International Review Missiology

Missiology: An International Review http://mis.sagepub.com/

Missionaries and Social Justice: Are They Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution? Thomas N. Headland Missiology 1996 24: 167 DOI: 10.1177/009182969602400202 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mis.sagepub.com/content/24/2/167

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society of Missiology

Additional services and information for Missiology: An International Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://mis.sagepub.com/content/24/2/167.refs.html

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 1996 What is This?

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

Missionaries and Social Justice: Are They Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution? THOMASN.HEADLAND This paper introduces the theme of this special issue of Missiology by reviewing the history of the love/hate relationships between Christian missionaries and anthropologists. and by examining how twentieth-century missionaries have been forces for both helping and hindering social justice. The author reviews here his own personal struggles of how-as a lay missionary for 25 years-he learned the hard way what human rights means to Filipino tribal peoples. The paper concludes with an appeal to both anthropologists and missionaries to cooperate in workingfor the human rights ofall ethnic peoples.

I

t is my goal in this essay to encourage a dialogue between missionaries and anthropologists that may coax a rapprochement between the two groups.' I look for ways that the two parties can help each other instead of hindering each other in their programs. I refer here to programs that help people in material ways, ways that promote the humanitarian ideals that both groups claim are part of their goals, and especially ways that defend the human rights of ethnic minorities. This is not the first attempt at such a dialogue.' Informally, there are numerous cases where individual anthropologists and missionaries learned long ago to cooperate in endeavors for improving social justice, and I think many anthropologists currently have no problems with missionaries whatsoever. Anthropologist Allyn Stearman is involved today with missionaries who were former opponents, assisting them in economic development for a displaced tribal group in the Amazon who were close to extinction. (See Stearman's paper in this issue of Missiology.) On the other hand, some anthropologists continue in bitter disputes with missionaries, with the most publicized one in 1994referred to as "one ofthe nastiest anthropological battles in recent years" (Winkley 1994).3 Seven Basic Assumptions

I present my argument with a few basic assumptions. As a person who Thomas N. Headland is an international anthropology consultant with the Summer Institute of Linguistics and an adjunct professor of linguistics at the University of Texas at Arlington. He spent 20 years doing fieldwork among the Agta Negritos in the Philippines. He has been invited to serve as Guest Editor for this issue of Missiology.

Missiology: An International Review, Vol. XXIV, No.2, April 1996

168 Thomas N. Headland

has worked in Asia for a quarter century as a lay missionary, I bring my theistic worldview into my discussion. I assume there is a God. But whether there is anything supernatural in the cosmos is not critical for my present purposes. My second assumption is that missionaries and anthropologists can agree to disagree on the God question. We do not have to resolve that issue in order to cooperate on human rights issues. My third assumption is that, in general, missionaries do more good than harm. This question we do have to deal with if we are to talk about missionaries and human rights, and so I will argue it. If the opposite were the case, then the 1971 Declaration of Barbados should be implemented to the fullest extent possible. That is, anthropologists and governments should make every effort to have missionaries sent home. Many anthropologists, especially during the 1970s and the early 1980s. believed that missionaries do more harm than good. Some of those anthropologists, by lobbying against Christian missions in tribal areas and by promoting anti-missionary sentiment throughout the Western world, behaved in ways that were. in my opinion. counterproductive to human rights. Some anthropologists may not agree with that, but it brings me to my fourth assumption: the forced deportation of missionaries from tribal areas has been detrimental to indigenous human rights. There are far more missionaries that speak up and work for social justice than anthropologists would care to admit. If some anthropologists are still hoping to keep Amazonian tribes traditional and unchanged, then they probably will not want missionaries there. But if people care about indigenous human rights, they should know that when an American missionary family is living in a tribal village, including fundamentalist missionaries with no formal training in anthropology, we generally will not find slave raiding, wife beating, gang raping of girls, and so forth, in those villages. I dare say that if missionaries had been allowed to live in the Yanomami area of the Amazon basin where miners raided in the summer of 1993, that massacre would not have occurred. My fifth assumption is that there are bad missionaries. just as there are bad anthropologists. And some are so bad that they ought to be sent home. There have been individual missionaries and mission organizations that have. at times, done things that have been detrimental to their host peoples, and that have violated their human rights. My sixth assumption is that most missionaries' mistakes were done unwittingly rather than as a calculated plan to enrich themselves by exploiting local people. Missionaries have too often been blind to ethical issues in their work; but then, so have anthropologists (Fluehr-Lobban 1991). My seventh assumption is that many of the anthropological accounts against missionaries are based on myth and are simply not true. As a native insider, I react with some dismay at many of the ethnographic descriptions about my own Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) "tribal" group (for example, Hva1kof and Aaby 1981; Stoll 1982; Pollock 1993; Colby 1995) just as some Samoans today react to Margaret Mead's (1928) descriptions of their culture in 4 the 1920s. If a majority of the ethnographies produced by anthropologists are like those I have read describing SIL, it is no wonder that anthropology is in

