The Anthropology of Christianity

215 Pages·2014·2.68 MB·English

Forthcoming Current Anthropology Wenner-Gren Symposium C Current
Supplementary Issues (in order of appearance) u
r
r
e
n VOLUME 55 SUPPLEMENT 10 DECEMBER 2014
Politics of the Urban Poor. Veena Das and Shalini Randeria, eds. t
A Anthropology
The Death of the Secret: The Public and Private in Anthropology. Lenore n
Manderson, Mark Davis, and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds. t
h
r
Integrating Anthropology: Niche Construction, Cultural Institutions, and History. o
Agustín Fuentes and Polly Wiessner, eds. p
o
l
o
g
y
Previously Published Supplementary Issues
THE WENNER-GREN SYMPOSIUM SERIES
Working Memory: Beyond Language and Symbolism. Thomas Wynn and
Frederick L. Coolidge, eds. D
e THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY: UNITY,
Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemmas. Setha M. Low and Sally Engle c
e
m DIVERSITY, NEW DIRECTIONS
Merry, eds.
b
e
Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form. r
Damani Partridge, Marina Welker, and Rebecca Hardin, eds. 2 GUEST EDITORS: JOEL ROBBINS AND NAOMI HAYNES
0
1
The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. T. Douglas Price and Ofer 4 The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity, Diversity, New Directions
Bar-Yosef, eds. The One and the Many: Church-Centered Innovations
V
The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World o The Heart of the Matter: Christianity, Materiality, and Modernity
l
Histories, National Styles, and International Networks. Susan Lindee and u Evolution, Differentiation, Denominationalism
m
Ricardo Ventura Santos, eds.
e Becoming the Body of Christ: Sacrificing the Speaking Subject

5
Human Biology and the Origins of Homo. Susan Antón and Leslie C. Aiello, eds. 5 The Old Believers of Trans-Baikalia
Potentiality and Humanness: Revisiting the Anthropological Object in Christianizing Language and the Dis-placement of Culture
Contemporary Biomedicine. Klaus Hoeyer and Karen-Sue Taussig, eds. Being Christians in Urbanizing China
S
u
Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Middle Of Refrains and Rhythms in Contemporary Damascus
p
Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Steven L. Kuhn and Erella Hovers, eds. pl Egalitarianism, Denied Difference, Gender in Pentecostal Christianity
e
m
Crisis, Value, and Hope: Rethinking the Economy. Susana Narotzky and Niko Intimacy, Distance, and the Gender of Saints
e
Besnier, eds. n Pilgrimage as Trope for an Anthropology of Christianity
t

1
0 Christianity and the Anthropology of Secular Humanism
Christian Elements in a Vietnamese Syncretistic Religion
The Clash of Stances toward Materiality
Different “Gifts” Amerindians Receive from Catholics and Evangelicals
Current Anthropologyissponsoredby The
P The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences
Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological a
g
Research,a foundation endowedfor scientific, e Christianity, Anthropology, Politics
educational, and charitablepurposes. The s
S Finding the Difference Christianity Makes
Foundation, however,isnot to beunderstood as 0
0
endorsing,byvirtueof itsfinancialsupport, anyof 0
thestatementsmade, orviewsexpressed,herein. −
S
0
0
0011-3204(201310)54:5+7;1-R
0
Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Founda tion for Anthr opological Research
T HE U N I V E R S IT Y O F C H I CA G O P R E SS
Wenner-Gren Symposium Series Editor: Leslie Aiello
Wenner-Gren Symposium Series Managing Editors: Laurie Obbink and Daniel Salas
Current Anthropology Editor: Mark Aldenderfer
Current Anthropology Managing Editor: Lisa McKamy
Book Reviews Editor: Holley Moyes
CorrespondingEditors:ClaudiaBriones(IIDyPCa-UniversidadNacionaldeR´ıoNegro,Argentina;[email protected]),Michalis
Kontopodis(HumboldtUniversita¨tzuBerlin,Germany;[email protected]),Jos´eLuisLanata(UniversidadNacional
de R´ıo Negro San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina; [email protected]), David Palmer (Hong Kong University, China;
[email protected]),AnnedeSales(CentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,France;[email protected]),ZhangYinong
(Shanghai University, China; [email protected])
Please send all editorial correspondence to Reasonsofpracticalityorlawmakeitnecessaryordesirable
Mark Aldenderfer to circulate Current Anthropology without charge in certain
School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts portionsoftheworld;itishoped,however,thatrecipientsof
University of California, Merced thisjournalwithoutchargewillindividuallyorcollectivelyin
5200 North Lake Road various groups apply funds or time and energytotheworld
Merced, CA 95343, U.S.A. goodofhumankindthroughthehumansciences.Information
(fax: [phone]; e-mail: [email protected]) concerning applicable countries is available on request.
