Biblical Truth Transforming Culture

0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
one can think of works by Robert Bellah, Russell Kirk, David Martin, and Lawrence. 1 Max Weber, The ...... Frank Moya P., Manual de Historia Dominicana, rev. and enl. ed. (Santo Domingo: ...... Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, 423-458. Boulder, ... Soy responsable de mi propio futuro. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
BIBLICAL TRUTH TRANSFORMING CULTURE: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVANGELICAL CONVERSION, BASIC VALUES, AND CULTURAL INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM AMONG LATIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

GLENN MARTIN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BIBLICAL STUDIES ATLANTA 2004

Copyright 2004 by Glenn Martin All rights reserved ii

Solo Dei Gloria

iii

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vi

INTRODUCTION 0.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 0.1.1. Origin and Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1.2. Methodology and Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1.3. Structure of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 8 10

1.4.

CHAPTER 1 A HISTORICAL REVIEW INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1. The Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2. The Teachings of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3. The Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WESTERN CHURCH HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. The Patristic Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. The Medieval Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3. The Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4. The Age of Exploration/Colonialism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5. The Modern Era. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6. Caribbean and Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5.

CHAPTER 2 WESTERN INDIVIDUALISM: WHOSE CHILD IS THIS? INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 PROTESTANT THINKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1.1. 1.2.

1.3.

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 3.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. ORDERING A FREE SOCIETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. The Unity in Diversity Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Internal vs. External Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. The Only Adequate Source for Such an Ethic . . . . . . . . . 3.3. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11 11 15 17 21 21 24 26 28 34 39 41

65 65 65 72 75 85

CHAPTER 4 CULTURAL INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM 4.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.2. CONSTRUCTS AND CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 iv

4.2.1 High-context vs. Low-context communication . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Individualism vs. Collectivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Allocentrism vs. Idiocentrism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Interdependent self-construal vs. Independent self-construal 4.3. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 87 93 94 96

CHAPTER 5 THE NATURE OF HUMAN VALUES 5.1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. THE CONCEPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 99 101

7.1. 7.2.

7.3.

7.4.

7.5.

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 CHAPTER 7 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7.2.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7.2.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 7.2.3 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 7.2.4 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . 110 7.3.1. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 7.3.2. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.4.1. General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.4.2. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7.4.3. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 7.4.4. Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 CHAPTER 8 THOUGHTS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. Dominican Republic Survey Form B. Belize Survey Form C. Dominican Republic Survey Results Charts D. Belize Survey Results Charts E. Reliability Analysis F. Codebook and Survey Data (Belize) G. Codebook and Survey Data (Dominican Republic) v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A work such as this is never completed in isolation. The author wishes to acknowledge especially the contribution of the scholars whose encouragement and advice kept the project alive and on-track. Thank you Bill Brown, Rodney Reynolds, and John Medendorp for your early inspiration. To Bill Iverson, thanks for the long talks and gracious hospitality you offered on my trips through town. Tom McIntire and the rest of the AUBS team deserve credit for establishing the innovative program that provided the context for my learning experience. Thanks also to Neal Hegeman who gave the final push to get the project done. Appreciation is also expressed to the faculty and students both at UB in Belize and UTESA and UNEV in the Dominican Republic, for their gracious assistance and participation in the empirical study. Finally, words barely begin to express the debt owed to my family. To Rhoda, for believing in me and for patience in the long hours spent on this project. You are amazing. To Krystal, Kayla, and Jason, for giving me three more reasons to be done as soon as possible. Thank you.

vi

INTRODUCTION 0.1.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

0.1.1. Origin and Purpose of the Study “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Romans 1:16. Much has been written on the relationship of Christianity and culture, this in itself suggesting something both of the importance and the complexity of the relationship. From Max Weber’s famous treatise The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism through the work of H. Richard Niebuhr and a hundred others, this topic has motivated much consideration.1 Why write another treatise? This present study finds its origin partly in the author’s personal experience as a visitor to over twenty nations and a witness to cultural transformation in many of those places. This study takes as a presupposed truth the Biblical supernaturalism that posits “God is there and He is not silent,” to paraphrase Francis A. Schaeffer. The study is birthed in the clear conviction that Scripture is God’s word to the world, that cultural transformation is mandated in Scripture, and that the Gospel has the power to transform culture. What is not so clear, however, is the nature of how that transformation actually takes place. Understanding the mechanics of how the Gospel transforms culture should enable us as agents of cultural transformation to better facilitate that process, and may also serve as an apologetic to the watching world. The purpose of the present study, then, is 1) to investigate the process by which Gospel affects culture, 2) to measure quantitatively the influence of Christianity upon

1

culture, and 3) to demonstrate in as objective a manner as possible the power of Christianity to transform an individual’s ways of thinking, values, and ways of construing his/her relationships with society at large. That researchers are only beginning to do these types of analyses makes this effort all the more significant. 0.1.2. Methodology and Scope of the Study To what extent does a Christian conversion experience affect a person’s concept of self? How does it affect their role in collectives of which they are a part, such as their families, their communities, or their nations? Is there an aggregate effect on a national level when a significant percentage of the individuals in that nation experience evangelical conversion?2 The relationship between what one thinks and believes and how one lives has long been of interest. From the ancient Greek philosophers to the present it has been considered from various perspectives. More closely related to the present study, many have sought to connect the moral and spiritual emphasis of Protestantism with the subsequent development of the modern Western world, and of the United States of America in particular. Weber is often cited at the head of this parade, although Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America preceded Weber by nearly a century. More recently one can think of works by Robert Bellah, Russell Kirk, David Martin, and Lawrence

1

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (New York: Scribner, 1958); H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951); H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Meridian, 1957). 2 Following Bonino, we use the term “evangelical” as it is generally used and understood in Latin America, to mean all those churches, denominations, and “sects” that originated directly or indirectly from the Reformation. By the word “sect”, however, we do not mean it in the oft-used contemporary sense to include the Jehovah’s Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but rather we mean essentially what is meant by the word “Protestant.” See José Míguez Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, trans. Eugene L. Stockwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 27-28.

2

Harrison and Samuel Huntington to name just a few.3 The uniqueness of the present study is that it endeavors to test some of the arguments offered by the above writers by quantitative research methodology, considered here within a theological framework. In seeking to understand the relationship between evangelical conversion and other aspects of societal or cultural change, this study focuses on a culture presently in transition. This culture is that of Latin America, on a fast track of societal change. One aspect of this “change” in Latin America in recent years has to do with religious affiliation. Although Latin America has been traditionally Roman Catholic since its settlement by Spain and Portugal in the sixteenth century, the number of evangelical Christians in Latin America has grown in the past century at close to five times the rate of the general population. From 1900 to 2000, the evangelical community grew from as few as fifty thousand to as many as one hundred million. In many Latin American countries the evangelicals now make up close to thirty percent of the population.4 In investigating empirically the relationship between “Christ and culture,” to borrow a phrase from Niebuhr, and having chosen Latin America as the geographical arena of our study, we face the additional challenge of finding a construct of culture to measure quantitatively. Culture obviously has to do with many people, while conversion

3

Weber, The Protestant Ethic; Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. by Henry Reeve, (original 1835; reprint, New York: Bantam, 2000); Robert N. Bellah et al. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, updated ed. (Berkeley: UC Press, 1996); Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds., Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (New York: Basic, 2000). 4 See J. Edwin Orr, Evangelical Awakenings in Latin America (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1978), 169, 216, and C. Peter Wagner, Look Out! The Pentecostals Are Coming (Carol Stream, IL: 1973), 25. Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: 21st Century Edition (Waynesboro, GA: 2001) are more conservative in their figures, starting with 200,000 evangelicals in 1900 growing to 50 million by 2000 AD (p. 34). Johnson and Mandryk also report a lower percentage of evangelicals than do the above, identifying Puerto Rico and Guatemala as registering the highest in Latin America at 27 and 26 percent respectively (p. 29). See also Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 57-62. Jenkins claims that Puerto Rico is now 35 percent evangelico.

3

is generally understood to begin at least as an individual experience (C. René Padilla argues, rightly, that for repentance to be recognized as genuine it must eventually address social implications).5 Can we find a research construct that helps us understand the role of the individual in society, and potentially to identify what if any social significance could result from widespread individual evangelical conversion? Related to the above, the final fifteen years of the last century saw a significant volume of research conducted in what specifically came to be known as “cultural individualism/collectivism” (cultural I/C), the construct used in this study. Most of these studies have concentrated on populations within the United States itself. Significant research has also been done, however, to compare and contrast cultures of international communities. One of the most important of these studies involved a massive survey of over 117,000 employees of a multinational organization in sixty-six countries.6 The consensus of the Hofstede study and related research is that cultures of western nations (Western Europe and North America in particular) are more individualistic than are their counterparts in other places around the globe. The United States was found to score the highest on tests of individualism. In the sense in which we use it here, individualism is recognized to have potential positive and negative implications. Emphasizing the basic rights and value of the human person is a positive thing, with a corresponding emphasis on the person’s responsibility to the collective.

Emphasizing the individual’s prerogatives without emphasizing the

corresponding responsibilities inevitably leads to disorder and chaos.

5

C. René Padilla, Misión Integral: Ensayos Sobre el Reino y La Iglesia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 1, 19. 6 Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, abr. ed. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984).

4

In relation to the high incidence of individualism in the United States in particular, one of the intriguing unanswered questions is “How did it come to be this way?”

How is it that western nations in general came to have a much more

individualistic culture, while eastern cultures score much higher in collectivism? While other factors have been highlighted this present study suggests that the historical success and influence of evangelicalism in North America and Western Europe may have something to do with the development of individualism in those places.7 It is noteworthy that the nations scoring highest in individualism in Hofstede’s landmark study are also the nations that either experienced the Protestant Reformation or that were colonized primarily by Protestants. The nations of northern Europe are noticeably, and in certain cases decidedly, more individualistic than are their southern European counterparts. Colonies born out of Protestant northern Europe are even more individualistic. This present study therefore seeks to investigate empirically the relationship that exists between evangelical conversion, that is, the decision to “accept Christ” that is the entrance into evangelicalism, and cultural individualism-collectivism in Latin America (in the section on research methodology a more exacting definition of terms will be undertaken). Because Latin America is undergoing such rapid change at present, it provides an environment in which to observe factors that might otherwise be more difficult to measure. In addition, principles discovered in this specific case may be found to be useful in understanding phenomena in other contexts. In researching the relationship between cultural individualism and evangelical conversion in Latin America, it is therefore expected that some light might be shed on

7

In Habits of the Heart Robert Bellah et al. suggest that American individualism finds its source not only in Protestant thinking but also in other Western ideological streams. Others argue that environmental factors

5

“how it is” that western society has a higher rate of individualism than does the rest of the world. While relationships of cause and effect are very difficult to establish with any degree of certainty, especially in a realm in which so many variables are at work, it is hoped that some progress could be made in understanding. The question of the role of the individual in society is of course only one expression of the philosophical tension between unity and diversity, the One and the Many. The Latin American research context is also interesting from the standpoint of the historical differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in regard to how they philosophically resolve this tension between the One and the Many.

Roman

Catholicism and Protestantism in some senses embody the two faces of the tension. Roman Catholicism has historically emphasized the authority of the Church, with its unifying tendency, as opposed to the Protestant emphasis on the authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers, with its resultant diversifying tendency.8 Samuel Escobar argues that this concept and practice of the priesthood of all believers continues and is the explanation for Latin American evangelicalism’s missionary drive.9 A classic example of this difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics is expressed in the manner by which a new local church pastor or a new parish priest is chosen. In the first case (in most Protestant denominations) the choice is made by the congregation (often by a vote, in which each member’s opinion is theoretically10 equal to

are chiefly responsible. We consider this further in Chapter 2. 8 Kirk, Roots of American Order, 234. 9 Samuel Escobar, Changing Tides: Latin America & World Mission Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 99-100. 10 In practice, especially in public voting, the decision of certain “influence leaders” will generally affect how others vote.

6

that of any other member) whereas in the case of the Roman Catholic church the decision is made by the church hierarchy. A related point of interest has to do with the percentage of Latin American evangelicals who belong to the lower and middle classes.

Although the greatest

responsiveness to evangelicalism - especially Pentecostalism - has been among the poor, a growing number of evangelicals belong to the middle class.11 Were most of these people already of the middle classes before conversion to Protestantism? Has conversion to Protestantism affected the class mobility of converts?

Could it be that these

individuals who now make up the evangelical community in Latin America had a predisposition to the gospel’s emphasis on individual choice?

Were they already

progressive individuals who were attracted to something in Protestantism that reflected their own values? Or is it more accurate to see the growing middle class in Latin America as a fruit of Protestant values: an emphasis on individual responsibility, moral integrity, and hard work, Weber’s “Protestant work ethic”?

Is there a cause-effect

relationship at work here, in either direction, or are both better understood as the effects of other cause(s)?12 What about individualism and collectivism as measures of the above dynamics? Are Latin American evangelicals more individualistic than their non-evangelical countrymen (principally Roman Catholics, at least nominally if not in practice), all other cultural factors being equal?

Does participation in the evangelical church have an

11

Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World, 34. See also Escobar, Changing Tides, 80-83, 95. For consideration on the possible social implications of Latin America’s growing middle class, see for example Eugene A. Nida, Understanding Latin Americans (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1983). David Martin, Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1990) is also full of insights on these issues. See especially pp. 52-53, 203-212. 12

7

individualizing effect? In other words, is degree of individualism affected by the length of time since one has made an evangelical profession of faith in Christ? It is beyond question that this study is an ambitious undertaking. The story of Protestantism’s arrival in Latin America “at the hands of” North American missionaries is most certainly also the story of the introduction of North American cultural values. 13 Sorting out cause and effect relationships in something as large and as long-range as this historical development is at best extremely difficult and subject to error. Nonetheless the potential value of understanding more about these relationships suggests the study is worth undertaking. As for methodology, then, this present study is by nature a quantitative social science research project, evaluating data collected from Latin American and Caribbean university students, using standard survey forms. In its scope this study focuses on Latin American dynamics with an eye to their broader implications. 0.1.3. Structure of the Study This study is broken into chapters to better facilitate consideration of such vast subject matter. In chapter one consideration is given to Christianity and culture in the sense of understanding what should be the relationship between the two. We look first at Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, to see what the Biblical authors understood to be the appropriate relationship of theology to praxis. We follow that with a look at Western church history, and what has been understood through the centuries as the appropriate relationship of Christianity to culture. Chapter one, then, addresses the

13

Though some on the left fringe depict the entire happening as an American imperialist conspiracy, that is not likely the case in very many instances at all. For more on this discussion from a truly Latin American perspective see Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism (pp.1ff); Padilla, Misión Integral; Escobar, Changing Tides.

8

question of “oughtness,” in terms of what those inside the church have understood as their mandate in relation to culture. The second chapter takes a different approach to a different question. This chapter seeks to identify the multiple causes that together have shaped our Western culture, and more specifically, have given birth to what we call Western individualism. Consideration is given here to Enlightenment rationalism, to Protestantism, and to environmental factors. Chapter three is essentially an argument for biblical Christianity as the only adequate basis for the ordering of a free society. Consideration is given to the unity in diversity tension, to the need for individual self-government, and to the reasons why Biblical Christianity is the only adequate source of such self-government. Chapter four begins the social science part of the study, which continues through chapter seven. In order to conduct empirical research, consideration must be given to measurable constructs that will serve our research objectives. Chapter four focuses on the social science study of individualism and collectivism.

Chapter five reviews

literature on another construct, that of basic values, in consideration of its use in our empirical research. Chapter six summarizes all of the previous chapters and states a number of hypotheses to be tested in the empirical research. Chapter seven is essentially a report on the empirical research, reviewing the methodology used, the results found, and the discussion or evaluation of those results. Chapter eight is the concluding chapter, considering the implications of the present empirical study and what directions might be profitably taken in future research initiatives.

9

0.2. CONCLUSION The Bible declares that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. This study aims to understand better how that salvation is worked out in society. In an examination of the degree of individualism and collectivism (measured as independent or interdependent self-construal) found in Latin America, this study expects to find a positive relationship between evangelical conversion and individualism.

10

CHAPTER 1 A HISTORICAL REVIEW 1.1. INTRODUCTION This study investigates the relationship between the evangelical Christian conversion experience of the individual person and the daily interaction of that person in society.

In essence, it tackles again what Niebuhr calls the “enduring problem”:

understanding what ought to be the appropriate relationship of Christ to culture.14 Specifically, this chapter looks at how Christianity’s shaping of culture is mediated by its influence on the individual. How is it that Christianity affects the daily life of its adherents, in such a way as to affect their participation in the societies of which they are a part? Where does this normative influence come from? We begin with a look at the teachings of Scripture and then consider the writings of those who have interpreted it through church history, to see what the biblical authors and the leaders of the church throughout history have understood to be the appropriate relationship of theology to praxis. 1.2. SCRIPTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.2.1. The Old Testament The Bible itself is quite obviously written to be obeyed, with certain obvious personal and social ramifications. This is evident right from the beginning, with the account of creation. Genesis 1: 26-28 declares that immediately upon creating mankind in His image, God blessed them and commissioned them to fulfill what we call the “cultural mandate”: to be fruitful, to fill the earth, to subdue it, and to rule over the rest of

11

the created order. The corresponding religious mandate of Genesis 2: 15-17 places mankind under obligation to work and care for the Garden of Eden, with permission to eat its fruit, with the exception of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Disobedience of that command would result in death. Man was clearly created not as an automaton free to do whatsoever he willed, but as a created being under obligation to his Creator. Genesis 3 describes the rebellion of man against the good will of a loving Creator. With this rebellion mankind entered a new era, the era of the presence and domination of sin and its consequences over every area of life. Man was no longer walking with God in the cool of the day, but was banished from God’s presence, suffering spiritual death, and later the natural and physical expression of that death. The effects on the human family were felt immediately, as Adam blamed Eve for the eating of the fruit, and the harmony in which they had walked at first became more a memory and less a lived reality. Pain entered the world, as did guilt, shame, and fear. The ramifications have been felt from that moment forward. The above understandings about the creation and fall of man are essential to a truly biblical anthropology. Only biblical Christianity is able to explain what Francis A. Schaeffer calls the “mannishness” of man: his dignity and value and greatness on one hand, and yet his depravity and cruelty on the other. This tension makes perfect sense in light of the Genesis account; without the Genesis account of the fall one is left with

Niebuhr, Christ and Culture. Though this study is not structured according to Niebuhr’s five classic answers to how Christ and culture relate, Niebuhr’s work is still recognized as instructive. His insights on Augustine are of particular interest (206ff). 14

12

inadequate anthropologies that either deny man his greatness or deny his depravity. 15 An incomplete view of the fall is similarly problematic. Schaeffer contends that Thomas Aquinas’s view that man’s will is fallen, but his intellect is not, led to the exaltation of reason over revelation, and to the separation of things secular from things sacred.16 The Genesis account of the fall of man makes the obvious point that God’s commands are to be normative for life and practice. As Matthew Henry notes, Adam’s sin “was, in one word, disobedience, (Ro 5:19); disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command.”17 In response to the fall, the Lord wasted no time in instilling hope for future deliverance and salvation: in the same exchange in which He declared the nature of the consequences of mankind’s rebellion, God also promised deliverance to come in the seed of the woman. The sense of expectation this instilled in the people of God kept them hopeful in spite of centuries of often wearying troubles. This hopeful expectation is reflected in the naming of Eve, of which John Wesley comments: God having named the man, and called him Adam, which signifies red earth, he in farther token of dominion named the woman, and called her Eve - That is, life. Adam bears the name of the dying body, Eve of the living soul. The reason of the name is here given, some think by Moses the historian, others by Adam himself, because she was - That is, was to be the mother of all living. He had called her Isha, woman, before, as a wife; here he calls her Evah, life, as a mother. Now, 1. If this was done by divine direction, it was an instance of God's favour, and, like the new naming of Abraham and Sarah, it was a seal of the covenant, and an assurance to them, that notwithstanding their sin, he had not reversed that blessing wherewith he had blessed them, Be fruitful and multiply: it was likewise a confirmation of the promise now made, that the seed of the woman, of this 15

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1976). 16 Ibid., 51-52, 81-82. 17 Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible [book on-line] (ChristiansUnite.com, 2001, accessed 18 August 2003); available from http://bible.christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ge&c=3.

13

woman, should break the serpent's head. 2. If Adam did of himself, it was an instance of his faith in the word of God.18 Of the parallel between the Genesis account and the fulfillment in Christ Jesus of the salvation to come, Matthew Henry comments: Sin brought death into the world: if Adam had not sinned, he had not died. He gave way to temptation, but the Saviour withstood it. And how admirably the satisfaction of our Lord Jesus, by his death and sufferings, answered the sentence passed on our first parents! Did travailing pains come with sin? We read of the travail of Christ's soul, (Isa 53:11); and the pains of death he was held by, are so called, (Ac 2:24). Did subjection came in with sin? Christ was made under the law, (Ga 4:4). Did the curse come in with sin? Christ was made a curse for us, he died a cursed death, (Ga 3:13). Did thorns come in with sin? He was crowned with thorns for us. Did sweat come in with sin? He sweat for us, as it had been great drops of blood. Did sorrow come in with sin? He was a man of sorrows; his soul was, in his agony, exceeding sorrowful. Did death come in with sin? He became obedient unto death. Thus is the plaster as wide as the wound. Blessed be God for his Son our Lord Jesus Christ.19 In that interim period between the promise of the Savior to come, and the fulfillment of that promise, God chose one human family, that of Abram, with intent to make of that family a blessing to all the families of the earth. Genesis 12 records this declaration of God, which we find renewed throughout Scripture as God reaffirms His intent to bless all ethne, all peoples of the earth, through His chosen people (see Psalm 67, Mat. 24:14, Rev. 7:9, for example). Making a blessing of the sons of Abraham took time, however, and meantime they had lives to live. The Old Testament Pentateuch was given, in part, to serve as the civil code for the newly established nation of Israel. The Ten Commandments were given as part of that, and have been recognized as universally applicable law. Other parts of the Mosaic law were only for the Old Testament epoch (the ceremonial laws pertaining

John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible [book on-line] (ChristiansUnite.com, 2001, accessed 18 August 2003); available from http://bible.christiansunite.com/wes.cgi?b=Ge&c=3. 19 Henry, Concise Commentary. 18

14

to sacrifices fulfilled in the Person of Christ, and health laws superseded by the new covenant as Acts chapter 15 records and Galatians explains). The Ten Commandments, however, are clearly rules for living for all men in all times. As considered in the next section, both Jesus and Paul confirm that fact. Obedience to the law was required of all Israelites (Deut. 28-30), and it was noted that they were to be different than the nations around them; they were to be a covenant people, a people set apart, a people for God’s own possession (Deut. 7:6). Far from being a democracy, Israel was to be a theocracy, governed by the rule of law, the law of Moses being normative for all. Israel resisted God’s rule over it, and later Samuel acceded to the demands of the nation to give them a king (I Sam. 8:5-9). During the reigns of the kings and beyond that time into the time of the captivity, the prophets were the ones who spoke to the nation on God’s behalf. The messages generally focused on the nation’s obligation to return to the Lord, under the terms of the covenant established by God with Israel at Mount Sinai. The Old Testament poetic literature carries this same tone as well. Many of the Psalms (especially 78, 81, 105, and 106) similarly refer to this covenantal obligation of Israel’s. 1.2.2. The Teachings of Christ In the New Testament writings of Jesus we encounter a different dynamic. Jesus did not have the social position of Moses, and His teachings were not written into the civil code of His day. None would question, however, that the teachings of Jesus are of the highest ethical standard. Regardless of whether they agree with His teachings or not, most people would recognize that Jesus was a “great teacher.”20

On the other hand, it is His statements about Himself – His claims to Deity – that many have found offensive through the ages (see John 5:18 for example). His ethical teachings in themselves have been held 20

15

The Bible certainly teaches that a person who becomes a “follower of Jesus” should demonstrate certain outward changes. In Matthew 7:16 Jesus Himself said that “by their fruits you shall know them.” Jesus said that “Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” would enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of the Father in heaven.”21 What is this “will of the Father”, or as it is stated elsewhere, the “works God requires”?22 In the Gospel of John, Jesus declares that the will of the Father is that we believe in the one he has sent.23 So we can say God’s will has a vertical spiritual dimension. Elsewhere Jesus declares that the will of the Father is to fulfill the double command to “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”24 In Romans 13:8-10 Paul adds the explanation that the whole Law and Prophets of the Old Testament were summed up in this command, since he who loves his neighbor will not do him any harm.

Jesus’ teachings (see especially the

“Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5 through 7) also emphasized personal responsibility, honesty, integrity, truth-telling, and faithfulness in personal relationships, all conducive to social well-being. The ethical teaching of Jesus is probably best summarized in what are known as the Beatitudes (Mat. 5:3-12), the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7), and the Golden Rule (Mat. 7:12). The social implications of living out these teachings are considerable. For example, a community in which the Golden Rule is consistently

in highest esteem. That it is logically inconsistent, however, to think that Jesus could be merely a great teacher is precisely the point C.S. Lewis addresses in Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1952; reprint, New York: Touchstone, 1996). 21 Mat. 7:21, NIV here and throughout unless otherwise noted. 22 John 6:28. 23 Ibid., 6:29. 24 Mat. 22:36-40.

16

practiced would be a community without theft, without adultery, without violent crime of any kind – rather utopian indeed! Other passages in which the teachings of Jesus are well summarized are the Great Commission passages of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts.25 Matthew 28:18-20 is a good representation: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” It is significant both that the first disciples were commanded to take this message of salvation through Jesus Christ to all ethne and to make disciples of those ethne, and that those new disciples in turn were to be taught to do everything the first disciples had been commanded to do. In terms of the topic of this section, by this statement Jesus essentially established as normative for all time His commands to the first disciples. Graciously, He did so in the context of relationship with Him: the fulfillment of His commands takes place under His all-encompassing authority and with the comfort of His eternal presence.

The “command” of the Great Commission is wonderfully

“sandwiched” between the promises on the one hand of Christ’s power, provision, and protection and on the other of His presence. From the above Scripture passages, it is clear then that the teachings of Jesus and of the rest of Scripture were intended to be normative (see also II Tim. 3:14-17). 1.2.3. The Epistles The writings of the Apostle Paul in Romans 13 provide an interesting corollary at this juncture of this study. In a passage about the appropriate relationship of believers to

17

their civil authorities, Paul commands obedience to them, noting that the authorities are placed there by God to maintain order, to punish the wicked and to “do you good” as an obedient citizen (verse 4). Paul adds “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and he will commend you.”26 It is noteworthy that the balancing message is also to be found in Scripture, that abusive civil authority loses its right to rule. The passage above may be a key to this study, and is considered further in Chapter 3. The testimony of the New Testament writers as a body is that the conscientious application of New Testament ethical teaching should naturally produce recognizable societal effects. The teachings of Jesus in this regard are echoed not only by Paul but also by the apostles John and James and the writer of the book of Hebrews.27 Many of these New Testament writers followed a similar pattern in their writing. The writings of Paul, for example, were often structured in such a manner that the first section dealt with theological issues, typically emphasizing what God has done, while the second section emphasized the responsibility or appropriate response of the believer. 28 Between these two sections are tell-tale segues, such as we find in Romans 12:1-3 and Ephesians 4:1. Romans 12:1-3 declares “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve

25

Mat. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:46-49; Jn. 20:21; Acts 1:8. Rom. 13:3. 27 I John 3:4-6; 5:1-5, 18-19. Heb. 10:19-39; 12:14-28. James 1:19-27; 2:14-26. 28 This parallels the theological relationship between justification and sanctification, a parallel also evident in historic confessions of faith. 26

18

what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.” This passage suggests three powerful implications for our study. First of all, Paul’s use of the word “therefore” is instructive. Clearly he is suggesting that all that which came before (eleven chapters related to what God has done), is foundational to what he is about to say. In theological terms, Paul wanted God’s people to understand that they were to do good works, but for the right reason: not to earn their salvation, but rather as a response of worship to God who had already purchased their salvation. John Calvin comments: And this is the main difference between the gospel and philosophy: for though the philosophers speak excellently and with great judgment on the subject of morals, yet whatever excellency shines forth in their precepts, it is, as it were, a beautiful superstructure without a foundation; for by omitting principles, they offer a mutilated doctrine, like a body without a head. . . . But as philosophers, before they lay down laws respecting morals, discourse first of the end of what is good, and inquire into the sources of virtues, from which afterwards they draw and derive all duties; so Paul lays down here the principle from which all the duties of holiness flow, even this, -- that we are redeemed by the Lord for this end -- that we may consecrate to him ourselves and all our members.29 F. F. Bruce adds: Doctrine is never taught in the Bible simply that it may be known; it is taught in order that it may be translated into practice. ‘If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them’ (Jn. xiii. 17). Hence Paul repeatedly follows up an exposition of doctrine with an ethical exhortation, the two being linked together, as here, by ‘therefore’ (cf. Eph. iv. 1; Col. iii. 5).30 Secondly, it is noteworthy that Paul called the believers to present their “bodies” as living sacrifices. Here and throughout his writings, Paul challenges the gnosticism of his day, calling Christians to live out the gospel in the flesh. He presents the intriguing

29

John Calvin, Commentary on Romans [book on-line] (public domain, accessed 22 August 2003); available from http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/xvi.htm. 30 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 225.

