COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL EFFECTIVELY USING RELEVANCE THEORY AND THE CORPUS CHRISTI FESTIVAL: A CASE STUDY IN EL-TINGO, ECUADOR. Alan D.

Transcription

1 COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL EFFECTIVELY USING RELEVANCE THEORY AND THE CORPUS CHRISTI FESTIVAL: A CASE STUDY IN EL-TINGO, ECUADOR By Alan D. Gordon A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Intercultural Studies FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy March 2009

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii LIST OF TABLES...v LIST OF FIGURES... vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...1 Methodology of this dissertation Define the issue Develop a theoretical framework Narrow the context Apply the theory to the issue in the context Discuss the results Propose a model of the process...2 Definition of the issue...3 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...5 Communication Theory...5 Code Theory...6 Relevance Theory...9 So what exactly is relevance theory?...10 Cognitive Environment...11 Context...13 Intention...13 The Communication Process...14 The Missiological Bias...17 Shaw and Van Engen...18 Cross-Cultural Communication...18 God Accommodates to Communicate...20 Missiological Communication...22 Conclusion...26 An Ethnomusicological Model...27 Introduction...27 Overview...29 The Development of the Model...31 The Music-Worship-Ritual...31 ii

3 The Music-Worship-Ritual as a Window into Culture...34 Cross Cultural Evangelism through Music-Worship- Ritual...35 My Proposal of Evangelism...36 Contextualization...39 Epistemological biases...39 Bernard...40 Guba 41 Hiebert...42 Researcher s Choice...43 Conclusion...44 CHAPTER 3 THE CONTEXT...45 The Chillo Valley and the town of El-Tingo...45 The Corpus Christi Festival...47 CHAPTER 4 THE DISCOVERY PROCESS...49 Indigenous Festivals...49 Alangasí...49 The Patron Festival of Alangasí...50 The Evangelical Church near Alangasí...52 La Armenia...54 The Pase del Niño Festival...55 Interview with Nelson Morales...58 Festivals in El-Tingo...59 Holy Week...59 Group Interview in El-Tingo...63 Corpus Christi Evangelical Worship...69 Gonzalo Logacho and his church...69 Conocoto and Alangasí...71 Santa Teresa...73 La Comuna...74 The Final Workshop...76 Comparison of Events...81 Differences...81 Similarities...84 Meaning...84 Conclusions of Cycle #1, Year The Corpus Christi Festival Friday night...88 Saturday...90 The Meaning of Corpus...93 Outsiders...93 Evangelicals...94 Insiders...96 iii

4 Background...97 Carlos and Ana...98 Neighbors...99 Patricio The Priest Preparation for the Discussion Group The History of El-Tingo Marco and the Cross The Priest Marco Again The Discussion Group Preliminary Thoughts Conclusions of Cycle #2, Year The Process of Discovering Meaning My Reflection CHAPTER 5 REFLECTING ON THE WHOLE PROCESS Worldview: Modernity versus Post-Modernity Kallenberg s analysis of conversion Evangelicals versus rural folk: doctrine versus identity Personal Reflection Latin American Theology Changing mentality Learning to play El Pingullo New Evaluation of the Model Worldviews Types of cultures Conclusions of Cycle #3, Year The Process as a Spiral/Funnel Conclusion CHAPTER 6 A THEOLOGY BASED ON IDENTITY Theologizing Locally A Proposal for Theologizing REFERENCES CITED iv

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Guba s comparison of Research Strategies...42 Table 2: Indigenous Festivals and the Evangelical Service...82 Table 3: Analysis of the Meaning of Music Worship...85 Table 4: Results of Cycle #1 of research Table 5: Results of Cycle #2 of research Table 6: Summary of time spent in the investigation Table 7: Kallenberg s analysis of modernity Table 8: Kallenberg s analysis of conversion Table 9: An application of Kallenberg to music-worship-ritual Table 10: Results of Cycle #3 of research v

6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Communication Model of Shannon and Weaver...6 Figure 2: A Basic Communication Model...7 Figure 3: Hiebert s Model of Interaction...8 Figure 4: Message without communication...14 Figure 5: Ineffective communication...16 Figure 6: Effective communication...17 Figure 7: Communication and Cultures...19 Figure 8: Accommodation in Relevance Theory...20 Figure 9: Accommodating to another culture...21 Figure 10: The Missionary as a Communicator...23 Figure 11: The Missionary as a Facilitator...25 Figure 12: Role of Music and Culture...29 Figure 13: A Theoretical Model...30 Figure 14: Merriam s theory of music...32 Figure 15: Titon s theory of the music event...33 Figure 16: My synthesis and adaptation of Merriam and Titon...33 Figure 17: Music rituals as a window into beliefs...34 Figure 18: The first and second steps in cross-cultural evangelism through music Figure 19: The third step in cross-cultural evangelism through music...37 vi