Individual subscription rates for 2015: $79 print (cid:2) elec- (cid:2)2014byTheWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropological
tronic,$47print-only,$46e-only.Institutionalprint(cid:2)elec- Research.Allrightsreserved.CurrentAnthropology(issn
tronicande-onlysubscriptionsareavailablethroughJSTOR’s 0011-3204)ispublishedbimonthlyinFebruary,April,June,
Current Scholarship Program and include unlimited online August,October,andDecemberbyTheUniversityofChicago
access; rates are tiered according toaninstitution’stypeand Press,1427East60thStreet,Chicago,IL60637-2954.
research output: $314 to $659 (print (cid:2) electronic), $273 to PeriodicalspostagepaidatChicago,IL,andatadditional
$573(e-only).Institutionalprint-onlyis$355.Foradditional mailingoffices.Postmaster: Send address changesto
rates,includingsinglecopyratesandprint-onlyorelectronic- Current Anthropology, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637.
only subscriptions, please visit www.journals.uchicago.edu/
CA.Additionaltaxesand/orpostagefornon-USsubscriptions
may apply. Free or deeply discounted access is available to
readers in most developing nations through the Chicago
Emerging Nations Initiative (www.journals.uchicago.edu/
ceni/).
Please direct subscription inquiries, back-issue requests,
andaddresschangestotheUniversityofChicagoPress,Jour-
nalsDivision,P.O.Box37005,Chicago,IL60637.Telephone:
[phone] or toll-free in the United StatesandCanada
[phone]. Fax: [phone] or toll-free (877) 705-
1879. E-mail: [email protected]
Current Anthropology
Volume 55 Supplement 10 December 2014
The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity,
Diversity, New Directions
Leslie C. Aiello
The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity, Diversity, New
Directions: Wenner-Gren Symposium Supplement 10 S155
Introduction
Joel Robbins
The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity, Diversity, New
Directions: An Introduction to Supplement 10 S157
Christian Institutions: Church, Denomination,
Schism
John Barker
The One and the Many: Church-Centered Innovations in
a Papua New Guinean Community S172
Chris Hann
The Heart of the Matter: Christianity, Materiality, and
Modernity S182
Jon Bialecki
After the Denominozoic: Evolution, Differentiation,
Denominationalism S193
Courtney Handman
Becoming the Body of Christ: Sacrificing the Speaking
Subject in the Making of the Colonial Lutheran Church
in New Guinea S205
Caroline Humphrey
Schism, Event, and Revolution: The Old Believers of
Trans-Baikalia S216
Christianity, Space, and Place
Bambi B. Schieffelin
Christianizing Language and the Dis-placement of Culture
in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea S226
Jianbo Huang
Being Christians in Urbanizing China: The
Epistemological Tensions of the Rural Churches in the
City S238
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA
Andreas Bandak
Of Refrains and Rhythms in Contemporary Damascus:
Urban Space and Christian-Muslim Coexistence S248
Christianity and Gender
Annelin Eriksen
Sarah’s Sinfulness: Egalitarianism, Denied Difference, and
Gender in Pentecostal Christianity S262
Maya Mayblin
People Like Us: Intimacy, Distance, and the Gender of
Saints S271
The Anthropology of Christianity at the
Boundaries of Christianity and Beyond
Simon Coleman
Pilgrimage as Trope for an Anthropology of Christianity S281
Matthew Engelke
Christianity and the Anthropology of Secular Humanism S292
Janet Alison Hoskins
An Unjealous God? Christian Elements in a Vietnamese
Syncretistic Religion S302
Reconsidering Key Topics in the Anthropology of
Christianity
Webb Keane
Rotting Bodies: The Clash of Stances toward Materiality
and Its Ethical Affordances S312
Aparecida Vila¸ca
Culture and Self: The Different “Gifts” Amerindians
Receive from Catholics and Evangelicals S322
Julia L. Cassaniti and Tanya Marie Luhrmann
The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences S333
Ruth Marshall
Christianity, Anthropology, Politics S344
Afterword
Naomi Haynes
Affordances and Audiences: Finding the Difference
Christianity Makes S357
CurrentAnthropology Volume55,Supplement10,December2014 S155
The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity,
Diversity, New Directions
Wenner-Gren Symposium Supplement 10
by Leslie C. Aiello
TheAnthropologyofChristianity:Unity,Diversity,NewDirec- around the conference table and during freetime,including
tionsisthe147thsymposiumintheWenner-Grensymposium an apropos afternoon trip to the well-known Catholic pil-
series and thetenthsymposiumtobepublishedasanopen- grimage site of Fa´tima.
