” [de Roest, 4]  Drawing upon de Roest’s work how might photographs be used to gain insight into a local congregation? In particular what insights might be captured concerning a local congregation’s implicit history using photographs of people and events from that congregation’s past?  Further to this might these insights inform the congregation’s present context ?

 

The Context and Method

 

        Callingwood Road Presbyterian Church is a local congregation established in 1985.  Over the years hundreds of photographs of people and events associated with the congregation have been produced with the majority being ‘snapshots’ taken by people now unknown.  For the congregation’s 25^th anniversary approximately forty photographs were chosen as representative of the congregation’s past and used in a power point presentation.  Why were these photographs chosen? Perhaps they were chosen as a ‘collection of images of collective and institutional identities, present or past’ [Harper, 13] and perhaps these photographs evoked some meaning for the person who selected them and she hoped they would do the same for those who viewed them. We just don’t know; sadly the person who chose these photographs is deceased and her methodology for choosing these photographs is unknown.

 

These forty photographs formed the basis for a photo-elicitation project investigating what insights might be gleaned about the congregation’s history.  Whereas classic photo-elicitation research uses photographs and interviews to “elicit reactions and information” [de Roest, 4; also Harper, 13] this project following de Roest used “photofeedback or photo- selfelicitation” in which participants wrote comments to the photographs chosen. [de Roest, 4; also Harper, 17]   Both are collaborative projects [Pink, 88] with the viewer or informant  and the researcher contributing to the results, though the former more so than the latter.  As de Roest comments such methodology enables the possibility of the researcher’s subjectivity and the informant’s subjectivity concerning the images to intersect [de Roest, 4] and to critique and inform each other.

 

 A general request was made to the congregation inviting individuals to select one or several photographs from the forty presented – ones that provoked some sort of meaning - and then write a personal response to the image.  This response was to be 100 – 200 words and guided only by general questions such as: were you there? What is occurring?; What might this photo mean to you?; what thoughts, attitudes, emotions arise in you as you look at the photo and the event it represents?; is there something going on others wouldn’t be aware of?; why might this photo be important in the life of Callingwood Road Presbyterian Church?; does this photo cause you to think about something that you haven’t thought about for a long time, if at all?  From the seventeen submissions fifteen were chosen for inclusion in the project. The two photographs not chosen were submitted by the same person who had submitted five in total and the written responses deemed to be mostly labelling – who was in the photograph. These fifteen photographs with responses were placed in a set entitled, ‘Callingwood Road Presbyterian Church: Photo-elicitation’ and posted at http://www.flickr.com/photos/crpc/

 

The Analysis and Discussion

 

The images are photos, ‘snap-shots’ into the ‘collective past’ [Harper, 13] and memory of Callingwood Presbyterian Church. They depict events and people that occurred for some of the participants earlier in their own participation within the congregation, and for others there is no temporal connection other than the present [including the author].  Yet for both groups these images connect the past to the present.  As images of a collective past they have contributed to a “community and historicity ethnography’ to use a typology formed by Harper [Harper, 16]; that is these images provide a ‘window’ into the people, the institutional and interpersonal behaviours, beliefs and values [Angrosino, 14] or to use a term from above they provide insight into the implicit history of the congregation.  Not in its totality, only a glimpse in part due to a small number of images being used. 

 

        What was glimpse?  It is noteworthy that all of the images depicted people at important events: for the building such as sod turning, the dedication worship service, burning the mortgage [five in total]; personal or congregational social events [four]; children and youth [4]; and events associated with rituals [two].  It would appear that these events and the people depicted represented meaning for the viewer – perhaps the memory of a Godly man who infused hope into a young woman, or sadness for  persons once involved but no longer due to age and death, or the reminder how people and churches change over time, or how suffering of a young man binds people together across time and distance, or the building.  If the collective meaning from these images could be encapsulated into one sentence perhaps it would as one writer said, “it is good to go back and remember” [Barb Bailey, First Service at CRPC new building].

 

 It should be noted that all the writers, except one, were present in the congregation during the time depicted in the image they commented on; it might be expected that it would be these people who would select images of the past that they had some personal experience with and creating a historic ethnographic representation [Harper, 17]  This might suggest that the writers as they viewed the images had memories evoked and in several cases memories with the attended emotions, for example sadness or joy or grief.   To further explore these meanings group sessions [see de Roest] or personal interviews would be enlightening.

