"Randy Richards and Brandon O'Brien have written a useful and enjoyablebook, which makes excellent use of good stories to illustrate the points theymake. The reader will leave the book with plenty of challenging questions to

ask about approaches to Scripture. Interesting, thoughtful and user-friendly."

Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and codirector for theprogram on historical studies of religion, Institute for Studies of Religion,Baylor University, and author of The Next Christendom

"Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes is an important book that comesalong at a critical moment in global evangelical history. Helpful examplesreveal our cultural tendencies and biases that could hinder a deeper reading ofScripture. The authors help us to recognize our blind spots and offer insightthat honors the intention of Scripture to be read in the context of community.I am grateful to the authors for their effort to be self-reflective and engage ina critical examination of our engagement with Scripture from within Westernculture."

Soong-Chan Rah, Milton B. Engebretson Associate Professor of ChurchGrowth and Evangelism, North Park Theological Seminary, and author ofThe Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western CulturalCaptivity

"Richards and O'Brien open our eyes to the crosscultural nature of the Bible.Their book is a helpful resource in understanding Scripture on its own terms,without imposing our assumptions on the biblical authors and their firstreaders."

Lindsay Olesberg, author of The Bible Study Handbook, and senior associatefor Scripture engagement, Lausanne Movement

"This is a revolutionary book for evangelical Bible-believers. If its readersend the book motivated to ask the questions it invites and even inspired toidentify other possible misreadings because of Western cultural blinders thathave not been discussed, they will be more ready to live out the kind ofbiblically faithful, Christ-honoring and God-fearing lives that they desire to

and that the world needs."

Amos Yong, J. Rodman Williams Professor of Theology, Regent UniversitySchool of Divinity, Virginia

"The authors of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes make a convincingcase that those who trust in the Bible should (for biblical reasons) be moreself-conscious about themselves. Their demonstration of how unself-conscious mores influence the understanding of Scripture is as helpful as themany insights they draw from Scripture itself. This is a good book for betterunderstanding ourselves, the Christian world as it now exists and the Bible."

Mark A. Noll, Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History, University ofNotre Dame, coauthor, Clouds of Witnesses: Christian Voices from Africaand Asia

"A fascinating guide for any serious Bible reader! Misreading Scripture withWestern Eyes reveals the `habits of the mind' that might blind us to theBible's intended message. Richards and O'Brien unpack the intricacies andnuances of cultural communication to help people better understand theBible. To help you know-and live-the Christian life more faithfully."

Nikki Toyama-Szeto, Urbana program director, coauthor of Partnering withthe Global Church

REMOVING CULTURAL BLINDERS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE

BIBLE

E. RANDOLPH RICHARDS AND BRANDON J. O'BRIEN

Josh Richards Jacob Richards and James David O'Brien

Introduction: Coming to Terms with Our Cultural Blinders . . . . 9

PART ONE: Above the Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Serving Two Masters: Mores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2. The Bible in Color: Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3. Just Words? Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

PART TWO: Just Below the Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4. Captain of My Soul: Individualism and Collectivism . . . . . . 95

5. Have You No Shame? Honor/Shame and Right/Wrong . . . . . 113

6. Sand Through the Hourglass: Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

PART THREE: Deep Below the Surface . . . . . . . . . . . 153

7. First Things First: Rules and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . 157

8. Getting Right Wrong: Virtue and Vice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

9. It's All About Me: Finding the Center of God's Will . . . . . . . 192

Conclusion: Three Easy Steps for Removing Our Cultural Blinders? 211

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Resources for Further Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Coming to Terms with Our Cultural Blinders

On a warm, clear afternoon in the summer of 2002, we stood among the fewvisible stones that remain of the ancient city of Laodicea. Randy was theprofessor and Brandon a student in a class earning biblical studies credit bywalking for several weeks "In the Footsteps of Paul" through Turkey andGreece. While we were in the neighborhood, we also visited the cities thatwere home to the seven churches in the Revelation of John. Laodicea wasone of these. Of that now-ruined city, the risen Lord had said, "I know yourdeeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or theother! So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spityou out of my mouth" (Rev 3:15-16).

I (Brandon) heard plenty of sermons on this short passage growing up. Myreligious leaders generally interpreted the words hot, cold and lukewarm asdesignations of spiritual commitment. Eugene Peterson calls this the"Laodicean spectrum of spirituality."' This interpretation suggests that Jesuswants us to be hot with spiritual zeal but that unfortunately many of us, likethe Laodiceans, are lukewarm. We believe in Jesus, but we fail to take ourfaith seriously enough. This will not do, since Jesus would prefer that wewere altogether cold-lost-than lukewarm in the faith. I never understood whythis was the case, but since the meaning of the text seemed plain, I strove tokeep the gospel fires burning.

In the summer of 2002, however, standing there among thethenunexcavated ruins of Laodicea, another interpretation of that famous

passage presented itself. Several miles northwest of Laodicea, perched atop asmall mountain, is a city called Hierapolis. At the base of Hierapolis is anextraordinary geological formation produced by the natural hot springs thatsurface around the city. Even today, the city is known for its steamingmineral baths. Over the centuries, the subterranean springs have created asnow-white calcium deposit known in Turkish as Pamukkale, or "cottoncastle," that cascades down the slopes like ice. From our vantage point inLaodicea, Hierapolis gleamed white like a freshly powdered ski slope.

About the same distance from Laodicea in the opposite direction isColossae. The city was not yet excavated in 2002, so we couldn't see it; but itis almost certain that in the first century, you could have seen Colossae fromLaodicea. Paul's colleague Epaphras worked in Colossae, as well as inLaodicea and Hierapolis (Col 4:13). It was a less notable city than Laodicea,but it had one thing Laodicea didn't: a cold, freshwater spring. In fact, it waswater-or the lack thereof-that set Laodicea apart. Unlike its neighbors,Laodicea had no springs at all. It had to import its water via aqueduct fromelsewhere: hot mineral water from Hierapolis or fresh cold water fromColossae. The trouble was, by the time the water from either city made it toLaodicea, it had lost the qualities that made it remarkable. The hot water wasno longer hot; the cold water was no longer cold. The Laodiceans were leftwith all the lukewarm water they could drink. Surely they wished their waterwas one or the other-either hot or cold. There isn't much use for lukewarmwater.

I suspect that the meaning of the Lord's warning was clear to theLaodiceans. He wished his people were hot (like the salubrious waters ofHierapolis) or cold (like the refreshing waters of Colossae). Instead, theirdiscipleship was unremarkable.

The point of this story is that where we stand influences how we read-andultimately apply-the Bible. In the revivalist traditions of North American

Christianity, the text reads as a warning against nominal Christiancommitment. Eugene Peterson explains what this interpretation demanded ofthe religious leaders of his youth (and mine): "High on every pastor's agendawas keeping people `on fire' for Jesus. Worship in general and the sermon inparticular were bellows for blowing the smoldering embers into a blaze.."'"Hot" (committed) was best, but "cold" (lost) was preferable to "lukewarm"(nominal), because it was honest! From the marble streets of Laodicea, hotand cold are equally acceptable. In both places and times, the meaning mayseem plain, even though the interpretations are plainly different. In whateverplace and whatever age people read the Bible, we instinctively draw from ourown cultural context to make sense of what we're reading.

THE FOREIGN LAND OF SCRIPTURE

Christians always and everywhere have believed that the Bible is the Word ofGod. God spoke in the past, "through the prophets at many times and invarious ways," and most clearly by his Son (Heb 1:1). By the Holy Spirit,God continues to speak to his people through the Scriptures. It is importantthat Christ's church retain this conviction, even as it poses certain challengesfor interpretation. We can easily forget that Scripture is a foreign land andthat reading the Bible is a crosscultural experience. To open the Word of Godis to step into a strange world where things are very unlike our own. Most ofus don't speak the languages. We don't know the geography or the customs orwhat behaviors are considered rude or polite. And yet we hardly notice. Formany of us, the Bible is more familiar than any other book. We may haveparts of it memorized. And because we believe that the Bible is God's Wordto us, no matter where on the planet or when in history we read it, we tend toread Scripture in our own when and where, in a way that makes sense on ourterms. We believe the Bible has something to say to us today. We read thewords, "you are … neither hot nor cold" to mean what they mean to us: thatyou are neither spiritually hot or spiritually cold. As we will see, it is a bettermethod to speak of what the passage meant to the original hearers, and then

to ask how that applies to us. Another way to say this is that all Bible readingis necessarily contextual. There is no purely objective biblical interpretation.This is not postmodern relativism. We believe truth is truth. But there's noway around the fact that our cultural and historical contexts supply us withhabits of mind that lead us to read the Bible differently than Christians inother cultural and historical contexts.

One of our goals in this book is to remind (or convince!) you of thecrosscultural nature of biblical interpretation. We will do that by helping youbecome more aware of cultural differences that separate us from the foreignland of Scripture.' You are probably familiar with the language of worldview.Many people talk about the differences between a Christian and a secularworldview. The matter is actually more complicated than that. Worldview,which includes cultural values and other things we assume are true, can bevisualized as an iceberg. The majority of our worldview, like the majority ofan iceberg, is below the water line. The part we notice-what we wear, eat, sayand consciously believe-is really only the visible tip. The majority of thesepowerful, shaping influences lurks below the surface, out of plain sight. Moresignificantly, the massive underwater section is the part that sinks ships!

Another way to say this is that the most powerful cultural values are thosethat go without being said. It is very hard to know what goes without beingsaid in another culture. But often we are not even aware of what goes withoutbeing said in our own culture. This is why misunderstanding andmisinterpretation happen. When a passage of Scripture appears to leave out apiece of the puzzle because something went without being said, weinstinctively fill in the gap with a piece from our own culture-usually a piecethat goes without being said. When we miss what went without being said forthem and substitute what goes without being said for us, we are at risk ofmisreading Scripture.

Sound complicated? An example will help. When Paul writes about therole of women in ministry in I Timothy, he argues that a woman is not

allowed "to teach or to assume authority over a man" because "Adam wasformed first, then Eve" (1 Tim 2:12-13). The argument may strike us asstrange, since Paul's point hinges on the implications of being first. But whatdifference does birth order make in an issue such as who is eligible to servein ministry? To answer that question, we instinctively provide a bit ofinformation that goes without being said in our context; we read into Paul'sargument what first means to us. For us, first is better. We express thiscultural value in lots of ways: "No one remembers who finishes second," or"Second place is the first loser" or "If you are not the lead dog, the viewnever changes." We have a strong cultural value that first is preferred, moredeserving and better qualified. What goes without being said for us-and thuswhat we read Paul to be saying-is, "Adam was first, and thus better, thanEve." That is, by virtue of being "formed first," men should be pastorsbecause they are more deserving of the office or better qualified than women.

In Paul's day, however, something quite different went without being said.The law of the primogeniture stated that the firstborn child received a largerinheritance, and with it greater responsibility, than all other children-notbecause he or she was preferred or more deserving or better qualified in anyway, but merely because she or he was firstborn. Esau was the firstborn (untilhe sold his birthright), yet the Bible indicates clearly that Jacob was the moredeserving brother (only a lousy son sells his birthright for a cup of soup). Andthe firstborn is not always the favorite: "Israel loved Joseph more than any ofhis other sons" even though he was the tenth of twelve brothers (Gen 37:3).In other words, Paul's original readers may have understood him as sayingthat men should be pastors not because they are innately better qualified ormore deserving but simply because they are the "firstborn." In this case, weneed to know what we take for granted-as well as what Paul's audience tookfor grantedto keep us from reading "males are more deserving than females"into this passage.

In other situations, what goes without being said for us can lead us to miss

important details in a Bible passage, even when the author is trying to makethem obvious. Mark Allan Powell offers an excellent example of thisphenomenon in "The Forgotten Famine," an exploration of the theme ofpersonal responsibility in what we call the parable of the prodigal son."Powell had twelve students in a seminary class read the story carefully fromLuke's Gospel, close their Bibles and then retell the story as faithfully aspossible to a partner. None of the twelve American seminary studentsmentioned the famine in Luke 15:14, which precipitates the son's eventualreturn. Powell found this omission interesting, so he organized a largerexperiment in which he had one hundred people read the story and retell it, asaccurately as possible, to a partner. Only six of the one hundred participantsmentioned the famine. The group was ethnically, racially, socioeconomicallyand religiously diverse. The "famine-forgetters," as Powell calls them, hadonly one thing in common: they were from the United States.