accesssupplementaryissueoftheFoundation’sjournal,Cur- The“AnthropologyofChristianity”symposiumresultedin
rentAnthropology.ThesymposiumwasorganizedbyJoelRob- a total of 18 contributions, includinganextensiveintroduc-
bins (University of Cambridge) and heldMarch8–15,2013, tionbyRobbins(2014)thatprovidesinsightfulreflectionson
at Tivoli Pala´cio de Seteais, Sintra, Portugal (fig. 1). We are the development of the subfield as well as on its future di-
pleasedtowelcomeNaomiHaynes(UniversityofEdinburgh) rectionandpotential.Thecontributionsaredividedintofive
as coeditor of the supplementary issue.Hayneswastherap- sections covering the following topics: (1) Christian institu-
porteur for the symposium and authored the afterword for tions, (2) Christianity, space, and place, (3)Christianityand
the supplementary issue (Haynes 2014). gender,(4)theboundariesofChristianity,and(5)keytopics
ThesubfieldknownastheanthropologyofChristianityhas in the anthropology of Christianity and their continued rel-
leapttoprominenceoverthelast15years,tothedegreethat evance.Drawingonthesearticles,aswellasonherownwork,
Robbins(2014)describesitasachildofthenewmillennium. Haynes in her afterword (2014) outlines a new comparative
Someanthropologistsdebatetheclaimednoveltyofthesub- framework to address how the subfield defines Christianity
field,butRobbinsdefendsit,andthetimelinessofthissym- asanobjectofstudyinviewofitshighlydiverseforms.This
posium,onthreegrounds.First,therehasbeenanexponential is a major concern as the field moves forward.
increaseinthenumberofanthropologicalpublicationsdeal- InlookingthroughthearchivesoftheWenner-GrenFoun-
ing with Christianity over this time period. Second, anthro- dation,IfinditsurprisingthattheFoundationhasnotspon-
pologistsstudyingChristianityhavebecome“self-conscious” soredprevioussymposiathatspecificallyaddressreligion,al-
aboutthefield,particularlyinthattheyareusingethnographic thoughbothreligioningeneralandChristianityinparticular
work on Christianity to push anthropologicaltheoryinnew have undoubtedly been important to broader discussions at
directions. And third, the role of religion in the world has Foundation-sponsoredmeetings.TheclosesttheFoundation
changed dramatically over this period. has come has been a series of symposia focusing onvarious
Againstthisbackground,thegoalsofboththesymposium aspects of ritual (e.g., MacAloon1984;MooreandMyerhoff
andthisCAissuearetwofold:toassesstheaccomplishments 1977;SchechnerandAppel1990;SenftandBasso2009).From
of the anthropology of Christianityas itbeginstomatureas theFoundation’spointofview,the“AnthropologyofChris-
a field and to chart its future through the development of tianity” symposium provided an ideal opportunity to bring
new approachesandideas. Thisisaccomplishedbybringing attentiontoanexcitingareainmodernanthropology,toaid
someofthefoundersoftheyoungsubfieldtogetherwith(1) in its continued growth and development, and to meet our
representatives of the new generation of anthropologists in- major goal of encouraging work on timely, significant, and
terestedinChristianityasadisciplineand(2)anthropologists innovative anthropological issues and trends.
familiarwiththeadvancesintheanthropologyofChristianity We are always looking for new ideas from all areas of an-
butwhoseresearchliesinotherandperhapscomplementary thropologyforfutureFoundation-sponsoredandFoundation-
areas. This mixture of generations and interests resulted in organizedsymposiaandeventualCApublication.Weencour-
lively discussions throughout the five meeting days, both ageanthropologiststocontactuswiththeirproposalsforfuture
meetings.InformationabouttheWenner-GrenFoundation,the
symposium program, application procedures and deadlines,
and what constitutes a good symposium topic can be found
Leslie C. Aiello is President of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for
AnthropologicalResearch(470ParkAvenueSouth,8thFloorNorth, ontheFoundation’swebsite(http://wennergren.org/programs
NewYork,NewYork10016,U.S.A.). /international-symposia).
