[       ]: Hey!

Ingie: What?

[       ]: Hey!

Ingie: Who's that?

[       ]: It's me – a thing!

Ingie: Oh, sorry. I didn’t notice you there, thing.

Thing: You anthropologists of Christianity usually don’t.

Ingie: Now wait, that’s not fair. Several prominent anthropologists of Christianity write about things. Webb Keane instantly comes to mind, for instance.

Thing: Oh, Webb Keane. You know what Webb Keane loves?

Ingie: Things?

Thing: Words and selves.

Ingie: And things.

Thing: As conceptualized by words and selves.

Ingie: Well, how else would he write about you, thing?

[Pause]

Ingie: Oh come now. I’m sorry. I see you feel a little snubbed in general. Look, I’ll study you for a moment. What kind of thing are you?

Thing: I am a handmade bandage.

I have often thought theologically about Christianity, imagining it as something like a pyramid: some Christianities are closer to the Christian promises, as I interpret them (or as I would like them to be), than others. When I was doing doctoral work in anthropology I also tried out an anthropological model, imagining Christianity as bundles: each Christian community or tradition carries a bundle of attributes, and though many of these attributes reoccur, there is no single attribute that can be found across all the bundles. But this month I read the article “Virtual Christianity in an age of nominalist anthropology” by Jon Bialecki (Anthropological Theory, 2012), and it has introduced me to thinking of Christianity as a virtual idea: a generative field of old, new, and unknown problems. 

But – some of you may ask – why do we need an analytical tool to tell us what Christianity is? Isn’t it rather obvious? Broadly speaking it seems to be a world religion in which members believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and go to church and read the Bible and pray. Give or take some variations.
 

After reading Brian Howell’s “The repugnant cultural other speaks back: Christian identity as ethnographic standpoint” (Anthropological Theory 2007), I am more convinced than before that there are some advantages when Christian anthropologists make conscious use of their own Christianity when studying other Christians. (Or, for that matter, when atheist/Buddhist/uncertain/etc anthropologists who are studying Christianity make conscious use of their own atheism/Buddhism/uncertainty/what have you.) Howell argues, in short, that if an anthropologist of Christianity identifies as a Christian, this should not be regarded as problematic, but rather as a potentially fruitful “ethnographic standpoint.”

First: What a Christian ethnographic standpoint is, and is not

These are the points that crystallized for me on the idea of a Christian ethnographic standpoint:

In 2008-09 I kept a semi-regular blog with reading notes on anthropology, the study of Christianity, gender, academic writing, fiction, and more. It can be found at www.ingiehovland.blogspot.com. 

Here are links to some of the posts:

On Christianity (some anthropology, some fiction)

Toward an anthropology of Christianity

When rituals don't "make meaning" ("The Limits of Meaning", Matthew Engelke and Matt Tomlinson)

The Christians who don't read the Bible (Matthew Engelke's "A Problem of Presence")

Father David (Andrew O'Hagan's "Be Near Me")

Room for life, stifling life (Marilynne Robinson's "Gilead" and Andrew O'Hagan's "Be Near Me")