Don’t worry. This is not a navel-gazing post. Writing it is a means of processing some information that is almost in my grasp but is not yet quite secure. If writing it is helpful for me, reading it just may be helpful for you?
As a ‘career cross-cultural worker,’ I’ve thought about, and even taught about, differences in worldviews. “It’s not necessarily wrong, but just different,” I tell potential cross-cultural workers. That’s especially relevant when it comes to ‘good manners,’ whether one ‘deserves’ respect because of one’s position or because of one’s achievements, and seeing people primarily as individuals or as members of communities.
However, I’ve only recently become aware of how deeply my own worldview has been impacted by the ‘Age of Enlightenment.’ This has come to light as I read one of those ‘must-read’ books to which I often refer to but hadn’t read from cover-to-cover (until now). In this book, South African missiologist and theologian David J. Bosch posits that, “… the entire modern missionary enterprise is, to a very real extent, a child of the Enlightenment.” (Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis Books, 1991, page 274.)
That got me thinking. If he is right, then to what degree am I a product of the Enlightenment? In fact, what IS the Enlightenment?
This could become a very long, very dense post, but fear not. I am determined to keep it to a manageable length. If all goes according to plan, I’ll continue to ‘think through writing’ on this topic over the coming weeks.
What is ‘the Enlightenment’?
“The Enlightenment” is collective term for a number of ‘intellectual movements’ marked by an emphasis on reason. These took place around the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and North America. The Enlightenment didn’t start and finish on particular dates, but rather waxed and waned in different places and at different times. It encouraged questioning and inquiry. It discouraged accepting that things should be as they were just because they had always been that way. As a result, it was an age of revolution, including the American and French revolutions. It was also an age of tremendous scientific discoveries, including those that led to the production of vaccines (for smallpox) and batteries.
The diagram below shows the changes over time in the way people in Europe and North America, at least, understood their places in the world in the years preceding, then during, the Enlightenment period.
How did the Enlightenment impact our worldviews?
The following list of ways in which the Enlightenment has impacted our worldviews struck a chord in me. Actually, different sources emphasise different aspects, so accept these as my insights rather than ‘facts’ concerning the Enlightenment.
Cause-and-effect: For everything that can be observed, there is a natural ’cause’ and ‘effect’. This means that we can explain pretty much anything in ‘natural’ terms, leaving little room for the supernatural.
Progress: Our world is perceived as getting better and better as science and technology develops.
Individualism: We perceive ourselves to be individuals with rights. We are each unique.
Knowledge: Knowledge is understood as being there, just waiting to be discovered. It is value-free. All we have to do is put in the work.
Secularism: Life is broken into that which is ‘sacred’ and everything else, which is ‘secular.’ That which is considered ‘sacred’ is also considered ‘personal’ and usually irrelevant to society at large.
We’ve moved onto slightly different worldviews these days. ‘Modernism’ emerged in the West in the late 19th century and waned in the early 20th century. We then moved onto ‘post-modernism’ in the mid 20th century. Now, we are into ‘meta-modernism’ which vacillates between different worldviews. But these variations of ‘modernism’ are not the point of my current pondering.
What impact does the Enlightenment have on cross-cultural work?
If Bosch is correct in arguing that “… the entire modern missionary enterprise is … a child of the Enlightenment,” then I would do well to at least consider the matter.
I have spent a great many hours reading and thinking about this topic recently. Bosch’s book justifies the matter well, but I will not attempt to relay his many relevant points. Instead, I would like to focus on the example of one of those ‘heroes of the faith’ who was also a product of his time. This is the Italian Jesuit monk Matteo Ricci, who was born in the early days of Enlightenment Movements in Europe, though lived the latter half of his life in Asia.
Matteo Ricci’s life integrated his pursuit of science, literature, the arts and knowledge, as well as his faith in Jesus. He is known for bringing together ‘East’ and ‘West’ in ways which afforded him the respect and patronage of many of the Chinese elite and even the emperor of China himself. Although he was a prolific writer in both Latin and Chinese, as well as a translator in both directions, he is best known for his work on the 1602 world map which he made along with Chinese cartographers. It was the first Chinese map which showed the Americas. Australia, however, was portrayed as just part of a blob, along with other land presumed to be in the Southern Hemisphere but which had not yet been officially ‘discovered.’ If you’re interested, you can see the map here: https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/item/p16022coll251:8823/p16022coll251:8816
Ricci’s commitment to minimise confusion caused simply by cultural differences is what impresses me most about him. In his early years in China, he dressed as a Buddhist monk but later, on the advice of trusted local friends, adopted the dress of a Chinese scholar. Throughout his adult life, however, he lived consistently as a Jesuit monk, regardless of his clothing. ‘The Rites Controversy’ is an issue that has divided missionary communities and the church in China over and over again throughout the centuries and which is beyond the scope of this blog post. Suffice to say that Ricci was a staunch proponent of incorporating Christian content into local customs, much to the disapproval of certain other parties. Such attempts at adaptation were a policy of his religious order at the time and not simply a personal conviction. Nevertheless, I admire him tremendously for how he embraced such efforts.
Ricci died in 1610 at the age of 57, the same age that I am as I write these words. It seems young from my perspective, but it was in the era before antibiotics and many other wonders of modern medicine. Local laws at the time required the body of any foreigner who died in China to be transported out of the country, but an exception was made for this esteemed scholar. His grave can be visited in Beijing today.
If you’re interested in learning more about the Venerable Matteo Ricci, check out this website: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Matteo-Ricci
Pulling it all together
When I am tempted to despair at the way that my worldview is so tightly entwined with my cultural background, I think of Ricci. He willingly put aside the trappings of (at least some of) his culture, and took on local lifestyles, while remaining committed to his faith. Yet in other ways, Ricci was well and truly a product of his time. That included many ways which were well received, including his knowledge of and contribution to science, literature and cartography. It also included ways that, today, we would consider ‘flawed.’ I’m thinking now of his role in the slave trade. If you’re interested, you can read more here: https://thechinaproject.com/2020/08/05/matteo-ricci-and-the-slave-trade-that-connected-portugal-with-macao/
God uses people of specific places and times, but at the same time, there is no excuse for not taking a good, hard, critical look at our worldviews and adjusting our words and actions accordingly. Ricci modelled this well. Not perfectly, perhaps, but well. (I do wish he had taken a stand against slavery.) He was a man of his times, but he was also able to shape the message he both spoke and lived in ways that removed layers which were simply ‘cultural’. Instead, he clothed his message in Eastern culture, both literally and figuratively.
To what degree am I a product of the Enlightenment?
I’m not 100% a product of the Enlightenment, but, as I read and reflect, I realise that Enlightenment worldviews have impacted me significantly. However, I’m also influenced by modernism, post-modernism and even meta-modernism … though I have to keep looking up the definitions of these words to be sure.
As I draw these thoughts to a close, can I ask you to join me in sending up a quick prayer right now for any followers of Jesus you know who are working in cross-cultural settings. May they have wisdom and ability to recognise their own worldviews. May they not deny the influences that have made them who they are, but may they be able to communicate effectively without their message becoming confused and confusing due simply to differences in how people see the world. May they, like Matteo Ricci, find that sweet spot of both being authentically ‘themselves’ while also building deep relationships with people different to themselves.
Above all, may God be glorified.
