Gray 1

Jena Gray

5/11/15

Glasser

ANTH 300

The Dynamic Relationship between Anthropology and Evangelical Missions

Abstract

Within almost any Anthropology Department today, self-identification with a religion,

specifically Christianity, is near taboo. This paper explores why that tension exists and where it

came from. Throughout history, there has seemingly been an ever-present tension between the

field of anthropology and the mission field. It seeks to briefly outline the historical backdrop of

evangelical missions and the historical backdrop of anthropology. Through local examples

within Virginia, both historically and recently, the paper analyzes the College of William &

Mary’s role in propagating ethnocentric colonialism and the effects of its wrongful approach to

missions. It also analyzes a local Williamsburg church’s efforts in healing the very same wounds

caused by the colonists and founders of my university. This paper investigates and identifies the

benefits of applying anthropological approaches to the evangelical missionary’s work and

advocates for an adoption of certain anthropological methodology within the mission field.

Biblical Basis for Missions

The beginning of Christian evangelical missions traces its roots back to a command from

Jesus himself just before he ascended into Heaven. Jesus and his followers, the disciples, were on

the mountain near Galilee when

Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have

Gray 2

commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’” (Mt. 28:18-20 ESV, The Holy Bible).

This passage of Scripture is oftentimes referred to as “The Great Commission” by evangelical

Christians and is viewed as a directive to go and teach others about what Jesus has said and done,

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:18-20

ESV). Therefore, evangelical Christians see their mission to “go therefore and make disciples of

all nations,” going to the end of the earth with the message of redemption and grace through

Jesus Christ. Out of obedience to “The Great Commission” and love for God, followers of Jesus

of Nazareth have traveled to many remote places in the world to preach the gospel, referring to

this as their “mission.”

History proves that there have been profound detrimental effects of evangelical missions

in the lives of countless individuals and communities. Yet, Jesus Christ’s life, teachings, and his

early followers demonstrate a clear example of what it means to be a culturally sensitive

missionary. Jesus of Nazareth, believed to be the Son of God by Christians, came to Earth to be

born as a baby. Jesus maintained “the whole fullness of deity” while living as a man in order to

relate fully to human sufferings and temptations without succumbing to them (Col. 2:9;

paraphrased Heb. 2:18 ESV). Jesus of Nazareth came and lived among humans and therefore,

was culturally relevant and relatable to them; he “came as a missionary…to redeem sinners who

seek his salvation” (Hiebert 1985:17). He was able to connect and understand what the people

were going through and likewise earn credibility among the Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) of the

time.

Paul G. Hiebert remarks that, “Christ therefore becomes our exemplar, and this

incarnation is the model for our mission. Not that we can save the world, but, like him, we must

seek to identify with those to whom we go in order to bring them the Good News of God’s

Gray 3

salvation in ways they can understand” (Hiebert 1985:17). For clarification purposes, the term

“incarnation” that Hiebert discusses refers to Jesus when, as deity, indwelt a human form when

he was born as a baby. Hiebert, an evangelical missiological anthropologist, emphasizes to other

evangelical Christians in his book Anthropological Insights for Missionaries the importance and

vitality of understanding and identifying with the people whom they are going to minister to.

Paul of Tarsus, perhaps the most famous missionary of Biblical times, is a clear example

of a missionary whose intention is to learn and become a part of the “Other’s” community with

the purpose of sharing a relevant message of the gospel while still retaining its original intent. He

writes, in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV):

19For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Some evangelical Christians have truly followed the message taught in this Scripture and have

even gone so far as to sell themselves into slavery in order to reach slaves with the message that

they believed to be Truth. In Germany, 1731, former slave Anthony Ulrich appeared before a

congregation in Herrnhut, Germany and boldly proclaimed, “that no one could possibly preach to

the slaves unless he first became a slave himself. They [the slaves] had to work all day on the

plantations, and after sunset were not allowed to go out. Thus no one could preach who did not

work with them” (Furley 1965). Ulrich and others’ fervor and audacity sparked the first ever

Protestant missionary movement which later became known as The Moravian Movement. Paul

of Tarsus recounts of his time imprisoned, counting it as a blessing and an opportunity “to

Gray 4

advance the gospel…throughout the whole imperial guard” (Phil. 1:12-13 ESV). These are

examples throughout early history which demonstrate the Biblical basis for evangelical missions

and the original intent: to go and “become all things to all people…for the sake of the gospel,”

relating and identifying with the people to whom evangelical missionaries intend to minister (1

Cor. 9:22-23).