 

        If all fifteen images, the comments and the captions are ‘read’ together what might be said, not only of the implicit history of this congregation but also of the present and the future? The sequence of the images in the sets might influence interpretation [Pink, 127-128]; they are not in order of when the event occurred but rather sequenced and grouped according to the author of the comments except the first image which actually should be the last according to author.  The captions are descriptive, rather matter of fact as if to suggest that the image pointed to some definite objective knowledge of the past, but with no connection to the present. While the comments as suggested above point to something meaningful in the past and lost in the present.  Overall the images and comments represent for several individuals the value of the collective history of the congregation; a sentiment the researcher concurs with. 

 

Yet do these images also express something that has been lost? May it be assumed that the viewers being situated within the present congregation would compare the images and their attended memories and meanings with the present congregation?  As this is done they see how the congregation, its people and life have changed and for some this change may be interpreted as the loss of something meaningful.   This may be made more present in the situation of those who viewed the images as they view the present and ‘see’ a good part of the congregation growing old and no longer able to maintain their past level of involvement, whilst the younger portion of the congregation is growing smaller compared to the past.  This potential connection would be the basis of a study [using photo elicitation?] that might suggest discernment for present and future ministry. 

 

And what if anything does these images and comments say of the future?  Anderson Campbell, a commentator of this project sensed a “now what?” and a “what’s left?” as he viewed the images and read the captions and comments.  For a local congregation this is an important question, perhaps essential if the past is viewed as the best there was. 

 

 

References

 

Angrosina, Michael.  Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research.  London: Sage Publications. 2007.

 

Harper, Douglas. “Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation.”  Visual Studies.  Vol. 17, No. 1. [2002], 13-26.

 

Pink, Sarah. Doing Visual Ethnography. 2^nd.ed. London: Sage Publications. 2007.

 

Roest, Henk de. “Losing a Common Space to Connect: An Inquiry of ‘Inside’ Perspectives on Church Closure by the Use of Visual Methods.” London: Kings College. 2011.

 

Rose, Gillian. Visual Methodologies : An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials.[London: SAGE Publications. 2001.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/georgefox/Doc?id=10080966&ppg=10

Does a photograph speak a thousand words?:interaction with Gillian Rose and Henk de Roest       ((tags:dmingml))  #dmingml   dmingml

 

It is common to hear the adage, ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, yet the question that begs to be answered is: ‘what is the language being spoken and what do the words mean?’ That visual images, photographs, paintings, movies and similar media might provide meaning for the viewer is supported by casual viewers and academics [for example Harper[1], Pink[2], de Roest[3] ].  Yet as Gillian Rose[4]  states there is no ‘right or wrong meaning’ and a visual image may have “equally plausible, though sometimes competing and contesting, meanings and interpretations.”[Rose, 2] In other words the viewer[5]  interprets, or ‘reads’ the image and various interpretations may be produced depending upon the image, the viewer and the context of the viewer.  This doesn’t point to a nihilist reduction that there is no objective reality or meaning to the image, but it does highlight that an image and its meaning is interpreted. Think of the Indian proverb of four blind men touching an elephant and describing what it is they are touching or ‘reading’; one real elephant and four interpretations of that elephant! Meaning is embedded in the image necessitating a reception and reading that leads to an interpretation of that meaning. 

Rose states that any interpretation of an image need to be justified and this requires a ‘critical visual methodology’[6] that seriously considers taking images seriously, that thinks about the social context and effects of the visual image, and that reflects how an image is viewed. [Rose, 15-16] In turn this critique and reflection need to consider two theoretical factors that shape image interpretation – the image’s site and the site’s modality.  Rose writes that “the meanings of an image or set of images are made at three sites: the sites of production, the image itself, and its audiencing” and for each of these sites “there are three modalities ...technological, compositional, and social.” [Rose, 32] Such theoretical consideration becomes the refractive lense through which an image is critiqued and reflected upon. [Rose, 32]  Rose suggests only after such theoretical consideration might a particular interpretative method be adopted; he writes that an interpreter will “need to engage with these more theoretical debates about how to interpret images before deploying any of the methods[7] discussed in this book.” [Rose, 190] This in turn suggests that in the absence of serious consideration of the theory behind image interpretation the interpreter’s methodological bias will produce meaning from the image that says more about the methodology and its philosophical assumptions then the image itself.

