Abstract:In the wake of the postsecular turn, we propose to reappraise both the religious as studied in anthropology and how anthropologists who have religious or spiritual interests can contribute to an emerging postsecular anthropology. Such an anthropology recognizes the failure of secularization theory to dissolve the dichotomy between the religious and the secular. We propose that as anthropologists we consciously occupy the ontological penumbra, an ambiguous and plural space in which we engage with various counterparts, both human and nonhuman. This means that we have to be open to the real possibility of the existence of gods, spirits, and other nonhuman entities. These should not only be treated as subjects of study, but also recognized as valid counterparts with whom we can engage in the ethnographic encounter. While this necessitates relinquishing the former privileged position of secular and Western epistemology, it opens up the discipline to a potentially unprecedented ethnographic productivity that is epistemologically and ontologically innovative. Without neglecting its secular heritage, such a theologically minded postsecular anthropology places anthropology in a better position to explore what it is to be human, especially in terms of understanding religious and spiritual experiences.

The honor/shame issue is an important topic in mission, as portrayed in Georges’s The 3D Gospel for example. Proponents of the shame–guilt distinction draw on the popular culture concept of the early 20th century by assuming that cultures are objects that we can easily grasp and demarcate from one to another. Culture thus becomes a convenient idea to understand difference by generalizing and simplifying the unfamiliar and submitting it to one’s own way of thinking. Current anthropology, however, rejects such a reifying and essentializing approach. Rather, culture is seen as an expression of how humans think, act, and live in the world, and is thus complex, fuzzy, and dynamic. In dealing with the honor/shame issue, we need to get hold of the other end of the stick by starting with humans and treating honor and shame as cultural traits. Accordingly, honor and shame are encountered to different degrees and in different ways across humanity. A vertical and categorical classification and demarcation of cultures thus needs to make room for a more dynamic and horizontal spread of cultural traits. This allows us to account better for human diversity, while simultaneously maintaining humanity’s commonality as cultural beings. To study honor and shame we need to focus on how relationships work in various real-life situations. Such an ethnographic approach builds on observation, participation, and sharing in other people’s lives. It also asks what words and notions people use to express the values that shape their relationships.

No abstract

The attitude and ability to think anthropologically is both the most basic and most sophisticated aspect of contemporary anthropology. Thinking anthropologically is putting humans at the center by asking what it is to be human in different places and relationships, and in how we engage with the world around us. Thinking anthropologically is keeping human commonality and cultural and social diversity in balance. Thinking anthropologically is learning to be reflexive by thinking about ourselves and others, as well as thinking about the way we think. Thinking anthropologically is a great asset whenever we are faced with other humans, and thus provides the starting point for those who are theologically and missiologically engaged by providing a basis for all anthropological, theological and missiological reflection and activity.

Jesus films remain popular in missionary work, yet little is known about how they communicate. Working with viewers in Benin, West Africa, I observed that they watch films as an embodied practice that goes beyond the explanatory power of meaning-based communication models. For them, the filmic portrayal of Jesus is not an image or representation; it rather reveals Christ’s presence in a veracious and immediate way. Consequently, people experience the actor as if he were Jesus, who sometimes interacts with them in dreams. I argue that current anthropological theories are inadequate when trying to account for this. By shifting the focus from meaning to presence, and by introducing the notion of the ‘onton,’ I propose the novel approach of ‘ontonic semiotics’ that accounts for how people make sense of, and interact with, the world. This approach highlights the need to give more attention to how Jesus appears to global audiences.