Are the Turtles Beating us?

[Bootstrap]

A couple of comments from the 'anthropologist me': Never, in all of my training and reading have I ever heard terms like 'thin culture' and 'thick culture'. He also said that "a cultural group cannot experience a color if they do not have a word for it." If a color exists in the environment a cultural group inhabits, and they do not have a word for it, does that mean they don't "experience" the color? What does it mean to experience a color? (The Banawa have a very simple color system. Basically the only real color word is the one for red. Other colors are described as 'dark' or 'light'. Living in the jungle, do they not 'experience' green?)

I think the concept of "thick culture" evolved from "thick description" in Geertz, I imagine you are familiar with this paper:

https://philpapers.org/archive/geettd.pdf

Thick and think culture are well described in this paper:

https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/ ... ulture.pdf

Here are the last three points in the description of thick culture:

5. Thick culture is externally bounded and internally homogenous: Culture defines what is common
in one group and what distinguishes it from others. In its strong form, it separates `we' from `they'.
In a weaker, statistical sense it assumes that there is relatively little variation within a group on
fundamental meanings and behaviours or, at the very least, that within a group differences are
smaller than differences between various groups. Although the term `group', in this sense, typically
refers to a whole society, it may also refer to societal subgroups. In either case, however, there is a
strong emphasis on the ethno-linguistic homogeneity of the group. Culture is substantially a function
of language.

6. Thick culture is a coherent cluster of orientations: The elements of the belief system shape a
logically connected whole. If attitudes, value orientations, and norms are transmitted. through
socialization processes, and if later learning is conditioned by earlier learning, then worldviews,
cognitive maps and interpretative schemes must form a coherent pattern. They are not in dissonance;
otherwise they would not be able to guide people's behaviour.

7. Thick culture is durable: Culture may not be static, but at a minimum it is highly viscous - it
changes very slowly, if at all, over decades or generations and then only in response to profound
social change. Public opinion and even behaviour may change relatively quickly, but culture shift
is evolutionary. Moreover, the direction of cultural change is monotonic. Culture does not fluctuate
or oscillate in the short to medium term, it `oozes' slowly and uni-directionally from one stable state
to another.

[Neto]

The LXX is not remotely concordant with the Masoretic text, but then again, I would consider the LXX to be more authoritative.

I mention it not in the sense of authority, but only because Greek already has terms that would at least make a stab at a more accurate translation choice in the two cases I mentioned - the Love of God for His people, as opposed to the 'love' of Sampson for a woman he had only 'seen', or observed. (I basically equated it with what we would call 'lust'. He saw, he desired. Is this inaccurate? I guess I cannot really be 'dogmatic' about it, because the language does not tell us the exact area of meaning of the term translated for us as 'love'.)

[Bootstrap]

Do you see places where Jesus or Paul or any New Testament author teach us to create a group culture based on external uniformity? If so, where?

I don't. But I have a lot of sympathy for his position. I understand his emphasis on clothes to be specific to his cultural context. Where I live modest clothing and six children stand out rather dramatically as people with a different value system, perhaps more than plain attire does in his context.

I'm sympathetic to this approach to Christianity too, as one application. To me, he seemed to be saying that Jesus practiced this and the NT teaches it. Did I misunderstand him?

He talks about this group culture as a way to practice love. Perhaps yieldedness to each other is the aspect of love he is thinking of? Or just an automatic shared sense of belonging? What relationship do you see between love and group culture?

I haven't thought this through entirely but the love and relationship paring are deep features to Christian doctrine going back to the trinitarian nature of God. Does love exist that is never expressed or shared.

I agree that love needs to be expressed and shared - that's a major theme in the New Testament. To me, he seemed to be implying that uniformity and yielding to each other on details of clothing is important if we are to love each other. Did I understand him correctly?

[cooper]

I think sociologically, he makes a quite compelling case for the preservation of traditional Anabaptist cultures. I'd say his approach is a welcome change from trying to twist Scripture to support Anabaptist cultural practices. I think he needs to think through his idea and develop better arguments in some places.

He commented that the Amish have made a larger impact than evangelicals on the culture. I think that's just false - evangelicals have had a tremendous impact on American culture. You can dislike the evangelical influence, but that doesn't negate it. The Amish have great name recognition - thanks to Hollywood and tourism. People see the Amish as a representation of the pre-industrial way of living. There is for the most part tremendous respect for the Amish - that is more or less deserved, but outsiders joining the Amish is not seen as a serious possibility by the Amish or outsiders.

I quite enjoyed the autobiographical sketch at the beginning which helped me understand his thought process. I would also add to context that Shippensburg Fellowship was a flagship church of the intentional conservative Anabaptist movement of the late 80s and 90s. Based on my third-degree connections to Shippensburg, I would say 25% of the second generation are at Shippensburg or similar church, 15% BMAish, and 60% non-Plain. Shippensburg probably had the best Anabaptist teaching and preaching. They were focused on discipleship and developing close community. This isn't the kind of retention rate you would expect. Why? My understanding is that at one point 30% of the people at Shippensburg were from non-Anabaptist backgrounds. Many of their children left and then children of cradle Anabaptists left as well. It's been a few years but the last I knew, only 5-10% of the folks from non-Anabaptist backgrounds were still at Shippensburg. (To be fair, their sister church in Chambersburg is more Kingdom Christian than Mennonite and I'd guess they have 40% non-Anabaptist background folks.) This is my sociological opinion - not a theological statement, but churches that are welcoming of outsiders will have lower retention rates than insular communities.