Later, Powell had the opportunity to try the experiment again, this timeoutside the United States. In St. Petersburg, Russia, he gathered fiftyparticipants to read and retell the prodigal son story. This time anoverwhelming forty-two of the fifty participants mentioned the famine. Why?Just seventy years before, 670,000 people had died of starvation after a NaziGerman siege of the capital city began a three-year famine. Famine was verymuch a part of the history and imagination of the Russian participants inPowell's exercise. Based solely on cultural location, people from Americaand Russia disagreed about what they considered the crucial details of thestory.

Americans tend to treat the mention of the famine as an unnecessary plotdevice. Sure, we think: the famine makes matters worse for the young son.He's already penniless, and now there's no food to buy even if he did havemoney. But he has already committed his sin, so it goes without being saidfor us that the main issue in the story is his wastefulness, not the famine. Thisis evident from our traditional title for the story: the parable of the prodigal

("wasteful") son. We apply the story, then, as a lesson about willful rebellionand repentance. The boy is guilty, morally, of disrespecting his father andsquandering his inheritance. He must now ask for forgiveness.

Christians in other parts of the world understand the story differently.' Incultures more familiar with famine, like Russia, readers consider the boy'sspending less important than the famine. The application of the story has lessto do with willful rebellion and more to do with God's faithfulness to deliverhis people from hopeless situations. The boy's problem is not that he iswasteful but that he is lost.

Our goal in this book is not, first and foremost, to argue whichinterpretation of a biblical story like this one is correct. Our goal is to raisethis question: if our cultural context and assumptions can cause us tooverlook a famine, what else do we fail to notice?

READING THE BIBLE, READING OURSELVES

The core conviction that drives this book is that some of the habits that wereaders from the West (the United States, Canada and Western Europe) bringto the Bible can blind us to interpretations that the original audience andreaders in other cultures see quite naturally. This observation is not originalwith us. Admitting that the presuppositions we carry to the Bible influencethe way we read it is commonplace in both academic and popularconversations about biblical interpretation.' Unfortunately, books on biblicalinterpretation often do not offer readers an opportunity to identify andaddress our cultural blinders. This can leave us with a nagging sense that wemay be reading a passage incorrectly and an attending hopelessness that wedon't know why or how to correct the problem. We hope that MisreadingScripture with Western Eyes will offer a positive corrective by suggestingthat there is a discernible pattern by which Western readers read-and evenmisread-Scripture. Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions and howthey influence our reading of Scripture are important first steps beyond the

paralysis of self-doubt and toward a faithful reading and application of theBible.

In the pages that follow, we talk about nine differences between Westernand non-Western cultures that we should be aware of when we interpret theBible. We use the image of an iceberg as our controlling metaphor. In partone, we discuss cultural issues that are glaring and obvious, plainly visibleabove the surface and therefore least likely to cause seriousmisunderstanding. In part two, we discuss cultural issues that are lessobvious. They reside below the surface but are visible once you know to lookfor them. Because they are less visible, they are more shocking and morelikely to cause misunderstanding. Finally, in part three, we address culturalissues that are not obvious at all. They lurk deep below the surface, oftensubtly hidden behind or beneath other values and assumptions. These are themost difficult to detect and, therefore, the most dangerous for interpretation.

In short, while this is a book about biblical interpretation, our primary goalis to help us learn to read ourselves. At points in this book you may wish thatwe offered more detailed exegesis of a biblical text. But that isn't ourpurpose. Before we can be confident we are reading the Bible accurately, weneed to understand what assumptions and values we project onto the Bible:those things that go without being said and that make us assume that someinterpretations are self-evident and others are impossible. We do not spell outnew, non-Western interpretations for every passage that we discuss. Instead,we are happy to raise questions and leave to you the hard work of drawingconclusions.

Taking stock of the cultural assumptions that affect our interpretation ofScripture is important for several reasons. To begin with, we can no longerpretend that a Western interpretation of the Bible is normative for allChristians everywhere. Christianity is growing at such a rate in SouthAmerica, Africa and Asia that soon the majority of Christians worldwide willbe not be white or Western. In The Next Christendom, Philip Jenkins notes,

"By 2050, only about one-fifth of the world's 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites. Soon, the phrase `a White Christian' may sound like acurious oxymoron, as mildly surprising as `a Swedish Buddhist."' In terms ofsheer numbers, then, non-Western interpretations of Scripture will soon be"typical" and "average." 7

These changes in the global distribution of Christians are also taking placecloser to home. Many sociologists estimate that by 2050, the majority of U.S.citizens will be nonwhite. Demographic changes in the United Statespopulation in general are changing the face of Christianity in the U.S. The"average" American church will look very different twenty years in the futurethan it did twenty years ago. "Contrary to popular opinion," writes Soong-Chan Rah, "the church is not dying in America; it is alive and well, but it isalive and well among the immigrant and ethnic minority communities and notamong the majority white churches in the United States."' We need to beaware of the way our cultural assumptions affect how we read the Bible sowe are prepared to hear what our non-Western brothers and sisters have toteach us about Christian faith and practice.

Moreover, the question about how our cultural and historical contextinfluences our reading of Scripture has practical and pastoral implications. Ifour cultural blind spots keep us from reading the Bible correctly, then theycan also keep us from applying the Bible correctly. If we want to follow Jesusfaithfully and help others do the same, we need to do all we can to allow theScriptures to speak to us on their own terms.

In 1988, 1 (Randy) moved with my wife and two sons (ages two and eightweeks) from Texas to Sulawesi, an island north of Australia and south of thePhilippines. We served as missionaries to a cluster of islands in easternIndonesia until returning in 1996, where I taught at a small Christian collegein Arkansas. While in Indonesia, I taught in a small, indigenous Bible collegeand worked with churches scattered from Borneo to Papua.

One day, I was sitting in a hut with a group of church elders from a remoteisland village off the coast of Borneo. They asked my opinion about a thornychurch issue. A young couple had relocated to their village many years beforebecause they had committed a grievous sin in their home village. For as longas they had resided here, they had lived exemplary lives of godliness and hadattended church faithfully. Now, a decade later, they wanted to join thechurch.

"Should we let them?" asked the obviously troubled elders.

Attempting to avoid the question, I replied, "Well, what grievous sin didthey commit?"

The elders were reluctant to air the village's dirty laundry before a guest,but finally one of them replied, "They married on the run."

In America, we call that eloping.

"That's it?" I blurted out. "What was the sin?"

Quite shocked, they stared at this young (and foolish) missionary andasked, "Have you never read Paul?"

I certainly thought I had. My Ph.D. was in Paul.

They reminded me that Paul told believers to obey their parents (Eph 6:1).They were willing to admit that everyone makes mistakes. We don't alwaysobey. But surely one should obey in what is likely the most importantdecision of his or her life: choosing a spouse.

I suddenly found myself wondering if I had, in fact, ever really read Paul.My "American Paul" clearly did not expect his command to include adultchildren deciding whom to marry. Moreover, it was clear that my reading (ormisreading?) had implications for how I counseled church leaders committed

to faithful and obedient discipleship.

Thus, because we are well aware that all questions of interpretation are, inthe end, questions about application, we will comment throughout the bookon how we understand the implications of our Western (mis)readings for ourpiety, worship and ministry.

There will also be a historical element to our presentation. Culture changesaccording to place, to be sure. But culture also changes across time. Twenty-first-century America, for example, is a very different place than eighteenth-century America was. As a church historian, I (Brandon) am regularly forcedto try to understand the presuppositions-what went without being said-ofChristians of previous eras. This means I am constantly identifying andchallenging my own cultural and historical assumptions. Church history is atwo-thousand-year-long conversation about how the eternal truth of Scriptureapplies in different cultures at different times. Whether we think they had itright or wrong, earlier Christians' interpretations are invaluable for helping usidentify what goes without being said for us. So, when appropriate, we willbring in historical perspectives to round out the discussion. Additionally,since habits have histories, we will try to point out not only what we assumewhen we read the Bible but also why we assume these things.

SOME CAVEATS

This sort of project has its challenges. To begin with, making generalizedstatements about Eastern and Western cultures is ill advised. Unfortunately,we must. But bear in mind that your authors are well aware that a term suchas Eastern, which tries to account for the remarkable cultural, ethnic andsociopolitical diversity of everyone from Mongolia to Morocco or Korea tothe Congo, is almost too broad to be helpful. The term Western is not muchbetter, as there are profound cultural differences between Europeans,Canadians and residents of the United States. Even so, we are limited byspace and language. We like to say that generalizations are always wrong and

usually helpful. We ask you for the benefit of the doubt.

Besides scholarship, we draw on our own crosscultural experiences. Manyof my (Randy's) illustrations come from my time as a missionary inIndonesia. I (Brandon) speak more often of time spent in Europe and ofinsight gleaned from historical study. Anecdotes aren't hard science, but wehope that these stories will help you see that many of the things that wentwithout being said for the Bible's original audience still go without being saidin much of the non-Western world.

Next, we speak as insiders, and this has its own challenges. We speak aswhite, Western males. In fact, we always speak as white, Western males.Everything either of us has ever written has come from the perspective ofmiddle-class, white males with a traditionally Western education. There'sreally nothing we can do about that except be aware of and honest about it.That said, we write as white, Western males who have been chastened to readthe Bible through the eyes of our non-Western sisters and brothers in theLord.

For example, I (Randy) remember grading my first multiplechoice exam inIndonesia. I was surprised by how many students left answers unmarked. So Iasked the first student when handing back exams, "Why didn't you select ananswer on question number three?"

The student looked up and said, "I didn't know the answer."

"You should have at least guessed," I replied.

He looked at me, appalled. "What if I accidentally guessed the correctanswer? I would be implying that I knew the answer when I didn't. Thatwould be lying!"

I opened my mouth to respond, but then realized I was about to argue himto a lower standard! I shut my mouth. My American pragmatism had been

winning out over my Christian standard of honesty. What was worse was thatI hadn't even noticed until a non-Western person pointed it out. What I havefound equally interesting is that my Christian students in the United Statestoday don't enjoy this story-because they still want to guess answers.Nonetheless, the challenges of reading with others' eyes should not deter us.We can learn so much from each other.

Our perspective as writers implies something about our audience. Thegeneralizations we make about Westerners will probably most accuratelydescribe white, American males. This is not because we consider this groupthe most important or even the most representative of a Western worldview.But this is the group that has dominated the conversation about theology andbiblical interpretation for the last few centuries. We're trying to prod peoplelike us-white, Western men-to think differently about the Bible and theChristian life. That's why we talk most often about people like "us." If youare not a white, Western male and the generalizations we make don't apply toyou, we hope that you can benefit from this book nonetheless. Wherever youdisagree with our generalizations, take a moment to consider why. If youthink to yourself, That's not true of me. I don't assume X. I assume Y.. well,then you've begun to identify what goes without being said for you. That'sour goal, and we would consider that a success. It's worth noting here thatbicultural or "third culture" readers likely have a marked advantage in thisprocess; your experience of navigating cultural differences can make youmore aware of differences of which others are rarely conscious.

Similarly, we'll use the words America and American to refer to the UnitedStates and its residents. We don't mean to exclude Canadian readers, but wedon't presume to generalize about Canadian culture. Please feel free to readyourself into our observations about "Americans" where you feel they applyto you.

Because we speak as insiders, we won't tell you how to read like a non-

Western Christian. For one thing, there is no single "nonWestern" way toread the Bible (just as there is no single "Western" way to read the Bible).Even if there were, we wouldn't be qualified to tell you what it is. And wearen't implying that all our Western reading habits are wrong. Somecharacteristics of the West actually help us to read some passages morefaithfully, such as those encouraging forgiveness or generosity. So while wearen't planning to point out places that non-Western Christians instinctivelyget the Bible wrong, we do think someone else could-and probablyshouldwrite a book called Misreading Scripture with Eastern Eyes. Ourillustrations are simply intended to highlight what is normal and instinctualfor us so that we become aware of our habits of reading. We want to unsettleyou just enough that you remember biblical interpretation is a crossculturalexperience and to help you be more aware of what you take for granted whenyou read.