7 Figure 20: The fourth step in cross-cultural evangelism through music...38 Figure 21: The fifth step in cross-cultural evangelism through music...38 Figure 22: Map of the Chillo Valley...46 Figure 23: A summary of the process of discovering meaning Figure 24: An hypothesis for future research Figure 25: Evangelicals versus rural folk Figure 26: My revised model Figure 27: The Process as a Spiral vii

8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Methodology of this dissertation The methodology of this dissertation may be defined by describing six basic steps. 1. Define the issue First one must choose an issue to work with. This describes the general direction of the investigation, and the different themes to be dealt with. 2. Develop a theoretical framework The theoretical framework is the choice of a perspective from which to study the issue. The researcher must also choose the biases from which the study will be conducted. These choices will determine what types of conclusions will be reached and the types of methodology needed for the study. Chapter two describes this step. 1

9 2 3. Narrow the context Part of the context has been chosen by defining the issue, but any investigation must narrow its focus. One must choose the scope of the study within the resources of the investigation so that the investigation can be accomplished within a certain time and before the resources available to the researcher are depleted. In chapter three the context of this study is defined. 4. Apply the theory to the issue in the context This is the main part of the investigation. The issue within a context has been chosen, as well as theoretical framework, the methodology, and the biases. In this step the researcher is doing the investigation. Chapter four describes the main research process of this investigation. 5. Discuss the results This step does not necessarily take place only after step four is completed, but really is an ongoing process during step four. Thus this step is included in chapter four, and many reflections of the process are interwoven into the discussion. 6. Propose a model of the process The idea here is to reflect on the whole process and summarize everything that has been learned in a single model or framework that allows others to understand what the researcher has learned. Chapter five does just this. Chapter six is an application of the understanding acquired.

10 3 Definition of the issue Whereas in North American, the Indian was conquered by extermination, in South American, the Indian was conquered by domination. The Spaniards enslaved the Indians, drove them off the best lands, and forced them to become Christians. In the Chillo Valley, where El-Tingo lies, lands were distributed by the Spanish Crown to what are called encomenderos ( those in charge ). In the years 1551 to 1559, the Chillo Valley was divided into encomiendas (districts) (Landázuri 1990:11). The encomenderos were not given the land, as many believe, but were in charge of collecting taxes from the Indians who worked those lands (Costales Samaniego 2007:65). Even so, the Indians often rebelled against this treatment, and conflicts over lands continue to this day. The Ecuadorians Indians were treated as slaves, considered as less than human, and excluded from the Eucharist (Cisneros Cisneros 1948:44); (Mackay 1933:44-45). As a result, millions of them fled to the mountains and the jungle to escape (Cisneros Cisneros 1948:46). And that s why today, most of the concentrations of Indians are in the mountains. The Spaniards took away the best lands in the valleys. Chillos is one of those valleys, and ever since Colonial days was one of the most fertile and productive valleys in Ecuador, providing the capital, Quito, with most of its food (Costales Samaniego 2007:92). The small town of El-Tingo is located at the foot of the mountain Ilaló, as are the other nearby Indian towns of Guangopolo, Toglla, Angamarca, and La Merced. From the Conquest, the Spaniards felt it their obligation to convert the Indians, even if by force. The Crown charged the colonists with the conversion of the Indians to

11 4 the Holy Catholic Faith (Mackay 1933:43). Along with each encomendero, a doctrinero was assigned to teach the Indians the Christian doctrines. Both received taxes from the Indians (Landázuri 1990:36). In the Chillo Valley, the Jesuits received large portions of land, known as El Colegio. The Indians were forced off these lands, and many conflicts resulted, one case being in Guangopolo (Costales Samaniego 2007:88-92). Even the lands left to the Indians on the mountain tops became objects of dispute. Ilaló was no exception. In 1933, the government had to intervene to settle disputes among the Indians in El-Tingo, Alangasí, and Angamarca about land rights on Ilaló (Cisneros Cisneros 1948: ). Even today, the natives of El-Tingo are nominally Catholic, and are extremely sensitive about land issues. The problem with the Indians, or rural folk, in the Andes is that foreign systems have been imposed on them for centuries. This includes religion. Although most rural folk in the Andes consider themselves Catholic their annual festivities indicate that still hold to their original religious beliefs. This syncretism has been a hindrance to the gospel, because they consider themselves Christian when really they hold to pagan beliefs and traditions.

12 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The first step in the investigation process is to define the theoretical framework that will be used. This chapter discusses three parts of that framework: communication theory, an ethnomusicological model, and epistemological biases. Communication Theory In general there are two fields of communication theory: code theory and relevance theory. The difference between the two is the assumption of where the meaning lies. Code theory holds that the meaning is in the message, whereas relevance theory argues that meaning is not transferred, but inferred. The receptor makes that inference. For missionaries, who are communicators of the gospel, each school derives a different application. Using code theory, a missionary tries to make the gospel presentation as clear as possible. Much effort is spent on preparing and executing the message. But if a missionary uses relevance theory, he or she first strives to understand the people s mentality before trying to communicate the gospel to them. In looking at syncretism in the Andes, the author assumes that most evangelistic efforts have been based on code theory, and believes that a new look at evangelism from a relevance theory perspective will be most beneficial to effectively communicate the gospel in this setting. 5