Anthropological Development

In an atmosphere after hundreds of years of missionary malpractice (along with mission

work that was done with integrity) and debate over missionary methodology, the field of

anthropology comes into existence. Cradled by social philosophers, sparked by the

Enlightenment Period, and with religious Reformation and Counter-Reformation flowering the

air, an atmosphere of religious skepticism and scientific social questioning arises (Whiteman

2003:35). Evolutionary perspectives permeated the environment. The influential Charles Darwin

proposed that “the development of man and other mammals…was the work of a separate act of

creation;” and that, rather, “man is descended from some lower form” (Darwin 1871:33, 186).

His propagations infused doubt and skepticism of whether man was indeed created by God.

Through this veil of intellectual curiosity and evolutionary perspectives, early anthropologists

Edward B. Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan emerged. Tylor determined culture as “homogeneous

in nature, though placed in different grades of civilization” (Tylor 1873:7). He viewed religion,

likewise, through different hierarchical “grades,” determining and proposing that religion began

as beliefs in animism which then gave way to polytheism which led to monotheism. Inherently,

Tylor’s theory of culture insinuates that animism is the “primitive” perspective while, achieved

through rational thinking, monotheism is the “civilized” belief system (Whiteman 2003: 36).

Gray 5

Morgan, like Tylor, also held philosophies of hierarchical stages of progression within

culture which he claimed connect back to a single commonality. Morgan stated that humans

“ascend by the chain of derivation to a remote antiquity, from which, as defined and indurated

forms, their propagation commenced” (Morgan 1870). He goes on to develop a “universal

evolutionary scheme that put humanity on three rungs of the evolutionary ladder: savages,

barbarians, and civilized” (Whiteman 2003:36). Morgan asserted that the evolutionary ladder for

which science is the teleological and civilized end, began with a belief in magic which

progressed to a belief in religion which finally arrives at science (Whiteman 2003:36). He

concluded that out of this evolutionary perspective, or “framework,” anthropologists sought to

better understand the complexities of the “exotic diversity of peoples and their cultures being

discovered around the world” (2003:36). These evolutionary thinkers stood in opposition to

popular religious beliefs at the time; yet, still, they maintained correspondence with missionaries,

“inquiring about the people among whom [the missionaries] lived” (Whiteman 2003:36). In

order to obtain ethnographies and other valuable information needed to initiate and maintain

theorizations from the comfort of their homes, anthropologists outsourced information from none

other than missionaries.

Influential Exchange

It is interesting to note that in the 19th century, using Morgan and Tylor as examples,

anthropologists were theorizing about people and cultures that missionaries were living amongst.

Darrell L. Whiteman, Professor of Cultural Anthropology and Dean of the E. Stanley Jones

School of World Mission and Evangelism at Asbury Seminary, writes, “it is noteworthy that

anthropologists have been loath to recognize the great debt they owe to missionaries…it is

arguable that the discipline of anthropology would not have emerged without its heavy reliance

Gray 6

upon ethnographic data provided by missionaries” (Whiteman 2003:36). He is, of course,

referring to “the hospitality, vocabulary lists,” and relationships that the missionaries provided to

early anthropologists (Whiteman 2003:36). Yet the influence of anthropology and mission work

did not only remain one-sided.

Whiteman also cites an extensive chain-of-reaction within his article demonstrating “how

anthropologists like Tylor and Morgan stimulated missionaries’ ethnographic research”

(2003:36). He traces Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity in the Human Family

(1871) and the effects of Morgan’s methodologies throughout the mission field. Morgan sent

questionnaires about kinship to various missionaries throughout the world in order to obtain

region-specific data to synthesize and theorize. The missionaries Whiteman cites range from an

Australian Wesleyan missionary in Fiji to an Anglican missionary with the Melanesian Mission

living in the Solomon Islands and New Hebrides (2003:36).