Finally, we have been necessarily selective in what we've chosen toaddress and what we've left untouched. We will not talk much, for example,about the impact that sociopolitical realities have on our biblicalinterpretation. As interesting as it would be to consider how interpretation ofRomans 13:1 ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for thereis no authority except that which God has established. The authorities thatexist have been established by God") might vary among readers fromdemocratic America, socialist Europe or communist Asia, we simply don'thave the space or expertise to cover everything.

What bothers us more is that we have been forced to oversimplify complexissues. Each chapter in this book could be a book itself. Wherever we suspectreaders will have more questions or need further direction, we try to offerguidance in the Resources for Further Exploration and in the endnotes.

In short, what we offer here is a conversation starter. We hope scholars,students and congregations will begin with this volume and move on to

deeper exploration of this important subject. We hope, then, that you willread this book as Christians should read everything-prayerfully and carefully.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.We want this book to enrich your reading of the Bible, not detract from it.We want it to give you greater confidence, not less, in the Word of Godand your reading of it. Yet the challenge to read a text differently can beunsettling. What risks do you see in opening yourself up to new readings?

2.Sometimes Christians are comfortable with old misreadings. Since webelieve we are responsible to apply and not merely study Scripture, abetter interpretation may challenge you to new applications. How readyare you to remove some cultural blinders and better read the text?

3.Perhaps you have already begun to recognize the ways in which yourcultural assumptions affect your interpretation of Scripture. Take amoment to think through any biblical passages or issues you hope tounderstand better after reading this book.

I (Randy) was recently in Scotland to visit an American friend who teachesthere. A British New Testament scholar was driving the car and telling astory. Even from the back seat, I could see she was still quite flustered andembarrassed about what had happened. She explained that a Baptist pastorand his wife had been visiting from Georgia. As their hosting professor, shehad picked them up at the airport. The pastor's wife was going to ride in theback seat so that her husband could ride up front.

My British friend then stopped the story and exclaimed, "The wife openedthe door, said the F-word and sat down in the seat!"

I looked wide-eyed at my North American colleague. He started laughing."You know what the F-word is, don't you?"

Pastoral ministry has changed, but I still couldn't imagine a scenario inwhich a pastor's wife would say such a thing. I was appalled. Our Britishfriend was aghast. My friend continued laughing and said, "She meansfanny."

Our British colleague in the front seat grimaced. "Yes. The woman said,`I'm just going to park my'-oh, that word-'right here on the seat."' My Britishfriend couldn't even bring herself to say "that word," since in British usage,fanny is impolite slang for female genitalia. (Our apologies to Britishreaders.)

This story illustrates at least two cultural differences that we'll discuss in

the chapters that follow. One is language. Language is perhaps the mostobvious difference between cultures. It's the tip of the iceberg, the part ofworldview that is clearly visible. Whether we are traveling from the UnitedStates to France or from Germany to the Philippines, we are well aware of thefact that one language is spoken in our home country, while another languageis spoken elsewhere. That is to say, language differences come as no surpriseto travelers. Granted, language differences may be more surprising if onetravels between countries that share a language (such as the United States andScotland). We use the word fanny in the U.S., but we use it quite differentlythan our British friends do. Even so, it is easy enough-once warned-to expectdifferences of this sort. We discuss language in chapter three.

This story also touches on another source of cultural differences. Mores arethe social conventions that dictate which behaviors are consideredappropriate or inappropriate. For example, profanity exists emotionally onlyin one's mother tongue. When we learn a new language, we have to learn thenaughty words so we don't accidentally say them and offend our hosts. To us,though, it is just a list. Native speakers may blanch and have a difficult timetelling us the words; even spelling the words may rattle them. Missionarieshave to be careful or they can easily develop foul mouths. The fact that weknow what fanny means in British English but are not bothered by writing itjust goes to show that the word itself is neutral. After all, in North America,Fanny can even be a woman's first name! It is culture that supplies theconnotations of a word. This raises an important question. Paul said to avoid"obscenity" (Eph 5:4). But who defines obscenity? We address that issue inchapter one. Then we'll take on the touchy topic of ethnicity in chapter two.

On the whole, the cultural differences we discuss in this section areharmless enough once we're made aware of them. They surprise and mayeven delight us. For tourists, this is often where the fun occurs. Amiscommunication due to language confusion, a taxi ride in a country wheredriving seems to be a contact sport, eating as a meal in a foreign land

something that would be a family pet or a household pest in your own: thesemake for great stories to tell when you return home. In this case, what is trueof traveling can also be true of biblical interpretation. Some differencesbetween our Western perspective and that of ancient readers are obviousenough that they don't result in profound misinterpretation.

Even so, if left unconscious, our presuppositions (what goes without beingsaid) about the following cultural differences-mores, race and language-canlead us to misread the Bible.

Mores

Don't smoke, drink, cuss or chew or run around with girls that do."

This proverb served as the summary statement for moral conduct for bothof us growing up in the American South. To be fair, people grinned whenthey said it. They knew it was an insufficient statement on Christian ethics.But make no mistake: they were serious. And they seemed to have the Bibleon their side. Didn't Paul say that your "bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit"(1 Cor 6:19)? Doesn't that mean we should take good care of them? Didn't hesay, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths" (Eph 4:29)?And isn't it true that "bad company corrupts good character" (1 Cor 15:33)?

The technical term for behaviors like smoking, drinking and cussing ismores (pronounced mawr-eyz)• Webster's Dictionary defines mores as"folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodyingthe fundamental moral views of a group." A couple of phrases in thatdefinition are worth pointing out.

First, mores are "accepted without question." That is, they are views acommunity considers closed to debate. People don't think about them asclosed to debate; they simply don't think of them at all. They go withoutbeing said. This is because mores are taught to us while we are children andbefore we can reason them out. I (Randy) remember one example vividly.My wife and I don't cuss-we were taught not to-and we taught our children

not to. Unfortunately, we taught them by never using cuss words. This morewent without being said-literally. While we were missionaries in a remoteplace in Indonesia, the only people our children knew who spoke Englishwere my wife and me. On rare occasions, another missionary would visit us.When our elder son was five years old, an older, very proper, hair-in-a-bunmissionary came to visit us. We introduced our son, who very politely said,"Very nice to meet you."

After she commented on how handsome he was, josh asked his mom,"May I go outside to play?"

The missionary asked him, "Where are you going?"

Our little angel smiled up at her and said, "None of your d**n business."

Our chins hit the floor. We had never heard him say that word before (orsince). The completely shocked look on all our faces told a five-year-old thatthis was unacceptable. His mom sputtered, "Josh!" Before we could sayanother word, he started crying and ran from the room. We communicatedeffectively this word was not appropriate. When he left, we were in anawkward spot with a missionary leader we had just met. We didn't even havethe luxury of shaking our heads and saying, "The things they learn from theirfriends!" All of his friends spoke Manadonese. I'm sure the missionary wasconvinced that the Richards household used spicy language at home.

We spent weeks wondering how our son could have learned a word hedidn't hear us use. Later we were rewatching a moviethere was no Englishtelevision but we did have videos-and we heard the line, "Where are yougoing?" to which the hero replied with the now infamous line. Our son hadused it exactly like he heard it. Our son had picked up a turn of phrase bywatching a movie, which is one way culture is transmitted. My wife and I hadpassed along a cultural value by our response that such language isinappropriate, which is another way culture is transmitted.

The definition of mores also notes that they embody "the fundamentalmoral views of a group." Observing these conventions is considered essentialto the ongoing well-being of the community. Break them and chaos couldreign. As a result, these values are guarded as if the very fabric of societydepends on it. Sometimes it does. We would argue that "protecting the weakand innocent," an American more (at least in principle), is essential topreserving American culture. More often, though, mores are less permanent,changing from place to place and, within the same culture, over time.

Within the U.S., for example, certain Christian values shift according togeography. In the South a generation ago, many folks considered playingcards to be of the devil. As you moved north, playing cards became more andmore acceptable. When you reached Minnesota, you might find bridgetournaments in church.' On the East Coast (where tobacco is grown), smokingwas okay as long as you didn't smoke in the pulpit (this is only a slightexaggeration). As you moved west, it was less and less acceptable. When youreached California, smoking was of the devil. (We once heard a West Coastpastor joke that his church condemned adultery because it had been known tolead to smoking.) A family friend from Arkansas sent a Christmas card thisyear that was a collage of photos, four of which showed the husband or achild kneeling next to a dead animal they had shot. While I'm sure that itseemed very Christmasy to them, folks from other parts of the country mightview this as an outrage.

Mores also change over time, causing what is commonly called the"generation gap." Among conservative Christians in the United States today,we are seeing a shifting more. The consumption of alcohol in moderation,such as a glass of wine with dinner or a pint of beer with your buddies, wasanathema for many conservative Christians a generation ago, especially in theSouth where we were raised. Today growing numbers of young conservativesare challenging this assumption. Now many conservative denominations aregenerationally split on the issue, with younger people imbibing and older

people abstaining.2

As the examples above suggest, mores dictate everything from whatqualifies as inappropriate language to what one eats and wears and even towhom one should marry and more. For example, the phrase "that was a gooddog" spoken by an American suburbanite can mean "one that doesn't chewmy shoes"; by an Australian rancher, "one that herds sheep"; and by aMinahasan, "one that tastes delicious." Our perspective depends upon whatour social mores dictate is the appropriate use-and misuse-of language, thehuman body or our canine friends.

SERVING Two MASTERS?

Christians face the unique challenge of being squeezed between conflictingmores. On one hand, Christians often adhere to a certain code of conductwithout question and regard certain behaviors as essential to the well-being ofboth the Christian community and the world at large. On the other hand,majority Western culture has its own values that likewise go without beingsaid and which are considered essential to human liberty and satisfaction.Thus, the church and the world often hold contradictory mores. Our options,then, are either to stubbornly resist the infiltration of a cultural more weconsider antithetical to a Christian one or to compromise. History is full ofexamples. In eighteenth-century England and America, to take just oneexample, the theater was a popular source of entertainment and education forcultured members of society. Good Christians, however, wouldn't be caughtdead in a theater. Religious folk considered theater, with its vivid depiction ofhuman depravity, to be morally corrosive. It excited the passions andthreatened the social order. So Christian mores of the time said that theaterwas off limits for the faithful. For a while. Over time, however, churchesbegan to adapt to theater culture. The dynamic English evangelist GeorgeWhitefield preached in a nearly unprecedented theatrical style during theGreat Awakening, which led thousands to experience new birth in Christ.'

Consequently, other preachers, who tradi tionally read their sermons frommanuscripts, adopted more energetic and extemporaneous styles ofcommunication in the entertaining vein of a theater actor. The oldmeetinghouse seating arrangement gradually gave way to theater seating,with a stage front and center and stadium-style seats facing forward. In thisway, Christians were able to capitalize on the appeal of the theater withoutengaging in the aspects of it they considered questionable. In short, theycompromised.t

Another reason Westerners are tempted to compromise is because we tendto view the world dualistically. Things are true or false, right or wrong, goodor bad. We have little patience for ambiguity or for the unsettling reality thatvalues change over time. We want to know: Is it okay to drink alcohol-yes orno? What about sex-good or bad? Tensions like these are so common in ourculture that Hollywood has invented an image for it. When someone faces adilemma, up pops an angelic image of himself or herself on one shoulder anda devilish one on the other. The symbolism is clear: our choice is alwaysbetween saintly or sinful, holy or unholy. It is difficult to live in this tension.So we feel happiest when we can satisfy two conflicting mores with somesort of compromise, as our Christian fathers did with theater. This applies, ofcourse, to other mores, including the three we will discuss below: sex, foodand money.

Christians are tempted to believe that our mores originate from the Bible.We believe it is inappropriate or appropriate to drink alcohol, for example,"because the Bible says so." The trouble is, what is "proper" by ourstandards-even by our Christian standards-is as often projected onto the Bibleas it is determined by it. This is because our cultural mores can lead us toemphasize certain passages of Scripture and ignore others.