The use of visual media is useful in sociological, anthropological and ethnographical research as they allow the participants to directly critique and reflect upon an image that is connected to their social experience and existence.  [Harper, 21]  This in turn enables the researcher to gain insight into memories and experiences [meaning], “to capture the impossible, a person gone, a past event” [Harper, 23] that otherwise may remain hidden.  Henk de Roest used photographs to research the implicit and explicit meaning that church buildings that were being closed have for the people who had been connected with them.  Using Rose’s theoretical framework one might say that the importance of the photographs used by de Roest in his research was based upon the site of production [the church building or artefacts that had meaning for the participants], the site of the image itself [the content of the image], and the site of its audiencing [the social relationship that the image had with those who viewed it].[Rose, 188]  This in turn produced a critical reflection by the viewer [the audiencing site] as well by the researcher.  De Roest writes,

“through the photographs taken or chosen by the informants, I tried to learn which places and signs in the church building had become important or precious to them...by their comments, I was allowed to compare my own subjective interpretation of the image with that of the research participants.  The photographs became visual texts through which my subjectivity and my research participants intersected.” [4]

Such modalities as technology and composition might be assumed to be less important than the social connections the image [and the content of the image] had with the audience.

From this theoretical orientation de Roest developed an ethnographic methodology that was action based [practical and seeking to address pressing needs] and hermeneutical [to hear what people thought and treasured about their church building and how they would respond to the loss of the building]. De Roest’s methodology takes the site of audiencing seriously and his analysis explores the ways in which the audience critically interpreted and produced meaning from the images. In addition by not interviewing the participants, but allowing them to comment and speak to the images [individually and in groups], as well allowing the participants to take their own photographs or select from those taken by a member of the church de Roest reduced the influence of his subjectivity upon the interpretation.   For the participants in this project the photographs spoke with profundity and connotation of meaning – for them these photographs were worth more than a thousand words.

 

 

 

 

The Leadership Mystique [why nothing changes in the Presbyterian Church in Canada]

 

I find books on leadership to be confounding.  Understanding leadership is important and books on leadership can be interesting, yet it puzzles me as to why there is little common ground in regards to the whys and whats of leadership? In my mind it is the lack of clarity that makes leadership more of an art than a science, and similar to visual art one can tell good leadership from poor leadership, yet unlike visual art the reasons why this is so is not so clear.

 Manfred Kets De Vries’ book, The Leadership Mystique: Leading Behaviour In The Human Behaviour[1] was refreshing in that he speaks of the role of the vagaries and foibles that accompanies leadership; specifically the inner self and the sociological dynamics that shape and drive leadership.  He seems to assumes that leadership is as much, or more psychological and sociological than it is science and economics.

 De Vries posits that there are two roles that successful leaders perform: the charismatic and the architectural or instrumental [203-204]. The former “envisions a better future and empower and energizes their subordinates.”  The latter “addresses issues related to organizational design and to control and reward systems.”  De Vries says that both roles are essential and need to be occurring in an organization. The architectural will form the foundation in which charismatic leadership functions and fulfills its role. [204]  He says further that true leadership does not occur if either is missing or if they are not aligned, though depending upon the situation one may be more dominant than the other. 

 These roles are not isolated from the leaders’ context: the directly observable – vision, job descriptions, operational strategies and the like; the “inner theatre” of the leader – the inner emotional life, personality and motivations that make up both the conscious and subconscious reality of the leader; and the sociological context in which the leader and those led exist in.  Leadership functions within a web of relationships, to use a phrase of C. Geertz in a slightly different manner, psychological and social, and as such it is essential to have the ability to ‘know one self’ and one’s leadership social environment.  This understanding importantly involves how the leader’s self and the leadership environment engage and interact with one another; this moves leadership away from skill sets and hard work which remain important yet are inadequate if the implicitness of a leader’s context is not seriously considered and evaluated. These implicit factors of context, found within the inner theatre of the leader and the sociological context of leadership shape the leadership of an individual and the leader’s effectiveness, both in its charismatic and architectural dimensions.

 De Vries’ typology helps us to understand why leadership is effective in one situation and not in another [174-175].  For example, attitudes to authority, the differences between social culture within a business and a community, styles of decision making, motivation and control [ibid] are affected by context in which leadership is exercised.

