Missiology: An

International Review http://mis.sagepub.com/

Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin

T. Wayne Dye
Missiology 1976 4: 27
DOI: 10.1177/009182967600400106

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mis.sagepub.com/content/4/1/27

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society of Missiology

Additional services and information for Missiology: An International Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mis.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mis.sagepub.com/content/4/1/27.refs.html

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1976

What is This?

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

 Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of
Sin
T. WAYNE DYE

Every culture has some standard of right and wrong. This is

not fully discovered in a people's behavior, our author
reminds us, but in their ideals. These ideals may, in essence,
closely parallel the Decalogue: but this essence may be
applied with widely varying emphases in the real life
situations of different cultures. If the missionary, jealous for
the essence of God's righteous demands, relies too heavily
on the applications and emphases of his own culture, he may
experience little conviction of sin in his hearers - and
confused standards in the emerging church. Fully
recognizing the dilemma this imposes on the cross-cultural
witness, linguist-translator Dye finds hope and help in an
ethnotheological approach to the problem.

"0 UR CHURCH won't be ready for independence until

the believers quit falling into sin. They just don't have any
spiritual vitality." How often have you heard a statement like
this? The factor which often leads to this problem is that the
missionary has not communicated to them the nature of sin.
How this can be, and what can be done about it, is the topic of this
article.
The Missionary Problem
Most missionaries have had a prophet's role of sorts in their
home countries. As a Christian professional, Joe Missionary
usually feels capable of sensing what is wrong for others by
noting what is wrong for himself. This works fairly well among
his own peers. He intuitively believes he can continue to do this
on the field. In fact, as the most highly trained, dedicated and
"spiritual" person around, Joe may feel quite sure that this will
continue to be the way to work. He is in a place which
presumably is even more in need of a word from the Lord than
his homeland, so naturally he expects to be the one to give it.
Missiology: An International Review
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
28
But no matter how hard he tries to adapt externally, Joe goes
to another culture with a heavy load of internalized "cultural
baggage." Many of the things which he naturally assumes to be
right, sensible, and natural are not in fact biblical ideals at all, but
simply part of his own culture. For instance, such American
values as efficiency, punctuality, and cleanliness are very
important to many American Christians, though hard to
document from Scripture. Joe is probably most aware of those
things in the host culture which would be wrong at home.
No doubt the host culture, being like all cultures under the
judgment of God, will have plenty of glaring evils to correct. In
fact, the more he loves people the more vexed Joe will be with
many customs. This becomes one of the causes of culture shock,
which then further affects his perception, so that he becomes
even less able to accept local values. This process has been
described by Sally Dye (1974). It soon becomes hard for Joe even
to remember which of his own values were merely home country
values and which were said to be based on the Bible (if indeed he
ever differentiated). For instance, at one stage I was ready to
translate literature on cruelty to animals before any Scripture,
because the Bahinemo approach to the care of dogs was so
frustrating to me. I rationalized that I needed to practice on
something straightforward before beginning with the Bible.
The result is that the missionary preaches about those things
which seem worst to him. These may not be points which have
bothered the consciences of his hearers. They soon learn what
actions he disapproves of, but have no idea that he is talking
about moral wrong (which they know about) and a sense of guilt
(which they are experiencing). They can't understand what he is
driving at. Sometimes marginal individuals respond, but usually
the real moral leaders turn away because it seems irrelevant. Or
everyone may want to be a Christian, because of other kinds of
cultural compulsives. So they dutifully "confess" things about
which they feel no guilt and become Christians without ever
repenting of the things which most trouble their consciences.
For example, in one area with which I am familiar, the local
evangelical missionary is extremely concerned with the
problems of polygamy, betel nut chewing and smoking. In the
thinking of the local people, good behavior is much more a
matter of avoidance of discord in the village than it is of what
they "eat". Therefore, disobeying husbands and leaders,
 29
refusing hospitality and inter-clan payments, and expressmg
anger are to them far more serious sins.
The local missionary is eager to do what is right, but this is not
always communicated to the people. He is extremely stingy with
things they would normally share; he doesn't even care enough
to learn about their kinship obligations. Furthermore, he
appears to be angry ("frustrated," as he sees it) fairly often, so
they perceive him as frequently sinning. Local leaders seldom
listen to him. Many of his converts have not grasped the meaning
ofliving in obedience to God, and several have fallen into sexual
sm.
As a result, this missionary is convinced that he himself must
be the judge of the converts, for they do not show enough
evidence of real repentance to be trusted. He told me that he
focuses on the relatively external matters of smoking and betel
nut chewing because he doesn't know the people well enough to
ascertain whether they are really loving, etc. These external
matters were the only "fruits meet for repentance" that he could
easily identify.
This man is facing a difficult problem, but what in good
conscience can a missionary do differently? In order to answer
this, one must first determine how sin is defined for any
particular culture.