When I (Brandon) was growing up, pastors in our Christian traditionpreached often on the evils of alcohol. We were frequently reminded-fromScripture-that "wine is a mocker and beer a brawler" (Prov 20:1). Thus, we

learn, "Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, whenit goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like aviper" (Prov 23:31-32). It seemed clear enough to me.

So when I visited the house of a friend, a Christian of a differentdenomination who had recently moved to town from another state, I wasshocked to discover that his parents had a wine chiller engraved with adifferent Bible reference: "Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake" (1 Tim5:23 KJv)! I began to suspect that my tradition's view of alcohol consumptionwas at least as cultural as it was biblical when I spent a semester inEdinburgh, Scotland, where I attended a church of my own denomination.My first week in town, I was invited to a deacon's house for dinner. Heoffered me a drink when I arrived.

"What do you have?" I asked.

"Anything you want," he answered. "We have lagers, ales, stouts, pilsners,sherry, whisky, port …"

Our hierarchy of what behaviors are better or worse than others is passeddown to us culturally and unconsciously. We might assume that our moresare universal and that Christians everywhere have always felt the way we feelabout things. But they aren't, and they haven't, as the illustration abovesuggests. In Indonesia, billiards is considered a grievous sin for Christians.When I (Randy) heard this, I reacted, "That's silly. We had a pool table in myhouse when I was growing up." My Indonesian friends said nothing. Yearslater, I found out that they commonly thanked God that he had delivered mefrom my terrible past. In their mind, I had grown up in a virtual brothel.

What can be more dangerous is that our mores are a lens through which weview and interpret the world. Because mores are not universal, we may not beaware that these different gut-level reactions to certain behaviors can affectthe way we read the Bible. Indeed, if they are not made explicit, our cultural

mores can lead us to misread the Bible. In the story about Lot in Sodom andGomorrah (Gen 19:1-9), it seems very clear to us what the sin of theSodomites was: sodomy. (We even named a sin after them!) To IndonesianChristians, the sin of the Sodomites is equally clear: inhospitality. Theyappeal to this verse for support: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did nothelp the poor and needy" (Ezek 16:49). Both groups agree that the folks ofSodom were sinful. But of which sin were they guilty? In the pages thatfollow, we consider three issues-sex, food and money-which are surroundedby cultural mores that can influence how we read Scripture.

SEX

Tradition has it that a few years after Jesus' ascension, the apostles gatheredin Jerusalem to make plans for the first international missions movement.Motivated by the Lord's commandment to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt28:19), the apostles determined that they should make a concerted effort tospread the gospel beyond the empire and to the "four" ends of the earth.' Theycast lots to decide who should go where. The lot for India fell to Thomas (theone Westerners often call "the doubter").6

Record of Thomas's ministry in India has been preserved in oral traditionand in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas.? That document testifies that Thomastraveled around northern India in good apostolic fashion, preaching amessage of self-control and restraint: "abstain from fornication andcovetousness and the service of the belly: for under these three heads alliniquity cometh about." It's good advice. If not in biblical language, thecommandment to avoid sexual immorality, envy and gluttony coincides moreor less with biblical teaching.

But context is everything.

The first time Thomas preaches his message of abstinence, he does so at a

wedding. His chosen audience is the bride and groom. He is so persuasivethat he convinces the young soon-to-be-newlyweds to call off the weddingand live chastely and single. By avoiding marriage, the couple will also avoidthe "cares of life or of children" and enjoy a union of greater spiritual value:with God. This spiritual marriage will have eternal value, whereas theirphysical marriage would have resulted in a "foul intercourse." According tothe Acts of Thomas, Thomas's message found an eager audience in India. ButThomas's success ultimately led to his death. One of his final converts wasthe wife of King Misdaeus. When the queen became a Christian, she adoptedthe chaste lifestyle Thomas taught and stopped having sex with her husband,the king. This did not go over well with the king. King Misdaeus ultimatelyordered that Thomas be put to death-and with him, the king hoped, Thomas'sinsistence on celibacy.

Our first instinct may be to dismiss Thomas's teaching altogether. The Actsof Thomas is apocryphal and thus, we might say, of little value. A moreconstructive response, however, would be to recognize in the account anopportunity to identify the cultural mores that affect the way we understandthis apocryphal book and, more importantly, the Bible.

What went without being said for Thomas, and for many of his Indianlisteners who were very likely influenced by Hindu asceticism, was thatcelibacy was necessary for spiritual growth. Celibacy was preferable tomarriage, for total commitment to Christ demanded avoiding the "foulintercourse" of marriage. On the face of it, it appears that Thomas's messageechoes New Testament teachings on sex and marriage. The apostle Paulwrote, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" (1Cor 7:1). Unfortunately, there was sexual immorality in the Corinthianchurch. So Paul conceded that marriage is necessary if it helps keepimmorality in check. Sure, he suggested, marriage is better than promiscuity,but celibacy is still better than both. Paul's advice to marry was "aconcession, not … a command" (1 Cor 7:6). Like Thomas, Paul wished "that

all of you were as I am"-single (1 Cor 7:7). He likely had several reasons forthis, but at least one was consistent with those Thomas offered.8 Paul wantedhis Corinthian readers to be "free from [the] concern" that necessarily comeswith marriage (1 Cor 7:32).

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can pleasethe Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife-and his interests are divided. An unmarriedwoman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to bedevoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman isconcerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband. Iam saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may livein a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:32-35)

This line of thought may make you uncomfortable. For many of us whogrew up in evangelical churches, sex in marriage was the great carrot ouryouth pastors held out to keep us abstinent in high school.' That's becausewhat goes without being said among Western Christians, especially inAmerica, is that celibacy has no inherent spiritual value. The idea of a pastorlike Thomas-or Paul for that mattertalking a young Christian couple out ofmarriage on their wedding day strikes us as a misapplication of the gospel,because it violates a cultural more that goes without being said. For WesternChristians today, marriage (and sex within marriage) is preferable tosingleness (and celibacy). So we gravitate to other places in Scripture thatspeak more positively about marriage. We appeal to Genesis 2:24 ("That iswhy a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and theybecome one flesh") or Ephesians 5:31, in which Paul compares marriage tothe mystery of the relationship between Christ and his church. We agree,quite naturally, with one notable American theologian who has argued,"From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible assumes that marriage is normativefor human beings. The responsibilities, duties, and joys of marriage arepresented as matters of spiritual significance." 10 In the process, we ignore

Paul's preference for singleness-probably by concluding that it was some sortof Corinthian issue and not relevant to us-and we use a "Well, the Bible as awhole says"-type of argument.

But are we positive that we prioritize marriage over singleness because ofthe Bible? Christians are not universally convinced.'I On the issue of sex, forexample, many Christians have the idea that sex is categorically bad. There'sa strong heritage of asceticism in Christianity that has viewed sex assomething of a necessary evil-necessary for procreation, evil as it excites thebaser desires. This way of thinking persists in some Christiancommunities.12 And it has suffused much of conservative Christianity in theUnited States.

On the other hand, at least since the sexual revolution of the 1960s,majority Western culture insists that sex is always good. Christians naturallydesire to resolve the tension. Marriage gives us a way to do that. We canaffirm that sex is bad-in the wrong context. We can affirm, too, that Godwants us to have a gratifying sex life, albeit in the right context: marriage. Inthis way we are able to affirm both statements. It could be that AmericanChristians privilege marriage over singleness and celibacy because it easesthe tension that exists between traditional Christian and secular views ofhuman sexuality.

With this in mind, we should take another look at 1 Corinthians 7. Uponfurther inspection, it appears that the Acts of Thomas overstates Paul'sargument in the direction of celibacy. Paul does say explicitly regarding "theunmarried and the widows," "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do"(1 Cor 7:8). But he does not imply that marriage will hinder spiritualformation. In clear contradiction to the Acts of Thomas, Paul does notadvocate for celibacy within marriage. "The husband should fulfill his maritalduty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband" (1 Cor 7:3) and "Donot deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so

that you may devote yourselves to prayer" (1 Cor 7:5). Thus the celibatelifestyle Queen Misdaeus adopted upon her conversion was unbiblical. It isvery likely that the ancient Indian preference for celibacy in the religious lifecaused Thomas and his listeners to misread the Bible by emphasizing biblicalteaching like Paul's in I Corinthians over other biblical teaching on marriageand singleness. If Thomas (and much of early Christian tradition)overemphasized the significance of celibacy, it should likewise be clear fromthis passage that it is possible to overemphasize the priority of marriage. Inthis passage, at least, singleness emerges as the preferable lifestyle for theChristian. This must be balanced in light of other Scripture, of course,including statements Paul himself makes elsewhere. But it is possible to err ineither direction. The biblical witness appears to land somewhere in themiddle. As English pastor and theologian John Stott explains:

We must never exalt singleness (as some early church fathers did, notablyTertullian) as if it were a higher and holier vocation than marriage. Wemust reject the ascetic tradition which disparages sex as legalized lust, andmarriage as legalized fornication. No, no. Sex is the good gift of a goodCreator, and marriage is his own institution.

If marriage is good, singleness is also good. It's an example of thebalance of Scripture that, although Genesis 2:18 indicates that it is good tomarry, I Corinthians 7:1 . . . says that "it is good for a man not to marry."So both the married and the single states are "good" neither is in itselfbetter or worse than the other.13

Once we've become aware of our own mores-what goes without being saidfor us-we should consider what went without saying for the original audienceto whom Paul's letter was addressed. It turns out that Paul, in his instructionsabout marriage and singleness in I Corinthians 7, was undermining a numberof deeply entrenched first-century Roman mores about human sexuality.Sarah Ruden has shown that Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 grantedunprecedented liberty to women and placed important moral restrictions on

men.14 The rights of Roman women were restricted in many ways, especiallywith regard to childbearing, and young Roman women were expected tomarry as early as the onset of puberty.15 Celibacy was not an option, becausethey were given in marriage by their parents. Roman men, on the other hand,were practically expected to commit adultery. To Christian women, then,Paul is offering the opportunity for a life of ministry outside the home. He iscommanding Christian men to limit their sex lives to their marriages.

This discussion has implications for Christian practice and ministry today.Because we privilege marriage as God's preferred way of life for everyone,churches in America, on the whole, do a very poor job of ministering tosingle adults. Our programs are rarely geared for singles. The few that aretend either to isolate them from the rest of the congregation or function as aChristian matchmaking service. We sometimes think that the bestdiscipleship step a single Christian can make is to marry a good Christianmate. In fact, we are often suspicious of a male Christian who choosessingleness. Something is "wrong" with him, and the burden of proof falls tohim to prove otherwise. Some churches will not hire a single man as a pastorfor fear "that a single pastor cannot counsel a mostly married flock, that hemight sow turmoil by flirting with a church member, or that he might begay." 16 We fail to recognize, as Paul did, that singleness is a gift and thatthose who choose the celibate lifestyle have greater freedom to serve theLord. John Stott, quoted above, and Catholic writer and minister HenriNouwen are just two examples of celibate Christian singles who dedicatedtheir lives to the service of Christ and his kingdom. Spiritual gifting is notreserved for the married. Perhaps instead of focusing all our attention onministering to the needs of families, we should find more meaningful ways ofequipping singles for the work of the Lord.

MONEY

Westerners have a complicated relationship with money. We don't like it

when wealthy people receive special treatment or look down on the rest of usas riffraff. But many (can we say most?) of us aspire to "the good life." Sowhile we're aware of the dangers of wealth-that having a lot of money canopen us up to certain temptations-we're willing to risk them, because we don'tconsider being wealthy morally questionable in and of itself. On the contrary,we more often associate immorality with poverty. This is due, in part, to howWesterners understand wealth.

Westerners instinctively consider wealth an unlimited resource. There'smore than enough to go around, we believe. Everyone could be wealthy ifthey only tried hard enough. So if you don't have all the money you want, it'sbecause you lack the virtues required for success-industry, frugality anddetermination. A nineteenth-century biographer of George Washington putthe matter this way: "In a land like this, which Heaven has blessed above alllands … why is any man hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or in prison? why butthrough his unpardonable sloth?"" There appears to have been a trend fromvery early in American thought to invert Paul's proverb "If a man will notwork, he shall not eat" (2 Thess 3:10 NIV 1984) to read, "If a man can't eat, itis because he doesn't work." People know what they need to do to makemoney, we think, so if they're poor, they must deserve it.