Missionaries and Social Justice 169

such a crisis of credibility today (Goode 1993; Monaghan 1994; McMillen 1994; Peacock 1994).5 History of the Conflict During the growth years of anthropology as a formal discipline-from the l880s to the end of World War II-anthropologists and missionaries got along well enough together. As long as "civilization" was seen as an evolutionary advancement over savagery and barbarism, missionaries and Christianity were assumed to be a positive force in the civilizing process. With the decline of that naive ethnocentric assumption, however, followed by the early birth pangs of the post-Christian era in the Western world, attitudes began to change. As cultural relativism and other Boasian ideas increasingly became the warp and woof of anthropology in the 1950s, and as the Vietnam War fed the fires of the anti-American-culture movement on American university campuses in the 1960s, the time was ripe by the end of the 1960s for not only a distancing from but a direct attack against American missionaries. By the early 1980s, this attack had reached a crescendo. Three General Criticisms of Missionaries SIL sociologist Thomas H. Moore recently reviewed on national television the three basic types of attacks made against missionaries by their critics. 6 Most such attacks, he says, fall under one of these criteria: character issues (missionaries are bad people), political issues (missionaries are the vanguard of capitalism), and ethnocide (missionaries destroy cultures by their work). What combination of forces fueled this attack? Once post-Christian philosophy took hold in university education, other forces quickly rose to the forefront. I mention three main ones here. The Ideological Dissonance One reason for the conflict, which broke open in the 1970s, but which had been festering for years before, is the opposing worldviews of the two groups. Christian missionaries hold to a theistic worldview, and anthropologists tend to hold to a naturalistic worldview, at least when in their university settings. As two independent studies recently concluded, the conventional wisdom in America is that one must shed all religious premises to be recognized as a "pure" academic.' Theists interpret events assuming that there is a God who made and controls nature and history. Naturalists see the universe as a closed system; matter is the only substance and nothing supernatural happens. Fortunately, for our present purposes we do not have to decide which one is correct, but only to recognize that they are both ideological and that these polar views, stereotypic or not, are a foundational reason for the missionary/anthropologist conflict. Reaction Against One's Fundamentalist Christian Upbringing Another possible reason for the anthropology establishment's ambivalence toward missionaries is that some anthropologists have personally


rejected their parents' Judeo-Christian heritage and are still harboring inner conflicts as a result. This may be especially the case with anthropologists who grew up in strict fundamentalist Christian homes. This seems apparent when one meets an anthropologist who loathes his or her own religious legacy. Claude Stipe (1980) first noticed this interesting characteristic among anthropologists several years ago. One anthropologist saw this in himself when he described how anthropology liberated him from his Christian beliefs: My freedom from the things that nearly destroyed me (and that continue to haunt me) would come from studying them ... to expose their secret. At that point, just short of stomping on them and destroying them, for some reason my private battle stops. Today I have no love for the Southern Baptists, but I can almost say "Billy Graham" without sneering. (Richardson 1975:519, as cited in Stipe 1980:167-168)