13 6 Code Theory Code theory has been the traditional model for studying communication. Shannon and Weaver are credited with developing the basic model used much even today (Shannon 1949:5). They developed their model from a mathematical perspective applied to the telegraph. Figure 1 illustrates their model. An information source transmits a message through a channel to a receiver at a destination. A signal is sent and a signal is received, and the channel may contain noise which distorts the message. It is interesting to note that their model does not include encoding, nor feedback, which were soon to be added. FIGURE 1: THE COMMUNICATION MODEL OF SHANNON AND WEAVER Since Shannon and Weaver, code theory has developed into a generally used model, which may be described as follows. The central idea of code theory is the transmission of a message. The message requires someone to send it, and another person to receive it. The message must be encoded into some symbolic form, whether this be spoken words, electric signals, gestures, or written words. The receiver must then decode the symbols in order to understand the message. The message can be transmitted through various channels, and its transmission can be affected by noise. The basic model is

14 7 illustrated in Figure 2, and is often represented by the symbols: S-M-R which stand for sender, message, and receiver (Schramm 1963:7); (Nida 1960:47). S e n d e r E n c o d e s N o i s e C h a n n e l M e s s a g e D e c o d e s R e c e i v e r F e e d b a c k FIGURE 2: A BASIC COMMUNICATION MODEL Others, such as King, have emphasized the aspect of feedback, since the receiver can respond to the message by sending another message to the sender, especially in a musical performance (King 1989:60). Others have proposed that each person is both a sender and receiver simultaneously (Kraft 1978:82), creating a model of interactive communication (Hiebert 1985:166). See figure 3. Others have detailed the different channels through which the message may be sent. Berlo details five channels, which correspond to the five human senses (Berlo 1960:32), but Smith expands the list to twelve signal systems: verbal, written, numeric, pictorial, audio, artifactual, kinesic, optical, tactile, spatial, temporal, and olfactory (Smith 1992:163).

15 8 FIGURE 3: HIEBERT S MODEL OF INTERACTION The S-M-R model has been the basis of communication theory for many years. Most would agree that communication takes place when a person says something, someone else hears what is said, and a message has been sent from sender to receiver. But the question is: Is the meaning in the message, in the symbols that are sent? The answer has traditionally been yes. Therefore much effort has been spent on analyzing language and how people use words to communicate with each other. But this logic breaks down in the following scenario: Mike says to Bill, Are you going tonight? Bill replies, Yes. But Bill thought Mike was referring to a concert, when Mike was thinking about a ball game. Was a message sent and received? Yes. But the received message does not match the sent message. What happened? A clear message was sent, but Bill and Mike had different assumptions in their minds about that message. So was the meaning in the message, or in the minds of the sender and receiver? If we apply this same scenario to evangelism, we could ask ourselves: When a missionary takes the gospel to another culture and asks the people: Do you want to be saved? What is it that the people really understand? The missionary has a whole set of

16 9 assumptions in his or her mind that probably does NOT match the assumptions of the people of another culture. Therefore, the people will attach a meaning to the missionary s message that the missionary had no intention of communicating. The result is a misunderstanding of the gospel. The problem with code theory is that it does NOT take into account the mental assumptions of the sender and the receiver. Relevance theory begins with this issue. Relevance Theory We begin with the bias that the meaning is NOT found in the message. This is a fundamental shift in communication theory where it was previously assumed that the message carried the meaning. Berlo, one of the early communication theorists, built on the model of Shannon and Weaver, but with a new bias: meaning is not in the message, but in the person (Berlo 1960:175). When two persons share similar meanings they can communicate more easily. What this means is that the same message may not communicate the same thing to two persons. Each will give it their own interpretation and meaning. Kraft follows this same train of thought: Meaning is the creation of the receptor (Kraft 1991:77). This implies that meaning is not even transferred 1, but people create meaning themselves. Alaichamy states it well: In human communication, meaning is not transferred from one end to the other end as in telecommunication. Instead, meaning is created in the minds of the receptors during the process of communication. Human 2003:6). 1 Messages can be transmitted from one person to another, but meanings cannot (Gudykunst

17 10 communication is a process of meaning creation, not meaning transference (Alaichamy 1997:56). This has significant implications for communication theory, especially for missionaries: The understanding that what messages mean is constructed by the receiver rather than inherent in the message is perhaps the single most threatening insight of contemporary communication theory for Christian communicators (Kraft 1991:92). And thus Kraft advocates that the communicator must take into account the receptor of the message even more than the message itself. So what exactly is relevance theory? Grice planted the seed for relevance theory by proposing that the receptor of the message must recognize the intent of the sender. His main thesis is A meant something by x is (roughly) equivalent to A intended the utterance of x to produce some effect in an audience by means of the recognition of this intention (Grice 1957:385). This is fundamentally different from decoding a message. Here Grice is emphasizing the intent of the sender, rather than the message given by the sender. Sperber developed this theory further by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the intention of the sender. This recognition is done by inference, not by decoding. He argues: Communication is successful not when hearers recognize the linguistic meaning of the utterance, but when they infer the speaker's 'meaning' of it" (Sperber 1986:23). Sperber asked the question of where the meaning lay in communication. Was the meaning in the sender, the message, and/or the receiver? He begins by arguing that the

