Enoch Wan. In the last three decades, “missionary anthropology” has “remained synonymous with functionalism done by Christians” (Krass 1979:28). According to functionalism, “culture is not a mere lifeless heap of unrelated parts: it is a system more like a living organism or a complicated operation” (Luzbetak 1970:141). The organismic analogy and organic/equilibrium perspective of functionalism enable the missionary anthropologists to describe and analyze customs and institutions in terms of “the whole system, or the function of any component part of the system” (Mayers & Grunlan 1979:275). They claim that the functional model of holistic view of culture “is the anthropologist’s most significant contribution to the missionary endeavor” (Luzbetak 1963:59, cf. Kraft 1979:46).
Christian anthropologists have integrated functionalism into their scholastic study and practical ministry in crosscultural evangelism, Bible translation and church growth analysis. They have credited functionalism with meeting their needs intellectually and practically. In spite of the many weaknesses of functionalism, they still hold on to functionalism as the only and the best alternative over and above evolutionism, historicalism, diffusionism, Marxism, etc.
However, the general Christian public who are not familiar with the historical development of anthropological theories should be informed of the shortcoming of the functional model of culture.
Relational Realism for Christian Ministry 關係論與基督教事工 