19

idea that to offer our bodies is a spiritual act of worship. This is the challenge to live coram deo. William Barclay comments: “Present your bodies to God,” he says. There is no more characteristically Christian demand. We have already seen that that is what a Greek would never say. To the Greek, what mattered was the spirit; the body was only a prisonhouse, something to be despised and even to be ashamed of. No real Christian ever believed that. The Christian believes that his body belongs to God just as much as his soul does, and that he can serve him just as well with his body as with his mind or his spirit.31 Thirdly, Paul exhorts them not to conform to the world’s pattern. Given the context we understand that to mean that we are not to live by the principles and values of the world system, but to take our values and principles from God, to be able to discern exactly what God would have us to do in any given situation. A pause here is justified to consider what Darrow Miller calls “evangelical Gnosticism,” the contemporary evangelical tendency to divide life into things secular and things sacred. This belief system stems from Thomas Aquinas, and is in direct opposition to the biblical thesis that the gospel should affect all of life. 32 As Padilla reminds us, “The work of God in Christ Jesus has to do directly with the world in its totality, not merely with the individual.”33 Braulio Portes concurs, “The Word is very clear as it speaks about the objective of God for the universe. The expression God uses is ‘all things’; nothing is left as an exception to Christianization. Everything has to come and is coming to subjection to Jesus Christ.”34

31

William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 156. Darrow L. Miller, Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures (Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing, 1998), 46-47. 33 Padilla, Misión Integral, 2. “La obra de Dios en Cristo Jesús tiene que ver directamente con el mundo en su totalidad, no meramente con el individuo.” Trans. mine. 34 Braulio Portes, La Cristianización Nacional: Un Desafio Socio-espiritual a las Naciones de la Tierra (Santo Domingo: Editora Educativa Dominicana, 1992), 31. “La palabra es muy clara al hablar del objetivo de Dios para el universo. La expresión que Dios usa es ‘todas las cosas’; nada queda exceptuado 32

20

As the above analysis of Romans 12:1-3 indicates, New Testament writers clearly taught believers that biblical truth was to apply to all of life (see also II Tim. 3:16-17). Instruction was given in regard to relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees, church elders and their congregants, and citizens and the civil authorities. Clearly the New Testament writers understood that their works were to be taken as normative. 1.3. WESTERN CHURCH HISTORY 1.3.1. The Patristic Fathers The testimony of Christian leaders and thinkers throughout church history and in our day is consistent with the New Testament writers’ emphasis on the normative nature of Scripture. In terms of church history, the historical overview here is primarily limited to the context of the Western church, since the whole of the present study addresses dynamics within the broader context of Western life and culture. It is recognized that there are other valid church histories in the non-Western traditions of the Eastern churches (such as the Greek, Russian, Egyptian, and Indian perspectives, for example), that will not be considered here. Nonetheless, because the roots of the present-day Latin American, North American, and Western European cultures are found in Western church history, this historical study is primarily limited to that latter context. The church of the early patristic period had to take Christianity seriously. Christians were Christians not only in name, but also in practice. Persecution against the church was not constant, but the threat of it was never far away. The writings of early Christians were thus often apologetic in nature, defending the practice of Christianity

de la Cristianización. Todas las cosas han de venir y están viniendo a la sujeción de Jesucristo.” Trans. mine.

21

against the accusations of their opponents. An example of the sobering effect of the threat of persecution is the apology known as To Diognetus, whose unknown author declared that: Christians are no different than the rest in their nationality, language or customs. . . . They live in their own countries, but as sojourners. They fulfill all their duties as citizens, but they suffer as foreigners. . . . They live on earth, but are citizens of heaven. They obey all laws, but live at a level higher than that required by law. They love all, but all persecute them.35 The writings of early Christians affirm that in that day Christians understood that to follow Christ was to live differently than the world around them lived. The Didache, for example, begins by declaring that “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.” In another place it declares that “every prophet teaching the truth, if he doeth not what he teacheth, is a false prophet,” suggesting again the normative nature of Christian instruction.36 After Emperor Constantine’s alleged conversion, however, and the subsequent uniting of political and ecclesiastical power structures, it became much more difficult to distinguish between genuine Christianity and its nominal counterpart. It was against this backdrop that we find the writings of two early church fathers, John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo. John Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople stood against the corruption of the church and the palace in that eastern capital of the empire. That he expected Christian faith to be reflected in practice is evident in what is recorded of his preaching and writing, as this example shows:

35

To Diognetus 5.1-11, quoted in Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity (Complete in One Volume): The Early Church to the Present Day (New York: HarperCollins, 1984-85; reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1999), 57. 36 The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles, also known as Didache, trans. J.B. Lightfoot, adapt. and mod. [book on-line] (Athena Data Products, 1990, accessed 11 August 2003); available from http://www.gty.org/~phil/didache.htm; Internet.

22

How think you that you obey Christ’s commandments, when you spend your time collecting interest, piling up loans, buying slaves like livestock, and merging business with business? . . . And that is not all. Upon all this you heap injustice, taking possession of lands and houses, and multiplying poverty and hunger.37 Augustine of Hippo has been described as the most influential theologian of all time. He not only set the stage of theological inquiry for the Middle Ages and for subsequent generations of Roman Catholic thought, but much of what we find in Reformation theological thought comes from him as well. Probably his most significant work is The City of God, written in response to the allegations that the fall of Rome in A.D 410 was a consequence of her turning from her pagan roots to Christianity. The City of God is an interpretation of history, relevant to our study in that it portrays the Christian as a citizen of two kingdoms or two cities – the city of man, or the sociopolitical structure of the day, and the city of God, the eternal kingdom of God. The Christian’s membership in the eternal city does not preclude his participation in the earthly city, but rather colors it: the Christian should be the ideal citizen. Augustine’s theological writings on the Pelagian controversy are also pertinent to this discussion.38 Pelagius argued that man was capable of obeying the commands of God, that the will of man was totally free. Augustine argued that human free will is compromised, or held in bondage by sin, and that only Christ can set it free to obey God in truth. Augustine’s arguments carried the day and were recognized as orthodox. The implication is important: although the ethical teachings of Scripture are good, it is only through a personal conversion experience, a supernatural encounter with Christ, that man is empowered to live by them. Thus it is not simply the ethical teaching of Scripture or

37

Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 194.

23

of Christianity which produces its impact – that ethical teaching is in itself barren – but it is the supernatural power of God present in the gospel that makes it so significant. As the Apostle Paul declared in Romans 1:16, the gospel is the “power of God unto salvation.” The historian Kenneth Latourette concurs in his summary of the early centuries of Christian history, describing how it was that Christianity swept the Roman Empire. Among other explanations of Christianity’s triumph over paganism, Latourette credits the power of the gospel to transform: “Moreover, Christianity worked the moral transformation which it demanded. Augustine was by no means the first or the only morally defeated individual who found victory in the Gospel. This was so frequent as to be almost normal.”39 1.3.2. The Medieval Period This study turns now to the Middle Ages, during which period there were repeated cycles of increased laxity of morals, followed by a call to reform, especially clerical reform, and generally the establishment of an institution or monastic order as an expression of that reforming initiative.40 Thus the expectation that Christian faith should produce certain social or cultural expressions was always there, with varying degrees of intensity.

This is not surprising given that political and ecclesiastical power were

intertwined: even the name the Holy Roman Empire betrays an expectation of the expression of the divine in the political realm. In his review of that period, Kenneth Latourette asks:

38

See Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, to A.D. 1500 (New York: HarperCollins, 1953; reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince, 1997), 177-182, and Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994), 371-377. 39 Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, 107. 40 See Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (London: Sheed and Ward, 1950; reprint, New York: Image, 1991), 199ff and Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, 416ff, 459ff.

24

Could all Western Christendom be really Christian? . . . Western Europe had adopted the Christian name by mass action, usually tribe by tribe. Baptism had become a social convention. A vast distance separated the living of the ordinary Christian from the high demands of Jesus for discipleship. Could that distance be narrowed?41 Latourette goes on to contend that though the “ideals set forth by Christ are too high to be reached within history,” the struggle has been a continuing thread not only in that period but in all the history of Christianity, with mixed results.42 Although the full establishment on earth of God’s heavenly kingdom is not expected until Christ’s second coming, the Middle Ages were a time of significant progress in the extension of Christendom.

In spite of waves of invasion over the

centuries, and sometimes because of those invasions, Christianity was effectively established in all of Europe by the end of the Middle Ages. That this triumph of Christianity eventually gave it a central role in the rise of western culture can hardly be denied. In Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, Christopher Dawson specifically explores that process in detail, declaring that “it was through monasticism that religion exercised a direct formative influence on the whole cultural development of these centuries.”43 But where did these founders of monastic orders get their motivation? Clearly these leaders understood that Christ makes certain demands of His followers, that the gospel ought to affect culture, and monastic orders were formed as these leaders gathered around them others of like mind. Dawson contends that reforming ideals first maintained by monasticism eventually went beyond the clergy to affect lay attitudes, with the result that by the end of

41 42

Ibid., 459. Ibid., 461.

25

the Middle Ages, Christian ideals gained the victory over the earlier barbaric notions of the common people.44 Beyond that lay the dawn of the Reformation period, to which we now turn.45 1.3.3. The Reformation The concern of the present study is with the relationship of gospel to culture, and what was seen to be the right relationship between them, specifically here in the eyes of the Reformers. This period provides us with ample material for study. Alister McGrath notes that the term Reformation is used variously to refer to four elements: Lutheranism, the Reformed church, also referred to as Calvinism, the radical Reformation (Anabaptism), and the Catholic Reformation or Counter-Reformation.46 All four of these elements of the Reformation went beyond the reform of doctrine to address fundamental moral, social, political, and economic issues.47 The Radical Reformation was particularly adamant in its insistence that to be a Christian was to demonstrate a life consistent with Scriptural teaching.

But perhaps because of its lack of magisterial

backing, the Radical Reformation was soon marginalized with little lasting impact on Western society as a whole.48 The Lutheran Reformation began as a reaction to abuses on the part of the Roman church, principally in regard to the sale of indulgences. The movement soon grew, however, to address the totality of Christian life and doctrine. Without doubt Martin

43

Dawson, Religion, 44. Ibid., 221, 224. See also Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). 45 The Renaissance is not considered here. See section 2.2 on Enlightenment Rationalism. 46 McGrath, Christian Theology, 57. 47 Ibid., 55. 48 It is worth noting, however, that aspects of the message of the Radical Reformation – such as the separation of church and state - were later picked up by others and incorporated into other movements. 44

26

Luther took his cues from Scripture, declaring in one debate that a Christian with the support of Scripture has more authority than all popes and councils against that support.49 This fundamental conviction that the authority of Scripture outweighed human or church authority became known as sola scriptura, a rallying cry for Reformers of all types. This issue of authority may well have been the most definitive issue of the entire Protestant Reformation, dividing Europe neatly in two between the camps of the Roman Catholic establishment and of the Protestant Reformers. The Reformed branch of the Reformation is especially rooted in an appeal to the normative authority of Scripture over daily life and practice. John Calvin’s Institutes devotes substantial space to this theme, and Calvin pointedly contends that “doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; it is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul . . . it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful.”50 The Reformed church movement is of particular interest to us because of its significant influence on the development of the English-speaking world, especially as mediated by its influence on the Puritans. McGrath notes that the writings of two leading English Puritans, Richard Baxter and John Owen, “show a sharp interest in the relation between faith and experience.”51 The need for this emphasis was very real given that much of the Reformation was focused on doctrinal orthodoxy, with many finding it experientially barren. Puritanism found its counterpart in Lutheranism in the Pietistic

49

Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, 26. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), bk. 3, ch. 6, par. 4. 51 McGrath, Christian Theology, 73. 50

27

movement. Among the aims of the latter was a renewed emphasis in personal Bible study, with the secondary result that “for Pietism, a reformation of doctrine must always be accompanied by a reformation of life.”52 Pietism is also important to our study because as Escobar notes, Latin American evangelicalism traces its ancestry primarily to Pietistic roots.53 From Pietism the lineage flows through the Moravians, the Methodists, and the revivalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to Pentecostalism in the twentieth century. The majority of Latin American evangelicals, it must be remembered, are Pentecostals.54 In a later section we consider the influence of Pietism on Count Zinzendorf and John Wesley, two men central to eighteenth century Christianity’s influence on the world. Further, the Reformation took place within a century of the invention of the movable-type printing press, which definitely contributed to the Reformation’s lasting effect relative to the passing effect of earlier reform initiatives during the Middle Ages. The availability of Scripture and other books in the vernacular, for the common man, undoubtedly contributed significantly to the Reformation’s staying power. The emphasis of Pietists and Puritans on the study of Scripture by the common people finds no equal in the Middle Ages. 1.3.4. The Age of Exploration/Colonialism The influence of Christianity on the development of European and Western culture began to take on global implications by the late fifteenth century. Increasing territorial expansion of European empires down into Africa and then into the Americas

52 53

Ibid.. Escobar, Changing Tides, 41, 99ff. See also Martin, Tongues of Fire, 14-15, 37.

28

and Asia was accompanied by the spread of whatever brand of Christianity the explorers and colonists happened to be carrying. And so it was that British and Dutch colonies were marked by Protestantism, whereas the colonies of Spain, Portugal, and France were marked by Roman Catholicism.55 It is clear that these explorers and colonists understood their role to include the spread of Christianity, to some degree or another. Christianity was so much a part of the life and worldview of their day that it would have been hard for them to think otherwise. Formal declarations were full of religious meaning.

Examples include the

commissioning of Christopher Columbus by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, the royal charter for the Virginia Company issued by King James of England, and the Mayflower Compact for the settlers of what came to be known as Massachusetts. We consider the latter. The signatories of the Mayflower Compact of 1620 declared three motives for the establishment of the new American colony: “the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country.” A great many of the early settlers of England’s North American colonies came to escape the religious persecutions that accompanied the European conflicts of the seventeenth century. While England was in the throes of conflict between the Puritans and the Papists, thousands fled to New England to seek an opportunity to live out peacefully their beliefs and adequately provide for their families free from fear of attack. Pennsylvania was similarly settled mostly by German Pietists, looking for a fresh

54

Escobar, Changing Tides, 89. See also Martin, Tongues of Fire, 52; Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World, 34. The latter work estimates that 32 million of the 50 million Protestants in Spanish-speaking Latin America are Pentecostals. 55 The exception to this was the French Huguenot’s colony in Brazil. The fact that it was destroyed had as much to do with its Protestant nature as anything else. See Cornelius Hegeman, Mission to the People and Church Maintenance: The Origin and Development of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and Missions

29

opportunity. These settlers came almost exclusively in family groups. More than that, they understood Scripture to be normative for them, and expected to build a society that reflected biblical values. Many individual members of the New England colonies, to be sure, were more motivated by greed or gold than by godly virtue, but the overarching mandate of these colonial initiatives had a remarkably noble character. Even the establishment of what we know today as “secular” educational institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton was done with the ends of biblically-based training in mind. The writings of those early New England colonists demonstrate an understanding of their mandate to shape their society according to biblical norms.56 Further south, in the tropics under the flags of Spain and Portugal, 57 and to a great degree as well in the establishment of the Virginia colony, we see a markedly different dynamic. God and country were held high in formal declarations, but in practice the driving motivation seemed rather to be greed for wealth, power, and fame. Instead of coming as families, settlers came mostly as single males. The desire to get rich quick along with the sense of superiority these men brought with them naturally led to compromises of principle.

Abusive treatment of the native Indians, both men and

women, and later of slaves, is well documented. It is worth drawing a contrast, however,

in the Caribbean and Latin America (1528-1916) (Atlanta: American University of Biblical Studies thesis, 2002), 28-33. 56 See Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory (Tarrytown, NY: Revell, 1977) or the works of William Bradford, the first historian of New England. For documentation of the faith of America’s founding generation, see Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco: Encounter, 2002). 57 The same could also be said for the smaller tropical colonies of France, England, and the Netherlands, where what passed for Christianity could hardly be recognized as such. See again Hegeman, Mission to the People.

30

between the mostly nominal assent that was given to Christianity in the southern colonies and the greater commitment to live out the biblical norms that we see further north. In fairness it must be added that the curious admixture of Christianity and carnal pursuit that accompanied the conquistadores was not without noble exceptions. Individual men and women stood up to the crowd and the corruption in the name of righteousness and decried the compromise of integrity around them.58 The point here in this section is that it has always been understood, to some degree or another in every epoch of church history, that biblical truth is to be normative for daily life and practice. It is hardly surprising that where this was given greater emphasis, greater social order and stability developed. That is considered further in Chapter 3. The European developments that paralleled the colonial era must also be considered. Earlier mention was made of German Pietism’s effect on Count Zinzendorf and John Wesley, both of whom founded movements that were more known for their practice than for their doctrine, and that affected the destiny of nations. It is remarkable that during the time of the Reformation and the centuries immediately following, the European church affected by the Reformation took very little initiative in terms of the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Two centuries after Luther, that began to change radically as a secondary result of the Pietistic movement. Count Nicolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) was “one of the greatest missionary statesmen of all times and the individual who did the most to advance the cause of Protestant missions during the course of the eighteenth century.”59 Without a doubt he

58

See for example Escobar, Changing Tides, 37; Marshall and Manuel, The Light and the Glory, 67-79; Frank Moya P., Manual de Historia Dominicana, rev. and enl. ed. (Santo Domingo: Caribbean, 1997), 29. 59 Ruth A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1983), 69.

31

played a key role in preparing the way for the nineteenth century to become known as the “Great Century” of missions. Zinzendorf was greatly affected by the Pietism of Philipp Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke. As a nobleman, Zinzendorf used his wealth and influence to extend the influence of Christianity worldwide in a way that had not been seen prior to that time.60 He founded the Moravian church, pioneered ecumenical evangelism, and when the fire of missions began to burn in his heart he sent out in two decades “more missionaries than all Protestants (and Anglicans) had sent out in the previous two centuries.”61

Not the least of Zinzendorf’s accomplishments was the

indirect effect he had on the movement led by John Wesley. It was Wesley’s interaction with Moravians that led to his life-changing encounter with God.62 Regarding Wesley’s Methodism, Niebuhr posits that: It has been maintained with some right that the Methodist movement had the same significance for England that the Revolution had for France. Its democratic character – religious as it was in inspiration and effect – had a marked influence upon the social order. It was responsible for creating a considerable sentiment for greater democracy among many of the wealthier citizens of the nation, whether or not these became adherents of the movement . . . 63 Without doubt the timely renewal that came to England through the preaching of Wesley and George Whitefield spared England the horrors of social upheaval that France endured.64

Alongside the work of preachers like Wesley and Whitefield and their

assistants, the biblically motivated social and political efforts of men like William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury were crucial to outlawing abusive practices such as

60

Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, 208-209. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya, 71. 62 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, 209-212. 63 Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, 64-65. 64 See also Martin, Tongues of Fire, 27-47. Martin not only confirms the impact of Methodism on western civilization, but devotes a chapter to how the Methodist model is being reproduced in Latin America. 61

32

slavery and child labor. These men understood that Scripture had authority to establish societal norms, and was to be conscientiously applied to all of life.65 The ministries of Wesley and Whitefield together with their contemporary Jonathan Edwards converged in what became known as the Great Awakening. The Great Awakening was the first American revival of religion to affect not only one isolated area but the entire Atlantic seaboard. It was a “Pietistic wave,” an awakening of evangelical fervor, of personal experience with God, out of the slumber of practicing religion merely as obligation.66

That it emphasized a personal salvation and the expectation that

Christians should live by biblical norms is beyond doubt. Beginning in New England in 1734, the movement spread and climaxed in 1740-1742, with marked ongoing effects lasting well over a generation.67 The renewed awareness of the Christian obligation to the lost that accompanied the evangelistic developments in Europe and the new nation of the United States of America, also led to the spreading of the gospel to previously unevangelized regions of Asia and Africa. William Carey is generally known as the “Father of Modern Missions,” and the publication in 1792 of his booklet “An Enquirey Into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens” has been called the beginning of modern missions.68 An important development at that same time was the establishment of numerous missionary and Bible societies both in Europe and North America.69

65

Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? 117-119. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, 228. 67 Ibid., 228-230; Daniel Reid et al., Concise Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 148. 68 Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irain Jaya, 114-121; González, The Story of Christianity vol. 2, 306-308. 69 Ibid. See also J. Herbert Kane, A Concise History of the Christian World Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), 82-86. Dates include: London Mission Society (1795), Netherlands Missionary Society (1797), British & Foreign Mission Society (1804), American Baptist Missionary Union (1814), and the American Bible Society (1816). 66

33

In terms of this present study and the relationship of evangelical conversion to practical social change, Carey is an instructive example of a missionary with an eye to cultural transformation.70 Carey and his fellow missionaries were instrumental in the abolition of such cruel practices in India as sati, the burning of a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre, and to the establishment of a more biblically-informed social conscience. 1.3.5. Modern Era This study will not recount all the historical developments of the past two centuries; the volume of material to be covered is too great to be adequately considered. The purpose of this chapter is rather to demonstrate again that even to the present day the Bible has been understood to be the authority for life and conduct, and has been declared to be so by church leaders. As the medieval church degenerated to the point where it needed reform, the answer to which we know as the Protestant Reformation, so the modern church has passed through a similar process. The intoxicating effect of humanistic philosophy and scientific advances on church theology and practice from the eighteenth century forward led to the development of an increasingly liberal church on the one hand, and the birthing of an entirely fresh reformation movement on the other hand. Evolutionary Darwinism was a particularly divisive issue, between those who wanted to adjust theology to accommodate “science” and those who refused to do so. Through it all the church has grown to be an international church, and as such is too big and diverse to easily classify and categorize. Nonetheless we point out a few highlights of the past two centuries, in terms of the argument for the normative nature of biblical truth. We consider in turn the

70

See Ruth and Vishal Mangalwadi, The Legacy of William Carey: A Model for the Transformation of a Culture (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999).

34

Second Great Awakening of the nineteenth century, the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements beginning in the early twentieth century, and the various initiatives since 1960 related to what is often called the New Religious Right.

While all of these

movements had North American evangelical Protestant roots, their effects were worldwide. Beyond that we consider also the perspective of the Latin American church. In the United States of America in the nineteenth century, a renewal movement took place that came to be known as the Second Great Awakening. In contrast with the First Great Awakening, the Second touched America from the eastern seaboard to the frontier, and was shaped by evangelical leaders of various theological perspectives.71 Charles Finney gave important impetus to the Awakening, but he was not alone in efforts to see the gospel impact society in its entirety. By nature revivalism has consistently pointed to social and moral reform, something demonstrated in the United States by Charles Finney and others like Dwight L. Moody. Revivalism’s commitment to social and moral reform led to an unprecedented missionary initiative from the United States, Canada, and Northern Europe following the Second Great Awakening.

In these vibrant new mission churches especially in

“developing nations,” the debilitating influence of liberalism had much less effect than it had in North America and Europe. In the United States and Europe, the fundamentalistmodernist controversy later led to a division between the evangelical church’s primary emphasis on individual salvation and personal ethics and the liberal church’s primary emphasis on social ethics.

71

The First Great Awakening was largely confined to New England and the Middle Colonies, and was distinctly Calvinistic in theology. This is not meant to suggest that the First was of lesser impact; on the contrary its fundamental shaping of early American society provided a foundation for all that was to follow, including the Second Great Awakening. See also Reid et al., Concise Dictionary, 148, 308-309.

35

Of greater significance worldwide was the nascent Pentecostal movement, following hard on the heels of American missionary enterprise.

Pentecostalism

essentially grew out of the Holiness movement, which in turn was the fruit of Methodism and of the revivalism associated with the Second Great Awakening. Pentecostalism is marked by an emphasis on a post-conversion experience of Holy Spirit baptism accompanied by speaking in tongues. From its humble beginnings in the early twentieth century Pentecostalism has become “perhaps the single most significant development in twentieth century Christianity.”72 Current estimates indicate there are over 450 million Pentecostals worldwide, with 30 million of those in the United States.73 More than sixty percent of Latin America’s evangelicals are Pentecostal.74 The worldwide impact of this movement is beyond measuring.

Its birth out of the Holiness movement has been

significant: it continues to carry a commitment to the transformation of the individual to the norms of Scripture. The Charismatic and Neo-Charismatic movements also bear mention here. Consider David Barrett’s identification of three waves of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century: the classic Pentecostalism mentioned above which began at the turn of the century, followed in the 1960s by the Charismatic movement within established denominations, and followed by the third wave, the neo-charismatics as represented by new churches without a clear denominational tradition.75

72

Ibid.. Ibid., 262. Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World, 3 suggest a somewhat more conservative figure of 345 million worldwide. 74 Ibid., 34. Johnstone and Mandryk suggest 32 million of Latin America’s 55 million evangelicals are Pentecostals. 75 Escobar, Changing Tides, 78-81. 73

36

Perhaps as an answer to Pentecostalism, or perhaps as an overflow of it, by the 1960s and 1970s, Pentecostal-like movements developed within most mainline Protestant and evangelical denominations and within the Roman Catholic Church.

Although

distinct from now-established Pentecostalism in some ways, Charismatic movements worldwide are more similar to their Pentecostal precursors than they are different. In terms of our study here, both Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement tend to emphasize the fact that individual salvation should result in personal transformation. Social ethics are generally under-emphasized.76

The second wave or Charismatic

movement stayed within established denominational structures, and as such it “retained the sociological features of the denominations within which it emerged.”77 A lack of emphasis on social ethics by many evangelicals, especially Pentecostals and Charismatics, may be related to their premillenial eschatology. The relationship between premillenialism and social ethics is almost always such that the greater the emphasis on the former, in any given time period, the less the emphasis on the latter. The adage rings true: “people who believe that nothing can be done to alter the present age’s rendezvous with the antichrist and total apostasy generally do not waste their time trying to change things in the meantime.”78

Political activists, such as followers of liberation theology, find evangelicalism’s apolitical “Pietistic other-worldiness” escapist and inappropriate to Latin America’s social reality. For various perspectives see Martin, Tongues of Fire, 15, 23; Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, eds., Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993); Padilla, Misión Integral. 77 Escobar, Changing Tides, 80. 78 Reid et al., Concise Dictionary, 119. 76

37

In reference to what is often seen as a lack of evangelical concern for social ethics, it could be noted that the influence of evangelicalism on culture is mostly mediated by its influence on the individual. We return to this point later in the study.79 North American evangelicalism’s love affair with premillenialism and its corresponding negligence of social ethics lasted until well into the last quarter of the twentieth century. By the 1970s, however, evangelicals in the United States especially but also in other places around the world, began to step out from their non-participation in the cultural mandate and began to rally anew to the call to shape society as a whole. Probable catalysts for this change of perspective were the enormous social changes of that era, including the abolition of public school prayer, and the pro-abortion decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1973. This new Christian activism was variously labeled as Reconstructionism, the New Religious Right, and the Moral Majority. It might even be envisioned as a swinging back on the part of popular evangelicalism from Arminian to Reformed theological tendencies. Proponents included luminaries like Rousas John Rushdoony, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary North, and Francis A. Schaeffer. Although proponents differ widely on many points, the movement as a whole has been committed to seeing biblical truth applied to every sphere of society, including the political realm.

Politically, the

movement is identified in the United States almost exclusively with the Republican Party; in other countries it has many other expressions. Internationally, the movement has met with great success in many places, where governmental leaders at a city or national level have embraced the implications of

79

That this relationship between evangelicalism and culture is often unintended is noted by Peter Berger in his foreword to Martin, Tongues of Fire, p. ix.

38

Scripture’s normative role in society.

Examples of spiritual and then social

transformation include Uganda, the first nation in sub-Saharan Africa to see a decline in its rate of AIDS infection, and Cali, Colombia, where city leaders gathered for all-night concerts of prayer to break the stranglehold of violence over the city.80 1.3.6

Caribbean and Latin America Since this present work addresses the Caribbean and Latin American (otherwise

mentioned as CALA) context in specific, and contains empirical research from within that context, it is appropriate to consider that region in greater depth. In a study on global Christianity, Philip Jenkins posits that: Southern religion is not otherworldly in the sense of escapist, since faith is expected to lead to real and observable results in this world. The believer’s life in this world is transformed through conversion, and the change echoes through every aspect of lives, from ethics of work and thrift to family and gender relations.81 It was mentioned above that Latin American evangelicalism has been strongly influenced by Pietism.

Escobar traces that lineage in depth, noting that “popular

Protestantism in Latin America displays these Pietistic notes of spiritual enthusiasm, personal conversion, and attention to the visible practice of faith more than to doctrinal formulations, and along with them goes missionary fervor.”82 Perhaps it was in reaction to a traditional, nominally Roman Catholic heritage that CALA evangelists have placed great emphasis on individual conversion and personal experience with God. Escobar notes that even among Roman Catholic writers and theologians the light came on in the 1970s in regard to how poorly the church was living

80

George Otis, Jr., Transformations: A Documentary (Global Net Productions, 1999). This video documents these and other remarkable occurrences like them. 81 Jenkins, The Next Christendom, 77. 82 Escobar, Changing Tides, 102.

39

out Christian teaching. He suggests that even the liberation theology position of Juan Luis Segundo and Gustavo Gutierrez “did not initially arise from a politicized vision of Christian faith but out of a concern over what the church’s mission today ought to be and how it ought to be carried out.”83 Padilla on the other hand laments the fact that repentance is often seen as purely individualistic. He advocates a repentance that addresses the social dimension; the call to repentance comes to the man enslaved by sin in a specific social context, not to the sinner in abstract. The great question Christians need to ask themselves in regard to culture in any age, he suggests, is what elements to keep and what elements should disappear because of the gospel.84 Braulio Portes asks that very question. Addressing the topic of “Christianizing” the nations of the earth, he argues for a plan to accomplish the task in his own nation, the Dominican Republic, and then presents a plan to affect every area of society. 85 Portes’s plan is tied to Campus Crusade for Christ. Dozens of similar plans to evangelize nations and shape culture have been launched in Latin America in the past decade.86 In summary, it would seem that the theologians and leaders of the evangelical and Roman Catholic churches in CALA are seeking that balance that would place adequate emphasis on the individual experience and practice of faith, without isolating it from the social dimension. The social dimension has been much emphasized by radical elements, such as liberation theologians.