We can think theologically or sociologically, sometimes we can integrate the two. But that which is sociologically prudent doesn't always line up with the New Testament.

[Neto]

Regarding what I understand to be the main question or central idea in the recording, I think that in my note-taking and comments here last night I
"didn't see the forest for the trees" - I fixated on the smaller issues, and missed the central point.

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

I’ll put it this way, Neto. In an Australian mall I ran across a salesperson who was trying to get me to buy some kind of nail care / makeup sort of thing. I told her I would have no need of such things, and not for a wife or girlfriend either, because “we” never use makeup or manicure type stuff. She asked why, I said, well, we are Mennonites and don’t use makeup.

So she asked what Mennonite even means, and I quickly said “Well we are like Amish but we drive cars”. She instantly understood.

A south Asian Indian girl in Australia knows what Amish are and has a vague idea what they stand for. Barely anyone in the entire continent of Australia knows what a non-conservative Mennonite is.

Yes, but that knowledge of the Amish -
(no matter how accurate it is - we often had other expat missionaries in Brazil mention this or that book or movie about the Amish, exclaiming about how 'accurate' it was. On the occasions when we at some future time had an opportunity to read the books or see these films, they were invariably grossly off in the bushes)
- rarely results in attempts to JOIN the Amish.

Is that not what we want? - That those outside of the Christian faith would, based on what they see about who we are - be beating down the doors in a desire to join us in the life we exemplify?

[Bootstrap]

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

I'll take a stab at it. I think he was saying that clothing choices and other externals are not just external for plain Mennonites, but symbols of shared meaning in their thick culture, and particularly symbols of yielding to each other instead of individualistic self-expression. He contrasts two extremes: (1) modern individualistic self-expression that demands the entire group change to accommodate their views, versus (2) a thick culture that expects individuals do adapt to conform to their values. He believes that visible expressions of this culture are enduring, a solid foundation for a culture that will last.

He uses the Amish as an example of a group with a very visible culture that is well known because of it.

Was that close?

[Ernie]

I don't know if the OP would want me to post extensive notes anyway, so I'll just comment on a couple of things.

Posting notes is just fine.

[Bootstrap]

I think sociologically, he makes a quite compelling case for the preservation of traditional Anabaptist cultures. I'd say his approach is a welcome change from trying to twist Scripture to support Anabaptist cultural practices. I think he needs to think through his idea and develop better arguments in some places.

I agree. To me, the weakest parts of it were places where he seemed to stretch Scripture to support views that seem more grounded in sociology than in Scripture.

We can think theologically or sociologically, sometimes we can integrate the two. But that which is sociologically prudent doesn't always line up with the New Testament.

I think it would be hard to make the same points in a talk based mostly on the New Testament.

[Josh]

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

I'll take a stab at it. I think he was saying that clothing choices and other externals are not just external for plain Mennonites, but symbols of shared meaning in their thick culture, and particularly symbols of yielding to each other instead of individualistic self-expression. He contrasts two extremes: (1) modern individualistic self-expression that demands the entire group change to accommodate their views, versus (2) a thick culture that expects individuals do adapt to conform to their values. He believes that visible expressions of this culture are enduring, a solid foundation for a culture that will last.

He uses the Amish as an example of a group with a very visible culture that is well known because of it.

Was that close?

In my opinion, yes.

[Josh]

So, tell me, what was his central point? I THINK it was the perceived need to have a visible "group image", a set of things making up one physical identifier for the group as a distinct identity - something that would match or rival that of the Amish - the "turtles"). Am I on track with this?

I'll take a stab at it. I think he was saying that clothing choices and other externals are not just external for plain Mennonites, but symbols of shared meaning in their thick culture, and particularly symbols of yielding to each other instead of individualistic self-expression. He contrasts two extremes: (1) modern individualistic self-expression that demands the entire group change to accommodate their views, versus (2) a thick culture that expects individuals do adapt to conform to their values. He believes that visible expressions of this culture are enduring, a solid foundation for a culture that will last.

He uses the Amish as an example of a group with a very visible culture that is well known because of it.

Was that close?

To give an example of how I think an MC USA aligned sort of group SHOULD look like, based on their values, (but in reality, doesn’t)…

- Wear clothes produced with a minimum of slave labour, environmental damage, and so on. This could mean locally sourced natural fibres, trying to source secondhand clothes, rejecting “fast fashion”, handmade clothes (instead of third world slave labour), and so on.

This would indeed result in a distinctive appearance, but would also require individual submission to a group norm. This seems to basically be impossible outside of plain Anabaptist circles.

- Given the consensus of the environmental destruction caused by Big Oil, the petroleum industry, carbon emissions, and so on, reject cars. Adopt bicycles, horse and buggy, and so on instead. Perhaps develop a community standard for minimal usage of cars/vans when necessary to minimise damage. Live in communities intentional enough that driving a car isn’t necessary.

Likewise, refuse to travel by air. Restructure things like Conference so that air travel isn’t needed. Use Amtrak or buses instead.