(cid:2)2014byTheWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch.Allrightsreserved.0011-3204/2014/55S10-0001$10.00.DOI:10.1086/678287
S156 CurrentAnthropology Volume55,Supplement10,December2014
References Cited Robbins,Joel.2014.TheanthropologyofChristianity:unity,diversity,new
directions: an introduction to supplement 10. Current Anthropology
Haynes,Naomi.2014.Affordancesandaudiences:findingthedifferenceChris- 55(suppl.10):S157–S171.
tianitymakes.CurrentAnthropology55(suppl.10):S357–S365. Schechner, Richard, and Willa Appel, eds. 1990. By means of performance:
MacAloon,JohnJ.,ed.1984.Rite,drama,festival,spectacle:rehearsalstowardatheory interculturalstudiesoftheatreandritual.NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
ofculturalperformance.Philadelphia:InstitutefortheStudyofHumanIssues. Press.
Moore,SallyFalk,andBarbaraG.Myerhoff,eds.1977.Secularritual.Assen, Senft,Gunter,andEllenB.Basso,eds.2009.Ritualcommunication.Oxford:
Netherlands:VanGorcum. Berg.
Figure 1. Participants in the symposium “The Anthropology of Christianity.” Front row, from left to right: Chris Hann, Leslie
Aiello,SimonColeman,MayaMayblin,BambiSchieffelin,JoelRobbins,CarolineHumphrey,WebbKeane,LaurieObbink.Middle
row:AnnelinEriksen,NaomiHaynes,TanyaLuhrmann,CourtneyHandman,AparecidaVilac¸a,JanetHoskins,RuthMarshall.Back
row: Matthew Engelke, Jon Bialecki, Andreas Bandak, John Barker. A color version of this figure is available online.
CurrentAnthropology Volume55,Supplement10,December2014 S157
The Anthropology of Christianity:
Unity, Diversity, New Directions
An Introduction to Supplement 10
by Joel Robbins
This article reviews the development of the anthropology of Christianity and considers the new questions and
approaches introduced by the articles in this special issue of Current Anthropology. The article first addresses the
contestedhistoryoftheanthropologyofChristianity,suggestingthatthereisintellectualvalueinseeingitaslargely
a development of the new century. It goes on to locate the rise of the anthropology of Christianity in relation to
a number of important changes both in the place of religion in the world and in the academic study of religion
that also occurred during this period. It then considers the foci of the articles collected here. These include such
relatively novel topics as the nature of Christian social institutions, social processes, space-making practices, and
constructions of gender, as well as questions concerning the boundaries of Christianity. Several articlesalso focus
on considerations of recent developments in the studyof long-standingtopicsintheanthropologyofChristianity,
such as discontinuity, reflexivity, experience, and materiality. Throughout the discussion of these issues, I take up
criticaldebatesaroundtheanthropologyofChristianity,forexample,thechargethatitiswhollyidealistinorientation,
and consider how these articles contribute to the further development of these discussions.
Sometimesonewouldlikethechancetobeginanarticletwice. themodelof “dogyears”),thisturnsouttobemiddle-aged.
This is one of those times. Itisone of thosetimesbecauseI Theimageofmiddleagefitsthecontemporaryanthropology
wouldliketobeginbysayingthattheanthropologyofChris- of Christianity in several senses. It has gone from being an
tianityis15yearsold,andthenIwouldliketogoontomake upstart to being respectable (at least in manyquarters);itis
a point about what it means for an area of academic study less interested in picking fights with more established an-
tobethatage.ButIknowfromlongexperiencethatIcannot thropological programs than it once was; and itispossessed
beginquitethisway,becauseassoonasIsaytheanthropology of a rapidly maturing second generation, the members of
ofChristianityisabout15yearsold,Ihavetopausetodefend which have never been part of a discipline of anthropology
this claim against those who argue that it is much older—if thatdidnotpayagooddealofattentiontoChristianity.But
notasoldasthedisciplineofanthropologyitself,thenatleast onesenseinwhichtheimageofmiddleageisperhapsslightly
asoldasthefirstethnographicwritingsfocusedonChristian inappropriate when applied to a 15-year-oldacademictrend
groups. And once I pause to make that point andaddressit such as the anthropology of Christianity is that many an-
in the detail it deserves, I have lost any momentum my ar- thropological movements never make it much past this age.
gumentaboutwhatitmeanstobea15-year-oldareaofstudy Oftenenough,bythetimeagivenanthropologicalenthusiasm
might have had. So what I would like to do at this point is reaches15yearsofage,itiswellonitswayoutofthecenter
announce that in the section that immediatelyfollowsIwill of disciplinary attention. Middle age, then, is at once a sat-
make an argument about why it is reasonable to claim the isfying and worrisome time for any would-be intellectual
anthropologyofChristianityisroughly15yearsold.Andthen movement, at least in an academic field as mobile as socio-
Iwouldliketobeallowedtobeginthisopeningsectionagain cultural anthropology.