The individual dimension is emphasized daily by

83

Ibid., 39-40, 68. Padilla, Misión Integral, 1, 10, 19-22, 30. 85 Portes, La Cristianización Nacional. 86 The actual number may be in the hundreds. Besides denominational projects and task goals of ministries such as Youth With A Mission or World Vision, one thinks of interdenominational and cross-agency initiatives such as DAWN (Disciple A Whole Nation) and Plan Mil Días, for example. See also Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World. 84

40

evangelists calling for personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Evangelical leaders such as Padilla, Escobar, and Portes are trying to find a biblical balance. 1.4.

CONCLUSION Undoubtedly, the authors of the books of both the Old and New Testaments of the

Bible understood those teachings to be normative. That understanding has been largely accepted wherever Christian teaching has gone, across the centuries and around the world, though it has been applied with varying degrees of success. In summary, Niebuhr’s five responses to the relationship of Christ to culture are helpful.87 The standard evangelical response - and the position of orthodoxy historically tends to be somewhere between Niebuhr’s “Christ Against Culture” and “Christ the Transformer of Culture,” resting largely with what Niebuhr terms the dualistic response of “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” “Christ the Transformer of Culture” has also been called the Conversionist stance. The Conversionist stance seems most consistent with historical orthodox Christianity; Niebuhr suggests it as the view shared by Augustine and John Calvin. As Niebuhr notes, “Christ is seen as the converter of man in his culture and society, not apart from these, for there is no nature without culture and no turning of men from self and idols to God save in society.”88

A potential problem in Niebuhr’s

presentation of the Conversionist view is that he seems not to make a distinction between on the one hand the potential for the Gospel to transform culture (and our mandate to work for that) and on the other hand the reality that the Bible seems to indicate that the majority reject that transformation. Jesus did say that “wide is the gate and broad is the

87 88

Niebuhr, Christ and Culture. Ibid., 45.

41

road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”89

As such Niebuhr’s

Conversionist view seems to smack of universalism.90 In terms of the relationship of the individual to the society as a whole, the ethical teachings of the Bible are recognized to promote the acceptance of the responsibility of the individual in relation to the collective, that is to say, to one’s “neighbor.” In answer to Cain’s question, we are our brother’s keeper. In conclusion, it has been generally accepted that the application of the ethical teachings of the Bible will produce external changes in individuals and, eventually, in societies. As has been suggested above and will be explored further in a later section, that change appears to take place through change in the individual convert’s concept of personal responsibility in relation to the collectives of which he/she is a part. In the consideration of literature on that topic, we will eventually consider the specific construct of individualism-collectivism. As a background for that inquiry, however, we look first at the roots of Western individualism, to untangle the varying threads of intellectual, spiritual, and environmental influences that have shaped Western life and culture.

89

Mat. 7:13. See also David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991) 116-118. Hesselgrave includes an interesting diagram of Niebuhr’s five types, created by David W. Meyers. The diagram places the Conversionists in the center of a continuum, with the Dualists on one side and the Synthesists on the other side, and then the Radical Christians and Cultural Christians at the extreme ends. The diagram suggests that orthodox consensus lies toward the center. See also Marvin K. Mayers, Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Crosscultural Evangelism, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1987) and Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998) for additional evangelical perspectives. 90

42

CHAPTER 2 WESTERN INDIVIDUALISM: WHOSE CHILD IS THIS? 2.1

INTRODUCTION At this point it is important to clarify again that this study does not intend to suggest

that individualism is, in and of itself, necessarily a good or a bad thing. That its existence in society requires a balancing responsibility of the individual to the collective is without doubt, however. The term “individualism” is subject to very diverse interpretation, a matter to be addressed shortly. As Christianity extended to every continent in the Modern Era, it increasingly came into competition, especially in the West, with humanism and related ideologies that grew up alongside it in the fertile intellectual soil of Western Europe. Returning to the central focus of inquiry, it is often debated how much of Western culture, and Western individualism in particular, is the fruit of Christianity, and how much of it is the result of other philosophical influences. Though it be agreed that biblical teaching was understood to be normative, and that it significantly shaped the formation of Western society, is that the entire explanation? For example, one could look at democratic capitalism as it is practiced in the United States and inquire as to whether it was born out of Christian influences on America’s founding fathers, or out of the influences of Renaissance humanism, or perhaps more accurately out of a combination of sometimes competing or contradictory influences.

How the intermingling of these different influences has

produced almost irreconcilable tension in America today is the focus of Robert Bellah’s perceptive study Habits of the Heart.91

91

Robert N. Bellah et al. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, updated ed. (Berkeley: UC Press, 1996).

43

Habits of the Heart identifies four traditions that have shaped American culture: the biblical tradition, the republican tradition, the utilitarian individualist tradition, and the expressive individualist tradition. All of these traditions share a belief in the inherent dignity and sacredness of the human person.

Bellah points out, however, that

individualism can also be used to mean that “the individual has a primary reality whereas society is a second-order, derived, or artificial construct.”92 This latter use of the term individualism (they call it ontological individualism) is subscribed to only by utilitarian and expressive individualists. According to Bellah, the biblical and republican traditions subscribe to social realism, the view that society is as real as individuals. In other words the utilitarian and expressive individualist traditions are willing to resolve the unitydiversity tension in favor of the individual and at the expense of the collective, whereas the biblical and republican traditions are not willing to do so. As for the intellectual pools of thought from which the above traditions drew their ideas, a contrast can be made between two distinct rivers of thought. On the one hand there is biblical thought flowing forward from the Reformation, and on the other hand humanistic thought or rationalism coming in turn out of the Renaissance (borrowing heavily from classical thought) and then the Enlightenment. This latter flow of thought mixed in the seventeenth and eighteenth century with biblical thought to produce what came to be known as Deism. Deism essentially acknowledged God as Creator but denied His active participation in daily life; according to Deism, man was entrusted with reason, by which he was to rule his life and society. Deism in turn greatly influenced the thinking of republicans like Thomas Jefferson, whose convictions stood in great contrast to those of a biblical theist like Jonathan Edwards. 92

Ibid, 334.

44

Returning to Bellah’s four traditions shaping American culture, the influence of extra-biblical thought is evident not only in republicanism, which draws much inspiration from classical culture, but also in utilitarian and expressive individualism, which followed somewhat logically the humanism of Enlightenment rationalism and of romanticism. What is known today as Western individualism is thus traceable to a number of origins intellectually and philosophically. In addition, some claim that individualism’s rise especially in North America can be attributed to environmental factors such as the experience of life on the frontier. Some credit needs to be given to this view as well. With the above in mind the following elements as significant in the development of Western individualism are considered in turn: Enlightenment rationalism (and related to it, romanticism), biblical theism as promoted in Protestant Reformation thinking, and environmental factors. The term “Western individualism” is used primarily in reference to its expression in North American and Western European contexts, but it also is used in relation to the extension of those expressions into the Latin American context.

In as much as

individualism has existed in Latin America, is it more accurate to trace its lineage to Enlightenment rationalism, biblical Reformation thinking, or environmental factors? A paradoxical relationship exists between individualism and authoritarianism in the Caribbean and Latin American context. Historically, CALA has been structured with civil, religious, and organizational structures more authoritarian in nature than those found in North America. A century ago, every nation in Latin America was governed by a dictator and the Roman Catholic hierarchy controlled much of life and culture. Nida

45

reports that thought control in Latin America was greater than in most of Western Europe because for many years the Spanish colonies officially excluded all “Jews, Masons, heretics, and freethinkers.”93

Nonetheless, Latin America has developed an

individualism of its own, which also will be considered as this study progresses. 2.2.

ENLIGHTENMENT RATIONALISM The Enlightenment can be defined as an intellectual movement that “stressed

reason as the way to truth, a world based on perfectly ordered natural laws, and a selfconfident and optimistic belief in human ability to make progress.” 94

The term

“Enlightenment” comes from the notion that prior to this time truth had been obscured by revelation and dogma. The Enlightenment began in England, spread to Europe, and then flourished in America in the second half of the eighteenth century. Chronologically in America it followed the Great Awakening and preceded romanticism. Francis A. Schaeffer notes that the Enlightenment was thoroughly secular in its thinking, and that: The humanistic elements which had risen during the Renaissance came to flood tide in the Enlightenment. Here was man starting from himself absolutely. And if the humanistic elements of the Renaissance stand in sharp contrast to the Reformation, the Enlightenment was in total antithesis to it. The two stood for and were based upon absolutely different things in an absolute way, and they produced absolutely different results.95 Schaeffer notes how the Enlightenment thought of the French philosopher Voltaire, looking at both man and society as perfectible, formed the basis for the bloody French Revolution. Schaeffer further contrasts on one hand the French and Bolshevik Russian Revolutions, born out of humanistic Enlightenment thought, with the American

93

Nida, Understanding Latin Americans, 16. Reid et al., Concise Dictionary. 95 Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 121. 94

46

Revolution and the 1688 Bloodless English Revolution on the other hand, the latter two having been made possible because of the influence of the Reformation on both England and its colonies.96 Specifically, in the United States of America, the Enlightenment led to a type of Deism in which people still held to the essential morals of Christianity but lost the philosophic basis for those morals. Rather than thinking of right and wrong as being based on divine command, ethics were defined by the “common good.” For most Deists, God had set the universe in motion like a giant timepiece, and now had left it to its own devices. Gone was the sense the Reformers had of coram deo, that everyday life was to be lived out “before the face of God.” Men were left to govern the world by reason. In this intellectual environment many of America’s founding fathers grew up, variously affected by Deism and by Biblical Christian Theism. The republicanism they developed was informed by both the Biblical tradition and by classical Greek and Roman thought. According to Bellah, this republicanism “presupposes that the citizens of a republic are motivated by civic virtue as well as self-interest.

It views public

participation as a form of moral education and sees its purposes as the attainment of justice and the public good.”97 Part of that “public good” is the welfare of the society as a whole, not just its individual members as members. Persons who exemplified this way of thinking include Thomas Jefferson perhaps foremost of all, but also others of America’s founding fathers.98 In contrast to the above republicanism, for many eighteenth century Deists living in a world of opportunity in the North American colonies, primary attention was given to

96 97

See Chapter 3 for more on this subject. Bellah et al., Habits, 335.

47

economic concerns.

This kind of thinking fostered what Bellah calls “utilitarian

individualism,” in its purest form an argument that “in a society where each vigorously pursued his own interest, the social good would automatically emerge.”99 To this way of thinking, society became merely a result of a contract between individuals pursuing their self-interest, as Adam Smith proposed in that same era in his famous Wealth of Nations. Smith argued that mankind’s natural inclinations were to sustain life and to acquire goods, things he should be left to do.100 Bellah suggests Benjamin Franklin as exemplary of this way of thinking.101 His life stands as an example of the fact that in America, the poor boy can make good if he applies himself. That this kind of thinking is still common today not only in the United States of America but across the Western world is beyond doubt. This utilitarian individualist mentality also pervaded the western expansion of the United States of America into the frontiers.

This was the “Protestant work ethic,”

described by Max Weber, in practice. Though for many people the westward expansion was accompanied by or motivated by biblical motives, for many others it was simply another way to get what they wanted: a chance at the good life. Diligence, courage, perseverance, and hard work were rewarded with profit and the esteem of one’s fellows. It is a small wonder that millions of Europeans came to the New World to try their own hand at it. Utilitarian individualism, however, has a certain coldness or hardness to it. Perhaps because of its attendant coldness and perhaps because of the growing wealth and

98

For a fuller documentation of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, see Novak, On Two Wings. Ibid., 33. 100 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (original 1776; reprint, Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 1991). 101 Bellah et al., Habits, 32. 99

48

potential for leisure of the growing middle class, by the middle of the eighteenth century utilitarian individualism began to be replaced by expressive individualism. This change was paralleled by the rise of romanticism. Bellah describes expressive individualism as follows: Expressive individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized. This core, though unique, is not necessarily alien to other persons or to nature. Under certain conditions, the expressive individualist may find it possible through intuitive feeling to “merge” with other persons, with nature, or with the cosmos as a whole.102 Bellah goes on to relate expressive individualism with romanticism, and in the twentieth century, with psychotherapy. Their nineteenth century example of expressive individualism is Walt Whitman, to whom freedom was “above all the freedom to express oneself, against all constraints and conventions.”103 For Whitman, “the ultimate use of the American’s independence was to cultivate and express the self and explore its vast social and cosmic identities.”104 Whitman was certainly not alone in his convictions, but rather, like Benjamin Franklin, was representative of a way of thinking common to American individualistic culture. From the nineteenth century into the twentieth, as the theological and academic elite and then the common person on the street moved away from adherence to biblical absolutes, North American culture was more and more caught up in the ever-increasing centrifugal thrust of individualism. Parallels can be drawn to the Caribbean and Latin America context, even though rationalistic ideas in CALA arrived by a different stream. Renaissance humanism in

102

Ibid., 333-334. Ibid., 34. 104 Ibid., 35. 103

49

Southern Europe certainly came to have its effect on the New World ruled by Spain and Portugal, as mediated by the intellectual hegemony maintained by the Roman Catholic Church.105 Schaeffer posits that “Renaissance humanism steadily evolved toward modern humanism – a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent.”106 Because of the prohibition on Scripture publication and distribution for common lay use throughout most of colonial Latin America, intellectual and cultural development was robbed of the positive potential of Scripture’s impact on society. One aspect of that absence is seen in the essentially medieval feudal perspective maintained in Latin America in terms of the value placed on a life. As affected by the Latin American social and intellectual climate, Nida identifies the specific Latin American expression of individualism as being related to the basic belief that men are not born equal. They are born “lower and higher, as peons and masters” and therefore “Each commoner needs a caudillo in order to fulfill his own potentiality, and similarly the caudillo needs his followers if he is to demonstrate his abilities.”107 Within this concept of society the individual is basically lost. Nonetheless Nida goes on to describe the enigma of this tension in the Latin American context as follows: Strange as it may seem, [Latin American] individualism is based on almost the same principle as authoritarianism, only the application is inverted. Individualism insists that all people are not alike. Each man is uniquely different from all others, and as such he possesses a “personal dignity” which must be respected. Each man, therefore, can insist on his personal rights - quite apart from any legal definition of them. Moreover, this insistence not only can but should be backed up by a man’s willingness to defend his honor - at any price. 105

Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? 124. Ibid., 60. 107 Nida, Understanding Latin Americans, 23. 106

50

No doubt one important reason for this strong individualism in Latin America is to be found in the 300 years of colonial rule. ‘Law and order’ came to be understood by Latin Americans as an imposition by the oppressors, a tool of domination. Accordingly, disorder and challenging of the law of the state became the duty of every lover of freedom and national independence.108 Nida further notes that “To defend one’s position within the Hispanoamerican social structure has generally been regarded as a man’s prime duty. In fact, his personal honor has compelled him to react strongly to any threat to his position.”109 Such a system of course has many social controls, and social controls of necessity must be balanced by an outlet for emotional energy.

On a note reminiscent of Bellah’s expressive

individualism, Nida posits: The answer to this was found in the fiesta. In the same way that the revolution was the revolt of the individual against political authoritarianism, so the fiesta has constituted the revolt against social authoritarianism and control. In the fiesta social laws are broken, class distinctions are erased, drunkenness permits one to reveal himself (and thus escape from the constant pressures of self-defense), and intimate contact among people overcomes the usual social distance maintained by different classes. In the fiesta the Latin is not so concerned with enjoying himself as with transcending himself. . . . Part of the intense desire for self-expression no doubt reflects the often mentioned ‘Latin pride,’ a kind of consuming desire to vindicate oneself in the face of any and all opposition, the type of pride which can shout, Muera yo; viva me fama ‘Let me die; but let my fame live on.’ This type of pride, which regards the society as merely the platform on which the charismatic individual acts out his commanding role, also expresses itself in many routine and mundane ways.110 On a similar note in the history of the Dominican Republic in particular, Dagoberto Tejeda Ortiz posits that the popular emotional expression in the celebration of Corpus Cristi and Carnaval provided a “catharsis” that compensated for the otherwise heavily stratified, discriminating, and marginalized society.111

108

Ibid., 23-24. Ibid., 30. 110 Ibid., 30, 31. 111 “Contrario al absolutismo que caracterizaba al sistema social vigente, la procesión se presentaba como un espacio democrático que funcionaba como catarsis en una sociedad estratificada, discriminadora y de 109

51

It is fair to conclude, as far as CALA is concerned, that to some degree at least the same dynamics have existed as were noted in North America. Expressive individualism is certainly not far removed from what Nida describes as the Latin form of individualism. Similarly one could compare utilitarian individualism of North American colonists with the similar attitude of many Spanish colonists. Bellah’s republicanism is probably harder to find in Latin American history, though men of the likes of Simon Bolivar and Juan Pablo Duarte no doubt fit the category. Returning to the North American context, the thesis of Bellah’s Habits of the Heart is that a way must be found to combat rampant individualism by drawing on the aforementioned diverse civic and religious traditions in order to preserve North American culture from destruction. Borrowing heavily from Tocqueville, Bellah contends that “individualism has been sustainable over time in the United States only because it has been supported and checked by other, more generous moral understandings.”112 That contention is one this study supports. In other words, though Enlightenment thinking was partly responsible for the development of Western culture and Western individualism in particular, Enlightenment thought in and of itself does not provide an adequate basis for the ongoing practice of a balanced individualism. For that another historic strand is needed, with which to weave a stronger social fabric. We turn now to a consideration of biblical thought, specifically as seen in Reformation thought, as fundamental to the development of Western culture.

marginalización, gobernada por títulos, puestos y apellidos.” Dagoberto Tejeda O., “Corpus Cristi y Carnaval: Cultura Popular e Identidad Nacional,” [book excerpt on-line] (ProvinciasDominicanas.org, accessed 5 September 2003). Available at http://www.provinciasdominicanas.org/literatura/corpus.htm.

52

2.3.

PROTESTANT THINKING It was noted above that people from Western nations are marked by a

considerably more individualistic attitude than are their Eastern counterparts.

The

relationship between Protestant Reformation or Reformed influences and individualism has already been suggested, and we turn now to consider this inter-relation in more detail. Beginning again with Weber, we note his contention that the predestination doctrine of Reformed theology functioned as an individualizing tendency, in that the individual of necessity stands alone before God, without the help of church or priest, in contrast to the Catholic idea of salvation coming via the church.113 But how is it that Reformed theology carries this mark of individualism? Niebuhr suggests that though Calvin was distrustful of the common man, and aristocratic in temper, his theological influence on individual rights and responsibilities naturally led to individualism’s triumph.114 In matters of discipline Calvinism replaced the collective authority of the church with the authority of individual conscience. 115 Further, “The religious ethics of the middle class is (sic) marked throughout by this characteristic of individualism. The good which is to be sought in ethical life as in religion is the moral welfare of the individual.”

Understanding “the relationship of personal ability and

energy to success,” it follows that “Success in the world is to him a clear evidence of the presence of virtue and failure an almost certain symptom of vice.” “Such an ethics is capable of producing a real heroism of self-discipline and, in its insistence on personal

112

Bellah et al., Habits, ix. Weber, The Protestant Ethic. It should be noted too that Tawney, in the foreword to Weber’s work, reminds us that the Calvinism of Calvin was collectivist; it only later (seventeenth century) became individualistic, and it is this latter Calvinism, better referred to as Reformed theology, that Weber refers to. 114 Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, 99-100. 115 Ibid., 101. 113

53

responsibility, the courage of resistance to the authority of church and state when these conflict with the imperatives of individual conscience.”116 Returning to Calvin and other Reformers, Russell Kirk suggests that behind all of the doctrinal clashes of the sixteenth century the essence of their difference with the Roman Catholics was disagreement concerning the source of true Christian belief.117 The Catholics trusted in “Authority,” meaning “the teaching authority of the whole Church, over the centuries, as expressed in Scripture, in tradition, in the works of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, in the consensus of church councils, in the sayings and acts of saints, in papal decretals.”118 In contrast, the Protestants turned to “Private Judgment,” “the individual Christian’s interpretation of the Bible, in the light of conscience, for the guiding of his actions.” Kirk goes on to say that the subsequent tendency of Catholicism was toward a “tightly-structured authoritative church and a close-knit society” while Protestantism tended toward “religious and social individualism.” As an outgrowth of this doctrinal distinction, Kirk identifies what he calls a “Protestant character,” including self-reliance and self-examination, though often accompanied by censoriousness of other’s actions.119 According to George Marsden, this individualizing tendency of Protestant belief was not just a Reformed phenomenon. Marsden notes that the preaching of D. L. Moody was pervaded by the assumptions of American individualism: he stressed personal sins, and called for a personal response. “The sinner stood alone before God. The Christian community provided emotional support, encouragement, and example; but ultimately the

116

Ibid., 87. See also Martin, Tongues of Fire, 37. Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 233ff. 118 Ibid., 234. 119 Ibid., 236. 117

54

decision to accept the message of salvation was, in the democratic American and Arminian tradition, essentially the decision of each individual, as was the decision to conquer sin.”120 Marsden also notes that in the American church of the late nineteenth century, American Christians (dispensationalists in specific) “thought of religion primarily in terms of individuals rather than institutions.

The important spiritual unit was the

individual.”121 Bonino posits that the same is true in Latin America: “There is no doubt that the traditional evangelizing practice of Latin American Protestantism has focused on the conversion of the individual.”122 On a similar note, Mangalwadi and Mangalwadi concur that “Christian life begins with repentance that leads to conversion. Repentance implies a radical individualism – a person assuming responsibility for his or her life.”123 Nonetheless they caution that “These remarks are not to imply that all facets of Western individualism are good or are rooted in biblical teaching.” Niebuhr points out that the organization of middle class churches also reflects individualism and activism, being typically democratic in constitution, committed to individual responsibility, to the preserving of morality and to training in character. 124 He also notes the correlation between the Calvinistic conception of individual rights and responsibilities and the interests of the middle class. “There has been a plain relationship in history between the religious, the economic, and the political doctrines of individual

120

George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 37. 121 Ibid., 71. 122 Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, 146. 123 Ruth and Vishal Mangalwadi, The Legacy of William Carey: A Model for the Transformation of a Culture (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999), 126. 124 Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, 88.

55

liberty.” “Laissez faire and the spirit of political liberalism have flourished most in the countries where the influence of Calvinism was greatest, in Switzerland, Holland, England, and America.”125 The distinction between church and sect is also relevant to this discussion. Following Weber and Troeltsch, Niebuhr makes a distinction between sects, or voluntary associations, and churches, which are natural social groupings akin to the family or nation.126 Niebuhr says that in Protestant history the sect has always been the “child of an outcast minority,” and that it normally becomes a church within a generation.127 Marsden notes that because revivalism (a sect, by Niebuhr’s definition) was unopposed in North America (whereas in Europe it had been opposed by traditionalist or state churches) it was allowed to flourish and develop, affecting not only North American religious life but all of its culture.128 This pervasive influence of sects in the United States was to have profound significance; in the Latin American context the greater effect is still future. Niebuhr notes some of the contrasts between sects and churches in their ethics and in their practice of worship: The sect centers, as a rule, in devotion to a Christian ethics radically different from the social ethics of its contemporary society; the church, which seeks to include within itself the whole cultural group of the nation, leaves the moot sphere of social ethics to the administration of the state, trusts the individual to govern his conduct by his creed, and seeks uniformity primarily within the sphere of belief and worship, where it is least likely to become involved in conflict with the political and economic interests of the nation and its classes.129 The sect seeks individual religious experience and expression, and it frequently designs its technique of worship to call forth the individual phenomena of 125

Ibid., 95. Weber, “The Protestant sects and the spirit of capitalism”, in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber (London: Routledge, 1948); Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, in Gesammelte Schriften, 3d ed. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1923); English trans. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). 127 Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, 17-20. 128 Marsden, Fundamentalism, 223-224. 129 Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, 126. 126

56

conversion and inspiration. The church, on the other hand, is content to stimulate a milder, steadier, and more uniform type of emotional life and to represent a less individual, more common human need before the Divine Majesty, in its prescribed forms of worship.130 Marsden also notes that because North America lacked a strong institutional church and because of its denial of the relevance of much of church tradition, it readily stood by the creed Scriptura sola.

“Biblicism was closely related to religious

individualism, also encouraged by revivalism. The individual stood alone before God; his choices were decisive. The church, while important as a supportive community, was made up of free individuals. The Bible, moreover, was a great equalizer. With Bible in hand, the common man or woman could challenge the highest temporal authority.”131 The linking of individualism to biblicism or an emphasis on the authority of Scripture over tradition is not new. In a related comment, Tertullian in the second century himself lamented the diversity of interpretations that can be drawn from Scripture, observing gloomily that heretics can make Scripture say anything they want.132 But it was not until beyond the Reformation period, in the New World, that this biblicist emphasis was allowed freely to run its course in the context outside the control of a state church. Kirk contends that it was this Protestant emphasis on the individual’s ability to interpret Scripture for oneself that led to social individualism under its influence.133 Is it coincidental that the North American society in which this took place became the world’s most individualistic society?

130

Ibid., 128-129. Marsden, Fundamentalism, 223-224 132 Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994), 17. 133 Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 234. 131

57

Agreeing with the above, Michael Novak is content to allow historians to link the “Age of the Individual” to both Protestantism and capitalism. Nevertheless, he cautions against overemphasizing the role of the individual in Protestantism, noting that: Protestant cultures are not notably lacking in immense capacity for association, a respect for law and common orderliness; nor are Catholic cultures . . . notably bereft of strong expressions of rampant individualism, social divisiveness, resistance to law (as if it were an impediment to liberty), and a certain contempt for pragmatic cooperation across ideological lines. Observation taught me that some Latin cultures are in some respects more given to individual will, selfassertion, and pure self-interest apart from a sense of the common good than are some Protestant cultures. In short, things are not always as books and abstract theories portray them.134 The critical issue appears not to be individualism in and of itself, or an emphasis on individual rights, but rather whether the individual is aware of and acts upon his or her responsibilities, with a sense of the common good in mind. The important issue seems to lie in the realm of values and virtues. Without values and virtues we have what Novak rightly condemns, a radical self-centered individualism characterized by an insistence on doing what one feels like doing, apart from a sense of duty to others.135 Novak further argues from the testimony of one of America’s founders, James Madison, saying that: Virtue is the pivotal and deepest American idea. . . . To imagine an experiment in republican government without virtue, Madison had told the Virginia Assembly, is ‘chimerical.’ For how could a people, unable severally to govern their own passions, combine to govern their own body politic?” Without the people themselves having the virtues that make liberty possible, neither a free polity nor a free economy can survive for long. What are these virtues? Temperance,

134

Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 21. Ibid., 197. See also Francis A. Schaeffer and Vishal Mangalwadi, Corruption vs. True Spirituality (New Delhi: Good Books, 1998), 50-51: “Western Individualism certainly deserves condemnation. But so does ‘Eastern’ communitarianism that violates the dignity, significance and freedom of the individual human person. . . . A weakening of the idea of individual significance makes it hard to initiate action for reform.” 135

58

fortitude, justice, and prudence make possible the human acts of reflection and choice, on which liberty depends.136 In conclusion, the testimony of the proffered writers suggests that Reformation thinking did play a vital role in the development of individualism, but that this influence of Reformation thinking on individualism was mediated by virtue. Wycliffe’s vision of the Bible in the hands of the common plowboy meant that much of Western culture came to accept biblical truth as normative.137 In evangelical language, the normal result of a personal encounter with Jesus Christ is a changed attitude toward one’s relationships with one’s neighbors. This change, expressed in an increase in a broad variety of virtues such as those noted above, can be alternately described as an increase in personal responsibility.

The increase in personal responsibility carries with it an implicit

individualizing tendency: the individual with a high sense of personal responsibility will be more likely to take responsible initiative. The aggregate effect of the responsible initiative of individuals, multiplied in the lives of many individuals, cannot help but result in a positive influence on society. An increase of individualism apart from this increase in the sense of personal responsibility, however, will produce quite different results, essentially negative.

As Tocqueville

declaimed “How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed?”138

136

Novak, The Catholic Ethic, 208. In On Two Wings, page 34, Novak further summarizes the core logic of the founders: “Liberty is the object of the Republic. Liberty needs virtue. Virtue among the people is impossible without religion.” 137 Even though not nearly everyone could have been called “Christian” in the sense of having personally placed their faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross, the influence of Christianity in the nations affected by the Reformation was such that even those who privately disagreed with Christ’s claims on their lives nonetheless felt compelled to live in accordance with the socially-accepted relational norms as taught by Scripture. 138 Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 333.