Division: Irreconcilable Differences

Unfortunately, the relatively amicable collaboration between missionaries and

anthropologists subsided and gave way to Malinowski’s era where other anthropologists aligned

with his persistent disdain and distrust for missionaries. I am referring to the oft-quoted verse

from his diary in which he writes, “my hatred of missionaries increased” (Malinowski 1967:31).

Divisions between mission work and the blossoming field of anthropology became like a chasm

unable to be bridged. Concepts such as cultural relativism and objectivity (which one can write a

dissertation-length response on this subject alone) seemed of central importance while

missionaries were deemed irreconcilably ignorant, infused with their inherent biases and

ethnocentric perspectives of the world. Missionaries have been viewed as “narrow-minded

destroyers of culture;” and, while, that is true in many cases, in others, it is not (Whiteman

Gray 7

2003:39). Evangelical missionaries have absolutely acted in destructive and historically

traumatizing manners; yet, also, let us not discount work done by missionaries to preserve the

language and the culture of the communities in which they lived. No story is one-sided and while

we must acknowledge their deplorable actions, scientific, linguistic, and anthropological

contributions by missionaries must also be accepted and discussed.

By just a shallow study of history one can trace the pervasive validity of those

ethnocentric allegations within the various discourses of mission work. Modern-day missionaries

and evangelical Christians themselves acknowledge the disparaging disparities between God’s

teachings on sharing his Word with grace and love throughout the Bible and the practical

realities which many individuals were subjected to. Darrell Whiteman (2003) quotes himself

from 2002 explaining that “some missionaries must confess, ‘guilty as charged,’ but the

preponderance of evidence demonstrates that missionaries have often contributed to the

preservation of languages and cultures more than to their destruction” (39). There is an equal

abundance, if not more, of anthropological, historical, and sociological evidence of the atrocities

done in the name of “Almighty God.” I am emphasizing just one voice in a sea of many that is

oftentimes shouted over within the realm of intellectualism. Even if academia denigrates mission

work, it cannot and should not disregard the contributions to the fields of linguistics,

ethnography, anthropology, and sociology. Yet, one such quandary which must be addressed is

our own historical past in regards to the ethnocentric colonialist attempts of converting Native

Americans to Christianity at the College of William & Mary’s Brafferton Indian School.

The Brafferton Indian School

The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia was chartered on February 8th,

1693 by King William & Queen Mary to “ye End that ye Church of Virginia may be furnished

Gray 8

with a Seminary of Ministers of ye Gospell, & ye Youth may be piously Educated in good

Learning & Manners, & [that] ye Christian faith may be propagated amongst ye Western Indians

to ye Glory of Almighty God…” (College of William and Mary, Special Collections Research

Center – Earl Gregg Swem Library, [sic]). The original purpose of the College of William &

Mary was to propagate the Christian faith among the people which surrounded the area, a people

whose culture and history was vastly different than the Englishmen’s. Yet, instead of becoming

“all things to all people, that by all means [they] may save some,” the Englishmen sought to strip

the Native people of their “foreign” culture in order to insert the false concept that the culture of

Christianity is to be English (completely ignoring the fact that Jesus of Nazareth himself was not

English). In the words of local Reverend H. Wade Trump, III in retrospect of the Brafferton

Indian School, he comments:

“They [the Englishmen] looked at them [the Native Americans] and thought that they needed to take away their culture, ‘clean them up’ and make them look English. They didn’t want the continuation of indigenous culture. They sought to strip them [the Native Americans] of culture and teach them the English way. They snatched their kids away and sent them to a boarding school, a school located on your campus. This was Christianity. And this is why they see Jesus as ‘The White Man’s God’” (Interview with Trump).

Trump spoke with painful disdain of the past, a past which he recently learned in 2000 was

intimately connected with him. In October, 2000 his cousin shared her research with Trump

revealing a direct lineage to Jamestown, 1614 when John Johnson, his ancestor, lived as a

“planter.” Regretfully, he explains that his ancestors were plantation owners and took part in

atrocities toward indigenous people.