This understanding of wealth is the very opposite of how many non-Western cultures view it. Outside the West, wealth is often viewed as alimited resource. There is only so much money to be had, so if one person hasa lot of it, then everyone else has less to divide among themselves. If youmake your slice of pie larger, then my slice is now smaller. In those cultures,folks are more likely to consider the accumulation of wealth to be immoral,since you can only become wealthy if other people become poor. Psalm 52:7describes the wicked man who "trusted in his great wealth and grew strong bydestroying others!" In our Western mind, this man demonstrated hiswickedness in two ways: he trusted in wealth and he destroyed others. Yetthe psalmist considers these to be one action. This is a type of Hebrew poetry

scholars call synonymous parallelism, in which the two clauses say the sameidea with different wording. In other words, hoarding and trusting in wealthwas destroying others.

More significantly, Westerners often assume that the wickedness in"trusting in great wealth" has nothing to do with the wealth but solely withplacing our faith in wealth instead of God's faithful pro vision. The psalmistimplies something different. The wicked person, we're told, piles up morewealth than he or she needs. In the ancient world, there were always those inneed (according to Jesus, there always will be; Mt 26:11). The condemnationcame not in accumulating wealth but in piling up "great wealth." Only awicked person would continue to pile up "great wealth" and so destroyothers.

A school superintendent made national news for refusing to collect hissalary for the last three years of his career. He had been well paid. The storyquotes his most surprising comment: '"How much do we need to keepaccumulating?' asks Powell, 63. `There's no reason for me to keep stockpilingmoney." ' This story struck many people as admirable but as nearlyunbelievable. But my (Randy's) Indonesian friends would have thought thesuperintendent's actions were expected. California schools were in financialtrouble and he was already wealthy. Our understanding of wealth certainlyinfluences our interpretation of the Bible. It can make us uncomfortable aboutthe harsh words that biblical writers and speakers, including our Lordhimself, use about the wealthy (see, for example, Mk 10:25 and Lk 6:24).

What goes without being said about money in Western culture can lead usto be blind to lessons about money that we may think are about somethingelse. Paul tells women in Corinth that they must have their head coveredwhen they worship (1 Cor 11:5-6). It is not immediately clear to us what theproblem is, so we may assume something went without being said, which is agood instinct. So perhaps we assume that a woman's hair was somehow

sexually alluring to ancient people and that therefore a Christian womanneeded to cover hers. We may then reason that since hair today is not asexual turnon, it is okay for a Christian woman to wear her hair down.

We are correct that something went without being said, but we are wrongabout what that was. Paul is indeed talking about modesty. In our culture, ifmale ministers are talking about what a Christian woman should be wearing,we are almost always discussing sexual modesty or the lack thereof, so wetypically assume that's what Paul is doing here. We feel affirmed when Paulmentions that it is disgraceful if a woman doesn't cover her head (1 Cor 11:6).

Likely, however, Paul was admonishing the hostess of a house church towear her marriage veil ("cover her head") because "church" was a publicevent and because respectable Roman women covered their heads in public.'9These Corinthian women were treating church like their private dinnerparties. These dinners (convivia, or "wine parties") were known for otherimmoral activities including dinner "escorts" (1 Cor 6), idol meat (1 Cor 8-10), adultery (1 Cor 10) and drunkenness (1 Cor 11). The issue was modesty,but not sexual modesty. These women were co-opting an activity about Godfor personal benefit. They were treating church as a social club.

Paul discusses women's apparel again in I Timothy. Again, the issue ismodesty (1 Tim 2:9). In Timothy's church in Ephesus, some women weredressing inappropriately. Again we might assume Paul is concerned aboutsexual modesty. Contextually, however, a case can be made that Paul meant,"Women should dress economically modestly" so as not to flaunt theirwealth. The remainder of 1 Timothy 2:9 reads, "with decency and propriety… not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes." Paulmentions a triad of trouble (anger, quarreling/disputes and economics) forwomen here in I Timothy 2:8-9. But this is not solely a feminine problem. Heapplies the same triad in the following passage addressed to the men: "notviolent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money" (I Tim 3:3). Our

cultural mores tell us sexual modesty is necessary while economic modesty isconsiderate: preferable but not necessary.

In other words, one of the ways Westerners routinely misread instructionsabout modesty in the Bible is by assuming sexual modesty is of greaterconcern than economic modesty. Where two mores-sex and money-collide,we see which is more important to us. And when we project our own culturalmores onto the original audience of the Bible, we may fail to apply the Biblecorrectly in our own lives. It is certainly important for men and women aliketo arrive for worship in attire that is sexually modest. But we seem to have notrouble turning sacred spaces into Christian country clubs. We see no dangersin the human tendency to assert our status in the way we dress.

That most modest of Christian communities, the American Puritans, werecertainly not inclined to wear revealing clothing. But certain worship customsin colonial New England threatened economic modesty in Christiangatherings. In New England churches, families paid their tithes by rentingpews. The wealthier the family, the better seats they could afford. So thesocial structure outside the church was reinforced in miniature on Sundaymornings: the wealthiest and most important Christians sat in the center pewsnearest the pulpit; the poorer folks sat on the margins. In some cases, thewealthy were seated first, while the others watched and waited. There couldbe no mistake regarding who were the most important and influential churchmembers.

Nearly three hundred years later, American Christians might shake theirheads at this obviously un-Christian behavior. But the tendency remains.Today we are not judged by the order in which we enter church, but we mayjudge others by what they drive into the parking lot. Many of us wear our"Sunday best" to church because we claim we want to look our best forGod.20 But God sees us all week. Is it really God for whom we want to lookour best?

In other words, if we understand Paul's exhortation that women shoulddress modestly to mean only that their clothes should not be sexuallyrevealing, we may think his words hold no challenge for us today. If werecognize that his concern might instead be economic, then the exhortation istimely for most Western churches, in which everyone keeps their shirts onbut in which some dress in ways that say, "We have more money than you."

FOOD

I (Randy) was leading a group of Arkansas pastors to preach in villages inremote Indonesia. Since none of our Indonesian hosts spoke English, I wouldfreely discuss the menu options with my American friends, as long as Ismiled when I pointed to each dish. I had warned them to keep poker faces.Our Indonesian hosts had sacrificed much time and expense to provide tablesheavy laden with gracious provisions, and we didn't want to offend them. Inone village, I looked over a table covered with dishes with a bit of dismay. Icouldn't see much here that would appeal to Western palates.

After some consideration, I pointed at a dish and said, "This is the dogmeat."

One pastor commented, "Oh, we'll want to avoid that one."

"Nope," I replied. "That's your best option."

On another occasion, traveling with a group of college students, I chose notto tell them that the main stir-fry featured rat meat. When I mentioned it laterthat evening, a student ran outside to throw up a meal that had been digestedhours earlier. The nausea she experienced was not from the meat itself butfrom the thought of the meat. The very idea of eating rat turned her stomach(as it might be turning yours now). As these illustrations suggest, biologicallyedible is a much broader category than culturally edible.

Of course, what qualifies as culturally edible differs not only between East

and West, but also from region to region within the same country. I(Brandon) grew up in the rural and small-town American South where many,out of necessity and choice, provided meat for the family table by huntingand fishing. Some of the fare procured in this way was perfectly acceptableby polite standards. You'll find venison and duck, for example, in the finestof restaurants. But there were other creatures that sometimes crossed ourplates-like squirrels and raccoons and crawfish-that more urban folks in thesame region looked down their noses at as "redneck food." This is to say thatthe Western eyes with which many Americans view food are middle- toupper-class and educated, well removed from the realities of killing andprocessing the food they eat. This gives many of us a strong cultural aversionto a wide range of foods. Much of the world has a broader definition ofculturally edible than we do.

We may misunderstand the significance of food and dining in the Bible ifwe fail to understand the powerful cultural mores related to food. We caneasily transfer our judgments about foods (that particular food is "bad") to thepeople who eat them (those people are bad). We may apply negative valuesto Minahasans who eat rat meat, for example, or rural Americans who eatsquirrel (which is essentially just a furry rat that lives in trees). "How couldanyone, especially a Christian, eat a rat?"" Ironically, our Asian friends areappalled that Americans eat cheese. "Do you have any idea where cheesecomes from?" they ask incredulously. As they describe it, you start with babycow food and then let it go bad until it sours into a solid mass of mold. That'sactually a pretty good description of cheese-making. It is crucial to rememberwhen we read the Bible that this sort of gut-level reaction to food isn'tsomething that affects Westerners alone. Even the biblical authors and theiraudiences were prone to attribute something like culinary immorality tosomeone whose palate was broader than theirs.

Personally, we're tempted to think of Peter's vision in Acts 10 and 11 assomething like an extended parable or metaphor addressing changes in

dietary law, a lesson that is essentially theological or doctrinal. And that'strue to an extent. But we should clue in to the fact that something important ishappening here because Luke gives almost two whole chapters to thesituation.

Three times during Peter's vision, a sheet full of unclean animals islowered from heaven and God commands, "Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replies (Acts 10:13-14).

It's tempting to read Peter's response as self-righteousness. "I have nevereaten anything impure or unclean," he says (Acts 10:14). He's been a goodJew all his life, and not even God can make him compromise his scruples.But perhaps Peter's reaction to the vision is not simply righteous indignation;maybe it is nausea. No doubt Peter would have been disgusted by the veryidea of eating the animals presented in the sheet. Restrictions against eatingpork and shellfish are legalities to us. But for first-century Jews, they weredeeply en trenched dietary (cultural) mores. The Lord's command mightevoke a similar feeling in Westerners if we were confronted with a sheet fullof puppies and bats and cockroaches.

"Kill and eat," says the Lord.

Like Peter, we would almost certainly reply, "Surely not, Lord!"

Food in the Bible was often, if not always, a matter of fellowship andsocial relationships. When the first Christians were trying to decide whetherGentile Christians should keep Jewish dietary laws, they weren't justquibbling over doctrine. Just like we do, ancients were transferring theirfeelings about certain food onto the people who ate them. The very idea of atablemate gobbling down pig meat was enough to send a good Jew scurryingfor the latrine. We may be speculating here, but there is contemporarysupport for our claims. Journalist Khaled Diab, who calls himself a lapsed

Muslim, confesses that "long after my spirited embrace of alcohol, my`sinful' attitude to sex, my loss of faith in the temple of organised religion andmy agnosticism and indifference towards the supreme being," he still cannotbring himself to eat pork. This isn't a religious scruple but a cultural more.For modern Muslims, Diab explains, eating pork "is not merely tantamount toeating dogs for Westerners[;] in certain cases, we could go as far as to liken itto consuming cockroaches-so unclean is the image of these animals." Diabeven quotes a Jewish student who explained that although neither of hisparents are "particularly religious," nevertheless they both "find the idea ofeating pig repulsive." 22

It is reasonable to assume that the faithful Jews who were Jesus' firstfollowers felt much the same way. That means deciding whether Gentileconverts to Christianity should follow Jewish dietary laws wasn't simply atheological debate. How were Jewish Christians to share a table of fellowshipwith people whose breaths stank of pig fat?

CONCLUSION

Our goal in this chapter has not been to convince you that nonWesterncultural mores are somehow more faithful to biblical teaching than our own.What we want you to see is that what goes without being said for usconcerning certain mores can cause us to misread the Bible. So what is to bedone? How can we develop greater sensitivity both to our own cultural moresand those assumed by the biblical writers and their audiences?

Begin with yourself. Start paying attention to your instinctiveinterpretations as you read biblical passages that have to do with values, inorder to uncover which parts may be connected with cultural mores. To dothat, take the time to complete these sentences: (1) Clearly, this passage issaying (or not saying) is right/ wrong. (2) Is (that issue) really what iscondemned? (3) Am I adding/ removing some elements? The way youanswer these questions can help you uncover what mores you take for

granted. For example, if you're reading the story of the destruction of Sodomand Gomorrah in Genesis 19, you might conclude, (1) "Clearly this passage issaying homosexuality is wrong." Then ask yourself, (2) "Is homosexualityreally what is being condemned?" Well, there are clues in the text. In thiscase, the men of the city ask Lot to send out his male visitors "so that we canhave sex with them" (Gen 19:5). But you may also be influenced by aChristian community that considers homosexuality a particularly heinous sin.Since homosexuality looms so large on our radar, you might ask yourself, (3)Have my presuppositions blinded me to other sins the text might behighlighting? Has it caused me to "remove" some other sin from my reading?Or to take a previous example, perhaps you think, after reading Paul'sinstructions about marriage and singleness in 1 Corinthians 7, "Clearly, thispassage is not saying that singleness is better than marriage." Again, workthrough these guiding questions. Thinking critically about why you assumewhat you assume can make you sensitive, over time, to the cultural moresyou bring to the biblical text.