 An example, albeit in simplistic terms, is the difference between decision making within the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church; the former in its decision making is democratic and consensual with an implicit emphasis upon individuality whereas the latter is more hierarchical with authority vested in individuals who speak for the church, yet individuality is subordinated to the whole.  This difference in decision making is reflected in how issues are thought about:  within the Presbyterian Church in Canada many issues are analyse into parts, whereas in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church there seems to be a more wholistic orientation to issues and relationships.  This might be witnessed in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church able to plan and implement a church and country wide ministry of evangelism, or relief for famine stricken parts of Ethiopia.  In contrast at the last two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, its highest decision making body, there was failure to reach any decision to plant new congregations within Canada and failure to agree on the need for a denominational vision. Both matters were lost in the atomisation of the issues, the structural preference for the status quo [exercised through democratic and consensus building], and the differing individual agendas of the delegates.

 Within the Presbyterian Church in Canada it seems that a failure to fully appreciate the context in which decisions are made – both the context of the inner theatre of the leader and the sociologic of the leadership environment - creates an environment in which the weaknesses of the leader[s] and the church are supported and positive change thwarted

 

((tags: dmingml))   #dmingml                #leadership

 

Red Letters:  Living a Life that needs grace   ((tags:dmingml))  #dmingml

 

Heroes are made and forged in suffering.    Not that there is anything heroic in suffering, the heroic comes in the purpose of suffering. There have been many heroes through the ages – some known and many nameless save to those closest to them – and the thing that made them heroes was their willingness to suffer for another, for the greater good, for that which St. Paul calls the “true...noble...right...pure...lovely...admirable...excellent...praiseworthy...” [Philippians 4.8 NIV]. 

I think this is what Tom Davis, in his book Red Letters: Living a Faith That Bleeds [Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2007], is calling those who follow Jesus Christ to be – heroes.  In a world that knows tragedy and suffering in myriad forms and what seems to be endless measure there is a need for more heroes. For Christians this call to heroism ought not to be strange, or unnatural, but a way of living out the Christ who is in us and is shaping us to his likeness, ‘with ever increasing glory’ [2 Corinthians 3.18].  In a letter written to Jewish Christians undergoing hardship and suffering the nameless author encourages his fellow Jesus followers to not give up, to keep the faith, to be heroes.  In the same way as Jesus ‘suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood’  they too are to go into the world – that place of suffering and sin and death – and as they do they go to Jesus.  And there they will be with Jesus and Jesus will be with them...bearing the sin of the world...its disgrace and its pain and its death. [Hebrews 13.12-13]

To be with people who suffer, to come alongside of them, to help them in whatever way we can is to do what Jesus calls us to do, but more significantly it is to be Jesus to them. It is to have these people look at us and to see Jesus in our eyes and to be touched by Jesus [it is to give them what we have ‘the name of Jesus’ - Acts 3.6]. And to be Jesus to others it is to bear their sin, and their disgrace, their suffering, if only in a partial and some mysterious way. We become a sacrament of grace. We become heroes.

Yet to be such a hero is to be confronted with our own humanness, our sin and suffering – our impure motives and weaknesses even as we chose to suffer for another. It is to know that though we carry something of the divine within us, we are not that divine; we are not Christ and often not particularly Christ-like. We too need someone to bear our sin, our pain, our suffering, our disgrace; that we have a need for a greater hero than ourselves – Christ.  And it is to know that we will need to repent often of our failure to help others in need and our reasons for helping no matter how righteous we believe them to be.  Otherwise we will be captive to our suffering and need.  Even heroes need grace and mercy.

Review: The Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah

((tags:dmingml))  #dmingml

Two weeks ago Edmonton held its annual Heritage Festival.  With the slogan “Come For a Cultural Adventure” the Heritage Festival celebrates the multiculturalism of the city – eighty five nations and many more ethnic groups.  One nation not represented was Canada, perhaps because the ethnic identity of Canada is no longer British and French, but global.  With the rise of the multicultural face of Canada is the parallel double movement of the decline of the hegemony of Christian traditions from northern Europe – be they Protestant or Roman Catholic – and the increasing presence of Christians from Asia, Africa and South/Central America.  As the Christian church grows in number and influence in the global south and east with the concurrent immigration of people from these regions, many of them Christian, the influence of these Christians upon the Christian church in countries such as Canada may be profound. 