59

A key influence of Protestant thinking on Western civilization was the strengthening of the moral tie. In a study of the relationship between religious and cultural factors and corruption, Seymour Martin Lipset and Gabriel Salman Lens concur, noting that: Countries dominated by Protestants are less corrupt than others. The Protestant religious ethos is more conducive to norm-adhering behavior. Protestants, particularly sectarians, believe that individuals are personally responsible for avoiding sin, whereas other Christian denominations, particularly the Catholic Church, place more emphasis on the inherent weakness of human beings, their inability to escape sin and error, and the need of the church to be forgiving and protecting. The Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Churches tend to be more accepting of human weakness because the clergy have the authority to relieve the individual of some sense of responsibility.139 2.4.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS An alternative explanation for Western and specifically American individualism

also applies. Instead of looking to the formative influence of ideology and religion, some suggest that the key factors are environmental. The vastness of the American frontier and the fact that the settlers were often far from one another demanded strict self-reliance. Bellah notes that even though individualism existed prior to 1800, “It took the geographical and economic expansion of the new nation, especially in the years after 1800, to produce the restless quest for material betterment that led Tocqueville to use the word “individualism” to describe what he saw.”140 Harry Triandis suggests that individualism: . . . is a consequence of (a) the number of available groups (e.g., urban environment), (b) affluence (one does not need groups as much if one is affluent, hence the upper classes in all societies are more individualistic), (c) social

Seymour Martin Lipset and Gabriel Salman Lens, “Corruption, Culture, and Markets”, in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. (New York: Basic, 2000), 120-121. 140 Bellah et al, Habits, 147. 139

60

mobility, and (d) geographic mobility (if one is mobile, one can change groups more easily, and groups can not influence individuals as much).141 Triandis suggests first of all that increased urbanization puts today’s individual in contact with large numbers of totally unrelated groups with whom he or she can choose to associate. Over a period of time an individual can choose to leave one group and join another, several times, according to what suits his or her needs or interests. In traditional rural societies the individual’s social life is much more restricted. Philip Jenkins concurs with the observation of social mobility, suggesting that in Latin America “the move to the cities over the past half-century has liberated ordinary people from traditional religious structures.”142 Similarly, Triandis suggests that affluence lends itself to individualism in that the rich can afford to be more independent. Similarly, both geographic and social mobility limit the influence of the collective on an individual’s life and choices. Undoubtedly, Western European and North American society is much more affluent and mobile than any society in history, and some relationship may well exist between this fact and its marked individualism. Certainly the same applies, to some degree, to Latin America. In a related study, Geert Hofstede found that at a culture-level, individualism was highly correlated with per capita GNP.143 Recent research suggests that social class has a greater effect on individualism than culture. Interestingly, both Marshall and Freeman found the middle-class to be less collectivist than the upper classes, and Bellah links

H.C. Triandis, “Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of individualism and collectivism,” in Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications eds. U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), 41-51. 142 Jenkins, The Next Christendom,73. Jenkins further posits that the growth of Protestantism may be partly attributable to the fact that the churches provided the uprooted masses with the kind of structure to which they were accustomed. That the growth of evangelicalism in Latin America is related to this migration to the cities is widely confirmed. 143 Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. 141

61

individualism with the middle-class, suggesting that the upper classes may like the tendency for collectivism to support the status quo.144 In terms of the Caribbean and Latin America, environmental factors also affected the development of the unique and paradoxical balance between individualism and authoritarianism. Nida traces the authoritarian tendency of the Latin world to the struggle in the Iberian Peninsula to expel the Moors in the fifteenth century. That the Moors were defeated in the same year that Columbus sailed for the New World is significant. The cultural emphasis at that time was on “unity,” on pulling together all the military and spiritual resources available toward one task: the defense of the state and of Christendom. The context in the New World was not greatly different, in terms of the military and cultural challenges that the Spanish conquerors and colonists faced. The Roman Catholic Church was similarly reeling from the effects of the Protestant Reformation, and taking measures to protect itself from any further losses.145 The movement in CALA over the past century and a half toward more democratic forms of government accompanied increased tolerance of diverse expressions of faith, and diversity of intellectual perspective. Throughout most of Latin America in the mid1800s, the desire to attract the kind of immigrants that could develop the nation prompted greater openness to the Protestant faith of those immigrants. 146 As Escobar notes, “the virtues of a Christian nature that Protestant mission produced and encouraged coincided

R. Marshall, “Variances in levels of individualism across two cultures and three social classes,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28, no. 4 (1997): 490-495; M. A. Freeman, “Demographic correlates of individualism and collectivism: A study of social values in Sri Lanka,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28, no.3 (1997): 321-341; Bellah et al., Habits, 148. 145 Nida, Understanding Latin Americans, 16, 17. See also Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2, 110-121. For an example of how strict intolerance played out in the Dominican Republic, see Moya P., Historia Dominicana, 54-61. 144

62

with the ideas of politicians interested in leading their country along the path of modernization.”147

Still, CALA in general maintained a conservatively structured,

centralized society. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to think that individualism did not exist or had no influence. 2.5.

CONCLUSION Our present Western individualism has sprung out of a mixture of factors. The

presence today of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the People for the American Way (PAW), both of which resist the influence of religion upon culture, is evidence of rationalistic and humanistic roots from the Enlightenment. On the other hand, the thinking of the early American settlers, especially in the New England colonies, was profoundly affected by the Protestant Reformation. Additionally, although their ideology and religious beliefs predisposed them to individualistic tendencies, it was the physical environment of American pioneer life that provided the opportunity for individualistic thinking to fully flourish and bear its fruit. Nonetheless the significance of physical environmental factors should not be over-emphasized, given that Latin America experienced a similar pioneer settling environment and yet did not develop nearly as individualistic a society as that in North America. Of these three factors, however, the second factor is of the greatest significance. It has been the specifically Protestant religious life of individuals within Western society that has promoted a “climate” in which a greater degree of individualism has been

146

Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, 3, 4, 79. See also George A. Lockward, El Protestantismo en Dominicana, 2d ed. (Santo Domingo: Editora Educativa, 1982) and Alfonso Lockward, Intolerancia y Libertad de Cultos en Santo Domingo, (Santo Domingo: Editora Taller, 1993). 147 Escobar, Changing Tides, 54.

63

tolerated than would have otherwise been socially feasible. It is to that argument that we now turn.

64

CHAPTER 3 THE ETHIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, OR, RESOLVING THE UNITY IN DIVERSITY TENSION 3.1.

INTRODUCTION A society can only tolerate individualism to the degree to which individuals

themselves maintain their obligations to one another as individuals and to the society as a society. In other words, freedom is dependent upon the exercise of virtue. Furthermore, this study argues that it is only authentic Christianity that has the power to transform individuals into the kind of virtuous beings that will be adequately self-governing to allow for the freedom and the individualism we presently enjoy in Western society. This discussion is another expression of the unity in diversity debate that has developed in philosophy for more than two millennia. Accordingly, this chapter begins with a look at the historical unity in diversity debate, specifically in relation to its influence on the individual in society. Beyond that point we consider the notion of internal versus external government, or the relationship between self-discipline of individuals and the need for outside or civil controls.

Beyond that we argue that

authentic Christianity is the only adequate basis for internal government or virtue. 3.2. ORDERING A FREE SOCIETY 3.2.1. The Unity in Diversity Tension A brief consideration of Pre-Socratic and Socratic philosophy provides a backdrop for a comprehensive view of ordering a free society.

Further, Plato and

Aristotle, whose works greatly influenced the development of Western thought, provide an additional background to explore the matter of ordering a free society.

65

In his landmark work A History of Philosophy, Copleston observes that “the theme of the relation between the One and the Many and of the character of both may be discerned running through the whole of Greek philosophy, just as indeed it runs through the whole of philosophy…” Copleston explains this philosophic effort as an attempt to “reconcile the Many of experience with the One demanded by thought.” In Pre-Socratic thought, that effort was pursued primarily on a material plane, with both the One and the Many being understood to be material in nature (Copleston suggests that at this early stage of philosophic development the antithesis between matter and spirit had not yet been grasped).148 Copleston identifies Heraclitus as the originator of the concept of unity in diversity.149 Of all the Pre-Socratics, he most effectively addressed this issue. Heraclitus considered the conflict of opposites to be essential to the unity of the One, instead of being something disorderly that ought not to be. Nonetheless his understanding of the One as Fire, and his overemphasis on Becoming, were factors that weighed down his philosophic perspective and made it less than it otherwise might have been.150 Inasmuch as they concerned themselves with this matter, the Sophists stressed multiplicity (of ways of life, of ethical judgments, of opinions) while Socrates stressed unity, especially in the basic unity of true judgments of value.

Socrates sought

knowledge as a means to ethical action, and viewed knowledge and virtue as one.151 Plato, as a student of Socrates, then developed the richness and complexity of the problem of unity and diversity.

Through his theory of “Ideas,” Plato definitely

148

Frederick C. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 1, Greece and Rome (Newman Press, 1946; reprint, New York: Image, 1993), 487, 20. 149 Ibid., 40. 150 Ibid., 77.

66

transcends the materialism of the Pre-Socratics. Nonetheless, he does not provide an adequate solution to the problem, leaving us with a dualism between Reality on the one hand and semi-reality or Becoming on the other hand.152 Even so, Plato’s writings on political theory give us a window into his thoughts on the relationship between the individual and the collective. Plato wrote in the context of the Greek city-state, where life was essentially communal, though some individualistic tendencies were evident. Plato notes that the correct philosophy shows “what is just for communities and for individuals.” The state was understood to exist to serve the wants of man.153 In reading even the political writings of Plato, it is helpful to remember that his passion was for transcendent religious truth: even The Republic is misunderstood if it is treated as a treatise upon politics primarily. Plato’s inquiry into the nature of statehood is pursued as an inquiry “into the nature of justice and injustice.”154 Kirk points out that Plato’s Republic really offers a pattern for the soul’s harmony, with the philosopherrulers, the soldiers, and the farmers corresponding to the soul’s Reason, Will, and Appetite.155 Just as in the proper ordering of the soul, the Will and Appetite are to be directed by Reason, so a well-ordered society depends upon each person doing that to which they have been suited by their nature, moved by concern for the common good. Thus, Plato suggested that society should be ruled by the philosopher-king. In those days Plato and his students viewed democracy as inferior to aristocracy, an idea certainly contrary to the pervasive mindset of our times.

151

Ibid., 487, 108. Ibid., 488. 153 Ibid., 223-225. 154 Plato, The Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett (original 1894; reprint, New York: Dover, 2000), 40. 152

67

In his philosophy of history proffered in The Republic, Plato describes the flow of a society’s development from aristocracy to timocracy, then further to oligarchy. In the end the poor expel the rich and establish democracy.

Then, according to Plato,

democracy gives way to tyranny because of the extravagant love of liberty, a weakness inherent in democracy.156 That observation of Plato is relevant to our discussion, and his detailing of that process of change is telling, in light of our times. As we will consider later in this chapter, a society can only bear so much individualism before suffering a reactionary backlash.

When chaos or instability threatens, a centralizing reaction

generally is unleashed, replacing democracy with tyranny. Thus, Kirk is able to say that violent political revolutions usually follow a discernible pattern.157 In related comments, Plato argues for the rule of law, and for temperance in the state in the sense that everyone recognizes their place and their relative right to rule or not to rule, and that the few should rule the many.158 In summary, an evaluation of Plato’s political theory on the spectrum of individualism-collectivism places him decidedly toward the collectivist end.

His

declaration of the rule of the philosopher-king as ideal, and his distrust of democracy, are expressions of Platonic collectivism. Thus, even though Plato demonstrated a firm grasp of the tension between the one and the many, unity and diversity, and aimed to resolve that tension, the framework he lays out for society is far from individualistic in the

155

Kirk, Roots of American Order, 82-83. Plato, The Republic, 203-229; Copleston, History of Philosophy, vol. 1, 233. 157 Kirk, Roots of American Order, 264. 158 Copleston, History of Philosophy, vol. 1, 235. 156

68

modern sense of that word. Indeed, Copleston agrees that “Plato aimed at excessive unification.”159 Aristotle’s views on the One and Many could be summarized as somewhat more synthesized than the views of Plato, some of which he borrowed. Through his doctrine of immanent substantial form he attempts to unite the multiplicity of members of a species in the possession of a similar specific form.160 Aristotle asserts a real unifying principle in the terrestrial world, while avoiding any over-emphasis of unity. Perhaps his chief contribution to the understanding of order in political theory is expressed in the doctrine of the “Golden Mean,” moderation or balance in private life and in public.161 Aristotle’s philosophical perspectives would return to affect the development of Western civilization later, through the works of Thomas Aquinas. Going beyond Aristotle, Copleston suggests that in post-Aristotelian philosophy we can find in Stoicism an over-emphasis on the One, resulting in cosmic pantheism, while in Epicureanism we find an over-emphasis on the Many.162

Epicureanism

establishes the individual as the center of gravity. Beyond these influences, however, we see

several

streams

of

thought

converging,

as

Pythagoreanism,

Platonism,

Aristotelianism, and Stoicism developed into Neo-Platonism. Copleston’s note on this development is significant: In that system the only possible way of settling the problem of the One and the Many is apprehended, namely that the Many must issue in some way from the One, the dualism between God and an independent world being avoided on the one hand and monism being avoided on the other hand, so that justice could be

159

Ibid., 354. Ibid., 488. 161 Kirk, Roots of American Order, 89-90. Aristotle, The Politics, 1295a34. 162 Copleston, History of Philosophy, vol. 1, 488. 160

69

done to the reality of the One and the Many, to the Supreme reality of the One and the dependent reality of the Many.163 Neo-Platonism is important to our study as well because of its role as a bridge between ancient and medieval philosophy, to which we now turn. Early Christianity developed in the context of a mixture of Jewish and Greek cultural influences.

As Christianity expanded throughout the Roman Empire and

eventually became the official religion in the fourth century, more and more attention was given to a careful explanation of a specifically Christian theology and philosophy. In relation to that development of thought, Copleston notes that: . . . as the Christians had no philosophy of their own to start with (i.e. in the academic sense of philosophy), they very naturally turned to the prevailing philosophy, which was derived from Platonism but was strongly impregnated with other elements. As a rough generalization, therefore, one may say that the philosophic ideas of the early Christian writers were platonic or neo-Platonic in character.164 Copleston confirms this observation in other places, as does Latourette.165 Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophy held sway until the thirteenth century, when many of the long-lost writings of Aristotle were reintroduced to Western Europe via Arabic philosophers. A few centuries later, however, the Reformers reached back to Augustine for support of their positions, especially in regard to the bondage of the will to sin,166 and so we see something of a contrast developing between a Protestant Northern Europe influenced by Plato via Augustine, and a Roman Catholic Southern Europe influenced by Aristotle via Aquinas.

163

Ibid., 489. Frederick C. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. 2, Medieval Philosophy (Newman Press, 1950; reprint, New York: Image, 1993), 14. 165 Ibid., 31, 39; Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, 27, 260. 166 Kirk, Roots of American Order, 167, 232-233. 164

70

In reference to this and in thinking of the Russian Revolution, Francis A. Schaeffer observes that a: . . . quite different dynamic was involved in the political fortunes of those parts of Europe structurally influenced by the restoration of biblical Christianity in the sixteenth century as compared to those not so influenced. In crude geopolitical terms, there is a contrast between the north of Europe and the south and east. Allowing for local influences, it would seem that the inspiration for most revolutionary changes in the south of Europe was a copy, but often in contorted form, of the freedoms gained from the Reformation in the north.167 Regarding unity and diversity, Schaeffer posits that the Reformation’s return to biblical teaching provided a true basis for form and freedom in society and government. Referring to Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex, published in 1644, Schaeffer declares that “Here was a concept of freedom without chaos because there was a form. Or, to put it another way, here was a government of law rather than of the arbitrary decisions of men because the Bible as the final authority was there as the base.”168 Schaeffer traces the effect of this thinking on the emerging United States of America in the eighteenth century, coming to the framers of the constitution via Samuel Rutherford, John Witherspoon, and John Locke.169 The framers of the constitution of the United States of America wrestled long and hard with the issue of unity and diversity, aiming to find a way to balance the prerogatives of the individual with those of the state. They also sought to balance the relationship between the various states and the central or federal government.

In

addition, they sought to balance the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. That the framers of the American constitution succeeded in

167

Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? 124. Ibid., 109. See also David Little, Religion, Order, and Law: A Study in Pre-Revolutionary England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984) for an excellent analysis of the relationship between Puritanism, “legal-rational” order, and individualism. See especially pages 9, 110-111, 127, and 238. 168

71

their effort is reflected in the fact that most new nations of Latin America, and many others from around the world, have adopted constitutions similar to that of the USA. The thinking of the framers of the American constitution was informed by both biblical and classical streams of thought. They understood that because mankind was sinful and fallen, checks and balances were necessary. As such they did not have the humanistic perspective of those who led the French Revolution a few years later. In conclusion, Western civilization has inherited from classical culture and from biblical teaching a diversity of approaches to the above philosophic tension between unity and diversity. Specifically in regard to this study, Western society has tried hard to resolve the tension between the One of the collective society and the Many of the individuals in that society in the direction of the individual. In the next section we look at the “mechanics” of what this inter-relation has meant and how it has been resolved. 3.2.2. Internal vs. External Government In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle Paul addresses this fundamental issue of the relationship of the individual to the collective, specifically the appropriate relationship of believers to their civil authorities. Paul commands obedience to them, noting in Romans 13:3-4 that the authorities are placed there by God to maintain order, to punish the wicked and to “do you good” as an obedient citizen. Paul adds “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and he will commend you.” The passage above may be key to this study. In the delicate balance that must be maintained in any social body between the prerogatives of the individual and those of the collective (the unity and diversity tension), the nature of the individual’s attitude toward 169

Ibid.

72

others is to a large degree determinative. If the individual members of the collective seek only their own interest, even at the expense of other individuals within that collective, then the collective as a whole (i.e. its civil governing bodies) need to balance out that tendency, protecting the members from one another. On the other hand, if the individual members of the collective seek the good of their fellows, of their own initiative (even if it be the “enlightened self-interest” referred to by Tocqueville), then much less involvement is required of the civil authorities in the maintaining of the common good. It is in reference to the above dynamic that it has been said that “people get the government they deserve.” In the words of Richard M. Weaver, “a spoiled people invite despotic control.

Their failure to maintain internal discipline is followed by some

rationalized organization in the service of a single powerful will.”170 A disorderly, violent people who are quick to take advantage of their neighbors will need a stronger expression of civil government (for example, police presence) to maintain the common good, than will a body of individuals considerate of their neighbor’s welfare. This concept has been expressed as the relationship between internal and external government, or as Russell Kirk describes it in The Roots of American Order, as “inner order” and “outer order.”171 Riesman noted the same dynamic in recognizing that in the eighteenth through twentieth centuries the typical American was the “inner-directed type”; they quote a gravestone inscription of an early American who had “a rational and firm faith in his God and Saviour: he knew no other master.”172 This is reminiscent of the

170

Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), 91. 171 Kirk, Roots of American Order, 6. 172 D. Reisman, N. Glazer, and R. Denney, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (New York: Doubleday, 1953), 133.

73

passage in the Bible where God speaks to Israel about the New Covenant He will establish with them: This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.173 Any grouping of persons requires government of some kind, for the maintaining of order, and the amount of external (civil) government required is dependent on the degree of internal self-government exercised by the individuals in that grouping. The greater the inner, moral strength of the individuals of that society, the greater the degree of autonomy allowed them in their daily lives. The essential argument of Robert Bellah’s seminal work Habits of the Heart is that in reference to the United States in particular, individualism has been sustainable “only because it has been supported and checked by other, more generous moral understandings.”174 As mentioned in chapter 2 above, Michael Novak concurs with the above in The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Novak refers to the testimony of one of America’s founders, James Madison, saying that: Virtue is the pivotal and deepest American idea. . . . To imagine an experiment in republican government without virtue, Madison had told the Virginia Assembly, “is ‘chimerical.’ For how could a people, unable severally to govern their own passions, combine to govern their own body politic?” Without the people themselves having the virtues that make liberty possible, neither a free polity nor a free economy can survive for long. What are these virtues? Temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence make possible the human acts of reflection and choice, on which liberty depends.175 Bringing this into a Latin American context, Genaro Salom posits that:

173

Quoted in Hebrews 8:10-11. Bellah et al. Habits, ix. 175 Novak, The Catholic Ethic, 208. 174

74

The knowledge of the law, its respect and observation are indispensable for the development of democracy and social welfare in Latin America. These factors are the necessary prerequisites for the achievement and maintenance of an ordered, disciplined, and respectful society. That is how the people will be able to enjoy an appropriate level of peace, security, and tranquillity.176 In conclusion, a changed attitude toward one’s fellows expressed in an increase in virtues like the temperance, fortitude, justice, and prudence noted above, can be alternately described as an increase in personal responsibility. Personal responsibility carries with it an implicit individualizing tendency: the individual with a high sense of personal responsibility will be more likely to take responsible individual initiative. The aggregate effect of this, multiplied in the lives of many individuals, cannot help but result in a positive influence on society. An increase of individualism apart from this increase in the sense of personal responsibility or internal government, however, will produce quite different results, as the society plunges toward anarchy. To quote Tocqueville, “How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed?”177 The essential challenge that remains before us, then, is the development of the necessary virtue to be able to sustain the individualistic emphasis of our society. To that matter we now turn. 3.2.3. The Only Adequate Source for Such an Ethic It is the argument of this study that only Biblical Christianity is able to provide an adequate base to tolerate and sustain the level of individualism presently enjoyed in the “El conocimiento de la ley, su respeto y cumplimiento son indispensables para el desarrollo de la democracia y el bienestar social en Latinoamérica. Estos factores son los pre-requisitos necesarios para poder alcanzar y mantener una sociedad ordenada, disciplinada y respetuosa. Así es como el pueblo podrá disfrutar de un nivel apropiado de paz, seguridad y tranquilidad.” Trans. mine. Genaro D. Salom, “La Ley y El Orden: su relacion con la sociedad,” Revista INTER-FORUM, June 10, 2001 [journal on-line]; available at http://www.revistainterforum.com/espanol/articulos/061001artprin.html; Internet; accessed 6 September 2003. 176

75

West. In other words, only Christianity in its purer forms can consistently produce sufficient individual virtue to tolerate the emphasis on individual rights we presently see. To rephrase our conclusions above, the emphasis on individual rights must be matched by an emphasis on individual responsibility, what we will call a “responsibility ethic.” This study argues that though other factors contributed to the rise of the uniquely individualistic society we see today in the West, the Protestant expression of Christianity in early North America was necessary for the development of the virtues conducive to that society’s tolerance of individualism. In a later chapter we can look into this by means of quantitative research. In what remains of this present chapter we consider six characteristics of the development of what we could call the “responsibility ethic” in the context of evangelical conversion. The responsibility ethic is 1) the result of genuine inner transformation, 2) it develops in a natural and organic manner, 3) it affects family relationships, 4) it affects economic relationships, 5) it is related to volunteerism, and 6) it provides community in the midst of chaos. The choice of this term “responsibility ethic” is related to Weber’s terminology. In identifying what he called a “Protestant work ethic” Weber established himself as a central figure in the past century of debate over the relationship between religion and society or the influence of gospel on culture. Weber posited that Reformed theological influences were fundamental to the rise of democratic capitalism in the Western world. It is important to recognize, however, that he did not say that capitalism is a creation of the Reformation, or that the spirit of capitalism could only have arisen as a result of certain effects of the Reformation, but points to certain influences of religious movements on material culture. The present study is concerned not only with a work ethic or with 177

Kirk, Roots of American Order, 333.

76

economic and political variables, so the broader implications of the term “responsibility ethic” seem to make its use more appropriate.178 The first point to be mentioned about the responsibility ethic in the context of evangelical conversion is that it is the result of genuine inner transformation.

As

Latourette recognized in reference not only to Augustine but to many others, “ . . . Christianity worked the moral transformation which it demanded. Augustine was by no means the first or the only morally defeated individual who found victory in the Gospel. This was so frequent as to be almost normal.”179 Escobar notes that in Latin American Pentecostalism, the prohibitions against alcohol and tobacco “went along with a strong emphasis on an emotional conversion moment, an anointing with the power of God, which in some cases was the point of breaking away from old habits.”180 The encounter with God leads to a changed life. The Gospel begins as a reorienting of the individual’s vertical relationship with God, and then broadens to a consideration of the horizontal implications of that. Reference was made earlier to Padilla’s contention that repentance of necesity must have social implications.181 As Padilla says, “Repentance is not mere remorse of the conscience – the ‘worldly sorrow’ that produces death (2 Cor. 7:10) – but a change of attitude, a restructuring of all values, a reorientation of the whole personality.”182 The oft-overlooked reality of genuine Biblical Christianity is that God Himself offers to bring about that necessary inner transformation:

178

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic, 91. Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, 107. 180 Escobar, Changing Tides, 56. 181 Padilla, Misión Integral, 19. 182 Ibid. “Y el arrepentimiento no es un mero remordimiento de conciencia – la ‘tristeza del mundo’ que produce muerte (2 Co. 7:10) – sino un cambio de actitud, una reestructuración de todos los valores, una reorientación de toda la personalidad.” Trans. mine. 179

77

He said “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.”183 In second place, the development of the responsibility ethic in the context of evangelical conversion develops naturally and organically. This implies the absence of political motivation, and that its impact on the economic sphere as well is unintended. Some commentators on Weber have expressed precisely that. We begin with a closer look at Weber’s theory. Weber contends that the predestination doctrine of Calvinism or of the Reformed church led to a zealous pursuit of good works, since good works were taken to be a confirmation or proof of election, putting at ease the troubled consciences who were unsure of their election. This zealous commitment to good works Weber called “worldly asceticism” in contrast to the asceticism manifested in earlier centuries of Christianity in monasticism, etc. Weber also notes that this attitude, and the predestination doctrine, had an individualizing effect on society, in that the believer stood alone before God; no church or priest could help him, in contrast to the Catholic idea of salvation coming via the church.184 While many have since critiqued Weber’s analysis, it provides us at least with a starting point for discussion. What Weber saw has been observed by many others and is not easily dismissed;185 his interpretation of what he saw is probably less accurate.

183

As quoted in Hebrew 8:10. Weber, The Protestant Ethic, 104-105, 115, 127. 185 It has not been “politically correct” in recent decades to attribute progress to cultural values, which is equivalent to declaring some cultural values – and hence some cultures - better than others. A recent academic book that flies in the face of this tendency is aptly titled Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. Edited by Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (New York: Basic, 2000). 184

78

It is doubtful, for example, that Calvin would have agreed with Weber’s assessment of Calvin’s own influence. On the contrary, Niebuhr contends that while “It is true that the teaching of the Genevan reformer supplied one of the main foundations for the development of modern democracy, it was far from Calvin’s intention to promote either civil liberty or democracy.”186 This is interesting. Peter Berger similarly posits that the affinities between Protestantism and these other entities (including individualism and the “Protestant work ethic”) are, in the main, unintended, and “are the result not of explicated doctrine, but of the unanticipated behavioral consequences of both doctrine and religious experience.”187 The fact that the development of the “responsibility ethic,” the counter-agent to individualism, is an unintended by-product of Protestantism’s spread is especially significant in the Latin American context. It has been repeatedly alleged by opponents that the spread of evangelicalism in Latin America is a conspiracy financed and promoted by North American political and business interests.

Though this theory has been

discredited on various counts, it continues to surface in surprising contexts, such as when Pope John Paul II warns Catholics about the “invasion of the sects.”188 Not only is the development of the responsibility ethic natural and organic, the third characteristic of the development of the responsibility ethic is that it affects family relationships. Some especially interesting testimony of the gospel’s impact on family life has come in recent years from Latin America. Jenkins notes that evangelicalism in Latin

186

Niebuhr, Social Sources of Denominationalism, 41. Peter Berger, foreword to Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America by David Martin (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1990), ix. 188 See Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, 1-5, and Escobar, Changing Tides, especially p. 90. See also David Stoll, introduction to Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, eds., (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993), 1. 187

79

America “has encouraged a new and exalted view of the family and of domesticity, placing much greater emphasis on male responsibility and chastity.”189 The acceptance of male responsibility in the family is very highly related to development, as documented not only in Latin America but also in the United States.190 Elizabeth Brusco reports from Colombia on the profound impact of evangelicalism on family life: My data on Colombian evangelical households support the conclusion reached by other analysts of Latin American Pentecostalism: that conversion of both a woman and her spouse improves the material circumstances of the household. Quite simply, no longer is 20 to 40 percent of the household budget consumed by the husband in the form of alcohol. Ascetic codes block many of the other extrahousehold forms of consumption that characterize masculine behavior in Colombia, such as smoking, gambling, and visiting prostitutes. Furthermore, an emphasis on marital fidelity for both partners prohibits a man from keeping other women outside his marriage, so a man’s limited resources are no longer split among two or more households dependent on his wage. . . . Yet the tangible improvement in the lives of women and children is only one indicator of a much more remarkable trend. With conversion, machismo, the culturally shaped aggressive masculinity that defines the male role in much of mestizo Colombia, is replaced by evangelical belief as the main definer of expectations in husband-wife relations. The machista personality and the male role defined by evangelical Protestantism are almost diametric opposites.191 Brusco notes in summary that “evangelicalism reforms gender roles in a way that enhances female status. It promotes female interests not only in simple, practical ways but also through its potential as an antidote to machismo.”192

Writing from the

Jenkins, The Next Christendom, 75. See also Elizabeth Brusco, ‘The Reformation of Machismo: Asceticism and Masculinity among Colombian Evangelicals,’ in Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, edited by Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll. See also Garrard-Burnett’s summary chapter of this edited work (pp. 199-210). 190 See Willliam J. Bennet, The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 87-94, and James Dobson, Bringing Up Boys (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001), 53-66. 191 Brusco, “The Reformation of Machismo,” 147-148. 192 Ibid., 144. 189

80

Guatemalan context, Linda Green concurs, noting that “Women point to the prohibition of alcohol use by the evangélicos as an attractive feature of ‘conversion.’”193 As alluded to above, the fourth characteristic of the responsibility ethic is that it affects economics. This is the point Weber especially emphasized. Many others have seen it as well, and it really is inter-woven with the above points about family and about inner transformation. Consider the opinion of the famous evangelist D.L. Moody. Marsden reports that Moody held that: Conversion inevitably led to personal responsibility and moral uplift, qualities which the conventional wisdom said the poor most often lacked. . . . Once wanderers came ‘home’ and the poor acquired the sense of responsibility found in strong Christian families, poverty would cease. So individual conversions would eventually bring social reform.194 In concrete terms, conversion to evangelicalism is usually associated with abstaining from alcohol consumption and the related fiestas. That can mean tremendous economic savings. Consider for example that one study indicated that between 20 and 40 percent of the income of one group of rural Colombians was spent on alcohol.195 That the poor who come into the kingdom tend to rise on the economic scale under the influence of religious discipline again attests to the transforming power of the gospel.

