Science in Christian Perspective
Christianity and Culture II. Incarnation in a Culture
KENNETH L. PIKE
Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.
Dallas, Texas 75236
From: JASA 31 (June 1979): 92-96.
Jesus was incarnate in a human body; incarnate in
a human mind; and incarnate in a human specific culture. His beard-cut undoubtedly followed the local custom. His robe
was of local
pattern. His weeping was in local good taste. He walked with sandals;
ate no pork;
discussed local philosophical chestnuts; grew up within a kinship
structure; planed
lumber; and chose to die like a local criminal accused by the
establishment. His
incarnation in body is discussed frequently; His incarnation in
culture, seldom.
He was courteous by their cultural criteria. He followed-with rare
exceptions-the
grass-roots local rule system. And His speech was incarnate in a
local, low prestige
dialect-that of Galileenot that of Jerusalem. And when Peter was
accused of being
one of "his crowd," it was this local dialect which marked him off.
I once wrote a little poem about it.
Thy Speech Betrayeth Thee
How can I tell who you are?
Every idle word marks your track with private scent.
Every vowel, every tone, every gives a trace of your origin and your bent from afar.
Clues to cronies and your works are wrapped up in accent chirps
Little Bird!
Don't you try to fly-
just deny and squawk and cry
(and be prepared to die Little Bird).
Character will out
just as softly
and as loudly
as you shout
or pout.
In Mark My Words (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971:107-08)
Cultural Ideals Fulfilled in Christ
Every culture has ideals which are positive (not merely a conscience
against the
bad). And God, as I hear Him speak to us in the Word, is in sympathy with these
ideals, supports them; and we know that ultimately He is the source
of these good
things, since "every good endowment and every perfect gift"
(James 1:17
RSV) is from the Father of lights-whether it comes by way of a
genetic endowment,
or from a cultural one. Good hopes, good dreams of helpful life, good
aims incarnate
in a culture have this as their point of origin.
For this reason, therefore, we conclude that Christ can meet, on
their own terms,
the good ideals of every culture. He can fulfill these dreams first in Himself,
incarnating them as fulfilled in Himself, and eventually He can help the good
dreams to he incarnated in us and, then, in our resurrection bodies when we are
conformed to His image. And meanwhile, he can show men of all cultures that it
is possible to approach toward their own ideals better by His strength and by
His will infused in them. He thus fulfills their need, their moral
longing, rather
than tossing away this genuine but incomplete moral knowledge.
The Christian as a Model
Their wistfulness to be good, according to criteria which are related to God's
absolute character, is involved in drawing men to him. As part of the process,
men are supposed to see us, and wish to imitate usand are supposed to find in
us an early approximation of that character of God which they
wistfully wish for
in themselves. With Paul we must he able to say, as he said repeatedly (II Thess. 3:7, 3:9, Phil, 3:17, I
Cor. 4:16),
"imitate me,"
as I imitate Christ, except for that residual mess which still binds
us all. "We
are on the way," we must he able to say, "come along!" By this
criterion, they must he able to want to follow-not in our academies, not in our
politics, not in our role or jobs in society, but in our path toward
being conformed
to Him.
Cultural Blocks to a Message
This cannot he seen readily across some cultural barriers. The signs
of character
can he culturally misread unless there is cultural incarnation by us into their
system; i.e. unless we translate our actions into patterns which they
can understand.
But here are two problems:
First, we are still sinners. People can see that. Fortunately,
however, by-standers
watching a stutterer can see in some mysterious fashion that the
"real"
message does not include the stutter part; and in a profession, plus an attempt
with partial success, people can to some extent differentiate the
moral stuttering
from the effort and from the general direction, and start on the same
narrow path.