He explained to me that God revealed to him the rationale for coming to Williamsburg,

Virginia in prayer a few years after moving to the city in 1995. He reflects, “I knew I was placed

in ministry within Williamsburg to make right in the sight of the Lord what my ancestors did

Gray 9

wrong in the sight of the Lord” (Interview). Trump’s words about the methodology of the

Brafferton missionary school, without foreknowledge, harken to an article posted on William &

Mary’s website about the Brafferton Indian School, which cites Royal Governor Francis

Nicholson proclaiming, “if ‘any great [Indian] nation will send three or four of their children

thither’ they could be trained in British ways and then ‘sent back to teach the same things to their

own people’” (The College of William & Mary, The Indian School). The article later cites the

colonists’ remarks of the school that it “cannot be counted a success” (College of William &

Mary, The Indian School). The colonists complained that the Indians “abandoned the behaviors

they learned at the Brafferton and resumed Indian ways of life… [The Brafferton education]

allowed the Indians to learn enough about British culture to defend their old ways of life”

(College of William & Mary, The Indian School). Unfortunately, the campus which now so

earnestly seeks to teach an integrated and holistic approach to thinking about the world fell prey

to ignorant and colonialist approaches to missions. Yet, fortunately, history did not end there.

“Good missionaries have always been good ‘anthropologists’” –Eugene Nida, 1954

Evangelical Christian and linguist Eugene Nida confidently decrees that “effective

missionaries have always sought to immerse themselves in profound knowledge of the ways of

life of the people to whom they have sought to minister, since only by such an understanding of

the indigenous culture could they possibly communicate a new way of life” (Nida xi). In

accordance with the biblical basis for missions and in conjunction with efforts made by

anthropologists to get to know, understand, and live among the community, the most “effective”

missionaries resemble a more anthropologically-integrated approach to mission work. This

approach to communities is now recognized through the lens known as anthropology. The

original intent of “The Great Commission” to go to all nations was to be invested in and

Gray 10

entrenched in a deep understanding of the culture, like anthropology, in order to relationally

communicate with love and trust a message of peace, love, and hope.

Missiological anthropologist Paul Hiebert (1985) mentions the multiplicity of benefits

that the field of anthropology brings to the mission field. He lists that anthropology is able to

develop an “understanding of cross-cultural situations;” allow for culturally sensitive insight into

completing “specific mission tasks such as Bible translation;” and aid missionaries in

understanding “the processes of conversion, including the social change that occurs when people

become Christians” (Hiebert 14). He explains that, additionally, anthropology presents a

culturally relevant gospel to listeners, while still maintaining the integrity of the Bible, and that

the discipline also aids missionaries in relating with “people around the world in all their cultural

diversity in order to assist [them] in building bridges of understanding between them” (Hiebert

14). Hiebert discusses the social change which comes from conversion as if from a functionalist

point of view, entertaining Herbert Spencer’s idea of a society.

The analogy Spencer makes is that of “a mass broken into fragments [that] ceases to be a

thing; while, conversely, the stones, bricks, and wood, previously separate become the thing

called a house” (Spencer 1876:447). Spencer is alluding to an image of society as a mass of

individual parts that work together to form a whole, much like an organism. Bronislaw

Malinowski (1933), another functionalist (though he would rebuke the label), stoically presents

structural functionalism as a framework through which to view society. A perspective which

views society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote stability. For

Malinowski, a disruption to the societal system can cause instability; yet, through constant

evolution of the societal organism, the disturbance will become equilibrated and balance will be

reached within society.

Gray 11

Cultures are shifted individually and communally by the impacts of Christian conversion.

With time and various adjustments, the community and the individual adjusts and regains

equilibrium. Hiebert understands and acknowledges that by affecting one aspect of society with

the introduction of Christianity, other aspects are affected. Change to an individual is inherent

with conversion for “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away;

behold, the new has come. All this is from God…” (2 Cor. 5:17-18 ESV). Change is inevitable

when living a life to follow Jesus because it is obviously different than one’s life prior to

following Jesus. It is a matter of adoption. For example, if a little boy grew up not knowing that

he had a father and was abandoned by his mother at a young age and then, all of a sudden, he

was told that his father had been searching for him his entire life and is in town – the boy’s

perception of his identity immediately is changed. Instead of viewing himself as abandoned, he is

embraced by his father and told how much his father loves him and how his father has been

waiting to reunite since the moment they had been separated when the boy was younger. The

interaction and newfound understanding inherently changes the self-perception of the boy and,

additionally, will have ripple effects on different areas of the boy’s life. Likewise it is with a

recent “convert” to Christianity: a new perspective is adopted.

