Since the turn of the twenty-first century, there has been a remarkable surge of interest among both policy makers and academics on religion and its engagements with development. Within this context, ‘religious non-governmental organizations (RNGOs)’ or ‘faith-based organizations’ (FBOs) have garnered considerable attention. Early attempts to understand FBOs often took the form of typological mapping exercises, the cumulative effect of which has been the construction of a field of ‘RNGOs’ that can be analysed as distinct from—and possibly put into the service of—the work of purportedly secular development actors. However, such typologies imply problematic distinctions between over-determined imaginations of separate spheres of ‘religion’ and ‘development’. In this article, we innovatively extend the potential of ethnographic approaches highlighting aspects of ‘brokerage’ and ‘translation’ to FBOs and identify new, productive tensions of convergent analysis. These, we argue, provide original possibilities of comparison and meta-analysis to explore contemporary entanglements of religion and development. This article was written as part of a broader research project on Religion and NGOs in Asia. We are grateful to the Henry R. Luce Initiative on Religion in International Affairs at the Henry Luce Foundation for their generous support of this research. We would also like to thank Philip Fountain and other members of the National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute for stimulating conversations that have informed our thinking in this article, and the anonymous reviewers for PIDS who have helped us to improve on earlier drafts.

中文翻译：

---

翻译宗教与发展：来自基于信仰的组织的批判民族志的新兴观点

自 21 世纪之交以来，政策制定者和学者对宗教及其与发展的关系产生了显着的兴趣。在此背景下，“宗教非政府组织 (RNGO)”或“基于信仰的组织”(FBO) 获得了相当多的关注。早期理解 FBO 的尝试通常采用类型学映射练习的形式，其累积效应是构建了一个“RNGO”领域，该领域可以被分析为与据称的工作不同，并可能为其服务。长期发展行动者。然而，这种类型学意味着对“宗教”和“发展”的不同领域的过度确定的想象之间存在问题的区分。在本文中，我们创新地扩展了民族志方法的潜力，突出了“经纪”和“翻译”方面的 FBO，并确定了融合分析的新的、富有成效的张力。我们认为，这些为探索宗教与发展的当代纠葛提供了原始的比较和元分析可能性。这篇文章是作为关于亚洲宗教和非政府组织的更广泛研究项目的一部分而撰写的。我们感谢亨利·卢斯基金会国际事务中的亨利·卢斯宗教倡议对这项研究的慷慨支持。我们还要感谢 Philip Fountain 和新加坡国立大学亚洲研究所的其他成员，他们激发了我们在本文中的想法的对话，