That this process of change is mediated by a change in the individual’s

conception of individual responsibility has been noted earlier. That the worldly asceticism Weber speaks of is conducive to the creation of wealth is readily supported. Many concur with it, from Paul’s writings forward. Wesley

Linda Green, “Shifting Affiliations: Mayan Women and Evangélicos in Guatemala,” in Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, eds., (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993), 175. 194 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 37. 193

81

specifically lamented that “For religion must of necessity produce industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.”196 Of the material success of the early American Puritans, Cotton Mather had this to say: “Religion begat prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother.”197 Niebuhr also affirms the relationship between Calvinism and capitalism, though perhaps not to the extent suggested by Weber and others: The conservative conclusion which may be drawn for the purposes of our study from the evidence amassed is that the Calvinistic denominations in general are representative middle-class churches, whose rise and development as religious groups were conditioned by the economic interests of the bourgeoisie and the economic rise of whose members as a middle and capitalist trade class was strongly influenced by the faith of Geneva.198 Niebuhr’s work on the Social Sources of Denominationalism is also interesting in its analysis of the relationship between religious conversion and practice. Inverting Weber’s contention that religious convictions give rise to economic and sociopolitical results, Niebuhr’s thesis is that denominations are essentially born out of class differences, and are caste-bound. He describes denominationalism as the story of the religiously neglected poor, coming into the kingdom and fashioning an organizational entity around their identity, rising then on the economic scale under the influence of religious discipline, and then in their new-found cultural respectability in turn neglecting and rejecting the new poor succeeding them on the lower plane.199

Brusco, “The Reformation of Machismo”, 156. See Darrow L. Miller, Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures (Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing, 1998), 247; Niebuhr, Social Sources of Denominationalism, 54-55, 70. 197 Stephen Foster, Their Solitary Way (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971). See also Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, 15. 198 Niebuhr, Social Sources of Denominationalism, 80. 199 Ibid., 17-21, 28. 195 196

82

This does seem to be borne out to some degree in the Latin American Protestant context, where the older “mainline” denominations are now primarily made up of the middle-class, who have risen from their earlier status. The Pentecostal churches, newer than the above, are still primarily of the lower classes.200 The fifth characteristic of the responsibility ethic in the context of evangelical conversion is its relationship to volunteerism.

This does have profound political

implications, and has been variously noted by writers as diverse in time as Tocqueville, and by Bellah in the landmark study Habits of the Heart.201 In the Latin American religious context, Escobar contends that in their practice of volunteerism, Latin American evangelicals reflect the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.202 Escobar also notes Roman Catholic Church frustration over its inability to match popular Pentecostalism in mobilizing all its members in the task of evangelization.203 Protestant church government is often much more democratic than Roman Catholic Church government. In a study on culture and democracy, Ronald Inglehart reminds us that “Historically, the Roman Catholic Church was the prototype of a hierarchical, centrally controlled institution; Protestant churches were relatively decentralized and more open to local control.”204 The sixth characteristic of the responsibility ethic in the context of evangelical conversion is that it provides community in the midst of chaos. This is increasingly important, and provides ample explanation for Christianity’s expansion in the developing

200

Escobar, Changing Tides, 8. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. by Henry Reeve, (original 1835; reprint, New York: Bantam, 2000); Bellah et al. Habits. 202 Escobar, Changing Tides, 102. 203 Ibid., 92-93. 204 Ronald Inglehart, “Culture and Democracy,” in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. (New York: Basic, 2000), 91. 201

83

world today.

Jenkins notes that evangelicalism in Latin America provides radical

community, and addresses the social needs of the poor. Jenkins goes on to argue that in the chaos of life in the developing world today (like in the declining Roman Empire or in eighteenth century England), the Christian faith is able to bring individuals what their societies are not able to provide: a place of refuge in the storm, caring community, and personal contact with a God that truly “intervenes directly in everyday life.” 205 Escobar notes that the evangelical churches “are observed to create an atmosphere of community and family for the poor in the city.”206

Other authors have similarly noted that

evangelicalism’s growth in Latin America is related to its ability to provide a refuge for the poor, and especially for women.207 A dissenting opinion certainly applies, questioning whether the impact of Protestantism is caused as much by internal transformation as by external dynamics. In Novak’s The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, obviously titled in reference to Weber’s work, Novak acknowledges that Weber did not err in finding “a moral and cultural dimension internal to capitalism,” yet he contends that: The weakest part of Weber’s thesis, as we have seen, lay in its theological analysis. For it may well be true that the effects of the Protestant ethic, whether in the countries singled out by Weber or in Latin America today, lie far less than Weber thought in strict ideas of predestination and calling, and rather more in the delegitimizing of the old order effected by a new nonestablished religion, whose converts feel free at last to be acting persons in their own right. Thus Jews, Catholics, and indeed other men and women who have rejected the old order in the name of initiative and creativity have done as well as the Calvinists Weber singled out.208

205

Jenkins, The Next Christendom, 75-77. Escobar, Changing Tides, 95. 207 See especially the articles by Elizabeth Brusco, by Linda Green, and by Lesley Gill, in Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, edited by Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll. 208 Novak, The Catholic Ethic, 7, 231-232. 206

84

Specifically regarding the transforming role of evangelical conversion in Latin America, Novak argues that moral/religious conversion has power to transform those who experience it by replacing the static old order, in which they were stuck, with a new sense of self, hope, and possibility.209 This objection notwithstanding, the consensus of history still favors the argument that the advance of economic and political freedoms have followed the advance of evangelical Christianity. Novak’s point is also well taken that evangelicalism’s advance has in turn been enhanced by the delegitimization of the old establishment in the current environment of globalization. Perhaps it is most accurate to say with Garrard-Burnett that “religious mobility is both a product and a cause of economic change.”210 3.3.

CONCLUSION The first chapter highlighted that from the dawn of biblical revelation, the

revealed word and will of God have been declared to be normative for the behavior of His people. This has been understood to be the case throughout church history among Christians, indeed to the present day among those who now call themselves “evangelicals.” Chapter 1 also made note of the actual power of the gospel to transform, noting for example Latourette’s admission that “Christianity worked the moral transformation which it demanded.”211 Chapters 2 and then 3 addressed the issue of what factors have given rise to the individualism of Western civilization.

While consideration has been given to the

influences of Enlightenment rationalism and environmental factors, the primary focus has been on the ability of Protestantism to “deliver” in the above sense of working the moral

209 210

Ibid., 230. Garrard-Burnett, Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, 203.

85

transformation it demands. This fact prompts the contention that were it not for the influence of Protestantism in the development of Western culture, there would not have arisen a sufficient base of virtue (the responsibility ethic) to be able to make the West governable in the democratic tradition. The North American colonies would then have undoubtedly experienced the authoritarian or autocratic leadership experienced by most of the rest of the world at that time. As for CALA, given the indicated relationships between evangelical growth and positive social implications, and given the present rate of evangelical growth, the best is clearly yet to come. At this point our study takes a turn, to consider the social science construct of individualism–collectivism, pursuing the quantitative analysis of the present Latin American situation. Our objective is to be able to measure the relationship between evangelicalism and individualism in Latin America, in order to give some indication of their possible relationship on a broader scale.

211

Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol. 1, 107.

86

CHAPTER 4 CULTURAL INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM 4.1.

INTRODUCTION Our review of literature on cultural individualism/collectivism (I/C) needs

additional consideration of the background studies in cultural diversity that gave it birth. 4.2.

CONSTRUCTS AND CONCEPTS

4.2.1. High-context vs. Low-context communication Early work in this field began with Hall.212 Hall identified what he called highcontext cultures and low-context cultures. High-context cultures are those in which most of the communication or message is either in the physical context itself or internalized in the person, with very little of the message in the coded, explicit, transmitted parts of the message. In contrast, low-context cultures are those in which most of the information is contained in the explicit code. Hall proceeded to arrange the nations and cultures of the world on a continuum according to their orientation toward low or high-context communication. As confirmed in other similar studies, the lowest context cultures tend to be those from Northern Europe and North America.213 Oriental cultures tend to be the highest-context, with others (including Latin America) ranging between these extremes. 4.2.2. Individualism vs. Collectivism Another conceptualization of culture that has greatly affected scholarly research is that of Geert Hofstede.214

Hofstede conducted a massive survey of over 117,000

employees of a multinational organization in sixty-six countries, and identified four

212

E.T. Hall, Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976). W. B. Gudykunst and Y. Y. Kim, Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication (New York: Random House, 1984). 214 Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. 213

87

dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and individualism-collectivism. Power distance addresses the “specific value orientations regarding the appropriateness or role of status differences and social hierarchies.” Uncertainty avoidance describes “the extent to which cultures feel threatened by ambiguity, uncertain situations, and try to avoid them by establishing more structure.” Masculinity-femininity “reflects the degree to which a culture values behaviors such as assertiveness and competition (masculine) versus caring for others and the quality of life (feminine).”215 The cultural variable of individualism-collectivism is concerned with the balance cultures maintain between a concern for self (“I”) and a concern for the collective (“we”). Individualistic cultures emphasize individual initiatives, rights, and achievements, while collectivist cultures emphasize the goals, needs and views of the ingroup over individual pleasure. Collectivists tend to value group harmony over the immediate rights or desires of the individual, whereas individualists tend to value the prerogatives of the individual over those of the group.

Research on individualism-collectivism has found it to

approximate low and high cultural context, with individualistic cultures tending to use low context communication and collectivistic cultures tending to use high context communication.216 Each of Hofstede’s variables of culture has been further explored in more recent research. The most prolific field of inquiry has been individualism-collectivism (I/C), so

215

L. F. Harper and L. J. Rifkind, Cultural Collision: Quality Teamwork in the Diverse Workplace (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1995). 216 W. B. Gudykunst and S. Ting-Toomey (with E. Chua). Culture and Interpersonal Communication (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988).

88

much so that the 1980s have been proclaimed “the decade of I/C in cross-cultural psychology.”217 Considering the focus of this study on Latin America, it bears mention that in Hofstede’s study, of the thirty-nine nations listed, the seven Latin American nations scored below the mean for individualism. Three of the four nations scoring lowest in individualism were Latin American. In contrast, the six nations scoring highest on individualism in Hofstede’s study all have roots in the Protestant Reformation, and with the exception of the Netherlands, all are English speaking nations.218 Before we continue our research review on cultural I/C conducted from a communications studies or cross-cultural psychology perspective, we detour briefly to consider how this term individualism has been addressed in other social science disciplines. In his landmark study of American society, Bellah suggests that though the concept of individualism existed prior to the nineteenth century, the word itself was not used until then. It was Alexis de Tocqueville who helped give currency to the word, describing it as follows in his Democracy in America: Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself. . . . Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny is in their hands.219

C. Kagitcibasi, “A Critical Appraisal of Individualism and Collectivism: Toward a New Formulation,” in U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), 52-65. 218 Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 158. 219 Bellah et al. Habits, 37. 217

89

Addressing the North American experience in particular, Bellah continues by defining individualism in two senses, first of all as a “belief in the inherent dignity, and indeed sacredness, of the human person.”

According to Bellah, this view of

individualism is subscribed to by all four of the traditions they see as shaping Americans’ views of themselves: the biblical, the republican, the utilitarian individualist, and the expressive individualist traditions.220 Individualism is also recognized to be a “belief that the individual has a primary reality whereas society is a second-order, derived or artificial construct.” This latter belief is known as ontological individualism (as contrasted with social realism), and is subscribed to by two traditions in American history: that of utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism.

Utilitarian individualism is

defined as the belief that “in a society where each vigorously pursued his own interest, the social good would automatically emerge” whereas expressive individualism developed as a reaction to that, focusing on the expression of the “unique core of feeling and intuition” within each person.”221 Returning to the construct of individualism-collectivism, since the early work by Hall and the groundbreaking research of Hofstede, attempts have been made to explain why some cultures have ended up individualistic and others are collectivist.222 Triandis suggests that individualism “is a consequence of (a) the number of available groups (e.g., urban environment), (b) affluence (one does not need groups as much if one is affluent, hence the upper classes in all societies are more individualistic), (c) social mobility, and

220

Ibid., 334. Ibid., 33, 334. 222 Hall, Beyond Culture.; Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. 221

90

(d) geographic mobility (if one is mobile, one can change groups more easily, and groups can not influence individuals as much).”223 Hofstede found that at a culture-level, individualism was correlated with per capita GNP to the extent of r=.80.224 Recent research supports this perspective, positing that social class has a greater effect on individualism than does culture. As noted earlier, both Marshall and Freeman found the middle-class to be less collectivist than the upper classes, and Bellah links individualism with the middle-class, suggesting that the upper classes may like the tendency for collectivism to support the status quo.225 The construct of individualism-collectivism has undergone considerable development since it was first framed. To be considered here are the extension of collectivism to both vertical and horizontal dimensions, the distinction between individual-level and culture-level variables (leading us to the discussion of allocentrism and idiocentrism, and self-construals), and the question of whether or not individualismcollectivism is a bipolar construct. Each of these will be considered in turn before we proceed to discuss issues of research methodology. The idea of vertical and horizontal collectivism was put forth by Singelis.226 Singelis suggests that within collectivism a distinction needs to be made between the relationship of an individual to other individuals (horizontal), and the relationship of an

H.C. Triandis, “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches.” Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 165. 225 R. Marshall, “Variances in Levels of Individualism.”; M. A. Freeman, “Demographic Correlates.”; Bellah et al., Habits, 148. 226 T. M. Singelis, H. C. Triandis, D. P. S. Bhawuk, & M. J. Gelfund, “Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement,” Cross-Cultural Research 29, no. 3 (1995): 240-275; See also T. M. Singelis and W. J. Brown, “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication: Linking Culture to Individual Behavior,” Human Communication Research 21, no. 3 (1995): 354-389; C. C. Chen, J. R. Meindl, and R. G. Hunt, “Testing the Effects of Vertical and Horizontal Collectivism: A Study of Reward Allocation Preferences in China,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, no. 1 (1997): 44-70. 223 224

91

individual to the collective (vertical). He suggests that vertical collectivism tends to be expressed in the subordination of personal goals to those of the group, and the acceptance of inequality.

On the other hand horizontal collectivism affirms that though the

individual is part of a collective, equality between members of the collective is stressed. Chen suggests that collectivists draw a distinction between the way people relate to collectivities of which they are members, and how they relate to each other as individuals.227 The importance of distinguishing between culture-level and individual-level dimensions of constructs has been mentioned often in social psychology. 228 To identify a culture as tending towards individualism or collectivism is one thing; to stereotype everyone in that culture as being a miniature prototype of their culture is another matter altogether. As Triandis suggests, I/C “consists of a set of contrasting elements that operate like ambiguous pictures. Just as in perceptual psychology one might see a ‘lady’ or a ‘pot’ in a particular picture, so a person can sample a collectivist or individualist element to construct a social situation.”229 Triandis goes on to suggest that if individuals in a culture tend to sample collectivist elements most of the time, in most situations, we identify the culture as collectivist. It is important to note that most researchers agree that both tendencies of I/C exist in all cultures.230 Thus at an individual level there may be people who deviate considerably from the societal norm. Singelis and Brown tested a

227

Ibid. Geert Hofstede, foreword to Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications by U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994); Singelis and Brown, “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication.”; Triandis, “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches.” 229 Ibid. 230 W. B. Gudykunst, Y. Matsumoto, S. Ting-Toomey, T. Nishida, K. Kim, and S. Heyman, “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures,” Human Communication Research 22, no. 4 (1996): 510-543. 228

92

theoretical framework linking variables at a cultural level to the individual level, and then on to outcome variables.231 The issue of this relationship between the cultural and individual levels of cultural constructs will be considered again in methodology and measurement: it is important to consider whether the variables being measured and correlated are of a similar level. A related issue is the matter of etics and emics. Borrowed from linguistics via anthropology,232 these terms distinguish between what is broadly applicable to all cultural contexts, and what may be an expression unique to a particular culture. (In linguistics, phonetics is the study of the sounds used in all languages; phonemics is the study of the sounds needed to fluently speak a given language).

In regard to individualism-

collectivism, the etic considerations seek to identify individualistic or collectivistic values applicable cross-culturally, to all cultures. Emic considerations, on the other hand, are focused on an understanding of the way these constructs work within a particular cultural context.233 4.2.3. Allocentrism vs. Idiocentrism Allocentrism and idiocentrism were suggested by Triandis as terms to identify the individual-level constructs that correspond to the culture-level construct of individualismcollectivism. Allocentric is the term used to describe the individual who tends to select mostly collectivist solutions for social situations, whereas idiocentric describes the

Singelis and Brown, “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication”. Hofstede, foreword to Individualism and Collectivism. 233 M. A. Freeman, “Factorial Structure of Individualism-Collectivism in Sri Lanka,” Psychological Reports 78, (1996): 907-914; S. H. Schwartz, ‘Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values,’ in Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications by U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, eds., (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994). 231 232

93

individual who selects mostly individualistic solutions.234 This conceptualization may be useful in identifying individuals who are countercultural: members of gangs in individualistic cultures might be identified as allocentric, for example.235 Gudykunst found that measures of allocentrism and idiocentrism have had low reliability.236 He found self-construals to be a more reliable construct for intercultural research (see below). A possible explanation for the low reliability of the allocentrism and idiocentrism measures may be found in the emic-etic distinction introduced above. Measures of allocentrism and idiocentrism may serve to distinguish differences between two individuals sharing a common cultural context, without being generalizable to contrasting or comparing individuals from different cultures. In other words, though allocentrism-idiocentrism may be an individual-level construct, it is not automatically etic or cross-cultural. Another possible explanation for the poor reliability of measures of allocentrism and idiocentrism may be that the measures may be asking individuals to identify things about themselves that may not be recognizable to them. For example, though typical individuals from a collectivist culture are allocentric, they may not consciously be aware of being so, much as a fish is not aware of the water (having always been in it). 4.2.4. Interdependent self-construal vs. Independent self-construal The preferred individual-level conceptualization of I/C, then, is self-construal.237 An explanation of self-construal can be found in Triandis’ suggestion that individualism views self as a unique entity, whereas collectivism sees self in the context of group

H. C. Triandis et al., “Allocentric Versus Idiocentric Tendencies,” Journal of Research in Personality, 19, (1985): 395-415. 235 Triandis, ‘Theoretical and Methodological Approaches’. 236 W. B. Gudykunst et al., “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism.” 234

94

memberships.238

Markus and Kitayama suggest the terms independent and

interdependent to identify these contrasting views of self.239 A great deal of discussion has taken place in regard to whether or not I/C is a bipolar construct.

Hofstede contends that at a societal level, individualism and

collectivism are two ends of the same continuum. He suggests that at the individual level, this may not be the case.240 Freeman found that idiocentrism and allocentrism are independent, unipolar factors, rather than opposites on a bipolar dimension.241 That research in Sri Lanka found demographic variables such as socioeconomic status, English-language fluency, occupational status, and urban residence to be correlated with the constructs of allocentrism and idiocentrism. The relationship of socioeconomic status (SES) to allocentrism and idiocentrism in this study is given as one example of the independence of these latter constructs. An increase in SES was found to significantly predict a reduction in allocentrism, while only minimally predicting increased idiocentrism. Rather than increasing the desire to “do one’s own thing,” affluence in Sri Lanka appears instead to decrease the need to “do things with others.” This sort of distinction is apparent in other parts of the study as well. Though they are not exactly identical, it can be seen from our review that the concepts

of

high-context

communication,

collectivism,

allocentrism,

and

the

interdependent self-construal are closely related one to another. Similarly, low-context

Ibid.; Singelis and Brown, “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication.” H. C. Triandis, ‘Collectivism vs. Individualism: A Reconceptualization of a Basic Concept in CrossCultural Psychology,’ in Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes, and Cognition by G. Verma and C. Bagley, eds., (London: Macmillan, 1988) 60-95; H. C. Triandis, “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts,” Psychological Review, 96, (1989):506-517. 239 H. R. Markus and S. Kitayama, “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation,” Psychological Review, 98, (1991): 224-253. 240 Hofstede, foreword to Individualism and Collectivism. 237 238

95

communication, individualism, idiocentrism, and an independent self-construal are also closely related. In order to identify the relationship between individualism and values, or the responsibility ethic, this study selects one of these constructs as preferable to the others.

On the basis of the research of Gudykunst in which an investigation was

conducted into the correlation between cultural I/C, individual values, communication styles, and self-construals, the latter construct seems most useful for our purposes in this study.242 Gudykunst found that self-construals are better predictors of communication styles (low and high-context) than is cultural I/C. Similarly, he found that measures of self-construal were more reliable than measures of allocentrism and idiocentrism. For this present study, then, self-construals are the best of the available cultural constructs for our purposes. 4.3.

CONCLUSION Our task in measuring what if any relationship exists between evangelicalism and

individualism in Latin America can be variously configured. The identification of the above construct of self-construals is one step in the right direction. At this point it is important to remember that the influence of Protestantism on Western civilization has allegedly been mediated by virtue. That is to say, the influence of Protestantism has led to greater virtue (internal self-government, the responsibility ethic), which in turn has led to less external control, and the development of individualism. Our next step then is to find a research construct that will allow us to evaluate the degree of “virtue” in Latin American society. A simple question on our survey form can allow respondents to

M. A. Freeman, “Factorial Structure”.; M. A. Freeman, “Demographic Correlates of Individualism and Collectivism.” 242 Gudykunst et al., “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism.” 241

96

indicate whether or not they consider themselves to be evangelical, but evaluating their virtue is a more complex matter. To that we turn in the next chapter.

97

CHAPTER 5 THE NATURE OF HUMAN VALUES 5.1.

INTRODUCTION In consideration of the relationship between individual evangelical conversion on

a widespread scale, and corresponding changes in degrees of individualism in that society, an important issue to consider is the matter of value change. It is fair to suggest that if individual evangelical conversion on a widespread scale leads to any significant change in how those individuals relate to the collectives of which they are part, such change could be attributed to an adjustment of values on the part of the individuals concerned. The significance of values has been recognized in various fields of research.243 Specifically in relation to development challenges in Latin America, Mariano Grondona identifies twenty value-laden factors that are viewed differently in cultures that are favorable and those that are resistant to development.244

Carlos Alberto Montaner

similarly argues the significance of value change to development. 245 From within the evangelical framework, Bryant Myers and Darrow Miller also address the issue of values in their seminal works in Christian community development.246 This value change mentioned above could variously be identified as a change in attitudes, social norms, need, traits, or interests. The reason for the use of the term values, and its definition, follows.

243

For a book full of perspectives see Harrison and Huntington, eds., Culture Matters. See also Schwartz, “Beyond Individualism-Collectivism.” 244 Mariano Grondona, “A Cultural Typology of Economic Development,” in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. (New York: Basic, 2000). 245 Carlos Alberto Montaner, “¿Por qué mi vecino gringo vive mejor que yo?” [on-line] (Miami, FL: Firmas Press, accessed 25 August 2003), available from http://www.firmaspress.com/017.htm; Internet.

98

5.2.

THE CONCEPT As this chapter’s title suggests, the present study takes much of its direction on

the subject of values from Milton Rokeach’s The Nature of Human Values.247 In that work Rokeach reviews the extensive literature on values and related constructs, noting its significance for research in all the social sciences. Distinguishing the concept of value from similar concepts such as attitudes, social norms, need, traits, or interests, Rokeach defines a value as: . . . an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance.248 As suggested by the above definition, Rokeach identifies two categories of values: those that refer to modes of conduct (being honest, or clean, or polite) and those that refer to end-states of existence (a comfortable life, or family security, for example). The former he calls instrumental values, and the latter he calls terminal values. Furthermore, terminal values can be divided into two groups: personal and social values. This distinction is significant to us. Rokeach suggests that end-states such as salvation and peace of mind, for instance, are intrapersonal whereas world peace and brotherhood are interpersonal.

In combining the values survey with a test of self-

construal, it will be of interest to note any relationship between independent selfconstrual and terminal values of a personal orientation, or interdependent self-construal and terminal values of a social nature. Nonetheless, the present study argues that it is

246

Bryant L. Myers, Walking With The Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1999); Miller, Discipling Nations. 247 Milton Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press, 1970). 248 Ibid., 5.

99

evangelicalism’s mix of commitment to individual prerogatives and responsibilities that makes it the only adequate basis for the freedoms the West enjoys. If that is the case, evangelicals might possibly score higher than the population at large on the terminal values of a social nature. This is considered in greater depth in the section on hypotheses. Rokeach also suggests a division of the instrumental values into those that are moral in nature (such as to behave honestly) and those that are related to competence (behaving logically, for example). Violation of one’s moral values lends itself to feelings of guilt, whereas violation of one’s competence values leads to feelings of shame about personal inadequacy. In reference to the present study, it seems possible that evangelical conversion’s influence on the “responsibility ethic” should be reflected in a higher-thannormal priority on the moral values of self-control and responsibility, and also related values such as obedience, honesty, and helpfulness. In the researching of human values and value systems, a tool commonly used is the Value Survey developed by Rokeach. The survey contains a list of 18 instrumental values and a list of 18 terminal values which participants are asked to rank in order of importance.

The test is very straightforward.

The challenging aspect is of course

choosing which of the many values are more important to us than the rest. In real life we are often forced to choose between, for example, being truthful and being polite, or between self-respect and social recognition. In its more than 30 years of existence, the Rokeach Value Survey has enjoyed widespread use and consistently scored high on reliability.249

249

For an example of its usage in Latin America see Juan Manso P., Maria Teresa Sanchez F., and Ivan Peña O., “La Escala de Valores de Rokeach en una muestra de estudiantes de Servicio Social,” Revista de Servicio Social 1:1, May – November 1998 [journal on-line]; available from http://www.udec.cl/~ssrevi/numero1/articulos/a5/articulo5.htm; Internet; accessed 25 August 2003.

100

5.3.

CONCLUSION The construct of values will be important to our research as a possible mediator

between the experience of religious conversion on an individual scale and the effect of that conversion on that individual’s manner of relating to the collectives of which he or she is a part. The Value Survey as developed by Rokeach appears to be an excellent instrument for our purposes in this regard.

101

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES This review of literature has discussed, among related issues, the social implications of individual Christian conversion, that is, of individuals turning to personal faith in Jesus Christ. Some sort of relationship does appear to exist between the strength of the responsibility ethic of the individuals within a society, and that society’s capacity for individualism. Similarly, some relationship may exist between North America’s Protestant heritage, the values common to that heritage, and its individualism. There is reason to believe that evangelical conversion in a predominately Roman Catholic society such as that of Latin America may be positively related to individualism. There is also reason to suggest that any possible relationship between the above factors of evangelicalism and individualism may be related to certain moral traits or values. In light of this review, the following hypotheses are suggested. H1: In predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Protestant or evangelical. H2: In predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Roman Catholic. To test how greatly individuals are affected by the religious influence of their immediate families, the following hypotheses are projected.

102

H3: Respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be of a different religious affiliation than their parents. H4: Among respondents who declare themselves to be of a different religious affiliation than their parents, independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Protestant or evangelical. To test the long-term effect of evangelical conversion upon degree of individualism, the following hypotheses are suggested. H5: Among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with length of time since conversion. H6: Among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be negatively associated with length of time since conversion. Bearing in mind the tendency for minorities (like the evangelicals in Latin America) to develop a defensive posture toward the majority culture around them, the following hypotheses are suggested as a balance to H1. H7: Among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with being of a different religious affiliation than that of one’s parents. H8: Among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be positively associated with being of a similar religious affiliation to that of one’s parents.

103

(A comment here on the side: Something that could interfere with H1 above is that those who were born into evangelical families – the minority- and are still evangelical as adults may distort the results on H1. They may be considerably less individualistic than their peers who grew up Catholic and converted to evangelicalism. Hence H7 and H8. Also, one could raise similar doubts about H2 and H6, but they could still be interesting.) A further set of hypotheses in relation to values follows. H9: It is expected that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with the terminal values of a social and spiritual nature (a world at peace, equality, family security, national security, salvation, true friendship, and wisdom). (It is recognized that the above effect may well be tempered or even annulled by the Pietistic tendency in evangelicalism to shy away from involvement in issues of a political or “worldly” nature.) H10: It is expected that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with the instrumental values of a moral nature, specifically self-control and responsibility, and also related values such as obedience, honesty, and helpfulness. (This is not to negate the evangelical emphasis on competence, but there is arguably much more evangelical emphasis on morality than on competence.) In a test of evangelicalism’s faithfulness to its original maxim “sola scriptura,” the following hypotheses are suggested. H11: It is expected that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with a recognition of the moral authority of the Bible as being greater than that of either the state, or the Roman Catholic or Evangelical churches.

104

H12: It is expected that a stronger association will be found between profession of evangelicalism and Scriptural authority than between profession of Roman Catholicism and Scriptural authority. H13: It is expected that a recognition of the moral authority of Scripture above other authorities will be positively associated with the instrumental values of a moral nature, specifically self-control and responsibility, and also related values such as obedience, honesty, and helpfulness.

105

CHAPTER 7 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7.1. INTRODUCTION Although the entirety of this study is written for a doctoral dissertation of theological nature, this section of the study is necessarily of a social science nature. As such it follows a standard layout of social science research, with discussion of participants, procedure, variables (independent and dependent), results (measurement and hypotheses), and discussion of those results. 7.2. METHODOLOGY The methodology in this study aimed to measure religious affiliation, selfconstruals, and values. Issues faced in measuring these constructs will be considered after a discussion of participants. 7.2.1 Participants This study is set in the Latin American context. Because of that the empirical research was primarily conducted in the Dominican Republic, at two university campuses. Participants included 358 university students of diverse fields of study, of varying ages and grade-levels, at a private, “secular” university, and another 133 students at a university operated by the evangelical churches. Another set of 226 participants was from Belize, at the government-run university there.

Though the majority of the

population in both the Dominican Republic and Belize profess Roman Catholicism, Belizean data were expected to reflect the fact that the percentage of Protestants there is

106

much higher than in the Dominican Republic, and that Catholicism has never been officially established there as in the Dominican Republic.250 Just over half of Dominican respondents were under twenty-one years of age, and over sixty percent were female.