Since this anthropologist adheres to cultural relativism, to the point of calling it a "moral justification for being an anthropologist" (Richardson 1975:523), we may wonder, as does Stipe, why a cultural relativist would sneer at anyone's religion. The Influence of the Media No one would deny the permeating influence of the mass media to sway the ideas and beliefs of the general public. Nowhere was this more true than in James Michener's 1959 novel Hawaii. With the release of the Hollywood movie version in 1966, Michener's distorted stereotype of missionaries was transferred indelibly into the minds of many of the 100 million people who viewed the film on every continent in the following decade.' Hawaii was only the first and most popular of numerous books, articles, and movies to come out in recent years perpetuating the myth of missionaries as arrogant destroyers of pristine cultures. There were other forces that, partly inspired by the worldview and media influences, added fuel to the flames on which missionaries were to burn. First was the influential 1971 Declaration of Barbados (Bartolome, et al. 1971) where a conference of anthropologists in effect blamed the problems of Indians on missionaries-and to a lesser extent on governments and anthropologists-and called for the suspension of all missionary activity. Other examples are the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) report (Hart 1973); numerous articles in the 1970s and 1980s in the publications of Cultural Survival, Survival International, and the Royal Anthropological Institute; Hvalkof and Aaby's Is God an American? (1981); a series of publications by David Stoll who spent a decade attacking SIL (for example, Stoll's 1982 Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire/y: the tirade against missionaries by British journalist Norman Lewis, subtitled God Against the Indians (1988); and countless books and articles by anthropologists and other mission critics. William Merrifield (1976:4) reported that the NACLA report alone precipitated hundreds of newspaper articles against missionaries and SIL in several papers every day for several months in 1974, mostly in Latin America, but also in other parts of the world.


It must be mentioned, too, that part of the conflict comes from little more than jealousies between anthropologists and missionaries. Charles Taber says, quoting Frank Salamone (1986), [Salamone found that] anthropologists resent the fact that missionaries often control access to people and data.... The more anthropologists were obliged to use missionary sources, the more they resented the fact. Almost half of those who used missionary sources failed to give them credit. (cited in Taber 1991: 156)

And it is certainly true that, as van der Geest (1992) has documented, missionaries are the most plagiarized people in the world, and some plagerism has been done by anthropologists. So some of the missionary ambivalence-even fear-of anthropologists is partly a natural reaction to the intellectual imperialism practiced by some scholars in the anthropology establishment. On the other hand, of course there are stories, some of which are true, of missionaries who unwittingly or sometimes purposely, have violated the civil or human rights of their host peoples. (The same can be said, too, about some anthropologists [Fluehr-Lobban 19911.) So some of the criticisms from both sides are justified. Missionaries and theistic anthropologists, caught off guard in the 1970s, began in the 1980s to respond to the accusations against them. Stipe's 1980 article in Current Anthropology was the watershed essay because it loosened the stranglehold that anthropology had over Christian missions. Stipe's essay was followed by 18 "CA Comments" in the same issue of that journal, and eight more "CA Discussion & Criticism" essays on Stipe's article over the following three years. Major media news magazines, after first joining in the missionary bashing of the 1970s, began themselves to publish in the 1980s more objective analyses of Christian missions. Examples are the 1983 Time cover story titled 'The New Missionary" (Ostling 1982), another article in Time by Ostling (1987), a 1985 article in Newsweek (Drake 1985), and over a hundred newspaper stories in early 1995 reporting favorably on the December 1994 symposium of the American Anthropological Association where the papers in this issue of Missiology were first read (for example, Associated Press 1995). Personal Encounters with Human Rights Abuses One reason I object to the accusations against missionaries and their abuse of human rights is that I am being falsely maligned. By 1963, well before anyone cared about saving tropical forests and the indigenes in them, I stood blocking logging-company bulldozers with my own body in the Philippine rain forest, and my wife, Janet Headland, and I were going from one government office to another in Manila trying to get land titles for Agta hunter-gatherers. By the 1970swe were finding and returning to their families Agta children who had been kidnapped and rescuing Agta girls kept in army camps for sexual purposes (Headland 1984; 1985; Headland and Headland 1994). My wife and I did not do these things because we were particularly smart, but because we found ourselves living with a people whose human