18 11 encoding-decoding process has yet to be explained. What are the rules one uses for decoding a message? Sperber states that there are no rules, but that the receiver uses a completely different process in communication. 2 Sperber argues that one can infer intention without using code. Therefore, communication is possible without code (rules or conventions). Coding is part of the evidence; only in inference is meaning created (Sperber 1986:25). The message is not the vehicle for meaning transfer. The message is evidence of the intent of the communicator, but meaning is created by the receiver through inference. In other words, a message is presented from which the receiver derives meaning. But the receiver does not derive the meaning ONLY from the message. The receiver also infers meaning based on what he or she already knows. The receptor chooses some of what he or she already knows to process new evidence and create meaning from it. The thrust of Sperber s argument is that meaning is not transferred, but that the sender seeks to modify the Cognitive Environment of the receiver, and in the process the cognitive environment of the sender is also modified. This needs to be explained in more detail. Cognitive Environment Let us begin by talking about a person s knowledge. What we know consists of all of our experiences, plus our interpretation of those experiences. Sperber refers to this as our cognitive environment which includes not only what we presently know, but all 2 This is similar to the argument between Goodenough and Geertz on cultures. Goodenough argues that culture exists in the mind and consists of rules of what is acceptable or not (Goodenough

19 12 that we could possibly come to know. Knowledge is not facts, but our beliefs and assumptions about our experiences. We create our own perception of the world and our beliefs about it. Berlo says we structure our reality into theories (Berlo 1960:25). When someone says something to me, I have to reconcile that message with how I see my world. I can reject it, accept it, or modify it, but sooner or later I have to relate it to my perception of the world. Sperber bases his model of communication on this concept of the cognitive environment of every individual. Communication is an attempt to modify the cognitive environment of another person (Sperber 1986:150). The previous example can illustrate this. Suppose Mike says to Bill, Are you going tonight? and Bill answers, I ve had a long day. What are some of the possible interpretations of this conversation? We do not know to what Mike is referring. Nor it is clear if Bill s reply is affirmative or negative. If the meaning were totally in the message, we should be able to know where Mike is going, and whether Bill will accompany him. But we are unable to decipher this from the messages sent. Therefore, the meaning must lie elsewhere. Sperber proposes that meaning lies in the context. This is a different connotation of the word context as used by Kraft, who uses the word context to refer to the external circumstances (Kraft 1991:132). Sperber uses the word to describe a group of mental assumptions. 1957:167). Whereas Geertz argues that culture is public and does not consist of rules, but of meanings which must be uncovered by thick description (Geertz 1973:89).

20 13 Context What exactly is context? In simple terms, context is the set of assumptions or beliefs that one uses to process a message and decide on a meaning. Sperber argues that we cannot use all of our cognitive environment to analysis every message we receive. That would be too laborious. We choose some of what we know in order to process the message and make it meaningful. That something we choose is the context. Sperber argues that we will choose the context that we feel is most relevant in order to process the message (Sperber 1986:141). We will not use everything we know to process every message. Now let us return to the sender. According to Sperber s view of communication, the sender must know a possible context that the receiver will use to process the message in order for the sender (her) to communicate with the receiver (him). (For the rest of this paper, I will adopt Sperber s convention of referring to the sender as she, and to the receiver as he. ) In order words, she must know what context he will use to process her message in order to communicate effectively with him. Intention To complete this description, we must add one more concept, that of intention. Sperber adds that communication only takes place when both the sender and the receiver are conscious that she wants to communicate with him (Sperber 1986:61). It is not enough for her send a message, but he must also realize that she is sending a message. She must also establish that he realizes that she wants to send a message. If only the

21 14 sender is conscious of the attempt to communicate, but not the receiver, Sperber refers to this as informing, but not communicating (Sperber 1986:50). The Communication Process These concepts can be illustrated with a few diagrams. A circle will represent the cognitive environment of an individual. For communication to take place, the cognitive environments of two individuals must overlap at least to some degree. The message lies in that overlap. Here we must change our vocabulary to that of Sperber. A message is not sent, but evidence is displayed. It is the receivers task to make a conclusion from that evidence. The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory) Cognitive Environment Cognitive Environment Evidence COMMUNICATOR RECEIVER Non-ostensive: no intent to communicate, although a message is present. FIGURE 4: MESSAGE WITHOUT COMMUNICATION