Second, however, some cultural differences can temporarily block a
message. Attempts
at friendliness may appear as being ton forward. Or cultural bits may trigger
wrong understanding, or may block understanding. For example, in a
simple instance
where life or death but no moral issue was involved, I heard that two
of my colleagues
of the Summer Institute of Linguistics were walking at night in
northern Australia,
where there are deadly snakes. One of the aborigines suddenly shouted
out a warning:
"Jump east!"-but which was east? There they had no word-no
translation
directly-for "left" or "right," they went by the
compass (though
having no compass!). "Doctor," they would on occasion say, "my
south ear hurts;" or "Take the north cookie, it is nicer." (The
universe may be more stable this way I suppose-it does not "revolve"
with us when we turn! But for those of us who have not been taught directions
this way by our culture, their warning may be missed.)
More puzzling was the reaction of Chief Tariri (whom I have mentioned before)
when two S.I.L. women first were introduced to him. He thought that
they "laughed
in his face" and "tried to throw him to the ground." (Dangerous
practices when dealing with a man used to taking heads!) Why? Cultural miscues,
undoubtedly. My hunch: the women had been taught that they should be friendly
to people in Latin America, to smile and to shake hands. But this was a jungle
Indian culture, not Latin. And in some Indian areas a greeting may
include a bow
plus the lightest of touching of the hands-where a "warm handshake"
involving unexpectedly heavy pumping could threaten to throw one off
balance-either
physically or socially. Furthermore, the kind of smile which is appropriate may
be culturally conditioned. In Australia, for example, when greeting someone the
lips often remain closed at the sides, and the cheeks crease close to the lips;
when I have pointed out to Australian women that I could often guess
whether pictures
for ads in the magazines were taken there or in the U.S.A., because
of the broad
smile on the face of the American women, they replied: "Yes, it looks like
a toothpaste advertisement." If such
There are universals of kindness and of courtesy which need translation-incarnation-into (emically patterned) cultural molds.
had been the case with Ta 'in when meeting the two friendly, smiling
North American
girls for the first time, he could have taken a "friendly smile" for
a guffaw at his expense. Messages to he quickly and easily effective,
then, must
be culturally incarnate.
Universals of the Good Neighbor
Fortunately, there is something universal about friendship, something
genetically
transmitted which is deeper than culture, something which underlies
kindly human
relations in all cultures. And the evidences of individual kindness gradually
filter across cultural and language barriers. Kindness is a
universally recognized
quality, given time; a kindly person speaking the language badly will
eventually
communicate more of the love of God than a harsh person who has the
proper consonants.
But just as in Part I we pointed out that there are universals of
conscience which
have variable manifestations, so here there are universals of kindness and of
courtesy which need translation-incarnation-into (emically patterned) cultural
molds.
By the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:2537) Jesus captured
such a generalization
about the universality of kindness. Philosophical argument could
dispute definitions
of it; His parable incarnated it in an irresistalble situation, This
was a function
of His parables; they forced attention to the incarnation of principles, where
perception of their force could not he interrupted by sophisticated
verbal blockade.
The good neighbor is also the kind that a man wants to have when he
himself must
leave home, and wants someone near there who will take care of his
wife, his children,
and his riches. He wants that man to be honest. Yet I have seen the wish fail.
My chief translation helper of the Mixtec New Testament, leaving home to work
with me for a while, had some goods stolen by the close friend who was to watch
them.
The Anti-Neighbor
Thus far 1 have been implying that in some sense there is a universal
good neighbor,
a universal ideal man (with etic variability around local emic structures). But
one major difficulty with the suggestion most be met before we can feel at all
comfortable with it, or use it as a basis for further encouragement as we seek
to enter into other cultures, If we were to ask a person what he wants to be,
he might answer in a way that suggests that he does not at all want
to be kindly,
or to be a good neighbor. It may be that he wants to dooiinatc others. This is
not the ideal neighbor-it is the ideal tyrant. And in a certain sense this is
indeed the wish of all fallen men, i.e., of all of us. Even the disciples felt
this way, and had to be taught that it was undesirable: "You know that the
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men
exercise authority
over them. It shall not be so among you" (Matt. 20:25-26). Among
the Gentiles,
these kings are called
"benefactors" by the dominated ones (Luke 22:25). (How startled I was
some years ago to land in Trujillo's capitol, only to be given an
official pamphlet
lauding him as "benefactor"-what an unexpected confirmation of human
nature in literal terms!)