with the assertion that it is. This issue, like the conference from which it sprang, has
The anthropology of Christianity is roughly 15 years old. been designed both to take advantage of the middle-aged
In academic years (to beunderstoodhereonsomethinglike situationinwhichtheanthropologyofChristianityfindsitself
andtoconsidersomeofthedangersthatcomewithreaching
this point. At the most general level, the issue’s goals are
Joel Robbins is Professor of Anthropology in the Department of
twofold. On the one hand, it aims to assess what the an-
Social Anthropology of the University of Cambridge (Free School
Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF, United Kingdom [[email protected]]). thropologyofChristianityhasaccomplishedintermsofpro-
This paper was submitted 4 XII 13, accepted 25 VII 14, and ducing new ethnographic materials and new theoretical ar-
electronicallypublished19XI14. guments and to ask what novel developments in theseareas
(cid:2)2014byTheWenner-GrenFoundationforAnthropologicalResearch.Allrightsreserved.0011-3204/2014/55S10-0002$10.00.DOI:10.1086/678289
S158 CurrentAnthropology Volume55,Supplement10,December2014
might be on the horizon as a second generationofscholars, uating it in relation to other developments both within and
somejuniorandsomemoreseniorbutmovinginfromother outside of anthropology, I want to return to thequestionof
anthropologicalareas,beginstoproducesignificantwork.On how old this trend might reasonably be said to be.
the other hand, in a more reflexive mood, it aims to assess
whether the anthropology of Christianity as a “movement”
Where Did the Anthropology of Christianity
or“trend”or“subfield”orhoweveritmightbestbedescribed
Come From, and How Old Is It?
oughttocontinuetodevelopinthewayithas—assomething
thatforatleastsomeofthosewhohavecontributedtoithas
beenaself-consciouscollectiveproject—orwhetherthetime Having already made much of the age of the anthropology
hasperhapsarrivedforittobecomesomethingmorediffuse, of Christianity and having noted that this is controversial
as arguably happens to mostsuccessfulmiddle-agedanthro- topic,itmakessensetobeginmydiscussionofcriticalques-
pologicaldevelopmentsoncescholarswhoonceframedmuch tions bearing on the history, status, and possible future of
of their work in trend-relevant terms begin to take as back- this area of research bytakingupthequestionofhowoldit
ground knowledge much of what they have learned from really is. On the face of things, the case for suggesting that
beingpartofagrowingmovementandgoontopursuenew theanthropologyofChristianityismoreorlessachildofthe
questions. newmillenniumisnothardtomake.Theappearancein2003
Fromthestart,then,thisissuehasbeenconceivedbothas and2006oftwoeditedcollectionsentitledTheAnthropology
aforumforthepresentationoftheempiricalandtheoretical ofChristianity,oneeditedbymyself(Robbins2003a)andthe
results of some current anthropological research on Chris- otherbyFenellaCannell(2006a),andthepublicationalsoin
tianity and as an opportunity to reflectontheanthropology 2006ofavolumeeditedbyMatthewEngelkeandMattTom-
ofChristianityasaphenomenonwithinanthropology.Asthe linson entitled The Limits of Meaning: Case Studies in the
issue has turned out, the articles it collects are for the most AnthropologyofChristianity,mightbetakenasmarkingsome-
part explicitly engaged in the first of these goals: presenting thing of a watershed (and, indeed, these works have often
newdevelopmentsintheanthropologicalstudyofChristian- been treated together in something like these terms in sub-
ity.Afewoftheauthorsweretaskedbytheoriginalconference sequentdiscussions,suchasBarker2008;Hann2007;Jenkins
plan with taking up now established themes in the anthro- 2012; McDoguall 2009b). The editors of all three volumes
pology of Christianity, such as those involving materiality, claim that, at the time they were writing, the anthropology
culturalchange,andthenatureofreligiousexperience.Others of Christianity was something new and that anthropologists
were asked to engage with a host of emergent concerns, in- had in the past largely ignored the study of Christianity, at
cluding schism and the nature of Christian social organiza- leastrelativetotheattentiontheyhadpaidtootherreligious
tion,gender,space,andhowanthropologistsmightstudyre- traditions, including other world religions. Furthermore, by
ligious (and nonreligious) practices at the boundaries of thetimethesevolumesappeared,manyofthosescholarswho
Christianity. In taking up both kinds of topics, contributors would become important figures in the early years of the
haveunderstandablyfocusedonmakingnewargumentsand anthropology of Christianity had already begun working in
presenting new research materials, and with few exceptions thisarea,andquiteafewofthemwerenumberedamongthe
thereflexivesideofthedesignoftheconferencehasbeenset volumes’ contributors. And, finally, few will dispute that by
aside. around2010anthropologicalworkonChristianityhadbegun
Yet even as the articles inthisissuearemostlyfocusedon to appear insuchquantitythatitcametooccupyaposition
thepresentationofnewethnographicandhistoricalmaterials ofprominenceinthedisciplineofakinditneverhadbefore.