rights and especially land rights were being violated. and we cared about those people. We were pretty naive when we started. We did not always recognize abuses when we saw them until it was too late. We did not always know how to alleviate injustices when we saw them, and we regret today some of our mistakes. When we did do it right it was often because of what we were learning from anthropology. Missionaries Working for Human Rights There are many examples of missionaries making great sacrifices to defend the human rights of marginalized peoples. Roger Keesing (1981 :403. 405-4(6) reviews some of the most well-known missionaries-Sahagun, Las Casas, and Lafitau. Other classic examples are Mother Teresa and the English missionaryscholar William Carey (1761-1834), the father of the modem missionary movement who served in India for 41 years. Carey lobbied relentlessly against the African slave trade, the East India Company's colonial exploitation, and the mistreatment of lepers, and lobbied for Indian women's rights (Beck 1992). Other accounts include the following: Ben Finney (1968) reviews how the Protestant Mission in Papeete, Tahiti, blocked the Englishman Eric Trower from taking over by force the entire French Polynesian island of Maiao as his personal copra plantation. James Clifford (1992) describes missionary Maurice Leenhardt's crusade for native rights of the indigenous people of New Caledonia at the tum of this century and how this put him in great personal danger from white colonialists. Catherine Hall (1992) reviews the efforts of Baptist missionaries to stop slavery in Jamaica in the 1830s and 1840s. She says missionaries were a powerful force in the anti-slavery movement there and in England. As "allies of the slaves," she says, they were treated horribly and persecuted by the white Jamaican slave owners. William Phipps (1991) chronicles pioneering black missionary William Sheppard's fearless crusade for human rights in the Congo at the tum of the twentieth century. Phipps also documents the American Presbyterian Congo Mission's struggle against the ruthless rubber barons of King Leopold's Belgian empire in the Congo. Allyn Stearman, while highly critical of the New Tribes missionaries to the Bolivian Yuqui, credits them as being responsible in the 1950s for the Yuquf's cultural survival. She acknowledges that "had the Yuqui not been contacted by the New Tribes missionaries, the only people at the time willing to risk their lives in this process, it is certain that they would have been killed off or taken as [slaves]" (Stearman 1989: 142). Finally, James Boutilier, Daniel Hughes, and Sharon Tiffany's (1978) volume reviews several cases where missionaries have played key roles as advocates for land rights and against the exploitation of labor. (In the Selected Annotated Bibliography in this issue (pp. 301-310), Webster and Headland review both examples of missionary work for human rights and examples of missionaries' abuse of such rights.) The Future of Missionary-Anthropologist Relationships I appeal to both anthropologists and missionaries to move beyond their mistrust of each other and to look for ways to cooperate better. Anthropol-


ogists must be careful about stereotyping missionaries because it can be misleading in the same way that stereotyping evangelicals can be misleading. As historian Mark Noll (1994:227) reminds us, "Evangelical political thought [today is] scattered all over the map." In other words, stereotyping missionaries obscures the important differences among them. So anthropologists and agencies like FUNAI in Brazil need to pick and choose their missionaries, work with those they can tolerate, and skip the others. Governments that pull the visas of all missionaries based on stereotypic hearsay may be making mistakes that are detrimental to their own peoples. Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon's rhetorical sermons lobbying to rid the northern Amazon of "the miners and the missionaries" may sound convincing and seem to convey the truth but a lot of Yanomami Indian lives could be saved if the missionaries were allowed to live among themY Missionaries may not place much value on the now-debunked neofunctionalist ideology in anthropology to protect indigenes from change, but their own ideology drives them to take great personal risks to protect their host neighbors from immediate direct human rights abuses. Admittedly, they are sometimes politically naive about how to speak indirectly for human rights, which is why they need to study anthropology. But missionaries are horrified when they hear anthropologists such as Kenneth Good describe how when he observed a Yanomami girl being violently gang raped, he watched for awhile, and then walked away. He felt guilty, he says, but he did nothing, stating, "I had no doubt I could scare those [Yanomami men] away.... [But] I was an anthropologist. not a policeman.... I hadn't come down here to change these people; ... I'd come to study them" (1991:102-103). Cultural relativism may be a useful tool when teaching anthropology in the classroom, but if this central anthropological doctrine is supposed to be applied in the field like this, most missionaries will at this point simply walk away from anthropology. (Later Good himself learned to follow his moral conscience instead of anthropology, stopping a man from stabbing a woman [1991:105].) Conclusion In this paper I have not said that missionaries have never contributed to ethnocide, nor that none have inhibited human rights; just that most of them have not. The problem, rather, is that they too often ignore human rights. Too many missionaries go overseas today still unaware of the political-economic structures that can cause poverty and injustice: the result is that sometimes they may unwittingly and indirectly support those structures. (Anthropologists sometimes get caught in the same entanglement.) This was more the case in the past than it is today, with the many hundreds of missionaries today with earned doctorates and thousands more with master's degrees. Still, many missionaries lack solid anthropological training. I would like to see more members of the American Anthropological Association help in that training. Both missionaries and anthropologists have much to learn yet from human rights organizations about the sources and solutions to social injustice: many anthropologists know little more about the subject than do missionaries.