The Christian church is not exempt from such heady dreams. Diotrephes liked to
"put himself first" (III John 9, 10), did not acknowledge
the authority
of John, and put men out of the church who did not follow his wish.
But Paul taught
us that to be like Christ we must not seek equality with Greatness (Phil. 2:6).
And the urge for power through wealth, or status through position, or pride of
place through role, or through dress, or high friendships, or smooth words, may
trap us all, win or lose, succeed or fail. The particular individual
emic structure
of power-search may vary, but the underlying bad dream may persist.
How can we reconcile this (had) desire for domination with the claim that there
is a good ideal in all cultures? We must admit that there are clashing ideals:
the clash between the ideal of the good neighbor versus the ideal of
the man who
for pride wants bigger farms at someone else's expense. My conviction: all men
(with a few possible exceptions) have an underlying wistfulness to he
good which
may he deliberately overridden and ignored under the competing desire
for dominance.
(Even Judas, at the end, "repented and brought hack the thirty pieces of
silver . . . saying 'I have sinned'" (Matt. 27:3, 4).
Hidden Wistfulness Towards Goodness
I think of this hidden wistfulness, this ignored wish, as something
like the green
in the trees in Ann Arbor, before the maples have turned red, To turn
the leaves
red takes a chemical change. To turn them yellow, you have only to
have the green
chlorophyll decay; then the yellow which was already there becomes visible. I
think that the moral structure is perhaps something like that. I have been told
that a dying man, knowing he is dying, who confesses to a crime, is
almost certainly
telling the truth about it. Why? My hunch is that his wistfulness to
be good had
been overridden by the lust for safety and power. This wistfulness to be decent
to his friends-rather than letting them be its jail for his crime is
overwhelmed
by the "chlorophyll of power madness." But when the power
madness cannot
work, when he is dying, and can no longer hope for power or find gain
in safety,
when he can no longer be put into jail, the wistfulness to be good
shows up, and
he may confess to that which has damaged his friend.
Christ as Competitive with Contrastive Cultural Ideals
But we return now to the claim that Jesus can compete with and best
any man with
his own weapons. This applies whether it relates to competition
towards dominance,
or competition towards meeting ideals of neighborliness. If it is via dominance
that one wishes to issue a challenge, one can hear the message to Senacharib:
"The virgin daughter of Zion-she wags her head behind you ...
whom you have
mocked . . . have You not heard, that I determined it long ago . . . I will put
my hook in your nose, and my bridle in your month, and I will turn you hack on
the way by which you came" (II Kings 19:20-22); here we see that God
refuses to allow evil forces, in the long run, to win by dominating tactics. If
the social ideal is meekness or pacifism, however, Jesus shows
through competitively
as the meek one who "opened not his mouth" (Isa. 53:7) in
threatening,
under the killing attack. Societies differ in their degree of aggressiveness or
meekness. But in each instance, in some sense Christ is The Competing
One relative
to the good-neighbor ideals of that culture or to their negative
dominating "anti"
ideals.
This holds, whether it refers to small ethnic communities, or to very
large ones.
Thus, Ruth Benedict a generation or more ago (in Patterns of Culture,
[19341 1946
Pelican Books, New York), emphasized that the Zuni "value sobriety and in
offensiveness above all other virtues" (54), so that the fact "that
white parents use [whipping] in punishment is a matter for unending
amazement"
to them (63); and "The ideal man in Zuni is a person of dignity
and affability
who has never fried to lead," and "Even in contests of
skill like their
foot races, if a man wins habitually he is debarred from
running" (90).