Soong-Chan Rah in his book, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity[1], posits that the evangelical church within the United States in particular, and the North American church in general, is changing and will continue to change as a result of the immigration of Christians from around the world.[2]  Rah states that ‘American Christianity may actually be growing, but in unexpected and surprising ways.’  [12] By this he means that with the immigration of Christians from other parts of the world the American church will increasingly become ‘a nonwhite majority’ and ‘multiethnic’.[12] Rah views this demographic and ecclesial shift as a positive and present reality, yet he laments another reality within the American evangelical church,  its assimilation to western, white culture.

His primary concern is twofold: that the evangelical church is dominated by white leadership [20]; and the evangelical church is in captivity to the western culture that in turn is dominated by individualism, materialism and racism [20-22; Part One].  The former is problematic in the face of the changing demographics of American Christianity and evangelicalism to being multi-ethnic and non-white, whilst the latter is problematic – Rah would say debilitating - in that American evangelicalism is being shaped, defined and directed more by western culture than Scripture. Both of these reinforces hegemony of a western, white ecclesiology that does not seriously consider and is out of synch with the changing reality of American Christianity and evangelicalism. [20; Part Two] 

Rah draws from and applies his critique to several dominant manifestations of the contemporary American evangelical church: mega-churches and its use of church growth method; the emergent church and its post modern critique of the evangelical church and embrace of post modern culture; and the tendency for the evangelical church to translate its particular brand of ecclesiology – western and white – into non western contexts. [Part Two]

Notwithstanding these deficiencies, and the difficulties in “throwing off the shackles of Western, white cultural captivity” [201] Rah believes that with the arrival of Christians from non western and non white cultures the American evangelical church has an opportunity to be part of the next evangelicalism. However, for this to occur Rah states the white evangelical church will need to humble itself through submission to non white leadership, confession of its corporate sins such as racism, and become agents of reconciliation. [Part Three]

As noted by several reviewers[3] there is much to commend in The Next Evangelicalism, both in Rah’s main thesis of the changing face of American evangelicalism, and his critique of present American evangelicalism.  Yet the case for the ‘next evangelicalism’ would have been stronger with more emphasis upon immigrant Christianity within the United States, its contributions and its challenges.[4] For example: How might it bridge to the incumbent white evangelical church? What might it teach the American church about existing in a religious plurality? How is it responding to the incipient racism within American society? Or to America’s marginalised and disadvantaged peoples, many of whom are aliens? What are the challenges and dangers it faces as it becomes more like its adopted culture? How it is doing cross-cultural mission?  An attempt to address these and other questions would provide a positive contribution to what the next evangelicalism looks like.[5]

Two other weaknesses are firstly, an imprecision regarding what is meant by the western, white church – Rah interchanges evangelicalism, the American evangelical church, the North American church and American Christianity.  Yet these terms are not equivalent. For example the American evangelical church is not the North American church, nor is it the same as the Canadian evangelical church. Neither can it be assumed that all North American churches, evangelical or otherwise, are equally captive to a western/white cultural hegemony. Western Christianity, as American evangelicalism, is not monolithic.

Secondly, is a minimising of the socio-historical reality of the Christian church in North America, and the evangelical church in particular.  The church in North America has its ecclesial and cultural roots in European [white and western] heritage, yet has and continues to change as it interacts with its host culture – positively, and negatively. This cultural shaping gives the American church an implicit theology and culture that forms its identity. Rah views this cultural shaping in mostly negative terms [its captivity], stating that Scripture ought to be the primary shaper and influencer of ecclesiology [21] and he seems to raise non western, non white churches as being less negatively shaped by the culture they were nurtured in. Yet is this the case? Do they reflect Scriptural norms in greater clarity than western evangelicalism? Have they been shaped by its birth culture and not just Scripture? How might they change when adapting to the western host culture? Will their particular ethos and ecclesiology promote isolation and socio distance from the incumbent evangelical church? One suspects the answers to these questions, as with the western church, would be multi-dimensional, pointing to both positive and negatives contributions. This does not mean the American evangelical church does not have to change, or that it is culturally bound; it does and it is. It only points to the need for a more nuanced argument in support of the next evangelicalism and the influence of culture in shaping ecclesiology.