Over sixty-six percent of Dominican respondents

identified themselves as Roman Catholic, compared to twenty-three percent evangelical and ten percent “neither of the above.”251 The average age of Belizean respondents was twenty-one. Sixty-two percent were female. Concerning religious affiliation in Belize, forty-six percent identified themselves as Roman Catholic, 42.9 percent as “Christian but not Roman Catholic,”252 and 8.8 percent as non-Christian. Belizean respondents were asked in addition if they considered themselves to be a “born-again Christian” with a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” 56.6 percent of respondents indicated that this was true of themselves. 7.2.2 Procedure Data were initially collected in December 2001 in Belize, and then in early 2003 in the Dominican Republic. At all three university campuses, the procedure was the same. Permission was granted by university authorities for the author and one or two assistants to go from classroom to classroom during a time when students were in class, to conduct the surveys in the classroom context itself. Regular classroom activity was interrupted for approximately twenty minutes. The author was allowed to introduce himself and the survey form, and briefly direct the students as to the proper procedure for filling out the

250

Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World note the approximate percentage of the population affiliated with Roman Catholicism as compared to Protestantism to be as follows: in the DR 89 to 6, and in Belize, 57 to under 25. 251 This should not be taken to suggest that 23 percent of Dominican university students are evangelical. As considered later, deliberate effort was taken to increase the number of evangelicals in the study. 252 This study takes that number to be the evangelicals.

107

form. The form also contained written instructions. Participants were not told exactly what were the objectives or the hypotheses of the study, but were told generally that it had to do with the relationship between religious beliefs and cultural variables in the lives of university students. The data in Belize were collected well before the Dominican data, because the author happened to be in Belize on other business and took advantage of the research opportunity. In the Dominican Republic the initial plan was to collect sufficient data at the large secular university. A look at the results, however, indicated that of almost 400 students, only ten percent identified themselves as evangelical. For the purposes of this study, a larger number of evangelicals was desirable. The decision was then made to gather more data at the evangelical university. No effort was made to assure that participants were or were not of particular academic disciplines. Given the course options available in those universities, students could have been studying in any of a large number of possible fields. The choice of what classrooms to visit was made primarily based on their proximity to one another (which in those particular universities did not mean that they were necessarily of the same discipline), and to the number of students. In regard to the latter factor, some of the classes were larger because they were required courses. Smaller classes were passed over in the interest of time. Survey forms are included in Appendix A. The survey form used in Belize was in English, while the form in the Dominican Republic was a revision of the English form, in Spanish.

108

7.2.3 Independent Variables The first and main independent variable in this study is the religious affiliation of the respondents. Respondents in the Dominican Republic study were given three options to choose from: Catholic (meaning Roman Catholic), Evangelical, or neither of the two. The Belizean study used the term “Christian but not Roman Catholic” as a substitute for Evangelical, and instead of “neither of the two” used “non-Christian.” Related independent variables are the length of time in the identified religion, and the religious affiliation of the respondent’s family. 7.2.4 Dependent Variables The first dependent variable in this study is the self-construal of the respondents. Self-construal was measured using the five-point Likert type INDCOL scale that had been used by Gudykunst.253 The Spanish version of the scale that was used in the Dominican Republic was a further revision of a previously translated INDCOL scale.254 Complete copies of the scales are included in the Survey Form in Appendix A. A measurement of self-construals was expected to be more accurate than simply assuming that participants represent their cultural background; one could assign respondents an I/C value on Hofstede’s scale, for example, on the basis of their nationality.255 A second dependent variable was the value score in Rokeach’s Value Survey.256 The decision to include Rokeach’s Value Survey was made after the Belize surveys had already been collected, and so it was not used with that set of respondents. The Belizean survey results can therefore only be applied to certain of the hypotheses of this study.

Gudykunst et al., “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism.” The author wishes to express appreciation to John Oetzel of the University of New Mexico for his cooperation and the use of the scale. 255 Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 158. 253 254

109

Though Rokeach’s Value Survey form was not officially available in Spanish, it had been used in research at a university in South America and a copy was secured via the Internet.257 On the advice of Dominican Spanish language experts, slight revisions were made to the form to make it reflect more accurately the vocabulary commonly used in the Dominican Republic. Both of the above survey instruments have had wide usage. It would have been possible to create new instruments to measure what we named the “responsibility ethic”; the decision to use recognized instruments was intended to lend credibility to the study and to eliminate the burden of testing an instrument’s reliability and validity. 258 Both of the above forms depend on self-reporting as well. Though less than one hundred percent accurate, self-reporting is viewed as the best available alternative. In the interest of enriching the data, the survey form also asked the respondents to indicate age, gender, and nationality, and to indicate which of the following four has greatest moral authority in terms of dictating behavior: the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible, the Evangelical church, or the state. 7.3. RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 7.3.1. Measurement As expected, the number of students in this study together with the use of previously tested instruments lent itself to more than satisfactory reliability of measurement. Distributions were found to be normal.

256

Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values. Manso P. et al., “La Escala de Valores de Rokeach.” 258 It is acknowledged that none of these instruments is entirely without detractors. Regarding the INDCOL scale, for example, see Timothy R. Levine, Mary Jiang Bresnahan, Hee Sun Park, Maria Knight Lapinski, Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Sachiyo Morinaga Shearman, Sun Young Lee, Donghun Chung, and Rie Ohashi, “Self-Construal Scales Lack Validity,” Human Communication Research, 29, no. 2 (2003): 210-252. 257

110

In the Dominican Republic sample, independent self-construal was found to have an internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of r = .69 (n=438).

Interdependent self-

construal was found to have an internal reliability of r = .71 (n=436). The overall alpha score was .71 (n=403). In the Belizean sample, independent self-construal was found to have an internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of r = .85 (n=221). Interdependent self-construal was found to have an internal reliability of r = .81 (n=214). The overall alpha score was .87 (n=211). Although no test of Cronbach’s alpha was applied to the Rokeach Values Survey, the distributions were found to be normal and thus the reliability at least somewhat substantiated. 7.3.2. Hypotheses The primary focus in this report is the results of the Dominican Republic research. Belizean data were also collected, but because the survey form did not include all the same items, the Belizean data do not apply to all the hypotheses below. Unless Belize is referred to specifically, the assumption can be made that the data or results referred to are those of the Dominican Republic. H1 predicted that in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Protestant or evangelical. H1 was not supported. In the Dominican sample, out of a potential score of forty-five on nine items on a five-point Likert-type scale, the evangelical mean was 35.81 in comparison to a Roman Catholic mean of 38.21. This was found to be significant at the 0.05 level with a two-tailed test. The Belizean

111

sample similarly failed to support the hypothesis, though the result was not found to be statistically significant. H2 predicted that in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Roman Catholic. H2 was not supported. In the Dominican sample, no significant difference was found between the mean of those who identified themselves as evangelical (36.23) as contrasted with the mean of those who identified themselves as Roman Catholic (35.42). In actual numbers the evangelicals scored higher, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant. In the Belizean sample, the hypothesis was marginally supported, but the difference in result was not found to be statistically significant. H3 predicted that respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be of a different religious affiliation than their parents. H3 was supported. In all three religious groups, those that identified themselves as being of a religion different from that of their family members scored an independent self-construal score higher than that of their religious group as a whole.

(In the

Dominican Republic sample, comparing the overall independent self-construal scores within religious groupings to the scores of those within those groups whose family members are not primarily of that group: Roman Catholic: 38.21 vs. 38.78, Evangelical: 35.81 vs. 36.92, neither of the above: 38.88 vs. 39.48). H4 predicted that among respondents who declare themselves to be of a different religious affiliation than their parents, independent self-construal will be positively associated with identifying themselves to be Protestant or evangelical. H4 was not

112

supported. Although as H3 suggested, the independent self-construal of evangelicals whose family members are not evangelical was greater than that of other evangelicals, it was less than that of members of other religious groups whose religion is different than that of their family members. Nonetheless the difference between these groups was not found to be statistically significant. H5 predicted that among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with length of time since conversion. H5 was somewhat supported, but the association was weak and was not found to be statistically significant. Among those in the Dominican Republic sample who identified themselves as evangelical, the independent self-construal mean scores for those who declared themselves to have spent less then two years, two to five years, and over five years in the evangelical church were respectively 35.00, 34.83, and 36. 33. H6 predicted that among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be negatively associated with length of time since conversion. H6 was not supported. On the contrary, the interdependent self-construal of evangelicals increased with length of time in their religion, though the difference in means between these groups was not found to be statistically significant. Among those in the Dominican Republic sample who identified themselves as evangelical, the interdependent self-construal mean scores for those who declared themselves to have spent less then two years, two to five years, and over five years in the evangelical church were respectively 32.00, 35.32, and 37.58.

113

Although these numbers look significant, the smallness of the size of these groups (13, 25, and 62 respectively) decreases the statistical significance of the results. Bearing in mind the tendency for minorities (like the evangelicals in Latin America) to develop a defensive posture toward the majority culture around them, the following hypotheses were suggested as a balance to H1. H7 predicted that among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s independent self-construal will be positively associated with being of a different religious affiliation than that of one’s parents. H7 was supported, as indicated in H3 above. In the Dominican Republic sample, evangelicals in general scored a mean of 35.81 in the independent self-construal, whereas those evangelicals whose family members are not evangelical scored 36.92. H8 predicted that among Protestants or evangelicals in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin American society, respondent’s interdependent self-construal will be positively associated with being of a similar religious affiliation to that of one’s parents. H8 was marginally supported in the Dominican Republic sample but the difference was very small and not statistically significant. The interdependent self-construal mean for evangelicals as a whole was 36.23, while the mean for those evangelicals whose family members are also evangelical was 36.32. In the Belize sample H8 was not supported. In the Belize sample as in the Dominican Republic Roman Catholic sample, the opposite relationship was found, but with only marginal difference. In the Dominican Republic, the overall Roman Catholic mean for interdependent self-construal was 35.42 while the interdependent self-construal mean for Roman Catholics with principally Roman Catholic family members was 35.37.

114

In other words, Roman Catholics whose family members are also Roman Catholic were found to be marginally less interdependent than were Roman Catholics in general. H9 predicted that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with the terminal values of a social and spiritual nature (a world at peace, equality, family security, national security, salvation, true friendship, and wisdom). H9 was somewhat supported (all of the Rokeach Value Survey results refer to the Dominican Republic sample). Ranking items from one to eighteen (lower score being a higher priority value), the evangelical means on the following items were lower than the Catholic means on the same items: wisdom, salvation, and national security. On the following Catholic means were lower than evangelical means: a world at peace, family security, equality, and true friendship. On most items evangelical and Catholic means hardly differed by more than one point, with the exception of salvation (evangelical mean 2.47 versus Catholic mean 8.19) and wisdom (evangelical 6.22, Catholic 8.26). Taking the average of those seven means, evangelicals scored 7.45 compared to the Catholic mean of 8.25. H10 predicted that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with the instrumental values of a moral nature, specifically self-control and responsibility, and also related values such as obedience, honesty, and helpfulness. H10 was supported. Ranking values from one to eighteen in importance, evangelicals placed four of the above five in higher priority ranking than did Catholics. The exception was the item honesty, the validity of which is called into question.259 Taking the mean of these five items, the evangelical mean was 7.13 compared to the Catholic mean of 8.08.

259

There is a very real possibility that the word choice in the Spanish translation caused problems here. “Honesty” was translated to “honrado,” which means “honesty” but can also be used to mean “honorable.”

115

Removing the item honesty and taking the mean of the other four values leaves a stronger difference: an evangelical mean of 7.47 compared to a Roman Catholic mean of 8.86. In a test of evangelicalism’s faithfulness to its original maxim “sola scriptura,” three other hypotheses were suggested. H11 predicted that declaring oneself to be evangelical will be positively associated with a recognition of the moral authority of the Bible as being greater than that of either the state, or the Roman Catholic or Evangelical churches. H11 was supported. 93.9 percent of evangelicals indicated that Scripture has greater moral authority to tell us what to do than does the state or the Roman Catholic or evangelical church. Among evangelicals, 4.4 percent indicated that greater authority lies with the evangelical church, and 1.8 percent indicated it lies with the Roman Catholic Church. None indicated that greatest moral authority lies with the state. H12 predicted that a stronger association will be found between profession of evangelicalism and Scriptural authority than between profession of Roman Catholicism and Scriptural authority.

H12 was supported.

Compared to the 93.9 percent of

evangelicals who indicated that the greater moral authority lies with Scripture, 76.9 percent of Roman Catholics indicated likewise. 19.8 percent of Catholics placed their greater confidence in the Roman Catholic Church, 3.4 percent placed it in the state, and none placed it in the evangelical church. H13 predicted that a recognition of the moral authority of Scripture above other authorities will be positively associated with the instrumental values of a moral nature, specifically self-control and responsibility, and also related values such as obedience, honesty, and helpfulness. H13 was not supported, in that the small difference in mean

116

was not significant. On the above five items, respondents who indicated that Scriptural authority was greater than the authority of the other options scored a mean of 7.74, compared to a general mean of 7.82. To say it differently, those who recognized the validity of Scriptural authority did tend to place higher priority on self-control, responsibility, honesty, and helpfulness, than did the sample as a whole, but the difference was very slight.260 7.4. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 7.4.1. General Observations Some of the more interesting results are not those directly related to the hypotheses stated above. In the initial collection of data at the large public university in the Dominican Republic, thirty-nine of 356 respondents claimed to be evangelical. This figure of eleven percent evangelical is higher than the six percent suggested by earlier studies.261 Similarly the Belizean sample finds 42.9 percent of respondents evangelical, compared to the twenty-five percent reported by Johnstone and Mandryk. The difference between these figures may be related to error, and it is also undoubtedly related to the fact that the evangelical figures include what Johnstone and Mandryk term “marginals”: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Taking the latter into account, it is still likely that the higher number of evangelicals in both these samples is additional evidence of what is widely acknowledged to be true: the evangelical church is growing. It may be true that the percentage of evangelicals is higher among university students than in the general population. If this is also true of

260

In the case of the instrumental value of obedience, the mean for those that recognized Scriptural authority as highest was just slightly higher (indicating lower priority) than the overall mean (8.67 compared to 8.55). 261 Johnstone and Mandryk, Operation World.

117

non-university students of the same age (something this study cannot tell us), this does suggest that evangelicalism is growing. A similar conclusion could be drawn from the fact that although twenty-three percent of the respondents at the two universities sampled in the Dominican Republic identified themselves as evangelical, only twenty percent said that their family members were principally evangelical.

Furthermore, of the 113 respondents who identified

themselves as evangelical, sixteen respondents (over fourteen percent) indicated that their family members were principally Roman Catholic, and an additional ten (8.9 percent) indicated that their family members were primarily neither evangelical nor Roman Catholic. In other words, a full twenty-three percent of those in the Dominican Republic who identified themselves as evangelical identified themselves as having primarily nonevangelical family members. The data related to those respondents who claimed to have come from families made up primarily of evangelicals is also of interest, though it does not show up in the hypotheses. Twenty percent of the Dominican Republic sample fits in this category. Of those 101 respondents who indicated that their family members were primarily evangelical, eighty-six claim to be themselves evangelical, while six claim to be Roman Catholic and nine claim to be neither of the two. Although this number is not high it is reminiscent of other research on the high number of ex-evangelicals (or non-evangelical children of evangelicals) to be found in Latin America.262

262

David Stoll quotes a Costa Rican study in which 8.9 percent of respondents indicated they were evangelical, while another eight percent indicated that they had been evangelical at some point in their lives. See David Stoll, Introduction to Rethinking Protestantism, 9. Padilla also comments on this dynamic in Misión Integral, 100-101.

118

The Belizean sample also yielded some fascinating results not directly tied to any of the hypotheses. As mentioned earlier, the percentage of the respondents indicating themselves to be evangelical or Protestant was higher than projected. Furthermore, the Belize survey asked respondents to indicate whether or not they considered themselves to be “born-again Christians” with a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” Of the 228 respondents, 128 (56.6 percent) indicated “yes” to that question. When asked “How long has this been true for you?” 11.5 percent responded “less than one year” and another 11.5 percent “one to three years.” In other words, of those who claim to be in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a full twenty-three percent claim to have come into that relationship within the past three years. This is again a noteworthy finding. Of similar interest is the relationship in the Belize sample between religious affiliation and the above claim to a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” The latter claim might in some minds almost be synonymous with being “evangelical.” 263 It is interesting that of those who identified themselves as Roman Catholic, 60.2 percent also claimed to be “born-again” with a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” Surprisingly, only 79.3 percent of those identifying themselves as “Christian but not Catholic” (Protestant or evangelical in this study) made the same claim. One wonders what constitutes the Christianity of the other 20.7 percent (eight percent of the total sample); they may not be evangelical at all.264 The Roman Catholics who claim to be born-again with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ might be what Johnstone and

263

See Bonino, Faces of Latin American Protestantism, 27-28, for some hints at the complexity of defining these terms. 264 The presence of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) does complicate matters. These “marginals” are reported by Johnstone and Mandryk to make up 2.22 percent of Belizeans. See Operation World, 104-105.

119

Mandryk term Roman Catholic Evangelicals.265 The above comments notwithstanding, for the purposes of this study greater emphasis is being placed on the sociallyrecognizable religious grouping that respondents belong to rather than on their affirmation of a particular statement regarding their relationship with God in Christ. 7.4.2. Hypotheses The central argument of this study has been that the “responsibility ethic” of evangelicalism has been necessary for the development of Western individualism. The fact that some of the hypotheses related to this argument were not supported brings this argument into question. As will be considered, this study appears to suggest that a relationship does exist but that the logic of the argument was flawed. Neither H1 nor H2 were supported.

No relationship was found between

independent self-construal and evangelicalism, nor between interdependent self-construal and Roman Catholicism.

In other words, evangelicals were not found to be more

individualistic than Roman Catholics, and neither were Roman Catholics found to be more collectivistic than evangelicals. On the contrary, evangelicals were found to have a slightly more interdependent self-construal than did Roman Catholics, and evangelicals were found to have a statistically significant lower score of independent self-construal than did Roman Catholics. These data suggest that a relationship of some kind does exist between evangelical conversion and how one sees oneself in relation to society. As demonstrated by this survey, evangelicals typically conceive of themselves less independently and more interdependently than do either Roman Catholics or those who are neither of the above. On the basis of the fact that the Western societies that are more individualist are 265

Ibid., 756.

120

also the societies that are more Protestant, it was expected that a relationship would be found between evangelicalism and individualism.

The opposite was found, but the

opposite may actually be more logically consistent with the overall argument. Individualism as experienced in the West today is not so much the responsibility ethic itself as it is the fruit of the responsibility ethic. The responsibility ethic should rather correlate with a concern for one’s neighbor. In terms of the survey instruments used in this study, the responsibility ethic may actually be more closely associated with interdependent self-construal than with independent self-construal. For example, even though the independent self-construal is identified in the survey form with the statement “I take responsibility for my actions,” the interdependent self-construal is also identified with items that relate to one’s taking personal responsibility. Consider for example “I stick with my group even through difficulties.”266 In other words, the responsibility ethic is in itself something that could be identified with certain characteristics of both the independent and the interdependent self-construal. In summary, the fact that the evangelicals scored higher than did non-evangelicals on interdependent self-construal may not only be consistent with the overall argument of this study, but perhaps may even lend stronger support to the argument than the other result would have done. Further consideration will be given to this in the sections on limitations and implications for further study. H3, H4, H7 and H8 were related to the matter of one’s religious affiliation being distinct (or similar, for H8) from that of one’s family members. As was expected, the data suggest that being of a different religion from that of one’s family members is related to independent self-construal. This was true in every religious group, including

121

evangelicals, and yet no more so among evangelicals than anyone else. As is logical to consider, those who identify themselves as of a different religion than their family members need to think of themselves as autonomous from their family members to a greater degree than do those whose religion is the same as that of their family members. The lack of support for H8 was equally interesting, however. H8 predicted that being of the same religion as one’s family members is related to interdependent selfconstrual. No such relationship can be said to have been found. It seems likely that the expression of interdependence is different among respondents not of the same religion as their family members: they probably develop their relationships of interdependence outside the home, but remain just as interdependent as respondents whose family members share their religious convictions. H5 was formulated to test whether evangelicalism has an individualizing effect to it. H5 was supported, but the association was weak. Among those who identified themselves as evangelical, those with over five years in the evangelical tradition were found to be slightly more individualistic than those with less time in that tradition. Nonetheless, it must be borne in mind that the same result was found for Roman Catholics. It is impossible to tell from this study whether the religious belief itself bears this individualizing effect or whether this should be attributed to other causes. H6 was formulated to test the reverse implication of evangelicalism’s supposed individualizing effect.

H6 predicted Protestants or evangelicals would be less

interdependent the longer they were in evangelicalism. The opposite was found by the present study, though it must be added that the results were not found to be statistically

266

See Appendix A for the complete list of statements in the survey.

122

significant.

Still, it warrants discussion that the mean score for interdependence

increased with length of time in the evangelical church. It is noteworthy that both independent self-construal and interdependent selfconstrual increased with length of time in evangelicalism (somewhat similar results were found for the other religious groupings as well). This confirms on one hand the position of those who claim that independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal are independent, unipolar factors, rather than opposites on a bipolar dimension.267 Further, it suggests, as might be easily imagined, that persons new to a religious belief system are at once less independent and less interdependent. Less independent in being less sure of themselves in their convictions and thus more dependent on the reasoning of others, and less interdependent in having just made as an individual a certain social break in joining a new religious group. The hypotheses related to the value systems of evangelicals (H9-H10) yielded results of interest and at least somewhat consistent with what was expected. It was hypothesized that being evangelical would be associated with values of a social and spiritual nature. This was somewhat supported: declaring oneself to be evangelical was positively associated with the terminal values of wisdom, salvation, and national security. On the other hand Roman Catholics placed higher value than did evangelicals on having a world at peace, family security, equality, and true friendship. Regarding terminal values overall, the five on which Roman Catholics placed a premium were (in order of importance): happiness, mature love, true friendship, freedom,

M. A. Freeman, “Factorial Structure”; M. A. Freeman, “Demographic Correlates of Individualism and Collectivism”. 267

123

and self-respect. The evangelical top five included (in order): salvation, mature love, wisdom, happiness, and true friendship.268 Regarding instrumental values of a moral nature, declaring oneself to be evangelical was positively associated with self-control, responsibility, obedience, and helpfulness. Although evangelicals ranked them as slightly more important than did Roman Catholics, it must be noted that Roman Catholics also prioritized those values above other values. The five most important instrumental values for Roman Catholics were (in order of importance): honest, responsible, cheerful, ambitious, and capable, compared to the evangelical responsible, honest, obedient, ambitious, and cheerful. The hypotheses related to the question of moral authority (especially H11-H12) yielded results of significant interest. As expected, evangelicals for the most part (93.9 percent) responded with the Reformers that Scripture has greater authority than does either the state or the Roman Catholic or evangelical church.

That 4.4 percent of

evangelicals indicated that greater authority lies with the evangelical church, and 1.8 percent of evangelicals indicated it lies with the Catholic Church, is peculiar. This suggests that the historic position of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to authority as equal with that of Scripture still affects the thinking even of evangelicals. On the other hand, it was surprising that even among Roman Catholics, 76.9 percent indicated that the greater moral authority lies with Scripture. (19.8 percent of Catholics placed their greater confidence in the Roman Catholic Church, 3.4 percent placed it in the state, and none placed it in the evangelical church). This definitely

268

For the complete list of values see Appendix A.

124

suggests a victory for the Reformation: the predominant viewpoint even among Roman Catholics is that Scripture has greater moral authority than does the church or the state. Regarding H13, those who recognized the validity of Scriptural authority did tend to place higher priority on self-control, responsibility, honesty, and helpfulness, than did the sample as a whole, but the difference was very slight. This may have had as much to do with measurement as anything. In the section on limitations further consideration will be given to that. 7.4.3. Limitations A primary limitation of this study is related to the methodology and environment in which the respondents filled out the survey forms. In all cases, regular classes were interrupted unexpectedly as the researcher and/or assistants appeared at the door of the classroom to administer the survey (by authority of the university administration). Professors had often been made aware ahead of time that the researchers were expected to come, but generally the timing was unknown. As such, the survey might have been seen by some students as an unwelcome intrusion (and perhaps by some as a welcome diversion). In any case in the Dominican sample, over 140 forms were discarded for being improperly completed, in addition to the 491 forms actually entered into the data. The part of the survey that seemed most problematic was the Rokeach Value Survey. Because of the size of the sample and to economize, the survey asked for students to number the values from one to eighteen themselves; the survey form did not utilize the peel and stick label approach often used in the Rokeach survey. Partly as a result of this, many respondents failed to use all the numbers from one to eighteen, many choosing to number close to half the items with a one, several items with an eighteen, and

125

giving the balance a different number.

Such forms were necessarily discarded.

Nonetheless it called into question the validity of the remaining results. Because this survey was conducted over the period of a few days, and the above problem discovered on the first day, researchers were able to compensate for the above tendency by taking extra time to explain to subsequent groups how the Rokeach section was to be completed. A possible additional limitation is related to translation. As noted earlier, both the INDCOL scale and the Rokeach scale were encountered in a previously translated condition. Language helpers verified that the words chosen were appropriate to the local language context of the Dominican Republic. Nonetheless the functional equivalency of terms was not double-checked, and at least one example of error was found. The term “honrado” was used in Spanish for the English word “honest.” “Honrado” is a word in Spanish that can mean “honest,” but also carries the alternative meaning equal to our English word “honorable.” In the list of instrumental values, “honrado” placed first overall. It is suspected that this is more related to the Latin emphasis on honor than on honesty.269 Additional evidence of possible negative translation effect is found in the higher internal reliabilities of the INDCOL scale in the Belizean sample than in the Dominican Republic sample. In the Dominican Republic sample, the overall alpha score was .71 (n=403), while in the Belizean sample, the overall alpha score was .87 (n=211). An additional potential area of limitation relates to demographics. The size of the samples used allows us to be fairly certain (apart from the above methodological and translation concerns) that the results are representative of the general population of

126

university students in Belize and the Dominican Republic. Nonetheless, it is entirely presumptuous to consider the results of this study as necessarily representative of the general population of the nation as a whole, or even of the same age group in the nation. University students are probably distinct in many ways from non-university students, even of the same age groups. A final limitation is related to what may be a bad fit between instrument and research objective. Though the INDCOL instrument has had wide usage and no doubt has produced valid results, the instrument may not be as well suited to this present study’s purpose as originally thought.

Self-construal testing can tell something

meaningful about factors related to the responsibility ethic, but better instruments may be available. Attention will be given to that and related dynamics in the next section. 7.4.4. Suggestions for Future Research In this section attention will be given to technical issues related to future research. Conceptual issues will be treated in the next (concluding) chapter. Future studies should evaluate if better instruments than the INDCOL scale cannot be found for measuring the responsibility ethic. An alternative may be to develop a new instrument using some of the same statements and a similar Likert-type structure, choosing specifically those items in the INDCOL scale that refer to either an acceptance or denial of responsibility for others. Regarding the study of values, careful revision of the Spanish version of the Rokeach Value Survey scale is suggested before its continued use. If the Rokeach scale is to be used, the instrument of choice is definitely the peel and stick label version. On

269

Extensive research has been conducted on honor, especially in the Mediterranean context. See for example Patricia M. Rodriguez M., Antony S. R. Manstead, and Agneta H. Fischer, “Honor in the

127

the other hand a Likert-type scale for measuring values may be found to be preferable, such as that developed by Schwartz.270 7.5. CONCLUSION In conclusion of the research section of this study, a relationship has been found to exist between the elements in question.

Some relationship does exist between

evangelical conversion and certain moral values that contribute to general social well being. Evangelicals in our Latin American study context tend to see “self” in the context of group memberships more so than as a unique entity. The evangelical tendency to see “self” in the context of group membership, coupled with the increase in virtue and responsible individual initiative that accompanies evangelical growth, produce an increased internal “self-government” that allows for both the relaxing of external control, and the subsequent development of individualistic cultural tendencies. In summary, the overall argument of this study has been supported, though not entirely to the degree and in the manner expected.

Mediterranean and Northern Europe,” in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33, no 1 (2002), 16-36. 270 S.H. Schwartz, “Universals in the Structure and Content of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in M. P. Zanna, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25 (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1992), 1-65.

128

CHAPTER 8 THOUGHTS FOR FURTHER STUDY Perhaps the best way to conclude is to return to the issues addressed in the first chapter. Without doubt the truth of Paul’s statement stands: the gospel is the power of God for salvation for all them that believe. The purpose of this study was first of all to investigate the process by which Gospel affects culture, then to quantitatively measure the influence of Christianity upon culture, and thirdly to demonstrate in as objective a manner as possible the power of Christianity to transform an individual’s ways of thinking, values, and ways of construing his/her relationships with society at large. Although progress has been made by means of this present study, much remains to be considered. It would be of interest to verify that the nature of the change that takes place in a life affected by the gospel of Jesus Christ is a change in the attitude of responsibility toward one’s fellows. In other words, it would be of interest to verify that evangelical converts manifest a stronger sense of responsibility toward their neighbors than does the population at large. The present study did not adequately measure that dynamic, but suggests that the dynamic exists. A better research instrument may need to be developed toward that end. Many options for continued empirical inquiry remain. This present study did not empirically address relationships between evangelical conversion and class or economic status. Nor does this study conclusively explain how it is that Western society has

129

become the most individualistic in the world, although it suggests some possible explanations.271 In summary, this study confirms that evangelical conversion is linked to certain moral values and to thinking of oneself more as a “member of a body” than does the population at large. Furthermore, evangelical conversion is clearly linked to a respect for the authority of the Bible and to obedience to authority. These are precisely the things that this study has argued provide the basis for a society’s freedom: a commitment to one’s neighbor’s well being and a respect for the law. The “internal government” that comes as a result of evangelical conversion thus lends itself to the kind of social order that makes less “external government” necessary.

