The idea of reciprocity in identification was originally conceived during the author's first term of missionary experience in Colombia but it was actually born experientially during the 1959 summer literacy testing program at the home of F. Glenn Prunty at Jaque, Panama. A number of the associated ideas advanced in this paper have grown out of the visit of the Choco Indian, Aurialiano Sabugara, to the United States[i] and the return visits by missionaries on the invitation of the believers in Panama. This Choco experience has highlighted at least three definite areas on which such reciprocity should manifest itself:

• the exchangeability of the participants' material facilities, 
• a willingness on the part of both to know and to be known,
•  and reciprocal recognition of and respect for individual worth and status.

The varied facets of the problem of identification have led many concerned missionaries to ask themselves and others, ‘What is a realistic goal in the matter of identification? For what should I strive?’

I have tried to wrestle with these and other questions in my own experience and now want to propose that reciprocity can be a realistic and practicably attainable goal in any missionary-national identification.

It has been adequately demonstrated by missionaries of Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths that "going native", the attempt of absolute identification in standard of living by no means guarantees inner identification. In fact, this kind of false identification may indeed close the doors for a reciprocal relationship with nationals who "misunderstand" — or who may actually understand too well — such behavior on the part of the foreigner. Nina effectively verbalizes the nationals' suspicion of missionaries going native. "If these Europeans know how to live better than we do, why don't they? We would if we could."[ii].

On the other hand, remaining aloof from what the nationals eat, have, or do is equally objectionable.

While visiting Latin America, I had the occasion to converse with a missionary about the question of whether or not a foreign missionary should accept the only bed in a national home when circumstances forced him to stay with a national family. This person felt that the missionary should be humble enough and polite enough not to usurp such sleeping facilities and use alone a bed which would normally sleep all the family. As we continued our conversation, probing within ourselves in order to separate real reasons from rationalizations, it was interesting to observe how on further introspection we became convinced that the real reason was quite different from the one proposed. This professed politeness was really only rationalization. A more basic reason was that he did not really want to become that intimate with the nationals. By being polite when he was in their homes, he was trying to convince them that they ought to be polite and not expect to use his guest bedroom when they came to visit the mission residence.

All too ofte we have said there is feeling against the missionary because he lives in too nice a house. Actually T. Stanley Soltau comes much closer to reality, in my opinion, when he says that it is not nearly as important what kind of a building or property one has, but it is how one uses these facilities that is decisive.[iii]

This idea is also documented rather effectively in the letter from Jane and Wendell Sprague who report how an African leader speaking to the missionaries said that their so-calledwealth — nice homes, clothes, appliances, etc. — was no real problem to the Africans as long as the missionary's heart was right.[iv] 

And when the missionary's heart is right, staying in the guest bedroom of the missionary residence could be a very ego-building experience for a national who had often wondered about what it might feel like to sleep in a soft bed. The important point, in my estimation, is that the national's home, whatever it be, and the guest room in the missionary residence, however good or modest it be, should become exchangeable. 

This matter of exchangeability of facilities has become a rather interesting outgrowth of the exchange visits by Aurelian Sabugara, the Choco Indian, and the American short-term missionaries. This reciprocity began to develop during the summer of 1959 when the missionaries, David Wirsche and Jacob Loewen, were testing the Epera literacy materials at Jaque. Both missionaries came to the home of F. Glenn Prunty. In order to give the missionaries more control over the working day it was decided that at least noon meal should be eaten together. Thus every noon the missionary teachers and the literacy students shared in a fellowship meal, which consisted of both missionary and national food. While the lunch was being prepared after the morning classes, both missionaries and nationals would go out into the ocean where the Indians tried to teach the foreigners how to ride the surf. At first the missionaries were very clumsy at this, and it was a source of great amusement for the Indians to see how the missionaries were swamped by the waves again and again. But gradually as they gained some efficiency, the nationals actually stood by and cheered, happy that they had been able to teach something to these foreign teachers. At the end of the school day the missionaries and the Indians again took off an hour to play volleyball, a new experience for the Indians; and it took quite some time for them to get acquainted with the sport and to learn to appreciate playing it. The rules had to be modified somewhat to get them to participate, but gradually they learned to play a very respectable game of volleyball.[v]

It was in this setting of cooperative playing that Aureliano, during a rest period, inquired about the cost of the missionary’s trip to Panama. When he learned about the amount, he asked, "Does it cost the same amount for a person from Panama to go to your country?" The affirmative answer elicited the following comment from him,  "Well, since I have given God the hand and am walking on God's road and don't drink any more the way I used to, I can save enough money from my banana cuttings to come and visit you in the United States." And this is just what he did.[vi]

To read the remainder of the article in English, beginning with this section, click here on the title and scroll down to page 29: Reciprocity in Identification.