On the other hand, on the northwest coast of America, where the
"potlatch"
or give-away is standard practice, the "object of all Kwakiutl enterprise
was to show oneself superior to one's rivals . . . . It found
expression in uncensored
self-glorification and ridicule of all comers" (175); their "picture
of the ideal man" (185) was in terms of contests to shame rivals, e.g., by
giving away more property in conspicuous waste (174) but with controls against
overdoing, lest one impoverish ones folks, (which was "phrased as a moral
tabu" (180) ), or by murder of the owner of prerogatives, taking "his
name, his dances, and his crests" (194); but this kind of rivalry "is
notoriously wasteful . . . . It is a tyranny ... it can never be
satisfied"
(228). A hymn "of self-glorification" (177) could be extensive (e.g.
175-77), naming one's names:
I am Yaqatlenlis, I am Cloudy, and also Sweid; I am great Only One, and . . . I am Great Inviter. Therefore I feel like laughing at what the lower chiefs say, for they try in vain to down me by talking against my name . . . (176).
And in such a culture as the Kwakiutl we seem to have
institutionalized the "anti-idealneighbor"
of Matt. 20: 25-28, to whom, in competition, Jesus might refer to
himself as the
"Ancient of Days" on His throne (Dan. 7:13), not a mere
upstart. (There
can be seen a good component here, of a "tax" which in part
distributes
or equalizes wealth, but it is the pride component that I have
focused on.) However,
the One with the "name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9) prefers
to meet this competition by refusing to "count equality with God a thing
to be grasped" (Phil. 2:6) and, in a curious "wrestling
reversal",
to win by taking the form of a servant. He can show Himself as
potentially incarnate
in all such cultures; and can in that sense (if we allow it) work through our
personality development to show potential or actual incarnation of fulfillment
of these goals. We in our turn should be living patterns of success
in character
structure, pointing to the possibility-in-embryo of reaching ideals that others
have longed for but find themselves unable to reach by themselves.
Here the wistfulness
to follow us should be a pointer to following the Lord.
Just a year ago and in a larger cultural setting Josif
Ton (in "The Socialist Quest for the New Man," Christianity Today 20, No. 3, 6-9, Mar. 26, 1976) helped us to appreciate
the underlying
ideal man of Marxist thought: the concept of the "New Man"
(7a) as introduced
for the future "Communist society which would be established as a result
of the revolution" (7a); they thought that "since a man is only the
product of his environment, one needs only to create a social system founded on
justice and honor to produce a man of noble character, an honest,
upright man"
(7b); they had a "sincere, incensed desire to rid the working
masses of exploitation"
(7a). But "There are indications Lenin realized shortly after
the revolution
that his hope in the spontaneous appearance of the new man in socialism was not
being fulfilled . , . corruption and dishonesty in the socialist administration
became a serious deficiency" (71)). As one Party secretary, a
teacher, told
Ton: "1 am sent in to teach them to he noble and honorable . . ,
to the point
of self-sacrifice ... [to] tell only the truth, and live a morally
pure life. But
they lack motivation for goodness" (Sa). Arid the initiators of
the movement
felt that at the start, the revolution for its actions required
"a desperate
man, a hitter man without any hope in an after life,
without scruples, one who 'knew' that God does not exist to punish (or reward
him)" (61)-7a). Then, the changed economic, political, social environment
was supposed to produce the new man, with new character, automatically-but some
current Marxists now see clearly "that socialist man's character has not
changed. 1-lc has remained [in general-not for all] as he was in the capitalist
society: an egoist, full of vice, and devoid of uprightness" (7a). But as
for people like Ton, "God chose us to follow him from within socialism .
. . . The divine task of the evangelical Christian living in a
socialist country
is to lead such a correct and beautiful life that he both
demonstrates aria convinces
this society that he is the new man which socialism seeks" (91)).
And so, once more, we see that part of God's plan is for a kind of
cultural incarnation
by us into a culture where at some phase-not all of it-the goodneighbor ideal
is wistfully known, even when overcolored by the "chlorophyll" of the
power wish.