Second, look for clues in the text you're reading. Sometimes the biblicalwriters help us identify the mores at issue. In Luke 6:1-9, Luke mentionsSabbath six times. This should let us know that the issue at stake was noteating or healing, but Sabbath mores. This is easy to miss, because we are notparticularly concerned with Sabbath mores. But Luke's original audiencecertainly was. On other occasions, the biblical writers don't help us as much,as in 1 Corinthians 15:29, in which Paul makes a passing reference to thepractice of baptism for the dead. Where you suspect a cultural more is at thecenter of the discussion, a good Bible dictionary can be a helpful resource.

Finally, the best way to become sensitive to our own presuppositions aboutcultural mores-what goes without being said for us-is to read the writing ofChristians from different cultures and ages. Being confronted with whatothers take for granted helps us identify what we take for granted. The pointof collision is a priceless opportunity for learning. No one has said this better,

as far as we know, than C. S. Lewis in his now-classic introduction toAthanasius's On the Incarnation. Lewis advises readers to read at least oneold book for every three new ones. Here is his reason: "Every age has its ownoutlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and especially liable tomake certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct thecharacteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books….Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no clevererthen than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the samemistakes."23

The "mistakes" of readers from other times and places can illumine ourmistakes. As we did with the example from the Acts of Thomas above, wecan use the interpretations of non-Western Christians of other times andcultures as an opportunity to bring our own assumptions to our attention andopen up interpretations of the Bible that previously would have been invisibleto us.

Of course, our purpose in all this is not simply to know the Bible better.Our ultimate goal should be to live the Christian life more faithfully. We needto be aware of our mores because they can contradict Christian values. In thechurch I (Randy) grew up in, for example, a deacon wasn't allowed to smoke,but it didn't matter if he were a racist. When we fail to hold our mores up tothe penetrating light of Scripture, we can become lax and complacent in ourdiscipleship. Allowing ourselves to be chastened by what goes without beingsaid for our non-Western brothers and sisters gives us the opportunity to bemore Christlike followers of our Lord.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.Comments that describe sins like smoking, drinking and cussing as culturalcan make us uncomfortable. Isn't sin sin? If we call some sins cultural, arewe at risk of postmodern relativism? We might say it this way: "sin isuniversal; sins may be cultural." In other words, sin exists in every culture

and everyone sins; but what those sinful behaviors are can vary.24 Shouldwe dictate that our cultural sins should be considered sins by Christianselsewhere? What if they do the same? Are Indonesian Christians beingsilly to consider playing billiards sinful? Are we taking inhospitality toocasually?

2.I (Randy) invited an Indonesian professor, Bert, to come to Arkansas for asemester. While Bert was there, I gave him my car to use. When Bert left,he didn't thank me for loaning him my car for six months! Bert was notungrateful; he is a wonderful Christian gentleman. It simply didn't occurto him to thank me. He knew I was a Christian and that my family hadtwo cars. Bert had none. In his thinking, What kind of Christian wouldn'tshare with a fellow Christian in need? Paul considered such things to berequired: "Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality"(Rom 12:13 NIV 1984). What are the requirements of Christianhospitality in your culture?

3.From the Cain and Abel story, it is clear that God expects us to be ourbrother's and sister's keeper. Failing to do so is sin. How might being ourbrother's or sister's keeper play out differently in various cultures orsubcultures that you know?

4.Mores are often generational. How do you think differently about specificcultural mores (such as drinking alcohol, dancing or sexual behavior) thanyour parents or grandparents? What role does culture play in the waythese three generations view mores?

5.Do some of your church members, like the Corinthian women, treat yourchurch like a social club? This sin showed up in Corinthian culture asunveiled heads. How does it show up in your culture?

Race and Ethnicity

At the time of this writing, my wife and I (Brandon) just adopted our firstchild. We have learned a lot about ourselves and God and the Christiancommunity through this journey. But one lesson that has been driven hometime and again is how deeply entrenched racial prejudice is in the UnitedStates.

This fact was reinforced in our adoption training. Because we pursued adomestic adoption (i.e., a child from the United States) and were happy toadopt a child of any ethnicity, our licensing and preparation involved learningto be a "conspicuous" family: one that can't hide the fact that a child isadopted because he or she is ethnically different than the adoptive parents.We've taken classes on how to respond to insensitive comments fromstrangers and family, such as: "Is that your real baby?" or "Does he speakEnglish?" or "She's so lucky to have you," which implies that the child wouldbe less fortunate to be raised by parents of her own ethnic background. We'veeven learned to anticipate the question "Is that one of those crack babies?"which implies that the biological parents of a minority child must be a drugaddict. Because our son, James, is African American, we are prepared to beon the receiving end of racial prejudice for the first time in our lives.

Perhaps a greater outrage is the dollar amounts that are often affixed toskin color. At our agency, the placement fee is the same for children of all

ethnicities. But in many places in the country, adopting a Caucasian child cancost almost twice as much as adopting a nonwhite or biracial child. This isbecause ethnic minority children are deemed "hard to place"-fewer familiesare willing to adopt themand are thus considered less desirable. Often, thelighter skinned a child is, the more expensive he or she is to adopt. This istrue even among Christian adoptive parents and at Christian agencies. TheBible says all humans are created in God's image. There should be no 50-percent discounts. How, then, can Americans-even American Christians-tolerate a practice that deems some children to be "less desirable" thanothers?

The issues are really more complicated. It appears to be more sociallyacceptable in the United States for white people to adopt nonwhite childrenfrom outside the U.S. than to adopt minority children from within thecountry. There is only anecdotal evidence for this, of course. But it suggeststhat white Americans, at least, make a number of gut-level assumptions aboutand distinctions between people of different ethnicities.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that, in theory at least,Americans are not supposed to make such distinctions. When Barack Obamawas elected president in 2008, culture-watchers began debating whether theUnited States had finally become a post-racial society. The logic runs likethis: now that an African American has been elected to the nation's mostpowerful position, the glass ceiling is shattered. The limitations and obstaclesthat once held back people of color are gone. The long-awaited dream of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr., that people will one day be judged "not by the colorof their skin but by the content of their character," has been realized. TheUnited States is now officially colorblind. The wealthy and powerful hailfrom all ethnic backgrounds. In terms of policy, it is against the law for acompany to refuse to hire an employee or for a university to refuse to enroll astudent based on the color of her skin. It can be easy to believe that, at leaston paper, the country has put racial discrimination in the past.

This topic is one on which majority culture and minority readers will havevery different perspectives. It's probably useful, then, that we acknowledgefrom the beginning that we primarily have majority culture, specificallywhite, readers in mind when we describe what goes without being said aboutrace and ethnicity in the West. In general, minority readers will beconsiderably more sensitive to these issues. It is the unfair privilege ofmajority peoples to not worry about the difference ethnicity makes; it is notan important part of our everyday lives. So in the rest of this chapter, we willrefer primarily to white male Westerners.

A word about terminology is in order here, too, before we proceed further.We have used the terms race and ethnicity somewhat interchangeably to thispoint. We've done this primarily because we suspect most readers areaccustomed to discussing these issues in terms of race. We will use the wordethnicity for the remainder of this chapter, however, for a couple of reasons.First, race is largely an invention of the Enlightenment, intended to categorizethe natural world into groups according to type. Race was believed to accountfor the difference between humans of different "kinds." In nineteenthcenturyEngland, for example, one theorist writes, all people could be divided into "asmall number of groups, called `races,' in such a way that all members ofthese races shared certain fundamental, biologically heritable, moral andintellectual characteristics with each other that they did not share withmembers of any other race. The characteristics that each member of a racewas supposed to share with every other were sometimes called the essence ofthat race."'

We reject this belief and the related implications-that some "races" aremorally and intellectually superior to others, for example. We believe there isonly one race, the human race, made in the image of God. Second, speakingin terms of ethnicity is a more precise way to account for the differencesbetween people groups. Blanket racial terms, such as Caucasian and blackand Latino, flatten important distinctions between cultures.

So what goes without being said-especially by white Western males-aboutethnicity? First of all, many white Westerners feel that the worst thing theycould be called is a racist. We know deep down that we're not supposed tomake value distinctions between people of different ethnicities, as if it's betterto be white or black or whatever. Because we're hesitant to make valuedistinctions-and rightfully so-we're often slow to make any distinctions at all.Thus it goes without being said for many that to be truly equal, everyonemust be the same. This is what we mean by being colorblind: the belief thatethnic differences don't matter. Of course it would be fine if what we meantwas that everyone should be treated with equal dignity or enjoy the samerights. But we suspect what is commonly meant is that everyone should betreated as if they were the same-and by same, what is frequently meant ismajority culture.

Consequently, we are trained to assume that ethnicity is unimportant andthat prejudice on the basis of ethnicity is an impossible motivation forbehavior. We avoid making an issue "a race issue" unless there's no wayaround it, because we have convinced ourselves that ethnicity is no longer afactor in social situations. This leaves us somewhat schizophrenic, becausewe all know that we carry latent prejudices privately while we are trained topretend publicly that we don't.

As Christians, we are firm in our convictions that all ethnicities are equalin value: "There is no difference between Jew and Gentile" (Rom 3:22). Asauthors we are deeply committed to and convinced of the fundamentalequality of all peoples. We also believe that to understand a culture, you mustbe aware of ethnicity and especially the prejudices that may exist within aparticular culture. To ignore them is naive and can result in seriousmisunderstanding.

Consider this example. Let's suppose a Korean missionary decides to moveto Birmingham, Alabama, to start a church.' He notices that a lot of the

people are dark-skinned. He asks you, "Is there a difference between blacksand whites?"

In our piety, we might answer, "No, everybody is the same."

It is certainly true that all are equal, but our pious answer is misleading inseveral ways. First, we are likely setting our Korean missionary up fortrouble. He will be blindsided by the first racist he meets, and he will surelymeet one. Second, he will notice some differences among the locals inworship and dialect and perhaps even in dress and cuisine. Third, he mightassume that the majority culture of his neighborhood is representative of themajority culture of North America. Just as ignorance about ethnicities canlead to misunderstanding in our daily lives, so too it can lead tomisunderstanding of the Bible.

We are conditioned culturally not to make generalizations about peoplebased on ethnicity. We know better than to say, "He does such-and-suchbecause he's Latino." We affirm that instinct. But being oblivious toethnicities can cause us to miss things in the Bible. The biblical writers andtheir audiences were more than happy to make such generalizations. "He doessuch-and-such because he's a Jew" was a perfectly legitimate argument forfirst-century Romans. Consequently, we may read the Bible ignorant ofethnic differences in the text that would have been obvious to the firstaudience. Or we may naively believe that those differences don't matteranyway because first-century Rome must have been post-racial, like wesupposedly are. Other times our deeply ingrained racial prejudices influenceour interpretation so that we assume the ancients held the same stereotypeswe hold.

ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT

Like the world we inhabit today, the worlds of both the Old and NewTestaments were ethnically diverse and richly textured by an assortment of

cultures, languages and customs. And also like today, ancient peoples had anumber of ways of distinguishing between locals and out-of-towners, friendsand enemies, the elite and the marginalized. Prejudice comes in all varieties,yesterday, today and tomorrow. From time immemorial, humans have heldprejudices against others based on their ethnicity, the color of their skin orfactors such as where they're from and how they speak.