However. I do not believe that the mistakes missionaries have made is the real reason that anthropologists have been so against them. I have argued here that the fundamental reason is the conflicting ideological worldviews between the two groups. Secondary reasons are that many anthropologists come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds themselves which they have rejected after studying anthropology, that the mass media has power to promote gross caricatures of missionaries. and that petty jealousies exist between missionaries and anthropologists. So. are missionaries a part of the problem or part of the solution? In my view. they have been both at various times over the past century. Today, many missionaries. the majority even of the so-called fundamentalists. are working to help the poor and the ethnic minorities in the developing world. It is. after all, a core part of their religious values. Today. then, they are a part of the solution. Missionaries have an advantage over most anthropologists and others lobbying for justice for the "victims of progress" (Bodley 1990) in our shrinking world, because of their long periods of residence in the field. which can be measured in decades rather than in years. Missionaries know the local languages and often the cultures better than anthropologists. They do not always understand as well as anthropologists the broader political and economic structures, and this is why they need help from anthropologists. The potential is there if missionaries can be shown that in many areas where people live in horrible poverty. the target of change should be theforce creating the condition. not the condition itself (Lappe and Collins 1982: 194)10-and if they can be shown that anthropology is a help and not an enemy. In closing, I want to say to those anthropologists who are really serious about human rights: missionaries are an untapped resource. and anthropologists ought to start working with them instead of against them on this issue. I have been saying the same thing to missionaries for 20 years: that they need the help of anthropologists. If the two groups-missionaries and anthropologists-fail to open a constructive dialogue. it is the disenfranchised. the oppressed. the defenseless. and the marginalized peoples whom both groups claim to care about who will suffer for it in the next century. Notes I. This paper was first read at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Atlanta. Georgia. on December 2. 1994. in the Presidential Session entitled "Missionaries and Human Rights." I am indebted to John Barker. Henry Bradley, Janet Headland. Thomas H. Moore. Daniel Shaw. Leslie Sponsel. and Stephen Walter for helpful critical comments on earlier versions of the paper. and to Kemp Pallesen for assisting me in library research. 2. Examples of earlier attempts towards rapprochement may be seen in the following: Stipe (1980), Yost (1983). Trompf (1984). Luzbetak (1985). Sutlive (1985). Salamone (1977. 1986).Franklin (1987). Priest (1987). Van Der Geest (1990), Rapoport (1991), Taber (1991:150-157), and Winkley (1994). 3. This present conflict is between anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara) and the Catholic Salesian Mission in Venezuela, each side accusing the other of harming Indian culture. Besides Winkley (1994), see also Monaghan (1994).