22 15 For communication to take place, the communicator must have an intent to communicate, and the receiver must recognize that intent. This is Sperber s emphasis. In our daily lives, many messages are sent, both verbal and non-verbal, but communication does not occur unless the intent is present and recognized. In figure 4, the communicator has sent a message (evidence), and the receiver is conscious of the phenomenon, but since he didn t recognize any intent to communicate, he did not process the message. This is non-ostensive communication. In a busy city street, one sees much movement, and hears many sounds, but one does not (and cannot) process them all. A person will only process those phenomena he or she perceives as an intent to communicate. Now let us examine the communication process by adding the concept of context. (In this case, the intent to communicate is recognized.) The communicator produces evidence with a specific intention: that of modifying the receiver s cognitive environment. The receiver infers from the evidence, using the context most relevant in order to process the evidence. (See figure 5.) If the context the communicator is intending for the evidence is different from the context the receiver uses to process it, communication is ineffective. Let us return to our example. Mike asks Bill, Are you going tonight? The context Mike has in mind is a concert, but Bill immediately thinks of a ballgame. Evidence was produced, both were conscious of an attempt at communication, but Bill s conclusion was very different from Mike s intention. We could call this misinterpretation.

23 16 The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory) Context Cognitive Environment Cognitive Environment Context Context Intent Evidence Meaning Context Context Context COMMUNICATOR RECEIVER Misinterpretation: different contexts are being used. FIGURE 5: INEFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION On the other hand, if the two share similar contexts, communication is more effective. If both of them enjoy concerts, frequently attend concerts, and never go to a ballgame, the question Are you going tonight? is immediately processed in the context of a concert. Bill would conclude that Mike is talking about a concert which is what Mike intended to communicate. (See Figure 6.) This is the most simple form of Sperber s model. Communication is rarely so simple. If we add Bill s reply, I ve had a long day, the receiver has become the communicator and the communicator the receiver, who must now infer from what Bill has said. Again, context plays the key role. I ve had a long day could mean that Bill wants to stay home to rest or it could mean that Bill wants to get out and relax. No amount of decoding the message will distinguish the difference. Only context will. Even

24 17 though the receiver may not give the message the same meaning as the sender intended, it is the chosen context of each person that determines the meaning, not the message itself. The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory) Cognitive Environment Context Intent Context Meaning Cognitive Environment Evidence COMMUNICATOR RECEIVER Improved communication: the contexts are similar. FIGURE 6: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION The Missiological Bias So far, the discussion has treated the communication process as a sender and a receiver sharing a message. This has carried two basic assumptions: first, the sender and the receiver share much of the same culture, and second, the sender is the originator of the message. The Christian bias changes both assumptions: first, we are called to communicate to people with a culture different from ours, and second, we are ambassadors of a message that originated with God, not with us.

25 18 Shaw and Van Engen The following is a discussion a Christian communication model based on relevance theory (Shaw 2003:90). I will use different shapes to illustrate different worldviews. The choice of each shape purely symbolic. The shape itself has nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of any culture. 3 In my opinion, worldview is the same as Sperber s cognitive environment. Both are used to describe the assumptions one uses to order his or her own world to be able to function in it. Cross-Cultural Communication Let us begin by simplifying communication to be a sender communicating a message with a receiver. (See figure 7.) If the two share the same worldview or cognitive environments, communication will be fairly effective. But if the sender and receiver have very different worldviews, communication will be more difficult until they begin to understand each others worldview and communicate accordingly. I illustrate this by drawing the message in the shape of a circle. Cultures that think in a circle perspective will readily send and receive such messages. But if a culture has a square perspective, the message does not coincide with their way of thinking, and they will not readily understand it. Usually the missionary learns the language of the people in order to speak to them. This is the basis of code theory: if one can use the same symbols as they do, one will communicate effectively with them. But relevance theory points out that even if a 3 My use of geometric shapes for cultures and communication coincides with Nida (Nida 1960:47,222) and Kraft (Kraft 1978:98).

26 19 missionary speaks the same language as the people, miscommunication will be frequent if they are using very different contexts to process the message. In other words, a missionary has to understand how people think, what contexts they choose, and what are their past and present experiences that form their cognitive environments in order to be able to communicate effectively with them. Mono-Cultural Communication Sender Message Receiver Cross-Cultural Communication Sender Message? Receiver FIGURE 7: COMMUNICATION AND CULTURES For a communicator to effectively modify the cognitive environment of a receiver who holds a different worldview, she could first modify her own context to that of the receiver s before attempting the communication. This is illustrated in Figure 10, by the communicator modifying a circular context to a square context within her own cognitive

27 20 environment. My emphasis here is that the communicator is modifying her own cognitive environment without expecting the receiver to modify his. We can call this accommodation. The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory) Context Cognitive Environment Cognitive Environment Context Intent Evidence Context Meaning Context Context Conversion Context COMMUNICATOR RECEIVER Cross-cultural communication: the communicator uses the receiver s context. FIGURE 8: ACCOMMODATION IN RELEVANCE THEORY God Accommodates to Communicate In relevance theory terms, God entered our cognitive environment, before we could ever enter his. As if God, as a circle, became a square to fit into our mentality. Kraft refers to this as accommodation (Kraft 1989:123). God accommodated to our way of thinking so he could communicate with us. Whenever God decides to connect with human beings God does so in their particularity, on human terms (Shaw 2003:13). A missionary must do the same with the people to whom he or she goes. If he

