PowerPoint Presentation

Cognitive thought styles - 2Isolate Some forms of asceticism Hierarchist Roman CatholicismIndividualist Protestantism Enclavist New Testament Era Christianity Increasing limits on personal freedom //Increasing solidarityChristianity2Isolate Marginalized persons Hierarchist HB and most receptor language cultures andsome national cultures Individualist Most translation consultants and some national cultures Enclavist NT and some receptor language cultures Increasing limits on personal freedom //Increasing solidarity Bible Translation3 Cultures and sub-cultures will have certain tendencies, as will texts and even textual corpora (see biblical examples below). The key point is that these styles offer differing and to a great degree mutually exclusive ways of framing what are usually thought of as specific and personal values in specific situations.And the availability of these cognitive styles to the individual is based on the underlying negotiation of the self as independent agent, alienated individual, dutiful hierarchist or committed communitarian.

Faith/fulness (/, )Isolate Blind faith?Hierarchist Commitment/loyalty (faithfulness)Individualist Belief/confidence/convictionEnclavist Trust/hopeIncreasing limits on personal freedom //Increasing solidarityIsolate Existential good faith (true to self)Hierarchist Mutual obligations Individualist Personal virtue / rights Enclavist Universal love Increasing limits on personal freedom //Increasing solidarityRighteousness (/ )8Salvation ( / )Isolate Personal/apocalypticHierarchist Communal/physicalIndividualist Personal/spiritualEnclavist Communal/spiritualIncreasing limits on personal freedom //Increasing solidarityA network of ideas of loyalty, obligation, and physical salvation of the community within the hierarchist culture of mutual obligation represented at points in the Hebrew Bible were first transformed in an enclavist culture represented in the NT into concepts of trust, love, and spiritual salvation of the community. 10And these subsequently have been largely distilled out within modern individualist cultures as ideas of conviction, virtue and personal salvation. 11 Elements Frames IndividualAuthority figureDeliberative actionDeterminationExpected ResultAction toward individualReturn to balanceComplementary frames for sin in the BibleMoral-Legal(John 3.16)DefendantJudge-GodJudgmentGuiltPunishment (Hell)Payment of debt-salvationLegal-Moral system satisfiedMedical (Mat 9.12)PatientDoctor-JesusDiagnosisSicknessDeathTreatment-salvationRestoration to wholeness/healthAnimal Husbandry (Mat 18.10-14)SheepShepherd-JesusCaretakingLostDeathSearch & RescueReturn to foldJourney(Mat 7.13-14)TravelerGuide-JesusGuidingLostDeath (destruction)Show wayFind home (life)Who is judged/treated in BibleInsidersOutsidersOutsidersEveryoneWho is judged/treated nowOutsiders InsidersInsidersInsidersWhat We Believe-In the bodily resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the eternal blessedness of the saved, and the eternal punishment of the lost;Our DoctrinalStatement-The eternal life of the saved and the eternal punishment of thelostMixing frames (legal/moral and lost sheep):Depending on how one has negotiated ones self within ones own cultural setting, different metaphor structures above will be more or less salient. The individualist will probably prefer the moral-legal frame, since it emphasizes personal responsibility. The enclavist/communitarian might prefer the medical model, since it emphasizes care.The hierarchist will likely prefer the lost sheep schema, since it emphasizes dependency and hierarchy.And possibly the isolate will be drawn to the metaphor of the lost traveler, since it seems to speak to the situation of the marginalized.People in different cultures learn through embodied actions what sorts of selves they are expected to present to the world. These identities tend to fall into a fairly limited number of categories (particularly for specific communicative purposes), such as individualist, hierarchist, or communitarian.Individuals negotiate their relationships with others and the world based on these ideas about their own selfhood. Much of the time the negotiations can be taken for granted (if enough cultural background is shared). But cross-culturally negotiations often break down, and people end up considering one another impolite at best and morally questionable at worst.