The passage of Scripture which follows that quoted above (2 Cor. 5:17-18) goes on to

speak of reconciliation and how from God, he “gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in

Christ…entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 18-19). Reconciliation is the most

recent continuation of the historical trauma caused by the teaching and methodology of the

Brafferton Indian School at the College of William & Mary. Fortunately, I was able to interview

Reverend H. Wade Trump of Jamestown Christian Fellowship over the phone to learn more

Gray 12

about reconciliation efforts in the area and to gain local insight as to how modern-day mission

movements look.

Reconciliation: Reverend H. Wade Trump, III & Rappahannock Chief Anne Richardson

Wade Trump, and his wife Lisa, moved to Williamsburg, Virginia in 1995. Soon after,

Wade was told of his deep historical ancestry linking him and his family even more profoundly

with the birthplace of America. Wade and Lisa pastor a local church in Williamsburg called

Jamestown Christian Fellowship (JCF) whose ministry outreach looks starkly unique from other

churches. JCF has a 15 year-long and counting relationship with Chief Anne Richardson of the

Rappahannock Tribe. In response to my promptings, he recounted that in 1997 and in 2000

Jamestown Christian Fellowship, along with other churches, gathered in a tent placed beside

Jamestown to worship and pray with the intention of reconciling with the native people of the

area. At both meetings, all indigenous leaders of the area were contacted; and at both meetings,

none of the indigenous leaders showed. Trump recalls, “There was no trust or relationship. And

trust is key. They have to know they can trust you” (Interview).

Yet, through various events and time spent in Bolivia with indigenous peoples of the

Andes, Trump gained credibility and Chief Anne Richardson agreed to sit down at a Starbucks

near King’s Mill in 2000 and “a lifelong relationship [was] formed” (Interview). Trump routinely

invites Chief Richardson to his church, Jamestown Christian Fellowship, and gives gifts humbly

asking for forgiveness and for permission to worship God on her land. [See Figure 1 below.] I

inquired as to how he has gone about beginning reconciliation efforts with other tribes in the area

to which he responded,

“Normally, [when I am on the reservation] I am talking to a Christian leader. But there is a different government on the reservation and I must honor that…not that I deserve their trust or honor or that I can earn it, I mean I am a descendent of those very people who enslaved their people... Anyway, I meet with a board of leaders and I ask if I may come

Gray 13

and apologize for my ancestors’ actions. It begins with being humble – ‘Forgive me and my relatives…’ ‘What has been done the past 400 years is wrong and I’m sorry. I am here with the love of God to let you know that what has happened was wrong and I am here asking what I can do to change that. And then you shut up. [Pause] Most of the time they cry and say, ‘You are the first white man to ever have apologized to us before.’” (Interview)

I was personally given the honor of meeting Chief Anne Richardson on Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

because Pastor Wade had invited her to come for a public demonstration of “the ministry of

reconciliation” they have begun. In Chief Richardson’s own words, taken from the Testimonials

page of Arise America, a website chronicling the relationship between Jamestown Christian

Fellowship and the various other sovereign Indian nations up and down the East Coast, she

relays this message:

“2007 marked the 400th anniversary of the founding of America as the Western world knows it but there is a much deeper story belonging to the First Peoples of this land that God is revealing to His Native American followers. Through partnerships with ministers of the various people groups, I have been privileged to participate in many prayer walks and redemption ceremonies to heal the land. Each prophetic act reveals by one layer at a time, the wounds, injustices and defilements the enemy has placed upon us. After years of this type of reconciliation, we are finally seeing God’s healing and restoration manifest in the land” (Richardson, Chief Anne, Testimonials).