28 21 or she does not accommodate to the people s culture and worldview, the Gospel message will not be accepted, because it is not seen as relevant. Figure 9 illustrates this. God? 1!!? Missionary 2! 3b People 3a This step marks the difference!? FIGURE 9: ACCOMMODATING TO ANOTHER CULTURE Modify this? God, represented by a circle, accommodates himself to our worldview, illustrated by a square (step 1). The missionary, who holds a square perspective, must try to accommodate his or her worldview to another people s perspective, which is illustrated by a triangle (step 2). If the missionary communicates God from his or her perspective (represented by a square), the people will learn that God is like a square. Since they see things as a triangle, a square God makes no sense to them (step 3a). Therefore, the God of the missionary is irrelevant to them. But if the missionary first accommodates his or her way of seeing God as a square to seeing God as a triangle, the people will see God from a

29 22 triangle perspective, which is their way of seeing spiritual things, and they will see God as relevant to them (step 3b). Someone might ask at this point: If the missionary sees God as a square, and the people see God as a triangle, which is the correct perspective? The answer is neither. We see and understand God from our own worldview. But we must accept other cultural perspectives of God as valid. This implies that each culture must develop their own theology. If they import a theology from another culture, God will appear as irrelevant to them. The main argument here is that the missionary must be able to recognize his or her own worldview, and as much as possible, not let it interfere with the Gospel message. In other words, the missionary must accommodate the Gospel message to the worldview of the people to whom he or she goes. This is not easy. Even in the previous example, the missionary has to work with two worldviews, his or her own, and that of the people. Missiological Communication Shaw and Van Engen take this one step further. This will be illustrated by using two diagrams. The first one is a stepping stone to the second. In the first, Shaw and Van Engen base their model on three biases: 1) Communication is intercultural; 2) The message did not originate with us; and 3) The process is must pass through the universal level. The universal level concept is based on the following: all humans share a basic commonality of experience which they express in different ways through their cultures. As Shaw and Van Engen state: Humans were created to be creative and express that

30 23 creativity in a multiplicity of cultural perspectives (Shaw 2003:13). Some examples are: All humans communicate, but they do it through different languages and styles. All humans organize themselves into societies, but the societies are very different. All humans distinguish right from wrong, but what is acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. God Missionary People Universal Experience FIGURE 10: THE MISSIONARY AS A COMMUNICATOR Observe Figure 10. Here the task of the missionary is to accommodate the message to the worldview of the people. But he or she should not do this by converting his or her worldview to theirs. He or she should try to understand basic human experience and how a particular culture expresses those experiences in their way. Only then can the missionary begin to communicate God s message to them. In Sperber s terms this means understanding the contexts they process in their cognitive environment as a result of their

31 24 experience, and choosing which of their contexts is appropriate for communicating God s message. So the missionary does not translate his or her culture to another. The missionary tries to understand how to accommodate God s message into their cognitive environment. Yet the thrust of Shaw and Van Engen s argument includes another factor: the Biblical writers. 4 Their argument is that the Biblical writers accommodated their message to their audience. This is much like my illustration of the missionary task, but in reality it is a bit more complicated than has been explained. Today, for a missionary to communicate what the Biblical writers wanted to communicate, he or she must take into account four perspectives: God s, the Biblical writer s, his or her own, and the people s. Just as our goal is to communicate God s message without our bias, now we must communicate the Biblical message without the Biblical writer s bias, in order for the people to understand God s original message accommodated to their present bias. Figure 11 illustrates this. Rather than illustrating the missionary as part of the chain of communication, the missionary is placed at the center of the process as the facilitator of the communication. The idea is that the fewer cultures through which the message passes, the better will be the communication of the original message. The final goal is for a people to know God directly from their own perspective and experience. 4 They refer to this as a horizon and divide them into two horizons: Old Testament and New Testament (Shaw 2003:87).

32 25 Our missionary biases: 1. God has spoken. 2. God accommodates to culture. 3. The biblical writers did the same. 4. We too must follow the pattern. God Goal: a people to know God from their perspective. Bible Writers U S U A L R O U T E Missionary People Universal Experience Error: to see God from the missionary s perspective. Missionary s task: to facilitate from what God spoke to the Biblical writers, accommodate it through universals to the people s perspective. P R E F E R R E D R O U T E FIGURE 11: THE MISSIONARY AS A FACILITATOR In Figure 11, God has spoken to the Biblical writers within their perspective, represented by a pentagram. The missionary, who has come to know God through the message of the Biblical writers, wants to communicate the same message, but without his or her personal perspective, represented by a square. If the people see God as a square, they will reject him. So the missionary s task is to help the people understand, not the Biblical writers perspective, but how the intent of God s message can be expressed in their way of thinking, represented by a triangle. The missionary is not the channel of the message, but a facilitator of the communication process. The thesis of Shaw and Van Engen is that the Biblical writers accommodated God s message to the people s mentality, and that we should do likewise.