What Is Sin?
Scripture talks about a definite standard or ideal and says that
falling short of that mark is sin (Rom 3:23). Jesus makes it clear
that the standard is whole hearted love for God, and love for
one's neighbor as one's self (Matt 22:37-39). Then He adds,
"The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets
depend on these commandments" (Matt 22:40).1 In other
words, this kind of love is the su pracultural essence of the
Levitical law. Paul states this explicitly in Romans 13:8-10,
"Whoever loves his fellow man has obeyed the Law. The
commandments, 'Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do
not steal; do not covet' - all these, and any others besides, are
summed up in the one command, 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' Whoever loves his neighbor will never do him wrong.
To love, then, is to obey the whole law."
It is this law of love to which John refers when he says,
"Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law; for sin is a
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
30
breaking of the law" (I John 3 :4). The Bible defines this kind of
love in negative terms by the Ten Commandments and by lists of
sins (Exodus 20:1-17, Mark 7:21-23, Gal 5:19-21). It defines it
positively by the example ofJesus, and by the fruits of the Spirit
(I Cor 13; Gal 5:22-23).
I believe these defining characteristics are also universals. One
evidence is that there are similar characteristics in the behavioral
ideals of all cultures. Prohibitions against lying, stealing, murder
and adultery are virtually universal, though exactly what
constitutes each can vary from culture to culture. I have seen this
in parts of Papua New Guinea and the Philippines which had not
yet been affected by Christian teaching. Beals describes a similar
set of moral norms in a Hindu village in India (1962:50-52). In
all three cases the ancestral rules were similar to the ten
commandments, but actual behavior fell far short of these ideals.
Such information does not often appear in ethnographies,
however, for it is considered irrelevant to many anthropological
inquiries. Furthermore, some anthropologists are so oriented to
focus on actual behavior that they never explore cultural ideals
and values. For instance, one study on polygamy (polygyny) in
Mexico seemed peculiar to me at first, because the wives usually
lived in different villages and were not known to each other. It
finally became clear to me that that particular culture did not
have polygamy at all. Instead, a high proportion of men were
keeping mistresses. The researcher mistakenly equated the way
people were observed to behave with the underlying value
system of the culture. Apparently, he never asked if the people
approved of their "polygyny" (as any true polygamist would) or
whether they were in fact wracked by guilt about their
unacceptable behavior (Nutini 1965).
Though these universal moral principles seem clear enough,
the actual realization of them is partly determined by each
culture. Exactly what actions manifest kindness, humility, peace,
or self-control (Gal 5:22-23)? An executive in an industrial
country is being patient if he waits for someone ten minutes. A
Bahinemo of Papua New Guinea would think nothing of waiting
two hours. In one village in southern Mindanao, my daughter
and I were given gifts equal to a month's wages, as a
demonstration of their hospitality. In the U.S. the most lavish
hospitality to a stranger seldom adds up to a day's wages.
Even such clear statements as the Ten Commandments have
 31

as it were, fuzzy borders. For instance, is it stealing to pick up a

child's toy from a suburban sidewalk? Yes, in the United States.
No, in Mexico. In ancient Israel one could pick and eat fruit
while passing through another man's orchard, but that would be
recognized by everyone as theft in present day Southern
California. Many Papua New Guineans see my culture's practice
of leaving the care of the elderly to the state as a clear violation of
the fifth commandment. My Bahinemo brethren do not see
taking a second wife as adultery, but it would be for me. It seems
that the essence of each commandment is clear, but the edges are
defined differently by different cultures. God's universal
standard must be realized in different situations by different
behavior.t
What, then, determines whether any particular action is sin?