While the charter of William & Mary and the intention of the Brafferton Indian School were both

noble and right in terms of their biblical basis, the execution was far from just. Yet, centuries

later, there is hope of reconciliation for the years and years of destructive and ethnocentric

behavior done at the birthplace of America. A small church in Williamsburg, Virginia is

following the Bible’s intent for reconciliation, humility, repentance (turning away from

wrongdoing), and doing so requires now-deemed “anthropological” approaches.

Conclusion

Therefore, I propose that anthropology and mission work be not so far removed from one

another; rather, allow for exchange, growth, and dialogue between the two fields. Through a

Gray 14

brief historical analysis of the beginnings of the mission movement and the beginnings of the

anthropological movement, the pitfalls and successes of both, I concede that there need not be a

chasm carved so deeply that a dark cavernous void separates them. Anthropological approaches

to the mission field would produce missionaries who are well-equipped with an understanding of

cross-cultural exchanges, an adequate knowledge of how to embark on Bible translation, a

realistic perspective of what societal changes to expect during the process of conversion, and a

platform from which to make the gospel relevant to listeners (Hiebert 14). Most of all,

anthropology creates an awareness of the diversity of people further pointing missionaries

toward grace, love, and trust – the materials by which bridges of understanding are built.

Appendix

Figure 1.

http://www.ariseamerica.com/main.html

“Pictured From Left to Right: Pastors Wade & Lisa Trump, Jamestown Christian Fellowship; Chief Anne Richardson, Rappahannock Tribe; Chief William & Deanna Guy/Clifford Guy, Pokanoket Tribe; Rabbi Eric Carlson, Congregation Zion's Sake; & Rev. Mary Ellis, Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church.  (This picture was taken before the Sunday morning service at Jamestown Christian Fellowship)”

Gray 15

Bibliography

College of William & MaryN.d. The Indian School at William & Mary. The College of William & Mary. http://www.wm.edu/about/history/historiccampus/indianschool/index.php .

College of William and MarySir Edmund Andros copy of the College of William and Mary Charter, February 8, 1693. Charter. From Special Collections Research Center at the College of William & Mary’s Earl Gregg Swem Library. Williamsburg, Virginia (accessed May 12, 2015).

Darwin, Charles1871. The Descent of Man; and on Selection in Relation to Sex, Vols. 1-2. New York: D. Appleton. [Vol. 2 pp. 368-387].

Figure 12009. Unknown. Plymouth and Jamestown Tribes Connect. Taken at Jamestown Christian Fellowship. Williamsburg, Virginia. Available from: Arise America, http://www.ariseamerica.com/main.html.

Furley, Oliver W. 1965 Moravian Missionaries and Slaves in the West Indies. Caribbean Studies 5(2):3-16. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25611879.pdf.

Hiebert, Paul G.1985 Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.

Malinowski, Bronislaw1933. "Culture." In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 4. Pp. 621-645. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Malinowski, Bronislaw1967 A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Morgan, Lewis Henry1870. Systems of Consanguinity and the Affinity of the Human Family. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Nida, Eugene A.1954 Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions. Pasadena, California: Harper & Brothers.

Richardson, Chief Anne.

Gray 16

N.d. Testimonials. Arise America. Jamestown, Virginia. http://www.ariseamerica.com/testimonials.html.

Spencer, Herbert1897 [1876]. The Principles of Sociology. New York: D. Appleton and Company. [Pp. 447-463] https://archive.org/details/prinsocial01spenuoft.

The Holy Bible2001 ESV Bible, The Large Print Compact Edition by Crossway. Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers, 2011.

Trump, Reverend H. Wade, III2015 Phone Interview by Jena Gray. Williamsburg, May 12.

Tylor, Edward Burnett1920 [1873]. Primitive Culture (Vol. 1). London: John Murray. (Vol. 1 Chapter One pp. 1-25. https://archive.org/details/primitiveculture01tylouoft

Whiteman, Darrell L. 2003 One Significant Solution: How Anthropology Became the Number One Study For Evangelical Missionaries; Part I: Anthropology and Mission: The Incarnational Connection. International Journal of Frontier Missions 21(1):35-44. doi: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/21_1_PDFs/35_44_Whiteman2.pdf