and new theoretical arguments concerning Christianity, the The appearance of these volumes in rapid succession, then,
conferencediscussionsthemselveswere,asplanned,alsorich alongwithexponentialgrowthinthenumberofpublications
in reflexive discussions concerningthenatureoftheanthro- focusedonChristianitythatbeganaroundthetimethatthey
pology of Christianity as a project, its past, anditspotential appeared, all contribute to the plausibility of the claim that
future viability. In this introduction, I will take up issues theanthropologyofChristianityaroseasanewdevelopment
belongingtothesereflexivekindsofdiscussions,drawingon intheearlyyearsofthiscentury(forareviewofsomeofthe
themes that emerged at the conference and those that have literature from this early period, see Bialecki et al. 2008).
been raised in the broader anthropological literature on the Yetinspiteofhoweasyitistomakeacasethatsomething
anthropology of Christianity. I will also consider several of newwasafootabout15yearsago,incasualconversation,and
the most important theoretical and empirical developments certainlyinthepeerreviewprocess,thosewhoassertthatthe
charted inthesearticles,arguingonthebasisofthesedevel- anthropology of Christianity is a recent arrival are familiar
opments thattheanthropologyofChristianityisperhapsset with the retort that in fact there is nothing new about it.
to transform itself in important ways that might justify it Anthropologists, the argument goes, have been producing
hanging around for at least one more turn around the very workonChristiansforaverylongtime.Fromanthropological
fast track of live anthropological concerns. First, though, by workonAfricanIndependentChurchesthathasbeengrowing
way of introducing theanthropologyofChristianityandsit- apacesincethe1960s(Fernandez1978)tostudiesofEuropean
Robbins AnthropologyofChristianity:Unity,Diversity,NewDirections S159
communities in which Christianityisthedominantreligion, around the turn of the millennium, beyond the simple fact
therearemanyethnographicworksfocusedonChristianpop- that it is appearing in much greater quantity than it was
ulations that appeared well before the allegedriseofthean- before?Atleastoneimportantanswertothisquestionisthat
thropologyofChristianity.Moreover,EdithandVictorTurner the authors of this work were consistently self-conscious in
had published high-profile work on Christian pilgrimage by several respects about what they were doing (Jenkins 2012:
1978(seeColeman2014),severaleditedvolumesfocusedon 462). They were, for example, self-conscious that they were
ethnographicstudiesofChristianityhadbeenpublishednear trying to get scholars working on Christianity to talk across
theendofthe1980s(Barker1990;JamesandJohnson1988; boundariesoftheoreticalemphasisandregionalethnographic
Saunders 1988), Jean and John Comaroff had published the focus (see, e.g., Robbins 2003c). They were self-conscious
firstvolumeoftheirhighlyinfluentialstudyofmissionization about trying to use the vantage point provided by ethno-
amongtheSouthAfricanTswanain1991,andRobertHefner graphic work on Christians to push anthropological theory
hadpublishedanimportanteditedbookfocusedonthestudy in new directions (e.g., Tomlinson and Engelke 2006). And
ofconversiontoChristianityin1993.Inlightofobservations they were self-conscious in exploringthewaysanthropology
ofthiskind,ChrisHann(2007:394)hasgivenpublishedvoice as a discipline has been profoundly shaped by the Christian
to the widespread concern that long before whatsomecon- tradition (Cannell 2005, 2006b). Further, all of them were
sider anew“anthropologyofChristianity”begantoemerge, self-conscious about trying to explain why, at least as they
therealreadyexisteda“farfrominconsequentialcorpus”de- sawit,anthropologistshadrelativelyneglectedChristianityin
voted to this topic (see also Chua 2012; Comaroff 2010). the past. To borrow terms I had used in my own first piece
How, then, to settle the question of origins? In some re- on the anthropology of Christianity, from the start,thecur-
spects, where one comes down on the question of whether rentwaveoftheanthropologyofChristianityhasnotbeena
theanthropologyofChristianityappearedassomethingnew matter of something that has happened simply “in itself”; it
in the early 2000s is going to be a matter of interpretation. has also happened “for itself” as a deliberate effort to move
Some people are allergic to finding breaks in history or are thestudyofChristianityclosertothecenterofanthropolog-
atleastverycautiousaboutdoingso,andthehistoricalrecord ical concern while at the same time constantly interrogating
is generallycomplexenoughtosustainatleastsomekindof what this move might mean for thedevelopmentofanthro-
argument that there is never anything newunderthesun(a pology as a field (Robbins 2003c). Or, as Debra McDougall
factthatshouldteachussomethingimportantaboutthena- (2009b:168) has more recently put it, anthropologists have
ture of processes of evenrapidsocialandculturalchange).I responded to Cannell’s (2006b:1) crucial early question of
remember one very prominent senior anthropologist telling “What difference does Christianity make?” by “considering
me in the mid-1990s that the whole notion of globalization not only what difference it makes to believers but alsowhat
was nothing new. After all, he pointed out, anthropologists difference it makes to anthropology.”
