is the human enterprise by which a sacred cosmos is established. . . . It can be said that religion has played a strategic part in the human enterprise of world-building. Religion implies the farthest reach of man’s self-externalization, of his infusion of reality with his own meanings. Religion implies that human order is projected into the totality of being. Put differently religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant.31
The procedures of social control are deposited into the character of reality, including the religious one. While maintaining the order of things, the process of identity-formation takes place in these socially constructed worlds.
With regard to how meaning is derived in and communicated in the socially constructed reality, I will turn to John R. Searle’s idea of social reality. In his important work titled The Construction of Social Reality, Searle claimed that social behaviors have always been understood in collective terms. The act of collective behaviors reflects the kind of collective intentionality that “is essential to understanding social facts.”32 Social facts are also known as institutional facts that represent “a structure of power relations, including negative and positive, conditional and categorical, collective and individual powers.”33 These powers can create meaning for members of the community in their daily living, regulate relations between members of the community through an imposition of rights and obligations, and help members to achieve higher social status.34 However when collective intentionality is driven by biased vision and selfish purposes, collective social behaviors can be destructive, which further approves a lopsided reality to maintain the consensus of the mass.
Growing out of Searle’s concept of a socially constructed reality, otherness is created through the daily operation of Christian mission in order to serve the interests of relevant mission agencies and societies. The construction of otherness functions as a projection of thought by self. What one thinks about the other will immediately be translated to the public. Is that perception of others trustworthy? For Michael A. Rynkiewich, missionary account indicates a tendency to speak incorrectly of the other. After exploring the boundaries between self, mind and society, Rynkiewich concludes that Christians tend to “make sense of a reality that comes to us in fragments.”35
Language is not neutral. Our biased opinions about the other can be vicious. When a socially constructed self mistakenly receives and re-formulates prejudicial perspectives about the other, related missionary practice that demonizes other cultures and religions will continually be a norm. Therefore, understanding the construction of social reality is inseparable from analyzing the power of discourses. According to Michel Foucault, the objectivity of truth depends on the discourse of truth.36 Foucault questions the mechanism that governs a statement and the validation of it.37 More than being attentive to the syntax and semantics of a statement, Foucault challenges the way knowledge is formed. Foucault warns us to be careful of the relations between discourses and truth. Truth expresses itself in the form of knowledge that we agreed on. Knowledge immediately shapes social behaviors and relations operated in politics, international relations, and even the expansion of Christianity. Furthermore, the close connection between discourses and self/other binary are not one-way. They work both ways. While mission discourses intensify the self/other binary, the latter authorizes the value of the former. The happening of self versus other testifies to the fact that a power differential has evolved out of the existing relations between two parties. The interaction of the two parties expresses itself in the form of a binary. The vicious cycle of a power differential entrapped in the mission discourses can intensify mistrust and unequal treatment of the other even in the context of mission partnership.
Discourses can shape human subjectivity. The subjectivity of each individual is to be recognized, and the fact that each individual is a subject by nature should compel Christians across traditions to take seriously the larger question about agency in missionary encounters. Attaining full personhood of the other is undoubtedly an indispensable part of Christian mission. If missionary activities are creative expressions of God’s grace upon all forms of life, acknowledging the diversity of voices will eventually be beneficial for a new praxis of mission to emerge.
Organization of This Book
Chapter 2 provides some basic linguistic theories to help us understand what language is and how it functions. Language is not simply about conveying people’s thoughts. According to John R. Searle, language has the capacity to create a reality that obliges people to act and speak in a certain way. The aspect that language can shape our perception of the world becomes essential for the evaluation of the close connection between language and otherness in the history of Christianity. This new role of language leads us to re-evaluate George Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic model, which has been influential in shaping theological, biblical, and missiological discussion. Lindbeck might have successfully created a reality that is mediated through language, but the reality of Christianity becomes totally dependent on the overarching theme of salvation. When the reality is dominated by this metanarrative, Christians rely on this reality to give them meaning. But unfortunately, it is also that reality that differentiates Christians from non-Christians. The rigidity of the Christian identity can cause a wide range of problems for missionary endeavors. The metanarrative itself does not pose a problem, but it is the group of people that uses the exclusive speech to problematize the other community. Power differentials between the narrator and the narrated create a self/other binary that could drastically affect the well-being of the other.
Chapter 3 identifies the discourses used for missionary endeavors in relation to categorization and misrepresentation of the other. The analysis is based largely on mission literature and publications, including William Carey’s Enquiry, reports on the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh (1910), The WCC’s Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, The Vatican’s Ad Gentes and Nostra Aetate, and other modern mission documents. To revisit past mission discourses is not to reinforce past achievements. Rather, it is a sincere reflection on the past that shall prompt one to admit the mistakes and harm done to others in the name of Christian mission. Notice that mission discourses do change over time. The changing patterns of mission discourses are natural responses to the materiality of life. The process of decolonization particularly in the second half of the twentieth century resulted in an increase of self-awareness among the formerly colonized subjects. Churches in the South also started to question the power and knowledge deposited in the civilizing mission. Contesting an imposed order means to say no to coercive evangelism and to say yes to establishing self-identities in the currents of linguistic violence.
Chapter 4 rethinks the notion of self understood in the Christian missionary movement. A self-centric approach to mission primarily resulted from a culture that breeds individualism. The individualistic understanding of self is unfortunately devoid of a communal sense. Self neither carries a connotation of a “we” nor functions as a community of selves. Self refers to an “I” that forms a boundary and separates “I” from my neighbor. When missionary work marginalizes the voice of others, good works become a camouflage for promoting narcissistic values. To confront self-centric intentions, Jesus’ self-emptying acts in Philippians 2:1–11 is particularly relevant. The use of biblical resource highlights the importance of humility while engaging missionary work. Emmanuel Levinas’s notion of alterity, juxtaposed with the Confucian concept of ren (humanity) meanwhile reiterates the inseparability of self and other. The encounter of the other per se instinctively connects and carries ethical obligations. The interrelatedness of self and other should lead to a whole new level of human solidarity by enlightening us to take responsibility for the well-being of the other. The renewed sense of self compels one to work with the other face-to-face that helps shatter the binary of us and them. Fostering intercultural relationships will usher in a new direction for missiological exploration.
The new vision for missionary movement is immediately followed by a recovery of self-identities of others. Chapter 5 attempts to reevaluate the whole idea of otherness. It first deconstructs established discourses on the other. Humanization in missionary work tends to focus on livelihood improvement. Full personhood of the other is not seriously engaged. The issue of agency comes to be decisive