The vision of a church that is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, yet not captive to any given culture, western or non western, is Biblical and grounded in the redeeming of creation by God in Christ. Rah is spot on critiquing the negative shaping of the American evangelical church by western culture, and suggesting that the next evangelicalism will be different from the present one.  But no cultural shaping is neutral, nor all bad or good; this is true for the western church, the church formed in the global south and east and the church forming. The way forward in the next evangelicalism will not be in highlighting the non western church over the western church, nor in assuming that one has to be more humble or repentant or student than the other, but that both are equal in Christ and both have been brought together in Christ to form a new people. [Ephesians 2.14-18]  A people that value mutuality and reciprocity.

'Location is everything’ is a mantra of real estate sales.  In regards to culture shaping context is everything.  This does not minimise the influence of people’s choice, though even choice will be in response to context, nor the involvement of God in culture creation, but unless one accepts a static never changing culture scenario, or a scenario in which culture is totally the production of either humanity or God with no interaction with the material world other than to manipulate it [and this would also presuppose no interaction with any other salient being, human or otherwise, in which case one would have perfect anarchy], then one will agree that context is a significant dynamic in shaping and forming culture. 

David Maranz in his book, African Friends and Money Matters, suggest that there is a direct connection with culture shaping and the value and behaviour surrounding the use of material resources, be they food, clothing, or money. [2-5, 202] It is to be noted that the dynamic of culture shaping is not a major concern for Maranz, his primary purpose in the book being to help westerners and Africans understand one another in their respective use of resources. [2] To this end he chronicles ninety observations concerning the use and sharing of resources that may be found amongst Africans and contrasts them with the behaviour of westerners. As useful that these observations are in facilitating understanding and relationships between Africans and westerners, Maranz’s brief, albeit simplistic socio-historical underpinning for these differences is a dynamic that is worth exploring as it raises questions and implications for the shaping of cultural forms and ideas, for the shaping of communality and by extension the forming of Christian community.

Maranz suggests the differences between African and western [he is thinking predominately European] economic activity at least on the micro level – individual, family, community – lies in the scarcity of resources and how each respective culture uses resources.  Facing scarcity in the midst of continual tragedy and loss Africans depended upon the communal sharing of meagre resources for survival; the implication being suggested that communality was a product or at least supported by this context of scarcity. 

In contrast Europe with access to more resources, and the rise of rationality and its synergic effect upon socio-political organisation, the development of technology and economic production, there occurred an increasing economic affluence.  With individuals, families and communities increasing in wealth and resources there was less need to depend upon another for survival and less need to share resources with others; the focus was upon creation and accumulation of wealth. The implication being suggested that with increased prosperity communality waned as an important social construct of European culture with individualism becoming more central.

If the above dynamic between communality and the use of resources is operative within culture shaping then a number of questions are raised:

1.    What occurs to communality and sharing of resources when a traditional culture as in Africa becomes more affluent and prosperous due to rational economic development and creation of wealth? Does it become less communal and more individualistic as Europe?
2.    With increased economic prosperity and wealth is it inevitable that there is a waning of communality and increased significance of individualism?
3.    Does being located in a culture that is growing in prosperity shape the church to be less communal and individualistic? [a related dynamic is the rise of rationalism and a decreasing occurrence of communal religion; does this dynamic support a decrease significance of communality which in turn further supports individualism and a lessening of sharing of resources?  A possible connection may be seen with churches confronting rationalism, yet not decreasing the slide into individualism or ecclesial decline; the lack of similar critique of economic prosperity and consumerism by these same churches may suggest that economic affluence and consumerism is the greater threat to the church than rationalism].
4.    Is the ethic regarding community, communality and sharing of wealth and resources natural to people or it is a product of need and culture? If the former than how to explain the drop in communality with increased economic prosperity? And if the latter than what might this mean for churches and Christian formation that values communality and sharing but are located in cultures that are growing in wealth?

In summary, it seems that there is a relationship between economic prosperity and how a culture is structured to share wealth; communality and collective sharing in poorer cultures, and a rise of individualism and accumulation of wealth within more prosperous cultures.  It would also seem that as a culture becomes more affluent the church mimics the socio-logic of the host culture.  This presents a challenge to the church’s building of community and living the Kingdom of God ethic to share resources with those who have less.   To the extent that the church and followers of Jesus do live in communality and share resources they are counteracting the movement of the culture to do otherwise – a true mark of grace and the Spirit’s Christ shaping presence.