hadbeenstudyingdiffusionandacculturationforalongtime. Thesecondquestionwecanaskifweassumethatthereis
For someone of this cast of mind, it is unlikely that coun- something new about the recent anthropology of Christian-
terarguments that something new has in fact emerged will ity—somethingthatIhavearguedatleastminimallyconsists
carrymuchweight.Andmorethanthis,givenhowimportant in the self-conscious quality with which it approaches itself
the theme of discontinuity and change has been in the an- as a kind of anthropology—is why it happened whenitdid.
thropologyofChristianity(seebelow),itispossiblethatthose Why did anthropologists begin to pay much moreattention
whoareinvolvedinstudyingatleastsomeformsoftheChris- to Christianity around the year 2000, and why did they feel
tian tradition are predisposed to find themselvesontheside thatthefactthattheyweredoingsowasofsomesignificance
ofthosewhotendtoseenewthingsemergingwheneverthey to anthropology? In an early piece thatrepresentsaremark-
can. If this is true, perhaps even in matters of their own ablefeatofwritingintellectualhistoryasithappens,Bronwen
historical experience they cannot be counted as reliablewit- Douglas (2001) reviewed the uptick of work on Christianity
nesses when they claimtohavelivedthroughamoreorless inMelanesiathatwasthenjustbeginningtobecomeapparent
sharp intellectual break with what came before. against the background of a history of how anthropologists
Yet even taking into account the difficulty of settling on oftheregionhadtreatedChristianityinthepast.Inthecourse
appropriate grounds for deciding whether the anthropology ofherdiscussion,sheposedinveryusefultermsaregionally
of Christianity is really something new, it remains the case phrased version of a question I want to explore in more
that several interesting and important questions arise if one generaltermshere:wasthestudyofChristianityinMelanesia
arguesthatitis,andperhapsinintellectuallypragmaticterms suddenly beginning to accelerate because Melanesia was
thismakesitsnoveltyworthpositing.Iwouldliketoexamine changing (e.g., because Christianity is becoming more im-
two of these questions here. The first question takes up the portant there) or because anthropology was changing (e.g.,
issue of the sense in which the anthropology of Christianity by beginning to redefine what counts as a legitimate object
might be said to be new. If there have long existed at least of study)? The answer she offered, and supported with ex-
some ethnographic studies of Christian populations,whatis emplarythoroughness,isthatboththingswerehappeningat
newabouttheworkonChristianitythatbegantobepublished once.