Biblical Principles Involved

Romans chapter two presents the crucial principle. "Their
[the Gentiles'] conduct shows that what the Law commands is
written in their hearts. Their consciences also show that this is
true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes
defend them. This, according to the Good News I preach, is how
it will be on that day when God, through Jesus Christ, will judge
all the secret thoughts in men's hearts" (Rom 2: 15-16). I
interpret this to mean that every person has an awareness of
what is right, though that awareness is strongly affected by his
culture. In the finaljudgment, God willjudge him on the basis of
his own culturally conditioned conscience.
Jesus said, "Do to others what you want them to do to you"
(Matt 7:12). What is right for each person depends on his own
perception of what constitutes loving behavior.
He also said the extent of each person's sin depends on the
amount of his knowledge. "If you were blind, then you would
not be guilty ..." (john 9 :41). "They would not have been guilty
of sin if I had not come and spoken to them ... " (john 15:22).
"The servant who does not know what his master wants ... will
be punished with a light whipping" (Luke 12:47-48). The
Galilean towns were to receive greater judgment because they
had seen Jesus' miracles without repenting (Matt 11 :20-24;
12:41-42). In other words, God judges according to each one's
own limited understanding.
The reason that this pattern does not result in chaos within the
1. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
32
Christian community is that the Holy Spirit is working in every
believer, enlightening his conscience and teaching him what is
right for him. He reminds the believer of biblical truth and its
specific application to his situation. Though many passages talk
about this important work, just a few will be mentioned here. I
John 2:27 says, "... for the Spirit teaches you about everything,
and what he teaches is true, not false." Romans 8 describes how
obeying the Spirit enables one to deal effectively with his own
sinful nature. For instance, "Those who live as the Spirit tells
them to live ... [will have] life and peace" (8:5-6). Sin therefore
consists of disobeying this internal witness.
Even an unbeliever's inner awareness of what is right for him
may be more demanding than he admits. His inner standard is
brought into play on all sorts of occasions in daily life, and God
will use this standard to judge him (Rom 2: 1-8). This explains
some other words of Jesus. "God ... will apply to you the same
rules you apply to others" (Matt 7:2). Why? Because you are
aware that it is wrong or you wouldn't use it as a standard for
others. "Everyone will have to give an account of every useless
word he has ever spoken. For your words will be used to judge
you, either to declare you innocent or to declare you guilty"
(Matt 12:36-37).
Francis Schaeffer explained this concept in Death in the City
(1968:112-113). He compared it to a tape recorder built into
every person's brain. At the judgment, God will cause this to play
back, contrasting occasions when a man made moral judgments
of other people, with other occasions when he himself did what
he had condemned. Out of our own mouths we shall be
condemned.
This thought helps to clarify the part played by conscience in
bringing conviction. On the one hand, a person can warp his
conscience by continually disregarding it (I Tim 4 :2).
Furthermore, conscience is affected by one's culture. It
therefore cannot be exactly the same as the Holy Spirit's voice,
nor can it be a reliable guide to God's ultimate will for an
individual. On the other hand, it is each person's point of
awareness of right and wrong, and the principal channel
through which the Spirit convicts and enlightens (Prov 20:27).
Knowing this, Jesus appealed to the consciences of the
hypocritical Pharisees. As a result they couldn't bring themselves
to condemn the woman taken in adultery (John 8:7-9). It is the
 33
same way today. Preaching which results in conviction must deal
with the issues which are already bothering the consciences of
one's hearers.