To paraphrase the earlier quote

attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, as the moral tie is strengthened, the political tie can be relaxed.272 A comment should also be made in relation to the fact that though this study has made much of “evangelical conversion,” the transforming power at work in that conversion is, and must be, the power of God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. As such it is not the exclusive property of evangelicals, neither in North America nor in Latin America nor anywhere else. The point is that God is at work in innumerable and indescribable ways. The same dynamics noted as evangelical in this study can exist (and no doubt do exist) in other church structures (such as that of the Roman Catholic Church).

271

Much could be gained by attempting a Latin American study using tools of sociological analysis, somewhat along the lines of Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, a look at how Christianity “took over” the Roman Empire. 272 Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 333.

130

An additional area of inquiry is suggested for the future: a biblical, philosophical, and sociological look at the doctrine of the Trinity. Though it was outside of the bounds of the present study, that inquiry into what might be called “the sociological implications of the doctrine of the Trinity” would help address many of the same issues addressed in the present study. The nature of God as Three Persons yet One Essence forms the only adequate basis for the establishment of a society in which the individual and the social unit are properly balanced.273 Finally, just as faith without works is dead, so study without application is barren. What application can be suggested from this study? Three points of application come to mind: the strategic missiological application, the socio-political application and the evangelistic application. It hardly needs repeating that the role of Latin America and the Caribbean in world missions is changing and must change. This present study has made much of the input from Padilla and Escobar. The latter’s book Changing Tides: Latin America & World Mission Today captures the essence of the magnitude of the change. Jenkins echoes the same note.274 Latin America (and Africa and Asia, though they have remained outside the present study) is experiencing some of the most vibrant and dynamic Christianity on the planet, and must be involved in the promotion of Christianity elsewhere. Those who are involved in strategic missiological planning must take this into account. CALA needs to be seen primarily as a mission force rather than primarily as a mission field. A look back into church history reveals that, just as a tree depends on its inner core for strength and stability but depends on its newer edge for growth,

273

See Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 174-177.

131

Christianity’s most dynamic growth has typically not been close to its historical centers. The famous missionary drive of the Irish in the early Middle Ages, for example, took place while they held the outer fringe of a Christendom centered in Rome. Similarly, the energetic push of missions from the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was maintained while the center of Christian theological study was still in Europe. The Church today is living the next step of that, as the vibrant fringe is now Latin American, African, and Asian. While Latin American and Caribbean workers going into world missions will face some greater challenges than their North American contemporaries (especially in the realm of the financial), those challenges are not insurmountable nor are they anything outside of the normal in light of church history.275 The socio-political implications of this study are perhaps more delicate than the above. While at an individual level doctrine has implications for ethics, at a corporate level ethics has implications both for society in general and for politics in specific. It is beyond the scope of this study to establish guidelines for putting that into practice, but the point must be made that it must be put into practice. To be truly Christian is not merely to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs about other-worldly realities, but also to be deliberately about the business of affecting this present world in a positive way. As a starting point, Christians who also love democratic and political freedoms should be encouraged that investment today in virtues such as respect for authority, self-control, responsibility, honesty, and helpfulness will tomorrow reap a harvest of civil benefits.

274

Padilla, Misión Integral; Jenkins, The Next Christendom. The records of the experiences of the Careys from England and the Judsons from the new United States read like present-day Latin American mission mobilization stories. See Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya, 113-131. 275

132

Thirdly, but perhaps most importantly, this study has implications for evangelism. Every Christian should be newly motivated to share the life-changing message of Jesus Christ. The gospel truly is the power of God for salvation for all them that believe. A recognition of one’s need for a Savior, together with a decision to accept the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross as a sacrifice for sin, and an invitation to the risen Lord to reign in daily life and breath, results in a new creation. There is no better news at a personal level. The implication of this study is that the same is also true at a societal level. Can there be any more important task than sharing that message? “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.” Matthew 28:19a.

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anders, Max E. and Judith A. Lunsford. 30 Days to Understanding Church History. Word Publishing, 1991. Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by T. A. Sinclair, 1962. Revised by Trevor J. Saunders. London: Penguin, 1981. Augustine, Saint. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1993. Barclay, William. The Letter to the Romans. Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1955. Revised ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William A. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: UC Press, 1985. Updated edition, 1996. Bennet, Willliam J. The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Berger, Peter. Foreword to Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America by David Martin, vii-x. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Berkhof, Louis. Summary of Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1938. ________. Systematic Theology, 4th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939. Bonino, José Míguez. Faces of Latin American Protestantism. Translated by Eugene L. Stockwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Bosch, Juan. Composición Social Dominicana: Historia e Interpretación. 17th ed. Santo Domingo: Alfa y Omega, 1991. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Brusco, Elizabeth. “The Reformation of Machismo: Ascetism and Masculinity among Colombian Evangelicals.” In Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, eds. Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, 143-158. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. ________. Commentary on Romans. Public domain. Book on-line. Accessed 22 August

134

2003. Available from http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/xvi. htm. Internet. Chen, C. C., J. R. Meindl, and R. G. Hunt. “Testing the Effects of Vertical and Horizontal Collectivism: A Study of Reward Allocation Preferences in China.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, no. 1 (1997): 44-70. Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. Introduction of Logic, 10th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1998. Copleston, Frederick C. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1, Greece and Rome. Newman Press, 1946. Reprint, New York: Image, 1993. ________. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 2, Medieval Philosophy. Newman Press, 1950. Reprint, New York: Image, 1993. ________. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 3, Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. Newman Press, 1953. Reprint, New York: Image, 1993. Dawson, Christopher. Religion and the Rise of Western Culture. London: Sheed and Ward, 1950. Reprint, New York: Image, 1991. Didache or The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot, adapted and modified. Athena Data Products, 1990; accessed 11 August 2003. Book on-line. Available from http://www.gty.org/~phil/didache.htm; Internet. Dobson, James. Bringing Up Boys. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001. Ellul, Jacques. The Subversion of Christianity. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Escobar, Samuel. Changing Tides: Latin America & World Mission Today. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002. Foster, Stephen. Their Solitary Way. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Frame, John M. Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991. Freeman, M. A. “Factorial Structure of Individualism-Collectivism in Sri Lanka.” Psychological Reports 78, (1996): 907-914. ________. “Demographic Correlates of Individualism and Collectivism: A Study of Social Values in Sri Lanka.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28, no. 3 (1997): 321-341.

135

Garrard-Burnett, Virginia and David Stoll, eds. Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993. Geisler, Norman L. and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989. González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity (Complete in One Volume): The Early Church to the Present Day. New York: HarperCollins, 1984-85. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1999. Goudzwaard, Bob. Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society. Carlisle UK: Paternoster Press, 1979. Grant, George. The Micah Mandate. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1995. Green, Linda. “Shifting Affiliations: Mayan Women and Evangélicos in Guatemala,” In Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America, eds. Virginia Garrard-Burnett and David Stoll, 159-179. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, 1993. Grondona, Mariano. “A Cultural Typology of Economic Development.” In Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, 44-55. New York: Basic, 2000. Groome, Thomas H. What Makes Us Catholic: Eight Gifts for Life. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Gudykunst, W. B. and Y. Y. Kim. Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: Random House, 1984. Gudykunst, W. B. and S. Ting-Toomey (with E. Chua). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988. Gudykunst, W. B., Y. Matsumoto, S. Ting-Toomey, T. Nishida, K. Kim, and S. Heyman. “The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures.” Human Communication Research 22, no. 4 (1996): 510-543. Hall, E.T. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976. Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity?. Translated by Thomas Bailey Suanders. New York: Harper, 1957. Harper, L. F. and L. J. Rifkind. Cultural Collision: Quality Teamwork in the Diverse Workplace. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1995. Harrison, Lawrence E. and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. New York: Basic, 2000. 136

Hegeman, Cornelius. Mission to the People and Church Maintenance: The Origin and Development of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches and Missions in the Caribbean and Latin America (1528-1916). Atlanta: American University of Biblical Studies thesis, 2002. Henry, Matthew. Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible. Book on-line. ChristiansUnite.com, 2001. Accessed 18 August 2003. Available from http://bible. christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ge&c=3. Internet. Hesselgrave, David J. Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 2d. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991. Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, abridged edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984. ________. Foreword to Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, eds. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy.” In Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, 80-97. New York: Basic, 2000. Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002. Johnstone, Patrick and Jason Mandryk. Operation World: 21st Century Edition. Waynesboro, GA: 2001. Kagitcibasi, C. “A Critical Appraisal of Individualism and Collectivism: Toward a New Formulation.” In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, eds. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon, 52-65. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. Kane, J. Herbert. A Concise History of the Christian World Mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982. Kantowicz, Edward R. The World in the 20th Century. Vol. 1, The Rage of Nations. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. ________. The World in the 20th Century. Vol. 2, Coming Together, Coming Apart. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Kennedy, D. James. What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

137

Kirk, Russell. The Roots of American Order. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991. Kreeft, Peter. A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Edited and Explained for Beginners. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. revised and enlarged. Chicago: UC Press, 1970. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Vol. 1, to A.D. 1500. New York: HarperCollins, 1953. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince, 1997. ________. A History of Christianity. Vol. 2, A.D. 1500 – A.D. 1975. Revised edition, Peabody, MA: Prince, 1997. Levine, Timothy R., Mary Jiang Bresnahan, Hee Sun Park, Maria Knight Lapinski, Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Sachiyo Morinaga Shearman, Sun Young Lee, Donghun Chung, and Rie Ohashi. “Self-Construal Scales Lack Validity.” Human Communication Research 29, no. 2 (2003): 210-252. Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952. Reprint, New York: Touchstone, 1996. Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. Agents of Transformation: A Guide for Effective CrossCultural Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996. ________. Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission, 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gabriel Salman Lens. “Corruption, Culture, and Markets.” In Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, 112-124. New York: Basic, 2000. Little, David. Religion, Order, and Law: A Study in Pre-Revolutionary England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Lockward, Alfonso. Intolerancia y Libertad de Cultos en Santo Domingo. Santo Domingo: Editora Taller, 1993. Lockward, George A. El Protestantismo en Dominicana, 2d ed. Santo Domingo: Editora Educativa, 1982. Mackay, Juan A. El Otro Cristo Español: Un Estudio de la Historia Espiritual de España e Hispanoamérica, 2d ed. Lima: Ediciones Semilla, 1988.

138

Mangalwadi, Ruth and Vishal. The Legacy of William Carey: A Model for the Transformation of a Culture. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999. Manso P., Juan, Maria Teresa Sanchez F., and Ivan Peña O. “La Escala de Valores de Rokeach en una Muestra de Estudiantes de Servicio Social.” Revista de Servicio Social 1:1, 1998. Journal on-line. Accessed 25 August 2003. Available from http://www.udec.cl/~ssrevi/numero1/articulos/a5/articulo5.htm. Internet. Markus, H. R., and S. Kitayama. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98, (1991): 224-253. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of TwentiethCentury Evangelicalism: 1870-1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Marshall, Peter, and David Manuel. The Light and the Glory. Tarrytown, NY: Revell, 1977. Marshall, R. “Variances in Levels of Individualism Across Two Cultures and Three Social Classes.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28, no. 4 (1997): 490-495. Martin, David. Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Mayers, Marvin K. Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Crosscultural Evangelism, 2d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1987. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994. Miller, Darrow L. Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures. Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing, 1998. Montaner, Carlos Alberto. “¿Por Qué Mi Vecino Gringo Vive Mejor Que Yo?” Miami, FL: Firmas Press. On-line. Accessed 25 August 2003. Available from http://www. firmaspress.com/017.htm. Internet. Moya Pons, Frank. Manual de Historia Dominicana, rev. and enl. ed. Santo Domingo: Caribbean, 1997. Myers, Bryant L. Walking With The Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999. Nida, Eugene A. Understanding Latin Americans. Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1983. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. ________. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Meridian, 1957.

139

Novak, Michael. The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press, 1993. ________. On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding. San Francisco: Encounter, 2002. O’Grady, Desmond. Beyond the Empire: Rome and the Church from Constantine to Charlemagne. New York, NY: Crossroad, 2001. Orr, J. Edwin. Evangelical Awakenings in Latin America. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1978. Otis, George, Jr. Transformations: A Documentary (video). The Sentinel Group, 1999. Padilla, C. René. Misión Integral: Ensayos Sobre el Reino y La Iglesia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993. Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Original 1894. Reprint, New York: Dover, 2000. Portes, Braulio. La Cristianización Nacional: Un Desafio Socio-espiritual a las Naciones de la Tierra. Santo Domingo: Editora Educativa Dominicana, 1992. Reid, Daniel G., Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, Harry S. Stout, and Craig A. Noll, eds. Concise Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995. Riesman, D., N. Glazer, and R. Denney. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New York: Doubleday, 1953. Rodriguez Mosquera, Patricia M., Antony S. R. Manstead, and Agneta H. Fischer. “Honor in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe.” In Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33, no 1 (2002), 16-36. Rokeach, Milton. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1970. Rutherford, Samuel. LEX, REX, or The Law and the Prince. Original 1644. Reprint, Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982. Salom, Genaro D. “La Ley y El Orden: su relacion con la sociedad.” Revista INTERFORUM, June 10, 2001. Journal on-line. Accessed 6 September 2003. Available at http://www.revistainterforum.com/espanol/articulos/061001artpri.html. Internet. Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who Is There. Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1968.

140

________. How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1976. Schaeffer, Francis A. and Vishal Mangalwadi. Corruption vs. True Spirituality. New Delhi: Good Books, 1998. Schwartz, S. H. “Universals in the Structure and Content of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 25, ed. M. P. Zanna. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1992, 1-65. ________. “Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values.” In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, eds. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. Singelis, T. M. and W. J. Brown. “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication: Linking Culture to Individual Behavior.” Human Communication Research 21, no. 3 (1995): 354-389. Singelis, T. M., H. C. Triandis, D. P. S. Bhawuk, and M. J. Gelfund. “Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement.” Cross-Cultural Research 29, no. 3 (1995): 240-275. Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door, 3d ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Original 1776. Reprint, Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 1991. Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Tejeda Ortiz, Dagoberto. “Corpus Cristi y Carnaval: Cultura Popular e Identidad Nacional.” Book excerpt on-line. ProvinciasDominicanas.org. Accessed 5 September 2003. Available at http://www.provinciasdominicanas.org/literatura/corpus.htm. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. Original 1835. Reprint, New York: Bantam, 2000. Transformations: A Documentary (video). Produced by George Otis, Jr. The Sentinel Group, 1999. Triandis, H. C., K. Leung, M. Villareal, and F. Clark. “Allocentric versus Idiocentric Tendencies.” Journal of Research in Personality 19, (1985): 395-415.

141

________. “Collectivism vs. Individualism: A Reconceptualization of a Basic Concept in Cross-Cultural Psychology.” In Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes, and Cognition, eds. G. Verma and C. Bagley, 60-95. London: Macmillan, 1988. ________. “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts.” Psychological Review 96, (1989):506-517. ________. “Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Individualism and Collectivism.” In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, eds. U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. Troeltsch, Ernst. Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, in Gesammelte Schriften, 3d ed. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1923. English trans. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Tucker, Ruth A. From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1983. Wagner, C. Peter. Look Out! The Pentecostals Are Coming. Carol Stream, IL: 1973. ________. Territorial Spirits: Insights on Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare from Nineteen Christian Leaders. Chichester, Eng: Sovereign World, 1991. Weaver, Richard M. Ideas Have Consequences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner, 1958. ________. “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism.” In From Max Weber, eds. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. London: Routledge, 1948. Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible. Book on-line. ChristiansUnite.com, 2001. Accessed 18 August 2003. Available from http://bible.christiansunite.com/ wes.cgi?b=Ge&c=3. Wiarda, Howard J. “The Dominican Republic: Mirror Legacies of Democracy and Authoritarianism.” In Democracy in Developing Countries (Vol. 4): Latin America, eds. Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, 423-458. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1989.

142

APPENDIX A DOMINICAN REPUBLIC SURVEY FORM (as used) UNA ENCUESTA Gracias por participar en este proyecto de investigación. Para comenzar, por favor, encierre la respuesta que más se acerca a una descripción de usted mismo/a: Mi edad es de:

16-20 años

21-25 años

Yo soy:

Hombre

Mujer

Mi nacionalidad es:

Dominicana

Haitiana

Otra

Diría que soy:

Católico/a

Evangélico/a

Ninguna de las dos

Tiempo con esta religión:

menos de dos años

más de 25 años

2-5 años

Los familiares con que vivo son principalmente: Católico/a Evangélico/a

mas de 5 años

Ninguna de las dos

De las siguientes autoridades, la que tiene más autoridad moral para decirnos lo que debemos hacer, según mi criterio, es: La Iglesia Católica La Biblia La Iglesia Evangélica El Estado .................................................................................................................................................................... A continuación encontrará usted una lista de 18 valores en orden alfabético. Su tarea es asignarles un numero según el grado de importancia que cada uno de ellos tiene para usted, como principios que orientan su vida personal. Por ejemplo, al valor que usted estima como el más importante, asígnele el número 1; al que considere en segundo lugar de importancia, asígnele el número 2 y así sucesivamente. El valor que usted considere como el menos importante será indicado con el número 18. Amistad verdadera Amor pleno Armonía interna Felicidad Igualdad Libertad Placer Reconocimiento social Respeto a sí mismo Sabiduría Salvación Seguridad familiar Seguridad nacional Sentido de satisfacción Un mundo bello Un mundo en paz Una vida emocionante Una vida cómoda

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 143

A continuación hay una serie de frases referentes a la manera en que usted se relaciona con los demas. No hay respuestas ni correctas ni incorrectas. Despues de cada frase, encierre la respuesta que mejor expresa su experiencia de acuerdo con la siguiente escala: Totalmente de Acuerdo (TADE) 5

De Acuerdo (DE) 4

Indiferente/Sin opinión (I/SO) 3

En Desacuerdo (DES) 2

Totalmente en Desacuerdo (TDES) 1

En mis relaciones con los demas . . . Mi identidad personal me importa mucho.

5

4

3

2

1

Soy responsable de mi propio futuro.

5

4

3

2

1

A pesar de las dificultades, me apego al grupo.

5

4

3

2

1

Respeto el gusto de la mayoría en los grupos que pertenezco.

5

4

3

2

1

Es importante para mí poder actuar como una persona libre e independiente

5

4

3

2

1

Respeto las decisiones tomadas por mi familia y/o por mi grupo.

5

4

3

2

1

Prefiero ser autosuficiente en lugar de depender de otros.

5

4

3

2

1

Mantengo armonía en los grupos de los que soy miembro.

5

4

3

2

1

Es importante consultar con el grupo o con amigos cercanos antes de tomar una decisión. 5

4

3

2

1

Soy responsable de mis propias acciones.

5

4

3

2

1

Me gusta ser una persona única y diferente.

5

4

3

2

1

Sacrifico mis propios intereses para beneficio del grupo.

5

4

3

2

1

Expreso mi oposición abiertamente cuando estoy en desacuerdo con mi grupo. 5

4

3

2

1

Yo me percibo a mi mismo/a como una persona independiente de mi grupo.

5

4

3

2

1

Yo trato de no depender de otras personas.

5

4

3

2

1

Mi satisfacción depende de la satisfacción de mi grupo.

5

4

3

2

1

Yo consulto con mi grupo antes de tomar decisiones importantes. 5

4

3

2

1

Tomo en cuenta los deseos de mi grupo.

4

3

2

1

5 144

A continuación encontrará usted una lista de 18 valores en orden alfabético. Su tarea es asignarles un numero según el grado de importancia que cada uno de ellos tiene para usted, como principios que orientan su vida personal. Por ejemplo, al valor que usted estima como el más importante, asígnele el número 1; al que considere en segundo lugar de importancia, asígnele el número 2 y así sucesivamente. El valor que usted considere como el menos importante será indicado con el número 18. Afectuoso ________ Alegre ________ Autocontrolado ________ Capaz ________ Cortés ________ Creativo ________ Dispuesto ________ Honrado ________ Independiente ________ Intelectual ________ Limpio/Nítido ________ Lógico ________ Magnánimo/Bondadoso_______ Obediente ________ Responsable ________ Serio ________ Tolerante ________ Valiente ________

Gracias por haber participado! Si le interesa saber los resultados de las investigaciones en que trabajamos, por favor, anote su dirección de correo electrónico aquí:

Una vez más, gracias. Glenn Martin Correo electrónico: [email protected]

145

APPENDIX A (cont.) Dominican Republic Survey Form (translated into English) A SURVEY Thank you for participating in this research project. To begin, please circle the answer below that best describes you: I am:

16-20 years old

21-25 years old

I am:

male

female

My nationality is:

Dominican

Haitian

I consider myself:

Catholic

Evangelical

I have been with the above religion: less than 2 years My family members I live with are principally: Catholic Evangelical

more than 25 years old

Other Neither of the two

2-5 years

more than 5 years

Neither of the two

Of the following authorities, the one that has the most moral authority to tell us what we should do, according to me, is: The Catholic Church The Bible The Evangelical Church The State .................................................................................................................................................................... Below you will find a list of 18 values in alphabetical order. Your task is to assign each value a number according to its importance to you, as values by which you should order your personal life. For example, the value that you consider most important should be numbered with a 1; the value you consider to be the next most important should be numbered 2, and so on. The value you consider least important should be numbered 18. True friendship Mature love Inner harmony Happiness Equality Freedom Pleasure Social recognition Self-respect Wisdom Salvation Family security National security A sense of accomplishment A world of beauty A world at peace An exciting life A comfortable life

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 146

Below are a series of statements that refer to the way you relate to people around you. There are neither correct nor incorrect answers. After each statement, circle the answer that best expresses your experience according to the following scale: Totally Agree 5

Agree 4

Indifferent/No opinion 3

Disagree

Totally Disagree 1

2

In my relationships with others . . . My personal identity is very important to me.

5

4

3

2

1

I should decide my own future on my own.

5

4

3

2

1

I stick with my group even through difficulties.

5

4

3

2

1

I respect the majority’s wishes in groups of which I am a member. 5

4

3

2

1

It is important for me to act as a free and independent person.

5

4

3

2

1

I respect decisions made by my family or my group.

5

4

3

2

1

I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others.

5

4

3

2

1

I maintain harmony in the groups of which I am a member.

5

4

3

2

1

It is important to consult with the group or with close friends before making a decision.

5

4

3

2

1

I take responsibility for my own actions.

5

4

3

2

1

I enjoy being unique and different from others.

5

4

3

2

1

I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

5

4

3

2

1

I openly express my opposition when I disgaree with my group.

5

4

3

2

1

I see myself as a person independent of my group.

5

4

3

2

1

I try not to depend on others.

5

4

3

2

1

My satisfaction depends on the satisfaction of my group.

5

4

3

2

1

I consult with my group before making important decisions.

5

4

3

2

1

I consider the desires of my group.

5

4

3

2

1

147

Below you will find a list of 18 values in alphabetical order. Your task is to assign each value a number according to its importance to you, as values by which you should order your personal life. For example, the value that you consider most important should be numbered with a 1; the value you consider to be the next most important should be numbered 2, and so on. The value you consider least important should be numbered 18. Loving Cheerful Self-controlled Capable Polite Imaginative Willing/Helpful Honest Independent Intellectual Clean Logical Kind/Forgiving Obedient Responsible Ambitious Broadminded Courageous

________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ _______ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Thank you for participating! If you would like to see the results of this research, please write your email address below:

Once again, thank you. Glenn Martin Email address: [email protected]

148

APPENDIX B BELIZE SURVEY FORM Dear Respondent: I am a university student involved in a research project for which I need information from people like you. Thank you for participating in this research project. Please complete the entire survey to the best of your ability. Your confidentiality will be protected. Please understand that your participation poses NO psychological, physical, or social risk to YOU, and will be a GREAT HELP TO ME as a graduate student. THANK YOU! –Glenn [email protected] I. Personal Information Age: _____ Gender: _____ Country of Birth: ____________________ Country of Citizenship: _________________ Ethnic background: __________________ Level of university study in which you are currently enrolled (pick one): ___ Undergraduate ___ Graduate Is English your first language? (pick one) ___ Yes ___ No

Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation? (pick one) ___ Roman Catholic

___ Christian but not Roman Catholic

___ Non-Christian

Which of the following best describes the religious affiliation of your immediate family? (pick one) ___ Roman Catholic

___ Christian but not Roman Catholic

___ Non-Christian

II. More about You: for each of the following sentences, enter a number from one to five in the blank, according to the following: 1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=agree 5=strongly agree __1. It is important for me to act as an independent person. __2. I take responsibility for my own actions. __3. I should decide my own future on my own. __4. I enjoy being unique and different from others. __5. I stick with my group even through difficulties. __6. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making a decision. __7. I am a unique person separate from others. __8. If there is a conflict between my values of groups of which I am a member, I follow my values. __9. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me. __10. I try not to depend on others. __11. I help acquaintances, even if it is inconvenient. __12. I don’t support a group decision when it is wrong. __13. I should be judged on my own merit. __14. What happens to me is my own doing. __15. I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards. __16. I maintain harmony in the groups of which I am a member. __17. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others. __18. My personal identity is very important to me.

149

__19. I respect decisions made by my group. __20. I respect the majority’s wishes in groups of which I am a member. __21. I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group. __22. I consult with co-workers on work-related members. __23. I consult with others before making important decisions. __24. I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the group. __25. My relationships with others are more important than my accomplishments. __26. I remain in the groups of which I am a member if they need me, even though I am dissatisfied with them. __27. I give special consideration to other’s personal situations so I can be efficient at work. __28. I try to abide by customs and conventions at work. __29. It is better to consult with others and get their opinions before doing anything.

III. Your Team: As a university student you no doubt work from time to time as a part of a team. If you are a member of more than one, please identify ONE (multicultural if possible) that you can think of as you answer these questions. How many members are on this team? ________ How many cultural groups are represented on this team? _______ How long have you been on this team? _______ Which of the following stages of group development best describes your team at this point (check one): __ Primary tension (initial anxiety of getting acquainted) __ Secondary tension (conflict as we seek to define ourselves as a team) __ Productive performance __ Past our peak; stagnating

IV. Your Roles On This Team Please read the following statements and write in the blank space the number that describes how much of the time you play this role in the multicultural team you are a part of. 1=Never; 2=Hardly ever; 3=Sometimes; 4=Often; 5=All the time __1. I pull together ideas and suggestions and coordinate work of various subgroups. __2. I seek to find solutions for conflicts that involve my own ideas. __3. I think of examples, offer rationales, or work out details of previous suggestions. __4. I prod the group to action and stimulate greater levels of group activity. __5. I develop standards for group functioning and compare group performance to standards. __6. I offer facts of generalizations or relate experiences relevant to group problem. __7. I accept and praise other’s contributions. __8. I ask for clarification of suggestions and for information and facts pertinent to the problem. __9. I suggest new ideas to the group or offer new ways of regarding group problems.

150

__10. I summarize what has occurred or ask questions about the path the group will take. __11. I expedite group movement by taking on routine tasks. __12. I accept ideas of the group and serve as an audience. __13. I keep communication channels open and facilitate others’ participation. __14. I relieve tension and mediate disagreements. __15. I observe group process and offer feedback about maintenance procedures. __16. I prolong or stop decision making by foot-dragging and nit-picking. __17. I refuse to allow others to express their opinions, and dominate discussion. __18. I distract the group by disclosing personal problems and by using the group for personal therapy. __19. I spend time boasting about my own accomplishments in order to be the center of attention.

You are ALMOST FINISHED!! Before you return this form, please double check to make sure you have answered each and every question that you can answer. Also, please consider the following questions: Please mark the following question true (T) or false (F): __I consider myself to be a “born-again Christian” with a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” If you answered “True” to the question above, how long has this been true for you? __Less than one year __One to three years __Over three years

The language on this survey was (pick one): Very hard __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 Very easy

Thank you so much for your help! If you want to receive a copy of the results of this survey, please provide your name and email address (or regular mail if you have no email address) here:

151

APPENDIX C DOMINICAN REPUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS CHARTS

I would say I am:

Frequency Valid

Catholic Evangelical Neither of the two Total

Lost

Valid percentage

Accumulated percentage

329

66.3

66.7

66.7

114

23.0

23.1

89.9

50

10.1

10.1

100.0

493

99.4

100.0

System

Total

Percentage

3

.6

496

100.0

Time with this religion:

Frequency Valid

Less than 2 years

Total Lost

Accumulated percentage

7.5

8.4

8.4

37

7.5

8.4

16.7

369

74.4

83.3

100.0

443

89.3

100.0

53

10.7

496

100.0

System

Total

Valid percentage

37

2 to 5 years More than 5 years

Percentage

Family members I live with are principally:

Frequency Valid

Catholic Evangelical Neither of the two Total

Lost Total

System

Percentage

Valid percentage

Accumulated percentage

351

70.8

71.5

71.5

101

20.4

20.6

92.1

39

7.9

7.9

100.0

491

99.0

100.0

5

1.0

496

100.0

Level of Importance of 18 Terminal Values (from 1 to 18): I would say I am: Catholic Mean True friendship Mature love Inner harmony Happiness Equality Freedom Pleasure Social recognition Self-respect Wisdom Salvation Family Security National security A sense of accomplishment A world of beauty A world at peace An exciting life A comfortable life

Evangelical

Std Dev

Mean

General Neither of the two

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

5.89

(3.86)

6.41

(3.94)

6.36

(3.26)

6.06

(3.82)

5.81

(4.14)

5.15

(3.98)

5.80

(4.35)

5.65

(4.13)

7.01

(4.34)

7.40

(4.04)

7.46

(4.33)

7.15

(4.27)

5.45

(3.60)

6.28

(3.02)

6.54

(3.93)

5.75

(3.53)

7.95

(4.55)

9.03

(4.12)

7.84

(4.45)

8.19

(4.46)

6.96

(3.88)

7.59

(3.72)

7.16

(3.96)

7.13

(3.86)

13.35

(4.40)

15.24

(3.87)

15.08

(3.28)

13.96

(4.27)

12.56

(4.14)

12.92

(3.76)

12.74

(4.14)

12.66

(4.05)

6.98

(4.30)

6.98

(3.94)

7.00

(4.01)

6.98

(4.18)

8.26

(4.20)

6.22

(4.36)

8.38

(4.48)

7.80

(4.34)

8.19

(5.00)

2.47

(3.53)

6.46

(6.12)

6.69

(5.37)

7.95

(4.11)

8.08

(3.80)

7.04

(3.73)

7.89

(4.00)

12.11

(3.82)

11.64

(3.33)

11.66

(4.37)

11.96

(3.77)

13.80

(3.25)

12.85

(3.84)

13.84

(2.94)

13.59

(3.38)

11.52

(4.12)

12.00

(3.99)

11.38

(4.05)

11.62

(4.08)

7.41

(5.20)

8.35

(4.69)

7.18

(5.09)

7.60

(5.08)

14.44

(3.56)

14.96

(3.20)

14.22

(3.98)

14.54

(3.53)

13.70

(4.30)

13.53

(4.38)

13.88

(3.83)

13.68

(4.27)

Independent Self-Construal: Media My personal identity is very important to me.