While it may be comforting to know that other cultures, including thebiblical ones, have prejudices, there is another reason to note them. Sincethese usually go without being said, in the text of Scripture we are left withgaps in the stories. In Genesis 27:46, for example, Rebekah exclaims herfrustration with Esau's wives, not because he had more than one, but becauseof their ethnicity: "I'm disgusted with living because of these Hittite women,"she says to Isaac. "If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land,from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living." Rebekah'scomment is heavily laden with ethnic prejudice. There was something aboutHittites that sent her up the wall. Most of us don't know what; it went withoutbeing said. And, as we've said before, we are prone to fill in such gaps withour own prejudices. This gives us lots of opportunity for misunderstanding.We may assume an issue is due to ethnicity when it isn't, assume it isn't whenit is, fail to recognize an ethnic slur when it's obvious or imagine one when itisn't. Consider these examples.

Paul had started churches in the southern regions of Anatolia (modernTurkey) in the towns of Derbe, Lystra and Iconium. Acts tells us that on hissecond sortie into the region, Paul attempted to go into the northern area:"When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but theSpirit of Jesus would not allow them to" (Acts 16:7). This northern regionwas known by the Romans as Galatia, a mispronunciation of the word Celts,the name of the people group that had settled in the region generations earlier.They were considered barbarians, a term that referred to someone who didn'tspeak Greek. The word barbarian was more or less the Greek equivalent of us

saying "blah-blah-blah" to ridicule someone's speech. Since Greeks equatedspeech with reason (as in the word logos), someone who couldn't speakGreek was considered stupid. While the entire region was technically Galatiaby Roman designation, the inhabitants of the southern region preferred theirprovincial names, a practice Luke knew: "Parthians, Medes and Elamites;residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygiaand Pamphylia [i.e., not `Galatians'], Egypt and the parts of Libya nearCyrene; visitors from Rome" (Acts 2:9-10). They did not want anyoneconfusing them with those uneducated barbarians in the north. When thechurches in this region act foolishly, Paul writes to chasten them. Headdresses them harshly: "You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). This is roughlyequivalent to someone in the United States saying, "You stupid rednecks."Paul is employing an ethnic slur to get his readers' attention. We mightassume Paul would never do such a thing; he's a Christian, after all! Yet thatinstinct proves the point. Our assumptions about ethnicity and race relationsmake impossible the prospect that Paul might have used ethnically chargedlanguage to make an important point about Christian faith and conduct.

On another occasion, Paul was arrested by the Romans during a riot in thetemple, but the Romans didn't know who Paul was. They thought he was anEgyptian who had been causing trouble elsewhere (Acts 21:38). Why in theworld would they think that? We might assume the Roman soldiers werecomparing the modus operandi, since that's how we might go about it. Tworiots in recent days? Must be the same guy who instigated both, we mightthink. But this was not likely their reasoning. They more likely made theirjudgment on the basis of Paul's appearance. Jews and Egyptians lookednothing alike. But at the time, Paul was taking part in a purification rite andhad a shaved head, as was common in Egypt (Acts 21:24). And to a Roman-well, you know, all "those people" look alike. The prejudice ran even deeper.Jews were often included in the list of barbarians. The Roman who arrestedPaul was surprised he could speak Greek (Acts 21:37). He never imaginedPaul, a barbarian, might be a fellow Roman citizen! Earlier in Paul's ministry,

Paul had run into trouble with Philippians who were boastful of their ownRoman citizenship. It had never occurred to them that Paul, a Jew, could haveboasted the coveted citizenship, too.

It should be clear from these examples that our ignorance about the ethnicstereotypes in biblical times can cause us to miss undercurrents in the biblicaltext. As we will see in our next example, sometimes our own prejudices canlead us astray.

A SLAVE RACE?

Of course there is more to ethnicity than skin color. But when we're reading,we can't even see skin color in the text. So we often find it difficult to detectthe ethnic dimensions of a situation in the Bible, even when the author istrying to make it plain. Luke, for example, sprinkles ethnolinguistic markersthroughout the account of Paul's time in Jerusalem in Acts 21: "Jerusalem . . .Gentiles" (21:11); "Cyprus" (21:16); "Trophimus the Ephesian" (21:29); "Doyou speak Greek?" (21:37); "Aren't you the Egyptian?" (21:38); "I am ajew,from Tarsus in Cilicia" (21:39); "in Aramaic" (21:40 and 22:1); "a Jew bornin Tarsus of Cilicia" (21:39); "Jerusalem … Gentiles" (22:17, 21). Prejudicesbased on ethnicity and geography inform the drama of these events andcrescendo with Paul's surprising news that he was born a Roman citizen (Acts22:28).

Another example may strike closer to home. Many Americans fail to notethat the problem with Moses' wife was her ethnicity, even though the authorstates it plainly and repeats it: "Miriam and Aaron began to talk againstMoses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite" (Num 12:1,emphasis added). But even once we're made aware that the issue is indeed a"race issue," we're still prone to misinterpret what's really going on. Indeed,in this case, because we don't know what went without being said for theoriginal audience, we may fill in the blanks and suppose a negative prejudicewhere the original audience assumed a positive one.

All we know about this wife of Moses is her ethnic identityCushite-butthat's enough to irk Moses' siblings. It's clear that her ethnicity is the sourceof the siblings' disapproval. From there, making sense of this passage requiresa bit of detective work. You may not know who a Cushite is or where Cushwas located. A peek at an atlas or the notes in your study Bible may tell youthat Cush was in the southern Nile River valley.' That means the Cushiteswere darkskinned Africans. What goes without being said for many Westernreaders is that Africans were a slave race; even though we no longer (orshould no longer) consider people of African descent inferior, we maynevertheless assume that the ancient Hebrews would have assumed that theCushites were their inferiors. Western scholars have made this mistake forgenerations. Older commentaries frequently assumed that dark skin denotedinferiority. J. Daniel Hays has shown that the assumption that Africans are aslave race has influenced the way we read every reference to Cush and theCushites in the Old Testament. In his commentary on the books of Samuel,nineteenthcentury scholar H. P. Smith writes, "Joab then calls a Negro(naturally, a slave) and commands him …"4 The text (2 Sam 18:21) neversays or even hints that the person was a slave, merely that he was a Cushite.We might not be surprised that writers in the nineteenth century made thissort of mistake. But even into the twenty-first century, commentators havefollowed this assumption about the supposed inferiority of the Cushites,against evidence to the contrary.'

If we don't know what went without being said for the ancient audience,we might supply what goes without being said for many Westerners andconclude that Miriam and Aaron were upset with Moses because he married ablack woman and therefore married below himself. This would be a mistake.Remember that although Westerners may have once considered Africans aslave race, in the Nile River valley of ancient Egypt, the Hebrews were theslave race. We should know that simply from reading the Bible. It wasn't toolong ago in the story that Moses and the Israelites left the bondage of slaveryin Egypt. So what was it about the Cushites that went without being said in

the ancient Near East? The Cushites were not demeaned as a slave race in theancient world; they were respected as highly skilled soldiers.' It is more likelythat Miriam and Aaron thought Moses was being presumptuous by marryingabove himself. That makes sense of the tone of the passage. "Has the LORDspoken only through Moses?" they whined. "Hasn't he also spoken throughus?" (Num 12:2). In other words: Moses is not the only prophet here. Whodoes he think he is?

A JEW Is A JEW, RIGHT?

Even the most casual reader of the New Testament notes the tension betweenJew and Gentile. And we likely attribute this animosity to theological, notethnic, differences. It may come as a surprise to some, even though it is clearin the biblical texts, that the Jews made ethnic distinctions even amongthemselves. This point is probably obvious to readers of ethnic minoritystatus. White Westerners have a habit of lumping diverse ethnicities underlarge and imprecise blanket terms. We use the term Latin American or Latinofor anyone of Central or South American descent who speaks a Romancelanguage (Spanish, Portuguese or French). But the people who fall underthose broad designations-such as Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Hondurans andBrazilians-are likely more aware of their ethnic and cultural differences thantheir similarities. In any case, we tend to assume that Jewish was primarily atheological or religious designation for Jews of the first century.? People ofJewish ethnicity, however, were quite divided. These divisions threatened theunity of the early church even before Gentile Christians entered the picture.

Acts 6 offers an explicit example of ethnic divisions among Jewschallenging the integrity of the early church. The first five chapters of thebook of Acts record the remarkable growth of the Christian faith in andaround Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection. In Acts 6, Luke records thechurch's first major internal obstacle. The "number of disciples wasincreasing," and the needs of the people risked outgrowing the church'sability to serve everyone in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, some of the

Grecian Jews were "being overlooked in the daily distribution of food" (Acts6:1), while the Hebraic Jews were receiving what they needed as usual.' TheHebraic Jews were likely those from Palestine who spoke only Hebrew orAramaic, whereas the Grecian Jews were probably from the Diaspora(meaning they were raised and/or lived outside of Palestine) and spokeprimarily or only Greek' To the Hebraic Jews, these Diaspora brethren weresecond-tier Jews. We might not recognize the significance of the regionalprejudice. After all, a Jew was a Jew, right?

No. Fortunately the apostles recognized the potential for disaster. Theycalled together all the disciples and directed them to choose seven men fromamong the factions to oversee the food distribution. It is significant that of theseven, at least five have Greek names. In order to ease tensions among theGrecian Jews, the early Christians recognized that the distribution of foodshould be overseen by Grecian Jews. What goes without being said inWestern culture is that to be equal, everyone must be the same; therefore, wesometimes think that the worst thing the church could do is to make ethnicdistinctions. We would fear turning the issue into a racial issue. Fortunately,however, the apostles saw the situation for what it was and approved theappointment of an ethnically diverse team of deacons.

This is an obvious example of how ethnic divisions among Jews posed aproblem for the church, and it should remind us to be alert to other situationsin which prejudices among the Jews might play a role in the story. There areother types of prejudice that we are not likely to see, because we are slow toattribute problems to such distinctions.

TWANG

One's accent can often give away where one was raised. This wouldn't be aproblem, except that negative stereotypes are often associated with certainaccents. In the United States, for example, a Southern accent may strike youas refreshingly genteel and charming. But you're just as likely to assume that

the person who adds syllables to words and drops their g's (I grew up huntin',fishin' and campin') is uneducated and slow. If I speak with a British accent, Iam smart; with an Australian accent, I am cool; with a Jersey accent, I amilltempered. I (Brandon) got so tired of negative stereotypes related to mynative accent that I've worked hard to neutralize it. During the semester Ispent abroad, I encountered another prejudice. Scotland is small enough thatnatives can determine what city or town someone is from based solely on heror his accent. When I was studying in Edinburgh in 2002, the United Stateswas just revving up its war on terror. And Europeans were not pleased.People snubbed me frequently when they heard my American accent. I soonlearned that folks would treat me more kindly if they thought I was Canadian.So I learned to adapt my accent yet again.

The Bible gives us clues that the ancients also discriminated on the basis ofhow people sounded. Because we can't hear accents when we read (unlesswe're reading Mark Twain), we can miss this form of discrimination in theScriptures. In judges 12, Jephthah rallies the men of Gilead to battle theEphraimites. Ethnically, the Gileadites and the Ephraimites were related.Both tribes were Semitic, and they shared Joseph as a common ancestor.10The text suggests that they would have been physically indistinguishable. Soafter the battle, the Gileadites developed a clever way to identify whichsurvivors were friends and which were enemies. They guarded the fords ofthe Jordan River leading to Ephraim, and when a survivor tried to passthrough, the soldiers made the men say the word shibboleth. The trouble was,Ephraimites couldn't say the word correctly because they couldn't pronouncethe "sh" sound. If an escaping soldier said sibboleth, they were killed on thespot. That's pretty serious discrimination.

Our Lord was also easily identified by his accent. Jesus was born inBethlehem, but most folks didn't know that. He was raised in Nazareth(Galilee). Since his accent was Galilean, no one considered the possibility hemight actually be a Judean (Jn 7:41-43). When Peter tried to deny his

association with Jesus after the arrest, his accent gave him away as a Galilean(Mt 26:73), and Judeans just assumed that all Galileans would be supportersof Jesus the Galilean. Jewish travelers from all over the empire could identifythe apostles as Galileans based on their accents as they preached the gospelduring Pentecost: "Aren't all these who are speaking Galileans?" (Acts 2:7).

YOU'RE NOT FROM AROUND HERE, ARE YOU?