Application to Cross-Cultural Situations

The place of culture in conditioning conscience is seen in I
Corinthians 8, where the man who perceives an idol as alive sins
if he eats sacrificial meat. Paul says that because the idol is
nothing, there is, in fact, nothing wrong with eating such meat.
But only the person who understands this would be free to eat
such meat.
This whole concept is summed up in Romans 14. The Roman
church seems to have been divided over two issues: what could
be eaten and what special days should be observed. Regarding
the first issue, the vegetarians were probably the formerly
idolatrous converts; regarding the second, those who kept
special days were probably the Jewish Christians (who may have
been the "missionaries" in the situation). Apparently it was their
different cultural backgrounds which underlay these
disagreements about behavior.
In his answer, Paul made an important application of the
above principles. It is not the act itselfwhich is important, but the
underlying character of one's relationship to God (Rom 14: 17).
A man must do what he believes pleases God or be condemned
(Rom 14:12,18,22,23). Different people will do different, even
opposite, things to please God (Rom 14:2,3,5,6).
God not only judges each of them differently, but actually
makes each one succeed in pleasing Him (Rom 14:4). Therefore,
we must not be contemptuous of those who feel obliged to follow
rules that seem irrelevant, nor should we feel we are more
spiritual than those who do not live up to our ideals of Christian
behavior (Rom 14: 10). Put another way, each of us is answerable
to God, not to others. Only the Master knows exactly what He
wants each servant to do. We should not judge another person
because God may be leading him to obey in quite a different way.
Nevertheless, we must be careful not to do things which are
wrong for others and will tempt them to follow our example
(Rom 14:13-15,20-21).
These principles do not imply that God is satisfied with any
person's understanding of righteousness. Instead, He is
constantly leading each one into greater love and obedience to
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
34
the Bible. As the Holy Spirit teaches individuals, societies also
are changed toward greater justice, mercy, and moral
uprightness. History shows that reforms in various societies have
repeatedly been instigated by responsive Christians. No existing
cultural system is wholly pleasing to God.
This fact seems particularly graphic when the missionary
encounters the standards of morality in a pagan culture. The
society may be quite concerned about rituals and other kinds of
behavior that seem irrelevant to him. It may say nothing about
humility or cruelty or some other issue which he feels is
important in the Bible. It may treat moral issues as civil or even
personal matters, which do not concern the gods. In such a
society, the present state of the people's consciences can be a
poor reflection of God's ultimate goal for them. As they respond
to God, He will undoubtedly lead them to make changes in their
social order.
Nevertheless, the fact that some things we consider wrong
were not spoken against in the New Testament shows that God
may allow a long time to elapse while converts come to realize the
cultural implications of being Christians. For instance, slavery,
as practiced by the Roman world, was far more cruel and
inhuman than anything missionaries and national Christians
disagree over today. Yet, it was never directly condemned.
People were taught how to live with the system.
The implications for today are clear. I cannot automatically
know how God has been teaching another person. Behavior that
I think natural may violate his conscience; things that violate my
conscience may not be an issue for him. Of course, within the
same culturally homogeneous unit there will be large areas of
agreement between individuals. Therefore, I have an obligation
to share my own convictions with others, for they may be right
for them too. However, in another culture the differences
between their convictions and mine will be much greater. I
should speak out about the principles, or better yet, encourage
them to read what the Bible says about a topic. But I shouldn't
make specific applications because I don't know what God has
already been teaching people from that culture. For example,
smoking a pipe is wrong for me, but right for many European
brothers. Is it right for, say, a Canadian Christian from another
denomination? I cannot answer for him.
 35
Insights from Behavioral Science
Behavioral science can help us understand the way sin is
expressed in different cultures. Most anthropologists have come
to accept Kenneth Pike's view that the individuals in a particular
culture share an inbuilt system, a common viewpoint, which
molds their perception of reality. There is absolutely no way they
can escape it, except to learn a new culture. He described this
effect in detail (Pike 1954), calling it the "ernie" (culturally
conditioned insider's) viewpoint, as contrasted with the "etic"
(objective outsider's) viewpoint. Everyone, missionary and
national alike, perceives reality only as conditioned by his
culture. The clearest brief presentation of this idea appeared in
Bibliotheca Sacra (1957). Within a single subculture, one person
can guess how another is perceiving a moral issue because they
are both operating within the same mental and ethical system.
However, a missionary working in a foreign culture cannot so
easily know what is right for his hosts.
In the context of each specific culture then, we can speak of
"ernie love" and "ernie sin". Ernie love is behavior understood as
love in that culture. Emic sin is behavior which falls short of
cultural ideals.
Psychologists are now beginning to recognize that guilt is a
psychological reality in every person. Mowrer, the pioneer in
this "new" approach to mental health, argues that many
psychological problems simply cannot be resolved until guilt is
admitted and adequately dealt with (1961).
Psychiatrist Karl Menninger says, "But in most human beings
a sense of guilt is aroused by the awareness of participation in
events regarded as forbidden, disapproved, incompatible with the
accepted ideals, whether or not the designation 'sin' is involved.
Guilt feelings give rise to a need for self-justification in further
attack, or for atonement by means of punishment (moral,
physical, verbal, painful, or merely symbolic)" (1973:181-182
[italics mine)).
There is an apparent conflict between Menninger's view and
the distinction made by many anthropologists between shame
cultures and guilt cultures (Loewen 1970:82). The
anthropological distinction is not intended so much to deny the
existence of guilt as to emphasize the importance of social
disapproval as an effective sanction in some cultures. Those
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
36
people from shame cultures whom I have known well show an
awareness of guilt just as Menninger describes it. The
mechanisms for self-justification and self-punishment occur in
some measure regardless of whether there is social disapproval.
But in their world-view a wrong action does its primary harm
when it disrupts the social order, and this does not happen until
they are found out. Therefore, the guilt is greatly magnified
when others learn about the misdeeds; such feelings of guilt are
indistinguishable from feelings of shame.
In a guilt culture, harm from the wrong action is believed to