33 26 Contemporary communication of the biblical message can be modeled after the way the writers of Scripture utilized earlier texts and restructured them for their contemporary audience (Shaw 2003:xiv). Our task is to discern God s original intention. This returns us to relevance theory. It is not the Biblical text that contains the meaning of the message, but God s intention in that message, how the original recipients processed it, and how we should also process it. We should not process the original recipients conclusions, but the intent of the original message. Conclusion The previous discussion has applied relevance theory to cross-cultural evangelism. It emphasizes that, following God s example, the missionary must accommodate his or her way of thinking to that of the people to whom he or she wishes to communicate the gospel. This requires that the missionary understand the people s mentality of the new culture in which he or she now finds himself or herself. It also requires that the missionary understand his or her own way of thinking so as not to impose this on the people. Therefore the critical research issue of this investigation is to understand the cognitive environment of the people and of the missionary.

34 27 An Ethnomusicological Model Introduction The focus of this study is how to go about discovering both cognitive environments: that of the people, and that of the missionary as well. One way of doing this is through music. This study proposes using music as a means to discover the cognitive environments of a people. Since this study deals with cross-cultural communication, we have to use music and culture. This is the field of ethnomusicology. Most ethnomusicological theory has focused on the study of music in culture or as culture (Blacking 1995; Merriam 1964; Nettl 1983). But other ethnomusicologists are studying music as a means of communication (Corbitt 1998; King 1989; Scott 2000; Stone 1982)). Another emphasis ethnomusicologists have made is how music expresses a person s thoughts and worldview. Alan Merriam mentions how music has a symbolic function: Men everywhere assign certain symbolic roles to music which connect it with other elements in their cultures (Merriam 1964:246). John Blacking describes how "Music can express social attitudes and cognitive processes" (Blacking 1973:54). A Christian ethnomusicologist, Joyce Scott, says Music is the way we express what is deepest in our souls and we may fell there is no better way to do this than our own. It is part of our identity" (Scott 2000:85). And finally, Bonnie Wade, in her most recent book, says One of the most significant uses to which people put music is to express an identity" (Wade 2004:16). Geertz solidifies these thoughts by his idea that religious symbols synthesize a people s ethnos and their worldview

35 28 culture is: Geertz looks at culture as symbols that represent meaning. His definition of an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life (Geertz 1973:89). If meanings are embodied in symbols, and music is one of those symbols, then music is an expression of meaning. Further on in his article, Geertz states the paradigm of his investigation: sacred symbols function to synthesize a people s ethos the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood and their world view the picture they have of the way things in sheer actuality are, their most comprehensive ideas of order (ibid:89). This paradigm can be adapted for the present research in the following way: Taking out the added definitions, Geertz s paradigm reads: sacred symbols function to synthesize a people s ethos and their world view. This implies that symbols can represent a people s mindset or their cognitive environment. Music is definitely one of those symbols. The resulting paradigm implies a very different approach from traditional ethnomusicology. Usually music is viewed as a part of culture, and how it interacts with and functions within the rest of culture. But this paradigm works by viewing music as an expression of culture. The implication is that music becomes a window through which to see a people s ethos and their world view. (See Figure 12.) Therefore studying music in culture is a way of understanding a people s cognitive environment.

36 29 Studying a culture through their music... as opposed to studying the music of a culture. Music Culture Culture Music FIGURE 12: ROLE OF MUSIC AND CULTURE Overview Since the goal of this study is to facilitate the communication of the gospel, one needs to understand better the how people think spiritually. As music is one way of understanding this, the desirable music to study would be spiritual music. Titon suggests it be not just the spiritual music, but the spiritual music event (Titon 2002:16). The unit of investigation is music-worship-ritual. This refers to a regularly practiced musical event that has a divinity as the object of worship. The theoretical model describes a process for communicating biblical truth cross-culturally through music-worship-ritual. The process will be briefly described, and then discussed in a detailed manner. (See figure 13.)

37 30 First note that this process is that of discovering cognitive environments, particularly that of basic beliefs. The emphasis is illustrated by the three large, green arrows. These represent the process of discovering beliefs through the music-worshipritual. The proposal is that of using the music-worship-ritual to discover deep-level beliefs, and using that process for effective, cross-cultural communication of the gospel. 1 3 Music-Worship-Ritual Traditions 2 Beliefs Extract New forms Beliefs Music-Worship-Ritual Traditions 4 BeliefsBeliefs 5 New forms Evangelicals Rural folk FIGURE 13: A THEORETICAL MODEL A missionary must first go through steps one and two himself or herself in order to extract his or her beliefs from tradition and ritual. Then, the missionary must walk with those in the other culture to help them discover their deep-level beliefs. This is step three.