Std.Dev.

Median

Mode

Maximum

Minimum

4.59

(.75)

5.00

5

5

1

4.58

(.82)

5.00

5

5

1

4.45

(.89)

5.00

5

5

1

I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others.

3.96

(1.22)

4.00

5

5

1

I take responsibility for my own actions.

4.66

(.74)

5.00

5

5

1

I enjoy being unique and different from others.

4.07

(1.17)

4.00

5

5

1

4.24

(.89)

4.00

5

5

1

3.14

(1.30)

3.00

4

5

1

3.92

(1.16)

4.00

4

5

1

I should decide my future on my own.

It is important for me to act as an independent person.

I openly express my opposition when I disagree with my group.

I see myself as a person independent of my group.

I try not to depend on others.

Interdependent Self-Construal: Mean

Std. Dev.

Median

Mode

Maximum

Minimum

I stick with my group even through difficulties.

3.84

(.94)

4.00

4

5

1

I respect the majority’s wishes in groups of which I am a member.

4.31

(.85)

4.00

5

5

1

4.22

(.85)

4.00

4

5

1

I maintain harmony in the groups of which I am a member.

4.45

(.65)

5.00

5

5

1

It is important to consult with the group or with close friends before making a decision.

4.14

(1.04)

4.00

5

5

1

I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

3.54

(1.03)

4.00

4

5

1

My satisfaction depends on the satisfaction of my group.

3.02

(1.35)

3.00

4

5

1

3.83

(1.16)

4.00

4

5

1

4.15

(.82)

4.00

4

5

1

I respect decisions made by my family or my group.

I consult with my group before making important decisions.

I consider the desires of my group.

Level of Importance of 18 Instrumental Values (from 1 to 18): I would say I am: Catholic Mean Loving Cheerful Self-controlled Capable Polite Imaginative Willing/Helpful Honest Independent Intellectual Clean Logical Kind/Forgiving Obedient Responsible Ambitious Broad-minded Courageous

General

Evangelical

Std Dev

Mean

8.72

(5.07)

Neither of the two

Std Dev

Mean

9.13

(5.20)

Std Dev

Mean

8.33

(5.01)

Std Dev

8.77

(5.09)

7.09

(4.96)

8.42

(5.09)

8.16

(4.95)

7.51

(5.02)

11.22

(5.13)

10.63

(5.19)

10.98

(5.43)

11.06

(5.17)

7.69

(4.51)

8.78

(4.40)

9.16

(4.38)

8.09

(4.50)

8.31

(4.21)

9.79

(4.31)

10.04

(4.02)

8.83

(4.27)

9.24

(4.23)

10.38

(4.32)

9.00

(3.99)

9.48

(4.25)

9.21

(4.24)

8.53

(4.48)

8.94

(3.74)

9.02

(4.25)

4.97

(4.32)

5.80

(4.59)

5.00

(4.05)

5.17

(4.36)

11.55

(4.86)

12.38

(4.56)

10.90

(4.73)

11.68

(4.79)

11.38

(4.63)

11.42

(4.62)

10.41

(5.10)

11.29

(4.67)

10.27

(4.65)

10.40

(4.99)

10.37

(4.31)

10.31

(4.69)

12.25

(4.22)

13.38

(4.06)

12.33

(4.66)

12.53

(4.25)

11.89

(4.43)

11.27

(4.58)

11.78

(4.73)

11.73

(4.50)

9.22

(4.99)

6.35

(5.59)

9.47

(6.00)

8.56

(5.38)

5.81

(5.08)

4.37

(3.91)

5.27

(4.59)

5.42

(4.81)

7.61

(5.18)

6.73

(4.80)

6.41

(4.82)

7.28

(5.07)

11.74

(5.15)

10.16

(5.21)

11.94

(4.63)

11.38

(5.15)

10.71

(5.40)

9.69

(5.06)

11.10

(5.56)

10.51

(5.35)

Time with this religion related to religious grouping: I would say I am: Catholic Freq Time with this religion:

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years

Total

Evangelical %

Freq

Total Neither of the two

%

Freq

%

Freq

%

21

6.5%

13

11.5%

3

50.0%

37

8.4%

9

2.8%

27

23.9%

1

16.7%

37

8.4%

294

90.7%

73

64.6%

2

33.3%

369

83.3%

324

100.0%

113

100.0%

6

100.0%

443

100.0%

Family members principally lived with related to religious grouping: I would say I am: Catholic Freq The family members I live with are principally:

Catholic Evangelical Neither of the two

Total

Total

Evangelical %

Freq

Neither of the two

%

317

96.6%

16

14.3%

6

1.8%

86

5

1.5%

10

328

100.0%

112

Freq

%

Freq

%

16

32.7%

349

71.4%

76.8%

9

18.4%

101

20.7%

8.9%

24

49.0%

39

8.0%

100.0%

49

100.0%

489

100.0%

I would say I am: * Time with this religion: Dependent Variable: Independent Self-Construal 95% Confidence Interval I would say I am: Catholic

Time with this religion: Less than 2 years

Mean

2 to 5 years More than 5 years Evangelical

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years

Neither of the two

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years

Std. Error

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

37.588

1.090

35.445

39.732

37.556

1.499

34.609

40.502

38.327

.274

37.788

38.866

35.000

1.298

32.448

37.552

34.826

.937

32.983

36.669

36.333

.580

35.192

37.474

39.333

2.596

34.230

44.436

40.000

4.496

31.161

48.839

38.500

3.179

32.250

44.750

Recognition of authority related to religious grouping: I would say I am:

Catholic

Freq Of the following authorities, the one that has the greatest moral authority to tell us what to do, is:

Catholic Church Bible

%

Freq

Neither of the two

%

Freq

%

Freq

%

64

19.8%

2

1.8%

0

.0%

66

13.6%

249

76.9%

107

93.9%

44

93.6%

400

82.5%

0

.0%

5

4.4%

1

2.1%

6

1.2%

11

3.4%

0

.0%

2

4.3%

13

2.7%

324

100.0%

114

100.0%

47

100.0%

485

100.0%

Evangelical Church

The State Total

Evangelical

Total

Level of Importance of 18 Terminal Values (from 1 to 18), related to Recognition of Authority: Of the following authorities, the one that has the greatest moral authority to tell us what to do, is:

Catholic Church

Mean True friendship

Std Dev

The Bible

Mean

Evangelical Church

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

General

The State

Mean

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

6.42

(4.21)

6.05

(3.73)

4.50

(1.87)

6.92

(4.65)

6.10

(3.81)

6.45

(4.32)

5.50

(4.03)

6.00

(4.86)

6.31

(4.33)

5.66

(4.09)

7.65

(4.53)

7.00

(4.10)

10.17

(5.12)

6.15

(5.80)

7.11

(4.23)

5.41

(3.93)

5.82

(3.47)

6.00

(1.10)

4.38

(3.40)

5.73

(3.52)

7.61

(4.34)

8.26

(4.49)

8.17

(3.87)

8.38

(5.66)

8.18

(4.49)

6.21

(3.81)

7.31

(3.90)

8.67

(2.34)

5.31

(3.30)

7.12

(3.88)

12.17

(5.00)

14.29

(4.05)

17.00

(1.55)

12.08

(4.73)

13.98

(4.26)

12.02

(4.28)

12.84

(3.94)

11.67

(4.18)

11.85

(4.98)

12.69

(4.02)

7.44

(4.48)

6.89

(4.07)

7.33

(5.13)

7.69

(4.73)

6.99

(4.15)

9.15

(4.43)

7.68

(4.26)

3.83

(5.00)

6.08

(3.33)

7.79

(4.32)

9.62

(4.51)

6.11

(5.33)

4.17

(4.92)

9.77

(5.95)

6.66

(5.39)

8.03

(4.41)

7.78

(3.90)

10.33

(3.14)

9.54

(4.79)

7.89

(3.99)

National security

11.97

(4.24)

12.05

(3.64)

11.33

(4.41)

10.54

(4.29)

11.99

(3.75)

A sense of accomplishment

13.41

(3.65)

13.65

(3.30)

14.33

(2.80)

12.38

(4.27)

13.59

(3.37)

11.59

(4.53)

11.65

(3.97)

13.50

(4.23)

10.54

(4.65)

11.64

(4.07)

7.59

(5.56)

7.59

(5.07)

6.50

(4.23)

7.62

(4.21)

7.58

(5.09)

13.82

(4.46)

14.77

(3.26)

13.50

(3.94)

12.62

(3.64)

14.56

(3.48)

13.29

(4.84)

13.78

(4.18)

13.33

(4.08)

12.08

(5.12)

13.66

(4.29)

Mature love Inner harmony Happiness Equality Freedom Pleasure Social recognition

Self-respect

Wisdom Salvation Family Security

A world of beauty A world at peace An exciting life

A comfortable life

Level of Importance of 18 Instrumental Values (from 1 to 18), related to Recognition of Authority: Of the following authorities, the one that has the greatest moral authority to tell us what to do, is:

Catholic Church

Mean Loving Cheerful Self-controlled Capable Polite Imaginative Willing/Helpful Honest Independent Intellectual Clean Logical

Std Dev

The Bible

Mean

Evangelical Church

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

General

The State

Mean

Std Dev

Mean

Std Dev

8.53

(4.98)

8.92

(5.05)

6.67

(4.46)

8.25

(6.66)

8.82

(5.07)

6.28

(4.85)

7.81

(5.03)

4.33

(2.73)

7.08

(5.66)

7.54

(5.03)

11.91

(4.86)

10.93

(5.18)

11.33

(5.43)

10.77

(5.61)

11.06

(5.15)

7.70

(4.41)

8.06

(4.45)

11.17

(4.45)

9.31

(5.04)

8.08

(4.47)

8.48

(4.38)

8.86

(4.20)

11.00

(5.51)

10.46

(5.58)

8.88

(4.28)

9.14

(4.31)

9.66

(4.20)

8.17

(4.26)

8.85

(4.88)

9.55

(4.23)

9.28

(4.30)

8.95

(4.21)

11.67

(3.61)

8.50

(5.33)

9.01

(4.24)

6.83

(5.57)

4.90

(4.15)

5.67

(3.67)

5.46

(5.24)

5.18

(4.42)

11.72

(4.85)

11.72

(4.75)

13.33

(5.50)

10.58

(5.74)

11.71

(4.79)

11.28

(4.49)

11.37

(4.67)

14.00

(2.97)

8.62

(5.87)

11.32

(4.68)

10.08

(4.83)

10.36

(4.69)

11.17

(5.19)

10.00

(5.02)

10.33

(4.71)

12.70

(4.23)

12.51

(4.28)

11.00

(5.22)

12.62

(4.13)

12.52

(4.27)

11.98

(4.28)

11.71

(4.56)

10.33

(4.89)

12.46

(4.07)

11.75

(4.51)

8.30

(4.86)

8.67

(5.52)

6.50

(4.37)

7.38

(4.15)

8.55

(5.38)

5.70

(4.74)

5.28

(4.78)

3.83

(4.12)

5.62

(4.81)

5.33

(4.76)

Kind/Forgiving

Obedient Responsible Ambitious Broad-minded Courageous

6.98

(5.14)

7.25

(4.98)

10.67

(7.09)

6.69

(5.14)

7.24

(5.03)

11.89

(5.02)

11.28

(5.21)

8.67

(2.73)

10.62

(5.41)

11.31

(5.17)

10.27

(5.09)

10.49

(5.42)

9.67

(4.72)

10.15

(5.01)

10.44

(5.35)

APPENDIX D BELIZE SURVEY RESULTS CHARTS

Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

Frequency Valid

Roman Catholic

Missing

Cumulative Percent

46.0

47.1

47.1

97

42.9

43.9

91.0 100.0

20

8.8

9.0

221

97.8

100.0

5

2.2

226

100.0

System

Total

Valid Percent

104

Christian but not Catholic Non-Christian Total

Percent

Which of the following best describes the religious affiliation of your family?

Frequency Valid

Roman Catholic Christian but not Catholic Non-Christian Total

Missing

System

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

97

42.9

45.8

45.8

98

43.4

46.2

92.0

17

7.5

8.0

100.0

212

93.8

100.0

14

6.2

226

100.0

I consider myself to be a "born-again Christian" with a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

Frequency Valid

True False Total

Missing Total

System

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

128

56.6

64.6

64.6

70

31.0

35.4

100.0

198

87.6

100.0

28

12.4

226

100.0

How long has this been true for you?

Frequency Valid

Less than one year One to three years Over three years Total

Missing

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

26

11.5

20.3

26

11.5

20.3

40.6

76

33.6

59.4

100.0

128

56.6

100.0

98

43.4

226

100.0

System

Total

Percent

20.3

Identifying oneself to be “born again,” related to religious affiliation: Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

Roman Catholic

Frequency I consider myself to be a "born-again Christian" with a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ".

%

Christian but not Catholic

Frequency

Total

Non-Christian

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

True 53

60.2%

69

79.3%

2

10.5%

124

63.9%

35

39.8%

18

20.7%

17

89.5%

70

36.1%

88

100.0%

87

100.0%

19

100.0%

194

100.0%

False

Total

Length of time “born again,” related to religious affiliation: Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation? Christian but not Catholic

Roman Catholic

Frequ. How long has this been true for you?

Less than one year One to three years Over three years

Total

%

Frequ.

Total

Non-Christian

%

Frequ.

%

Frequ.

%

11

21.2%

12

17.1%

2

100.0%

25

20.2%

15

28.8%

11

15.7%

0

.0%

26

21.0%

26

50.0%

47

67.1%

0

.0%

73

58.9%

52

100.0%

70

100.0%

2

100.0%

124

100.0%

Length of time with religious affiliation: Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

Roman Catholic

Frequ. How long has this been true for you?

Less than one year One to three years Over three years

Total

%

Christian but not Catholic

Frequ.

%

Total

Non-Christian

Frequ.

%

Frequ.

%

2

15.4%

2

28.6%

2

100.0%

6

27.3%

1

7.7%

3

42.9%

0

.0%

4

18.2%

10

76.9%

2

28.6%

0

.0%

12

54.5%

13

100.0%

7

100.0%

2

100.0%

22

100.0%

Independent Self-Construal related to Religious Affiliation: Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

Roman Catholic

It is important for me to act as an independent person. I take responsibility for my own actions.

I should decide my future on my own. I enjoy being unique and different from others. I am unique person separate from others. If there is a conflict between my values and the values of groups of which I am a member, I follow my values. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me.

Christian but not Catholic

Non-Christian

Mean 4.45

Std Deviation (.86)

Mean 4.38

Std Deviation (.89)

Mean 4.45

Std Deviation (1.05)

4.33

(.93)

4.37

(.82)

4.35

(.93)

4.30

(1.06)

4.00

(1.16)

4.20

(1.06)

4.23

(1.18)

4.38

(.92)

4.10

(.91)

3.81

(1.33)

4.18

(1.03)

3.55

(1.39)

3.96

(.94)

4.08

(.93)

3.70

(.98)

4.36

(.99)

4.34

(.89)

4.00

(1.17)

4.39

(.82)

4.24

(.93)

4.30

(.80)

3.99

(1.16)

3.93

(1.14)

4.05

(1.05)

4.32

(.83)

4.26

(.93)

4.35

(.81)

3.78

(1.18)

3.58

(1.12)

3.95

(1.10)

3.67

(1.21)

3.56

(1.08)

3.40

(.88)

4.38

(.83)

4.21

(.95)

4.25

(.85)

4.61

(.86)

4.60

(.72)

4.45

(.94)

I try not to depend on others.

I don't support a group decision when it is wrong. I should be judged on my own merit.

What happens to me is my own doing. I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others.

My personal identity is very important to me.

Interdependent Self-Construal related to Religious Affiliation: Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

Roman Catholic

Mean I stick with my group even through difficulties.

Christian but not Catholic

Std Deviation

Mean

Std Deviation

Non-Christian

Mean

Std Deviation

4.00

(1.01)

4.17

(.87)

3.95

(1.10)

It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making a decision.

3.68

(1.11)

3.78

(1.05)

3.10

(1.48)

I help acquaintances, even if it is inconvenient.

3.85

(.92)

3.71

(1.00)

3.75

(1.02)

4.09

(.81)

4.12

(.89)

3.79

(.85)

4.23

(.73)

3.97

(.86)

3.95

(.89)

3.84

(.93)

3.72

(.84)

3.90

(.72)

3.22

(1.14)

3.23

(.97)

3.50

(.95)

4.08

(.79)

4.01

(.88)

3.75

(.85)

3.93

(.90)

4.04

(.88)

3.53

(1.22)

I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the group.

3.22

(1.26)

3.06

(1.23)

3.20

(1.28)

My relationships with others are more important than my accomplishments.

2.82

(1.19)

2.79

(1.27)

3.15

(1.04)

2.92

(1.14)

2.82

(1.16)

3.15

(1.09)

3.82

(.93)

3.77

(.87)

3.70

(.73)

3.84

(.96)

3.72

(.95)

3.80

(.70)

3.82

(1.06)

3.73

(1.16)

3.90

(.79)

I maintain harmony in the groups of which I am a member.

I respect decisions made by my group. I respect the majority's wishes in groups of which I am a member. I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

I consult with co-workers on work-related matters.

I consult with others before making important decisions.

I remain in the groups of which I am a member if they need me, even though I am dissatisfied with them.

I give special consideration to others' personal situations so I can be efficient at work. I try to abide by customs and conventions at work.

It is better to consult with others and get their opinions before doing anything.

APPENDIX E RELIABILITY ANALYSIS Dominican Republic Survey RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA) – Independent Self-Construal (IND) Mean 1. P09 2. P09A 3. P09D 4. P09F 5. P09I 6. P09J 7. P09L 8. P09M 9. P09N N of Cases =

Std Dev Cases 4.6050 .7483 4.5799 .8156 4.4817 .8441 3.9589 1.2057 4.6918 .6583 4.0890 1.1516 4.2557 .8629 3.1347 1.2952 3.9384 1.1394 438.0

N of Statistics for Mean Variance Scale 37.7352 20.7901 Item Means

438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0 438.0

Std Dev Variables 4.5596 9

Mean Minimum Maximum 4.1928 3.1347 4.6918

Range Max/Min Variance 1.5571 1.4967 .2382

Reliability Coefficients 9 items Alpha = .6950 Standardized item alpha = .7151

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA) - Interdependent Self-Construal (INT) 1. P09B 2. P09C 3. P09E 4. P09G 5. P09H 6. P09K 7. P09O 8. P09P 9. P09Q N of Cases =

Mean Std Dev Cases 3.8326 .9405 436.0 4.3142 .8304 436.0 4.2431 .8168 436.0 4.4725 .6115 436.0 4.1445 1.0192 436.0 3.5206 1.0248 436.0 3.0069 1.3348 436.0 3.8165 1.1580 436.0 4.1399 .8283 436.0 436.0

N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables Scale 35.4908 22.0436 4.6951 9 Item Means

Mean Minimum 3.9434 3.0069

Maximum 4.4725

Range Max/Min Variance 1.4656 1.4874 .2088

Reliability Coefficients 9 items Alpha = .7105 Standardized item alpha = .7289

163

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA)-IND&INT Mean Std Dev Cases P09 4.6203 .7243 403.0 P09A 4.5980 .7868 403.0 P09B 3.8313 .9391 403.0 P09C 4.3077 .8432 403.0 P09D 4.5012 .8207 403.0 P09E 4.2680 .8089 403.0 P09F 3.9752 1.2050 403.0 P09G 4.4789 .6038 403.0 P09H 4.1638 1.0089 403.0 P09I 4.7022 .6470 403.0 P09J 4.0868 1.1696 403.0 P09K 3.5211 1.0180 403.0 P09L 4.2655 .8647 403.0 P09M 3.1439 1.3041 403.0 P09N 3.9206 1.1498 403.0 P09O 2.9975 1.3224 403.0 P09P 3.8313 1.1638 403.0 P09Q 4.1563 .8303 403.0 N of Cases = 403.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables Scale 73.3697 47.6913 6.9059 18 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Item Means

Mean Minimum Maximum 4.0761 2.9975 4.7022

Range Max/Min Variance 1.7047 1.5687 .2317

Reliability Coefficients 18 items Alpha = .7151 Standardized item alpha = .7252

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Independent Self-Construal

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label I would say I am:

1 2 3

Time with this religion:

1 2 3

164

N

Catholic

295

Evangelical

95

Neither of the two

6

Less than two years

32

2 to 5 years

33

More than 5 years

331

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Independent Self-Construal I would say I am: Catholic

Time with this religion: Less than 2 years

Mean

2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total Evangelical

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Neither of the two

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Total

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Std. Deviation

N

37.59

5.209

17

37.56

4.825

9

38.33

4.078

269

38.26

4.161

295

35.00

4.918

12

34.83

6.991

23

36.33

4.839

60

35.80

5.428

95

39.33

3.215

3

40.00

.

1

38.50

.707

2

39.17

2.137

6

36.78

5.046

32

35.73

6.443

33

37.97

4.276

331

37.68

4.593

396

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Independent Self-Construal

Source Corrected Model Intercept P04 P05 P04 * P05 Error Total Corrected Total

Type III Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

510.187(a)

8

63.773

3.155

.002

52956.828

1

52956.828

2620.299

.000

205.176

2

102.588

5.076

.007

1.554

2

.777

.038

.962

10.655

4

2.664

.132

.971

7821.356

387

20.210

570695.000

396

8331.543

395

a R Squared = .061 (Adjusted R Squared = .042)

165

Post Hoc Tests I would say I am: Homogeneous Subsets Independent Self-Construal Duncan Subset I would say I am: Evangelical

N

Catholic Neither of the two

1

2

95

35.80

295

38.26

38.26

6

Sig.

39.17 .115

.562

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Based on Type III Sum of Squares The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 20.210. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 16.613. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. c Alpha = .05.

Univariate Analysis of Variance INT Between-Subjects Factors Value Label I would say I am:

1 2 3

Time with this religion:

1 2 3

166

N Catholic

285

Evangelical

100

Neither of the two

6

Less than 2 years

32

2 to 5 years

35

More than 5 years

324

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Interdependent Self-Construal I would say I am: Catholic

Time with this religion: Less than 2 years

Mean

2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total Evangelical

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Neither of the two

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Total

Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Total

Std. Deviation

N

34.75

4.494

16

36.33

3.279

9

35.40

4.519

260

35.39

4.478

285

32.00

6.205

13

35.32

4.259

25

37.58

4.298

62

36.29

4.914

100

34.67

2.082

3

34.00

.

1

38.00

1.414

2

35.67

2.338

6

33.62

5.179

32

35.54

3.951

35

35.83

4.543

324

35.62

4.577

391

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Interdependent Self-Construal

Source Corrected Model Intercept P04 P05 P04 * P05 Error Total Corrected Total

Type III Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

457.334(a)

8

57.167

2.831

.005

47183.390

1

47183.390

2336.417

.000

8.650

2

4.325

.214

.807

92.137

2

46.068

2.281

.104

2.457

.045

198.475

4

49.619

7714.400

382

20.195

504379.000

391

8171.734

390

a R Squared = .056 (Adjusted R Squared = .036)

167

Belize Survey RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA) - Independent Self-Construal (IND) Mean Std Dev Cases 4.4072 .9129 221.0 4.3258 .9059 221.0 4.1538 1.1297 221.0 4.2805 1.0501 221.0 3.9321 1.2321 221.0 3.9729 .9531 221.0 4.3167 .9766 221.0 4.3348 .8561 221.0 3.9593 1.1334 221.0 4.2941 .8631 221.0 3.6968 1.1415 221.0 3.5882 1.1232 221.0 4.2986 .9103 221.0 4.5792 .8087 221.0 221.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables Scale 58.1403 69.3030 8.3248 14 1. P2A 2. P2B 3. P2C 4. P2D 5. P2G 6. P2H 7. P2I 8. P2J 9. P2L 10. P2M 11. P2N 12. P2Ñ 13. P2P 14. P2Q N of Cases =

Item Means

Mean Minimum 4.1529 3.5882

Reliability Coefficients Alpha = .8559

Maximum 4.5792

Range .9910

Max/Min Variance 1.2762 .0799

14 items

Standardized item alpha = .8646

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA) - Interdependent Self-Construal (INT) Mean Std Dev Cases P2E 4.0607 .9647 214.0 P2F 3.6729 1.1488 214.0 P2K 3.7757 .9720 214.0 P2O 4.0794 .8493 214.0 P2R 4.0888 .8145 214.0 P2S 3.7944 .8639 214.0 P2T 3.2336 1.0666 214.0 P2U 4.0374 .8099 214.0 P2V 3.9673 .9161 214.0 P2W 3.1308 1.2641 214.0 P2X 2.8645 1.1968 214.0 P2Y 2.8832 1.1344 214.0 P2Z 3.7617 .9060 214.0 P2AA 3.7850 .9447 214.0 P2BB 3.7944 1.0811 214.0 N of Cases = 214.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables Scale 54.9299 63.9998 8.0000 15 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

168

Item Means

Mean Minimum Maximum 3.6620 2.8645 4.0888

Range Max/Min Variance 1.2243 1.4274 .1808

Reliability Coefficients 15 items Alpha = .8177 Standardized item alpha = .8243

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA)- IND&INT Mean Std Dev Cases P2A 4.3886 .9210 211.0 P2B 4.3365 .9132 211.0 P2C 4.1374 1.1444 211.0 P2D 4.2844 1.0395 211.0 P2E 4.0474 .9649 211.0 P2F 3.6635 1.1487 211.0 P2G 3.9431 1.2292 211.0 P2H 3.9668 .9581 211.0 P2I 4.3318 .9631 211.0 P2J 4.3270 .8686 211.0 P2K 3.7678 .9701 211.0 P2L 3.9573 1.1352 211.0 P2M 4.2891 .8711 211.0 P2N 3.6872 1.1409 211.0 P2Ñ 3.6161 1.1168 211.0 P2O 4.0758 .8474 211.0 P2P 4.3033 .9066 211.0 P2Q 4.5829 .8027 211.0 P2R 4.0900 .8144 211.0 P2S 3.7962 .8625 211.0 P2T 3.2370 1.0559 211.0 P2U 4.0332 .8070 211.0 P2V 3.9573 .9171 211.0 P2W 3.1185 1.2650 211.0 P2X 2.8720 1.1823 211.0 P2Y 2.8863 1.1239 211.0 P2Z 3.7536 .9081 211.0 P2AA 3.7915 .9279 211.0 P2BB 3.7773 1.0791 211.0 N of Cases = 211.0 N of Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables Scale 113.0190 192.9330 13.8900 29 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Item Means

Mean Minimum Maximum 3.8972 2.8720 4.5829

Range 1.7109

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA) Reliability Coefficients 29 items Alpha = .8785 Standardized item alpha = .8869

169

Max/Min Variance 1.5957 .1891

APPENDIX F CODEBOOK AND SURVEY DATA: BELIZE

QUESTION ID

LABEL/DESCRIPTION

CODES*

P01

Age

What it says

P02

Gender

1=male 2=female

P03

Nationality

1=Belizean 2=immigrant

P04

Religion

1=Roman Catholic 2=Christian but not Roman Catholic 3=Non-Christian

P05

Principal religion of family members 1=Roman Catholic 2=Christian but not Roman Catholic 3=Non-Christian

P2a-P2ab

Self-construal measure

1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=agree 5=strongly agree

P6a

“Born-again Christian”

1=yes 2=no

P6b

Time as “born-again Christian”

1=less than 1 year 2=1-3 years 3=over 3 years

*for an unanswered question the space was left blank in the Excel file

170

APPENDIX G CODEBOOK AND SURVEY DATA: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC QUESTION ID P01

LABEL/DESCRIPTION Age

CODES* 1=16-20 years 2=21-25 years 3=more than 25 years

P02

Gender

1=male 2=female

P03

Nationality

1=Dominican 2=Haitian 3=other

P04

Religion

1=Roman Catholic 2=Evangelical 3=Neither of the two

P05

Time with this religion

1=less than 2 years 2=2 to 5 years 3=more than 5 years

P06

Principal religion of family members 1=Roman Catholic 2=Evangelical 3=Neither of the two

P07

Greatest moral authority

1=Roman Catholic Church 2=Bible 3=Evangelical Church 4=State

P08a-P08q

Terminal values

1-18 ranking in order of importance

P09-P09q

Self-construal measure

1=totally disagree 2=disagree 3=no opinion 4=agree 5=totally agree

P10a-P10r

Instrumental values

1-18 ranking in order of importance

*for an unanswered question the space was left blank in the Excel file