come inevitably, regardless of whether one's peers are aware of
it. The most common ideology is that some supernatural being
sees and punishes the wrongdoer. This is the prevailing view in
the great religions of the world, including Christianity. A second
way in which a misdeed inevitably causes harm is when
something one values is hurt by the deed itself, as when
negligence causes an accident. This sense of having hurt
someone or something causes increased guilt, even when others
are not aware of the wrongdoing.
Norbeck has pointed out that in all cultures there are a variety
of sanctions for behavior, with different combinations of
sanctions against each kind of wrongdoing (1961:185-187).
These differences, as well as differences in the ways that
wrongdoing is perceived to cause harm, determine whether the
focus in a particular culture will be on guilt or on "shame" as a
deterrent to wrongdoing. However, in both shame and guilt
cultures, people are aware of wrongdoing (though they may not
call it sin) and they try to justify themselves and/or to find some
sort of atonement.
In summary, the evidence of modern anthropology and
psychology agrees with the explanation given in the New
Testament. All people have an inner awareness of right and
wrong which has been conditioned by their cultures but still
reflects God's truth. It is their battlefield for obedience to the
universal law of love, and it is the ground on which God will
judge them on "That Day." AsJames puts it, "So then, the man
who does not do the good he knows he should do is guilty of sin"
Games 4: 17).
Effects of Ignoring Cultural Differences
We are now in a better position to see what went wrong with
 37
Joe Missionary. By trying to hold to a universal standard for sin,
and under the pressure of culture stress, Joe has come to
understand sin in quite a different way than his hearers do. He
finds it hard to believe that God is not even speaking to those
people about behavior which would for him be clearly sinful.
Without disciplined application of the above principles, the only
thing he knows is to preach about "sins" for which they do not
feel convicted, and which in fact may not be sin at all for them. At
the same time he ignores other sins which are real problems for
them. In effectJoe unintentionally takes on the role of the Holy
Spirit, instead of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in His work.
In spite of all this, converts are won with such preaching. But
they still face some difficult problems. For one thing, they may
have a very long struggle learning what God wants for them,
since the things they hear from the missionary do not match the
things they hear through their consciences. One result may be a
slavish obedience to everything the missionary suggests or does,
including brushing one's teeth and putting flowers on the
dinner table. This inability to function independently greatly
delays the development of an indigenous church.
Eventually, if the converts are taught the whole range of
Scripture, or if they have the Bible for themselves, they may
come to see how different is the teaching they have been given
from their own sense of what is right. The result is a break away,
independent church. Barrett (1968) found that among the more
than 6000 independent churches in Africa, a common reason
given for separation was: The missionaries were living
inconsistent lives. In terms of Romans 14, the Africans were
tired of trying to live by someone else's conscience.
One group of New Guinea highlanders responded to the
mission teaching and were baptized. For several years they
tithed, attended church, and followed the mission's "Christian"
behavior. Then one day the leaders told the missionary, "We
ought to have done enough by now to repay Jesus for his death"
(Irwin 1972). They thereupon reverted to paganism. Or did
they? Had they ever known real conviction of sin and
forgiveness? Or had they only heard about the things that would
have been sinful to the missionary if he were living there?
Cooperating with Conscience
A policy aimed at utilizing the doctrine of sin presented here
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
38
requires the missionary to begin as a learner. He must take the
time and trouble necessary to learn the values and rules of the
culture and categorize them in one of the following three classes:
a. Areas in which the Holy Spirit is already convicting.
b. Things in the culture which are not points of conviction,
though in conflict with the Bible.
c. Aspects of the culture which are quite compatible with the
Christian faith, though possibly galling to the missionary.
Such categorization requires care. One is after value systems and
meanings. It is important to get beneath the surface.
Anthropology has much to teach regarding the techniques for
learning these things. One valuable suggestion which I have not
seen in print came from Kenneth Pike (personal
correspondence). He suggested that a missionary should study
the ethical reactions of a people. Human beings are so
self-defensive that they seldom admit their standards when their
own behavior is in focus. As Jesus implied, their true perceptions
can be seen in their judgments of others.
The missionary should systematically note when and why
people feel offended, unfairly treated, or exploited. What
makes them seek revenge? What do they think is fair? What sorts
of offenses do they think cause illness or crop failure? From such
clues he can learn the ethical system and thus better understand
the consciences of those he is trying to reach.
Even after doing all that, his answers are still only first
approximations. The real answers will eventually be hammered
out by his converts, as they work out their own salvation "with
fear and trembling" (Phil 2: 12).
In conclusion, to follow through on this approach, one must
carry out the following steps:
1. Learn the ethical system of your potential hearers.
2. Compare your findings with your own culture and with the
Bible. Become sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of yours
and theirs. This helps overcome blind spots and ethnocentrism.
3. Learn to live a loving life by their cultural standards (emic
love) as a witness to them without going against your own
conscience (II Cor 4:2). For each decision you make, remember
which cultural framework you are thinking in: your own culture,
their culture, or the New Testament culture. Make decisions
within the appropriate cultural framework.
 39
4. Preach repentance for areas in which the Holy Spirit is
already convicting (emic sins). Begin to teach with patience
about God's concern and standards for actions which, though
cultural, are in conflict with the Bible. Pray that you will be able
to accept those aspects of the culture which, though galling, are
compatible with the Christian faith.
5. Expect the Holy Spirit to be working, too. Keep getting
feedback to find out how He is working, and also as a check on
whether you are really communicating. Learn to trust the
insights of new converts.
6. Teach the converts to obey and rely on the Holy Spirit.
Teach them how to keep their consciences clear so the Holy
Spirit can use their consciences to teach them new truths. Expose
them to the Bible, notjust the "pre-digested" form of your lesson
plans. Teach them to take from it the principles they need for
wise and truly Christian answers.
This approach really works. We have seen its effectiveness in
building strong vital Christians for whom Jesus is really Lord.