Missionaries and Social Justice 175 4. SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics), my home institution, an international organization whose members work with local people in doing linguistic analysis, bilingual education, and Bible translation in preliterate language groups around the world. American members of SIL also belong to the smaller cooperating organization, Wycliffe Bible Translators USA, which raises and handles the financial support for SIL workers overseas. For more information, see SIL (1994). 5. The Peacock reference is the December 1994 annual report by the President of the American Anthropological Association. While he responds to the crisis with a stiff upper lip, he acknowledges that anthropologists are today in "retreat, turn[ed) within, squander[ingJ our resources in silly arguments land] fiddling while Rome burns and barbarians are at the gate" (Peacock 1994:I). 6. This was a televised six-minute special news story titled 'Those Awful Missionaries'?" produced by Gailon Totheroh and broadcast nationwide on CBN News on Octoher II, 1993. 7. Both studies, done independently, reached this same conclusion. One study was conducted by Pepperdine University (Dallas Morning News 1994), and the other by University of Notre Dame historian George Marsden (1994). 8. For an excellent critique of the gross distortions of these aspects of Hawaiian history, see ethnohistorian Alan Tippett's (1973) book, pages 10, 150, 169-172. 174, and 184. 9. For examples of missionaries actually protecting Yanomami from outside abuse or raiders, see Ferguson (1995:244,253,256, and 261). 10. For example, it does little good in a rural village to try to help impoverished people to learn a hetter type of agriculture if a reason for their poverty is outside political-economic influences, such as an exploitative landowner. The wealthy landowner is the force creating the poverty; their poor condition is not because they do not know how to feed themselves. References Cited Associated Press 1995 'Two Bitter Rivals Try to Resolve Differences." Los Angeles Times. 4 February: B8-B9. Bartolome, M. A., et al. 1971 Declaration of Barbados: For the Liberation of the Indians. Copenhagen, Denmark: IWGIA (International WorkGroup of Indigenous Affairs). (Proceedings of the Barhados symposium, January 197L sponsored by the Ethnology Department of Anthropology at the University of Bern [Switzerland) and the World Council of Ch urches. Also published in International Review ofMission 60(1971):277-284; in Evangelical Missions Quarterly 8(1972):202-208; in Current Anthropology 14(1973):267-270; and in Bodley (1990). Beck, James R. 1992 Dorothy Carey: The Tragic and Untold Story of Mrs. William Carey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Bodley, John H. 1990 Victims of Progress. Third ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Boutilier, James A., Daniel T. Hughes, and Sharon W. Tiffany, eds. 1978 Mission, Church. and Sect in Oceania. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Canfield, Robert L. 1983 "Accusation as 'Anthropology: " Reviews in Anthropology 10:55-61. Clifford, James 1992 Person and Myth: Maurice Leenhardt in the Melanesian World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.


Colby. Gerard 1995 Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest (il the Amazon: Nelson Rocke/i'llcr and Evangelism in the Age 01' Oil. New York: HarperCollins. Dallas Morning News 1994 "Academic. Religious Ties Studied." 19 November: 39A. Drake. Susan 1985 "Missionaries Under Fire." Newsweek. 22 April: 42. Ferguson. Brian 1995 Yanomami Warfare: A Political History. Santa Fe. NM: School of American Research Press. Finney. Ben R. 1968 "A Successful French Polynesian Co-operative'?" Journal 01' Pacific History 3:65-84. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn. ed. 1991 Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Franklin. Karl J. 1987 Current Concerns of Anthropologists and Missionaries. Dallas. TX: The International Museum of Cultures. Good. Kenneth 1991 Into the Heart. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goode. Stephen 1993 'The Decline and Fall of Anthropology." Insight 9(11):12-13. 34-3K Hall, Catherine 1992 "Missionary Stories: Gender and Ethnicity in England in the 1830s and 1840s." In Cultural Studies. Lawrence Grossberg. Cary Nelson. and Paula Treichler. eds. Pp. 240-276. New York: Routledge. Hart. Laurie 1973 "Pacifying the Last Frontiers: Story of the Wyc1iffe Bible Translators." NACLA:\' Latin American and Empire Report 7(10):15-31. Headland. Thomas N. 1984 "Agta Negritos of the Philippines." Cultural Survival Quarterly 8(3):29-31. 1985 "Imposed Values and Aid Rejection Among Casiguran Agta." In The Agta of Northeastern Luzon. P. Bion Griffin and Agnes Estioko-Griffin, eds. Pp. 102-118. Cebu City. Philippines: University of San Carlos. Headland. Thomas N.. and Janet D. Headland 1994 "Westernization. Deculturation, or Extinction Among Agta Negritos? The Philippine Population Explosion and Its Effect on a Rainforest Hunting and Gathering Society." In Hunters and Gatherers in the Modern Context. Vol. I. Linda J. Ellanna, ed. Pp. 272-284. Fairbanks. AK: University of Alaska. Hvalkof, Soren. and Peter Aaby, eds. 1981 Is God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on the Missionary Work of the Summer Institute ofLinguistics. Copenhagen. Denmark: IWGIA: London. UK: Survival International. Keesing, Roger M. 1981 Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective. 2nd ed. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Lappe. Frances Moore. and Joseph Collins 1982 "Why Can't People Feed Themselves'?" In Anthropology 82/83. Elvio Angeloni. ed. Pp. 194-198. Guilford. CT: Dushkin.