S160 CurrentAnthropology Volume55,Supplement10,December2014
In a very sophisticated recent article that I have already groundbreaking contribution, though the literature in this
cited for its assertion that what is new about the recent an- area is by now voluminous and spans many social science
thropology of Christianity is its self-conscious quality, Tim- andhumanitiesdisciplines.Whencombinedwiththerelated
othy Jenkins (2012) makes a point akin to Douglas’s own andverywide-rangingdebateaboutthenatureofsecularism
when he argues that this self-consciousness was borne of that has flourished over the past decade (e.g., Asad 2003;
changes at once in the world and in anthropology. On Jen- Taylor 2007), these developments attest quite directly to a
kins’s account, what allowed for the advent of this self-con- growingscholarlyworrythatourolderunderstandingsofthe
sciousnessabouttheplaceofChristianitywithinanthropology religiousfield nolongergetmuchtractionontheworldswe
during the late twentieth century was the changing position aretryingtoexplore.Similarly,oneshouldalsonotetheturn
ofreligionmoregenerallyintheworld,includingintheWest- within continental philosophy and critical theory toward a
ernsocietiesfrom whichmostofthenewanthropologistsof reengagementwithreligion(bestknownthroughtheworkof
Christianity came, or in which they received their academic Agamben, Badiou, and Zizek), the growing prominence
training.AsJenkins(2012:472)putsit,duringthistimeperiod withinmoremainstreampoliticalphilosophyofacalltorec-
“the trajectories of secularization and modernization [came ognize the importance of religion in people’s lives (familiar
to] appear less convincing, or, at least, less simple toappre- fromthemorerecentworkofHabermas,Rawls,andTaylor),
hend.” These changes allowed religion to reoccupy social and the emerging concern withpoliticaltheologymoregen-
space(outsidetheacademy,ofcourse,butalsowithinit)that erally, which, as Gil Anidjar (2009:374) notes, has been
ithadcededduringtheheightofsecularistmodernism,ring- “quicklyanddeftlyuniversalized”soastobeaphenomenon
ing changes both in the ways in which anthropologists en- onecanpresumablyfindandstudyeverywhere(deVriesand
counter religion in the field, where its public presence and Sullivan 2006; Tomlinson and McDougall 2013). And along
broadrelevancetomanydomainsofsociallifeinmanyplaces with all of this recent ferment in corners of the humanities
are now difficultto ignore,andintheintellectualsettingsin and social sciences that had not in the second half of the
whichanthropologicalideasfindtheirfinaldevelopment(see twentiethcenturybeenknownforapreoccupationwithissues
also Bandak and Jørgensen 2012:452–453). The story of the ofreligion,itisalsonoteworthythatwithinreligiousstudies,
publicreturnofreligionaroundtheworldthatJenkinsalludes historyofreligions,andtheology,thesameperiodthatbirthed
to here is by this point extremely well known, being toldto these developments also saw the rise of a new discourse of
great effect in Jose´ Casanova’s now foundationalbookfrom “world Christianity” that has quickly begun to lend its im-
1994 and in literally thousands of other books and articles primatur to institutes, academic positions, andtextbooks(J.
across the social sciences and humanities since that time. Cabrita,personalcommunication;seealsoStanley2011).The
Jenkins’s(2012:463)groundingofhishistoricalaccountina meaning of the label “world Christianity” is still a work in
carefuldiscussionofSusanHarding’s(2000)TheBookofJerry progress, but minimally it responds to the recognition that
Falwell:FundamentalistLanguageandPolitics,aworkthat,he demographicallyspeaking,atleast,andingrowingwayscul-
suggests,showsthat“thecategoriesoftheinvestigatingcom- turally speaking as well, Christianity is no longer best de-
munitymayhavebeenalteredaspartoftheprocessessheis scribedasa“Western”religion(or,asinsiderstothisdiscourse
investigating,” demonstrates quite convincingly that both often put, a religion of the “global North”; Philip Jenkins
kinds of changes stirred the pot in which the contemporary 2002 has been a foundational and much debated text for
anthropologyofChristianitywouldeventuallycometoaboil. setting these terms for the discussionof worldChristianity).
Seen in the terms Jenkins lays out, the rise of theanthro- As Kwame Bediako (2011:244) puts it, these changes render
pologyofChristianity15orsoyearsagoneedstobecounted it“undeniablethatwhathasoccurredisareconfigurationof
as one of a number of academic responses to the changing theculturalmanifestationoftheChristianfaithintheworld,
roleof religionintheworld.Iwillmentionjustafewofthe a phenomenon that one may also describe as a shift in the
kinds of academic responses I have in mind here, sticking center of gravity of Christianity.”
primarily to ones that have had some influence on the an- OnecouldexpandthelistIhaveofferedhereofsignsthat
thropologyof Christianityitself.Butevenanabbreviatedlist the place of religion both in the world and in various intel-
of this kind ought to provide an indication of why it might lectual discourses has been in a state of rapid and creative
make sense in intellectual historical terms to focus on the change over the past two decades or so. But I hope to have
noveltyofthekindofanthropologyofChristianitythatarose said enough to carry the main point I want to make: if we
during the period in question. take the anthropology of Christianity as it is currently con-
Along with the development of a strong interest in the stituted as something new that has arisen over the past 15
publicroleofreligionthatIhavealreadymentioned,onehas years,thenitmakessensetoseeitasonecurrentinamuch
tocountasachildoftheperiodofchangethatprecededand largerstreamofcontemporaryworkthatattemptstoexplore
then overlapped with development of the anthropology of the possibilities that come from rethinking academic ap-
Christianity the vigorous debate that has followed attempts proaches to the study of religion. The disciplinary self-con-
to deconstruct the category of religion itself, which is best sciousness of the anthropology of Christianity has rendered
known among anthropologists through Talal Asad’s (1993) itaparticularlyanthropologicalcontributiontothischurning