An Example
I close with an illustration from the small Bahinemo village
where I am translating the Bible. Back before they had had
Christian teaching, I tried to translate Jesus' list of sins in Mark 7.
As each sin was described, they gave me the local term for it.
They named other sins in their culture.
"What did your ancestors tell you about these things?" I asked
them.
"Oh, they told us we shouldn't do any of those things."
"Do you think these were good standards that your ancestors
gave you?" They agreed unanimously that they were.
"Well, do you keep all these rules?"
"No," they responded sheepishly.
One leader said, "Definitely not. Who could ever keep them
all? We're people of the ground."
I took this opportunity to explain that God expected them to
keep their own standards for what is right, that He was angry
because they hadn't. Then I pointed out that it was because they
fell short of their own standards that God sent His Son to bear
their punishment so they could be reunited with Him.
This was a crucial step toward their conversion. For the first
T. WAYNE DYE
Toward a Cross-Cultural Definition of Sin
40
time the Scriptures were linked to what God was telling them
through their consciences. Within a year most of the people in
that village had committed themselves to Christ.
Since that day in 1967, they have never lost the awareness that
in the Bible God is concerned about their daily behavior and not
just talking about strange taboos. Since then, they have changed
their source of authority from inherited tradition to the
Scriptures, and they have been learning how Christ through His
Spirit can come inside them and give them the power to attain
the standards they could not keep before. All this has led them
into a vital relationship with God and produced a strong
indigenous church.
Notes
1. New Testament quotations are from GoodNews Fur Modem Man. Italics within these
quotations always reflects the emphasis of the present author.
2. While every discussion of sin and conscience must deal with a variety of situations,
this view must not be confused with "situation ethics" which is profoundly different.
Situation ethics encourages individuals to foIlow their own reasoning and interpretation
of love in each specific situation even when they are aware that these differ from the
Bible. The popular view of this "new morality" largely ignores the Bible as a guide for
present conduct, though Fletcher's original formulation suggests using the
commandments as guidelines (1966). Situation ethics also ignores the necessity for love
and obedience to God, the reality of sin and guilt, and the importance of doing what one
perceives to be right in order to grow in understanding of what is right. The proposals in
this article, however, are solidly based on the Bible and include all of these factors which
these situationists disregard.
3. [We assume the author means the culture(s) within which the events recorded in the
New Testament occured. Most ethnotheologians avoid as potentially distortive terms
such as biblical culture or Christian culture. Ed.]