Lewis, Norman 1988 The Missionaries: God Against the Indians. London, UK: Seeker and Warburg. (Paperback edition published in 1988 in New York by Penguin Books.) Luzbetak, Louis J. 1985 "Prospects for a Better Understanding and Closer Cooperation Between Anthropologists and Missionaries." In Missionaries, Anthropologists and Cultural Change. Studies in Third World Societies, No. 25, Darrell L. Whiteman, cd. Pp. I-53. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary. Marsden, George M. 1994 The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief New York: Oxford University Press. McMillen. Liz 1994 "A Shakeup in Anthropology." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 20 November: AIO-AII. A17. Mead, Margaret 1928 Coming (~j'Age in Samoa. New York: Morrow. Merrifield, William R. 1976 "Anthropology. Ethnocide, and Bible Translation." Paper presented at the Anthropological Symposium of the American Scientific Affiliation, Wheaton, Illinois, 23 August. Michener, James 1959 Hawaii. New York: Random House. Monaghan, Peter 1994 "Bitter Warfare in Anthropology." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 26 Octoher: AIO, AI8-AI9. Noll, Mark A. 1994 The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Ostling, Richard N. 1982 'The New Missionary." Time. 27 Decemher: 42-48. 1987 "The Gospel and the Gold Rush." Time. I June: 64. Peacock, James 1994 "Challenges Facing the Discipline [of anthropology]: The AAA President's Report." Anthropology Newsletter 35(9):I. 5. Phipps, William E. 1991 The Sheppards and Lapsley: Pioneer Presbyterians in the Congo. Louisville, KY: The Preshyterian Church (USA). Pollock, Donald K 1993 "Conversion and 'Community' in Amazonia." In Conversion to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation. Robert W. Hefner, ed. Pp. 165-197. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Priest. Robert J. 1987 "Anthropologists and Missionaries: Moral Roots of Conflict." In Current Concerns of Anthropologists and Missionaries. Karl Franklin, ed. Pp. 13-40. Dallas. TX: The International Museum of Cultures. Rapoport, Robert N. 1991 "Missionaries and Anthropologists." Man 26:740-743. Richardson, Miles 1975 "Anthropologist-The Myth Teller." American Ethnologist 2:517-533. Salamone, Frank A. 1977 "Anthropologists and Missionaries: Competition or Reciprocity?" Human Organization 36:407-412. 1986 "Missionaries and Anthropologists: An Inquiry into Their Ambivalent Relationship." Missiology 14(1 ):55-70.


SIL 1994 'The Summer Institute of Linguistics." Available on Internet on World Widc Web: URL: http://www.sil.org/about_sil.html. Stearman. Allyn MacLean 1989 Yuquf: Forest Nomads in a Changing World. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Stipe. Claude 1980 "Anthropologists Versus Missionaries: The Influence of Presuppositions." Current Anthropology 21:165-179. Stoll. David 1982 Fishers of Men or Founders ()f Empire? The Wycliffe Bible Translators in Latin America. London. UK: Zed Press. and Cambridge. MA: Cultural Survival. Sutlive, Vinson H. 1985 "Anthropologists and Missionaries: Eternal Enemies or Colleagues in Disguise?" In Missionaries, Anthropologists and Cultural Change. Studies in Third World Societies. No. 25. Darrell L. Whiteman. ed. Pp. 55-90.Williamsburg. VA: College of William and Mary. Taber, Charles R. 1991 The World Is Too Much with Us: "Culture" in Modern Protestant Missions. Macon. GA: Mercer University Press. Tippett. Alan R. 1973 Aspects of Pacific Ethnohistory. Pasadena. CA: William Carey Library. Trompf, Garry 1984 "Missiology and Anthropology: A Viable Relationship?" Oceania 55:148-153. van der Geest, Sjaak 1990 "Anthropologists and Missionaries: Brothers Under the Skin." Man 25:58~-60I. 1992 'The Absence of the Missionary in African Ethnography. 1935-65." African Studies Review 35(3):59-103. Winkley. Karen J. 1994 "Parties in Bitter Dispute Over Amazonian Indians Reach a Fragile Peace." The Chronicle of Higher Education 41(16):AI8. Yost. James A. 1983 "We Have a Mandate: The Response of Wycliffe Bible Translators." The Other Side 19(137):25. 38-39.