38 31 Then, at the deep-level, the missionary presents basic biblical truth to them and helps them compare it with their beliefs (step four). And finally, new forms of ritual emerge as a result of this process (step five). This investigation focuses on steps two and three. The Development of the Model This model comes from adapting and synthesizing theories from ethnomusicology and anthropology. The idea of using the music event as the unit of investigation and describing it with three circles comes from Alan Merriam and Jeff Titon. Using the music event as window for discovering beliefs comes from Clifford Geertz. And the ideas of extracting beliefs from one s tradition, and communicating at the deep-level come from Shaw and VanEngen. The epistemology comes from Jeff Titon, and Timothy Rice. The Music-Worship-Ritual The following describes the process used to create the model. Alan Merriam concepts. Merriam s basic theory is that music comes from behavior which comes from "The music product is inseparable from the behavior that produces it; the behavior in turn can only in theory be distinguished from the concepts that underlie it; and all are tied together through the learning feedback from product to concept (Merriam 1964:35).

39 32 His theory includes the dynamic process of the music reinforcing or changing one s concepts. (See figure 14.) For the new model, Merriam s three levels will be used with modifications: beliefs will replace concepts, and tradition will replace behavior. Concepts Behavior Music Feedback FIGURE 14: MERRIAM S THEORY OF MUSIC Jeff Titon Titon 5 uses the idea of a music event and illustrates this with circles (Titon 2002:16). His theory illustrates the context of the music event. He places music at the center. (See figure 15.) Here music will be placed in the outer circle, and beliefs in the center. This illustrates how beliefs are the basis for music. This is a modification of Merriam s theory that is placed in Titon s framework. 5 As well as Stone.

40 33 FIGURE 15: TITON S THEORY OF THE MUSIC EVENT My Synthesis In figure 16, the synthesis and adaptation of Merriam s and Titon s models is illustrated. Beliefs are the root of tradition, and from tradition, rituals develop. This is the basic structure of the model. Music-worship-rituals Tradition Beliefs FIGURE 16: MY SYNTHESIS AND ADAPTATION OF MERRIAM AND TITON

41 34 The Music-Worship-Ritual as a Window into Culture In the following discussion, an important change in this diagram is suggested. Clifford Geertz The usual way is to see music coming from beliefs, but from Clifford Geertz one can glean an idea to see the process in another way. Geertz suggests that sacred symbols function to synthesize a people s ethos and their world view (Geertz 1973:89). This can be modified to: Music functions to synthesize a people s identity and their theology. This implies that one way of gaining insight into a people s beliefs is through their music. Jennings also argues that ritual is a means to gain epistemological access (Jennings 1982:111). Therefore in this model, the arrow is turned in the reverse direction. This is not to illustrate cause and effect, but a means of access. (See figure 17.) Music-worship-rituals Tradition Beliefs FIGURE 17: MUSIC RITUALS AS A WINDOW INTO BELIEFS

42 35 Shaw & VanEngen Shaw & VanEngen suggest that effective communication should take place at the deep level (Shaw 2003:91-92). The music-worship-ritual is one way to reach that deep level. Shaw & VanEngen also state that for effective cross-cultural communication to take place, the missionary must be able to present the gospel exempt from his or her cultural biases: The communicators' task is to understand the original intent as discerned in the text and pass that on to the receptors without inserting overly intrusive personal assumptions that emerge from cultural, ecclesiastical, and theological biases (Shaw 2003:77). Cross Cultural Evangelism through Music-Worship-Ritual Here is where the model goes beyond mere contextualization of music-worshipritual. The missionary himself or herself must use their own music-worship-ritual to discover their own beliefs about God s revelation, and then extract those beliefs from their own culture and tradition. These are the first and second steps toward effective cross-cultural evangelism through music. (See figure 18.)

43 36 1 Music-worship-ritual Tradition Beliefs 2 Extract Beliefs FIGURE 18: THE FIRST AND SECOND STEPS IN CROSS- CULTURAL EVANGELISM THROUGH MUSIC. My Proposal of Evangelism One way of communicating the gospel is through participation and dialogue in music-worship-ritual in order to understand cognitive environments. As in the same process explained in step one, the missionary must now repeat along side with the people to whom he or she wants to communicate the gospel (step three): participate with the people in their music-worship-ritual, and dialogue with them to reach and discover their deep-level beliefs. (See figure 19.) Once a missionary reaches this level with the people, then deep-level communication of the gospel begins as the missionary presents biblical revelation to the people in their context and dialogues with them by comparing beliefs. (See figure 20.)

44 37 3 Missionary Music-worship-ritual Tradition People Beliefs FIGURE 19: THE THIRD STEP IN CROSS-CULTURAL EVANGELISM THROUGH MUSIC Chibuko has a very interesting way of doing this. In Africa, he interacted with the local Christians concerning God's word and their ancestral traditions, looking for overlap. For example, about prayer he says, each local church has to find a way in which to relate to the tradition of the universal Church and to the one of its own ancestors. This means that, rather than bringing about the Christianization of the diverse manifestations of ancestral prayer, each church should discover whatever in ancestral prayer might be applicable to the Christian faith (Chibuko 1997:230). In his case, he is working with Christians on how to express their faith. In this investigation, the author is working with non-christians and how they can discover a new faith in Christ. Yet his method is interesting to consider, adapt, and apply to this investigation.