Incarnation in Language
Now we return to incarnation into a local language, as Jesus used the dialect
of Galilee. Jesus emptied Himself of the range of communication accessible to
the Word itself. Presumably, He babbled as a babe, such that "increasing
in favor" (Luke 2:52) with His parents would have been in part
through their
delight at His language growth. He learned more than just sounds: He adopted a
system of sounds-an emic system, with contrasts of kinds of
consonants, a limited
set of vowels in syllabic patterns. He learned a grammatical structure, and the
patterns of story telling normal to that culture. He learned the
vocabulary, organized
into a system of taxonomic structural fields specific to that culture. All of
these patterns are human -in one sense in part
"man-made"-in that each
culture may change, add, or drop words in accordance with its
immediate interests.
Each culture has a vocabulary sufficient, I think, to talk of
anything which interested
Unconscious cultural arrogance is perhaps often expressed more directly through one's disinterest in another's language than through any other cultural expression.
its grandparents-and gaps in vocabulary are temporary,
filled in by invention within the culture (as for kodak),
or by borrowing (as for chocolate from Spanish in turn borrowed from
Aztec.) And
this freedom, I feel, is one which is God-designed, God-blessed, from way back
when God told Adam to name the animals-and from there on He
"played the game"
by man's rules: "and [God] brought [the animals] to the man to see what he
would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature,
that was its
name" (Gen. 2:19). That is, God, from the beginning, not only allowed man
to develop his emic taxonomic language struture, but Hintself chose
to work within
man's emic language system in His relation to man. That is, the incarnation of
thought into man's language is not new to God; the need for it in the
bodily incarnation
of Christ did not catch heaven by surprise. It was part of the
original package.
And now He calls on us in turn, to speak the language of the people we wish to
help, insofar as in us lies. It is efficient, friendly; and it contributes to
the dignity of man as individual man. Refusal to do so, when one
could have done
so (granted that one could not fault a person for simultaneously learning-sayten
languages in his immediate environment such as in a boarding school for various
tribesmen) is an affront to that person's worth, as he may react to him.
Unconscious cultural arrogance is perhaps often expressed more directly through
one's disinterest in another's language than through any other
cultural expression.
All the burden of intellectual effort to cross the communication
barrier is loaded
without consideration onto those who appear "inferior" as
they struggle
with the load to cross that barrier. Kindness to one's neighbor would take that
burden on one's self and let the neighbor have the advantage of
freedom of expression,
while we (who because of cultural history, which is none of our
doing, otherwise
pride ourselves on presumed competence or cultural superiority) even
out the load
of communication from large to small culture.
But what are some of these cultural patterns of language, known to
the linguist,
but less known to others? What kind of range of emic structures is
available currently
to man, and clamoring for our effort to try to enter into them?
In pronunciation, those of us from an English environment find
"tones"
hard to speak, and even harder to analyze into emic systems; I myself put many
years into this effort, in analysis first, and in teaching others to
do the same
kind of thing, second.
In the grammar of the inside of words, suffix sets may be very different from
those we are accustomed to.
In the syntax of stories, the order in which the story must he told (in many of
the languages of the island of New Guinea, for example), may be controlled by
time sequence much more than in English, so that the telling
order and the happening order must in general be kept
the same. The result: one cannot say John ate his supper after he
came home; but
must say: John came home, then ate his supper. It may be difficult or
impossible
to find in such a language words to translate easily after, before-or
if, while,
but, because, since, therefore; and the translated order may need to
conform more
closely to the original happening order of the story than to the order in which
the story was told.
Illustrations of such problems-and many more-can
be found in the new text by me and Evelyn G. Pike (Grammatical Analysis, Summer
Institute of Linguistics Publication in Linguistics No. 53, 1977).
Here, however,
I am not trying to show this detail, but to emphasize one point: It is the will
of God, demonstrated in language at creation and at the birth of Christ into a
specific language area, that we should follow the local patterns of
communication,
finding the emie structure of individuals or cultures, insofar as it
is crossculturally
or morally appropriate.