References Cited
Barrett, David
1968 Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis ofSix Thousand Contempurary Religious
Movements Nairobi: Oxford University Press
Beals, Alan R.
1962 Gopalpur, a South Indian Village New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston
Dye, Sally F.
1974 "Decreasing Fatigue and Illness in Field Work" Missiology, An International
Review 11:79-109
Fletcher, Joseph
1966 Situation Ethics Philadelphia: The Westminster Press
Grounds, Vernon
1967a "The New Morality: What's Right With the New View of Wrong?" His May
1967b "The New Morality: What's Wrong With the New View of Right?" pan I,His
October
I967c "The New Morality: What's Wrong With the New View of Right?" part 2,His
November
 41
Irwin, Barry
1972 "The Liability Complex Among the Chimbu Peoples of New Guinea" Practical
Anthropology 19:280-285
Loewen, Jacob A.
1970 "The Social Context of Guilt and Forgiveness" Practical Anthropology 17 :80-96
Menninger, Karl
1973 Whatever Became of Sin? New York: Hawthorne Books
Mowrer, O. Hobart
1961 The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co.
Norbeck, Edward
1961 Religion in Primitive Society New York: Harper and Row
Nutini, Hugo C.
1965 "Polygyny in a Tlaxcalan Community" Ethnology 4:123-147
Pike, Kenneth L.
1954 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior
Glendale: Summer Institute of Linguistics
1957 "A Stereoscopic Window on the World" Bibliotheca Socm 114:141-156
Schaeffer, Francis
1969 Death in the City Chicago: Inter Varsity Press