Closely associated with the issue of speech are prejudices based ongeography. We distinguish among Americans in this way. The terms Yankeeand redneck both conjure concrete images and arouse feelings of disdainamong certain groups of people. But visitors to new cultures have a difficulttime identifying these kinds of distinctions and their attendantpresuppositions. I (Brandon) was once with Austrian friends in a pub inSalzburg. At a corner table sat some very loud, obviously inebriatedmerrymakers. They were white, like me and my friends, and they spokeGerman. I assumed they were Austrian. I was wrong. One of my Austrianfriends saw the rowdy crowd, made a disgusted face and said, "Ugh,Germans! They're worse than Americans!" That made me feel special.

If visitors to a foreign culture have a hard time detecting ethnic stereotypesbased on geography, we have an even harder time detecting the same issuesin the Bible. We are unfamiliar with the geography of the Near East, as wellas the prejudices that adhered to certain locations. Sometimes they are madeblatant. We grew up singing a hymn that began with the line, "I stand amazedin the presence of Jesus the Nazarene." But Jews in neighboring areas seldomfound anything amazing about Nazarenes. When Nathanael found out Jesuswas from Nazareth, he was unimpressed; "Nazareth! Can anything goodcome from there?" he replied (Jn 1:46). Those of us accustomed to referringto our Savior as "Jesus of Nazareth" don't have a negative association withthe place.

Sometimes we do have certain prejudices associated with locations in the

Bible. But very often, we have the opposite associations from those of theoriginal audience. It is easy for us to assume, for example, that Jerusalem wasthe center of the action in the ancient world. The city was certainly importantto the Jews. It was at the center of their eschatological hope. One dayeveryone would come to Zion, the City of David, to worship the Lord.Because it was central for the Jews, everyone went "up to" Jerusalem, nomatter which direction they were traveling from." To us, Jerusalem and itsenvirons comprise "the Holy Land." During the Crusades, Christians spentmuch money, many years and countless lives to reclaim the city from Musliminvaders (even though the Crusaders were actually the invaders).

But Jerusalem was insignificant in Jesus' time. Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79), a famed Roman philosopher, statesman and soldier, traveled extensivelyand described the Jerusalem of Jesus' day as "the most illustrious city in theEast." That was actually faint praise. We must note well the qualification:that it was the greatest city on the eastern fringe of the empire. This statementmight compare to a New Yorker saying, "the nicest town in the backwaters ofLouisiana." The importance of Palestine was entirely geographic. The taxeswere not enough to influence the Roman budget. Palestine was not known foranything except trouble. But that region controlled the only land route to thebreadbasket of Egypt and all of Africa. It was important that Rome controlledthe land, but the activities that took place there were rarely of Roman interest.Pilate was more the main finance officer or tax collector than anything else.The events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, so important for Jews andChristians at the time, were marginal events in a nothing town on the edge ofan empire with more important matters to consider. If we fail to recognizethis, we can fail to recognize just how remarkable the rapid growth of theearly church really was. For the first couple of centuries, Roman writers oftenreferred to Christians as "Galileans," indicating how nominal and provincialthey considered the early Jesus movement to be.

I'M WITH HIM

Paul begins his first letter to the Corinthians with a plea for unity. "I appeal toyou, brothers and sisters, …" he writes, "that all of you agree with one another… and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly unitedin mind and thought" (1 Cor 1:10). We might ask ourselves what caused thedivisions in Corinth. All we know is what Paul tells us: "One of you says, `Ifollow Paul'; another, `I follow Apollos'; another, `I follow Cephas'; stillanother, `I follow Christ"' (1 Cor 1:12). What likely goes without being saidfor us is that the church was divided either theologically or over devotion todifferent personalities. These are two common causes of church divisions inthe West. We tend to fall out along doctrinal lines or because we are drawn toone charismatic pastor over another.

It is possible, though, that the divisions among the churches in Corinthwere not theological. We may be failing to note ethnic markers that Paulsprinkled all over the text. Apollos was noted as an Alexandrian (Egyptian)Jew (Acts 18:24). They had their own reputation. Paul notes that Peter iscalled by his Aramaic name, Cephas, suggesting the group that followed himspoke Aramaic and were thus Palestinian Jews. Paul's church had DiasporaJews but also many ethnic Corinthians, who were quite proud of their statusas residents of a Roman colony and who enjoyed using Latin. This mayexplain why Paul doesn't address any theological differences. There weren'tany. The problem was ethnic division: Aramaic-speaking Jews,Greekspeaking Jews, Romans and Alexandrians.

CONCLUSION

How do we uncover what goes without being said about race and ethnicity?A first-and difficult-step is making a thorough and honest inventory of yourassumptions about people who are different from you. Take time toprayerfully consider your prejudices. Do you harbor bad feelings formembers of a particular ethnic group? Or people from a certain sociopoliticalgroup? If you feel brave enough, consider asking your close friends or familywhether they hear you make statements or tell jokes about certain people or

groups. Carefully consider why you feel the prejudices you do. Does it haveto do with your upbringing? Is it economic-that is, do you make judgmentsabout people based on their appearance or perceived status? Think throughthe categories above (geography, accent and place of origin). Do you havepreconceived ideas about people based on these? Your increasing awarenessabout your own ethnic prejudices will help you be more attuned to them inthe biblical text.

Additionally, read Scripture with a Bible atlas handy. Biblical authors don'toften tell us how they or their audiences felt about specific people groups, butthey do give us clues by telling us where people are from. We do this today.Commenting that someone is from "rural Arkansas" or "the south side ofChicago" or "the West Coast" is often intended to communicate more thanmere geography. Identifying places on a good atlas can help you detect whenthe author is making judgments based on geography and ethnicity-and whenthe writer expects us, the readers, to be doing the same thing.

Finally, let the Bible be your guide. First of all, the narrator may clue youin through repetition that the ethnicity of a character is an issue. This was thecase with Moses' wife in Numbers 12. The book of Ruth provides anotherexample. Ruth is repeatedly identified as "Ruth the Moabite." That detail letsus know that Ruth's ethnicity is important for the story. Note the way thestory is told: Boaz confronts the kinsman to ask if he intends to purchaseNaomi's land and is told, "I will redeem it." Boaz then notes, "On the day youbuy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite" (emphasisadded). The man immediately declines the offer: "I cannot redeem it." Hecites inheritance rules, but we suspect his real motivation is ethnicprejudice.'2 By contrast, Boaz buys the land and states, "I have also acquiredRuth the Moabite, Mahlon's widow, as my wife" (Ruth 4:4-6, 10, emphasisadded). Next, see if Scripture can shed light on the issue. The Bible is a goodresource for determining what the biblical authors and audiences thought andfelt about their neighbors. The fact that the Moabites, along with the

Ammonites, originated from an incestuous relationship between Lot and hisdaughters (Gen 19:36-38) may help us understand why Ruth's ethnicity is anissue in her narrative. Furthermore, the Moabites hired Balaam to pronouncea curse on Israel (Num 22), and Moabite women seduced the men of Israel inNumbers 25 and encouraged them to sacrifice to idols. For these reasons, theLORD declared, "No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants mayenter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation" (Dent23:3). In light of all this, it is truly remarkable that Ruth, a Moabite, is heldup as a model of faith and fidelity.

We have been pointing out the prejudices of biblical characters, but pleasebear in mind that we are not endorsing prejudice. The Christian message isclear: ethnic prejudice is morally reprehensible. It is wrong. The Romanworld was filled with racism. The interior of Anatolia (modern Turkey) wasfilled with tension between the Romans, the locals and the immigrants (Jewsin the south and Celts in the north). Nonetheless, Paul tells a church caughtright in the middle of that mess, "Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcisedor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is inall" (Col 3:11). This was a radical claim in the first century. It is no lessradical today, even in a country in which people have been fighting forequality for decades.

The radical nature of the multiethnic body of Christ is sometimes lost onthose of us who believe we have put prejudice behind us once and for all.Columnist Jack White once observed, "The most insidious racism is amongthose who don't think they harbor any."13 His point is that those of us wholeave our ethnic stereotypes unexamined will inevitably carry them forever,perhaps even pass them on to others. We would add that failing to come toterms with our assumptions about race and ethnicity will keep us blind toimportant aspects of biblical teaching.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.Imagine retelling the story of Ruth and Boaz today and saying, "Boaz theIsraeli" and "Ruth the Palestinian." How might that affect how you readthe story?

2.The biblical story of Samson specifically mentions when he meets Delilah,mentioning her town before even her name: "Some time later, he fell inlove with a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah" (Judg16:4). For the story, it mattered where she was from. The writer expectedus to know our geography: while Samson was called and equipped by Godto smite the Philistines, he married one instead. How might racism play arole in this story?

3.The people who lived in Philippi were settled there by Rome. They wereRoman citizens. Not just citizens of the Roman Empire, they wereconsidered citizens of the actual city of Rome. They were quite proud oftheir Rome citizenship. And they didn't care for Jews. Note how they usedthe term Jews to fire up the crowd against Paul (Acts 16:20). How doesthis affect how you read Philippians 3:20?

4.How does it affect your view of Jesus to know that he was born to a peoplegroup considered inferior by the majority culture (Romans) and in a townthat other Jews considered backward and unimportant (Nazareth)?

Language

An old Greek professor of Randy's used to comment sagely, "Language is alot of things, but mostly it's words."

That is true, and it isn't. Of course, the first order of business for a studentnew to any language is the arduous task of learning vocabulary. Often thevery smallest words-conjunctions and prepositions and the like-are thehardest to master. The flexibility of our own prepositions, which makeperfect sense to us, illustrates the challenge well. On and in mean differentthings, and the difference is clear: "the book is on the table" versus "the bookis in the drawer." Yet in America we ride in a car but on a bus, in a canoe buton a ship. These uses seem the opposite of the basic meanings. Americanshang on a branch, but most other people hang under or hang from a branch.(Hang on: we still haven't discussed idioms!) After long hours spent withflashcards, you eventually learn grammar and syntax that allow you tocombine words to form phrases and sentences that express meaning. But it allstarts with words. Words are indeed the raw materials of language.

But language is much more than words. As we have argued in these firstchapters, the most powerful cultural values are those that go without beingsaid. Ironically, this is as true of language as of any other aspect of culture-and perhaps more so. Behind the words that make up language is a complexsystem of values, assumptions and habits of mind that reveal themselves inthe words we use and leave unsaid. When we cross a culture, as when weread the Bible, we often assume that what goes without being said in our

culture and language also goes without being said in other cultures andlanguages. This can lead to profound misunderstanding.

Matters become even more complex when you consider that grammar andsyntax, as well as ethnicity and social class, not only reflect but alsodetermine the way people in a given culture think and speak. While it mayseem a chicken-or-egg type of question, linguists have long pondered if ourworldview shapes our language or the other way around. Ever since thepioneering work of Benjamin Whorf (1897-1941) in linguistic relativity,most scholars concede that our culture (via our language) shapes ourworldview, which in turn filters what we notice and how we interpret reality.'Our worldview tells us what to notice and what is not worth noticing.Linguists generally conclude that our heart language-the language we learnfirst (up to about age seven)-sets most of the parameters of our worldview.We have an "American" worldview because our parents imparted it to us,both through ideas they taught us and through our shared language. Middle-class American English, for example, prefers the active voice, directstatements and connecting words like since, because and although.' Suffice itto say that language is a lot of things, but that many of the most importantaspects of language are not words.

Language is the most obvious cultural difference that separates us from theBible. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, andthe New Testament in Greek (with a few Aramaic words). Because languagedifferences are so obvious, so visible, you might wonder why we didn'tdiscuss them first. Are they not the very tip of the iceberg? Yes and no. Whileit is easy to tell that you are hearing or reading a foreign language, what is notat all obvious is how our language, and our understanding of how languageworks, affects everything else we think and do. Few of us ever reflect on themechanics of our native languages or the values and patterns that lie beneaththem. These things reside further down the iceberg, under the water. So weare unlikely to recognize what it is about our own language that goes without

being said.

You begin to pick up on these things when you learn another language. Sosome of the things we'll discuss in this chapter are things you will discover ifyou study Greek and Hebrew-or any second language, for that matter. It isimportant for us to remember that when we read the Bible in our nativelanguage, mostly what has been changed is the words. Behind the words, nowin a language we understand, remains that complex structure of culturalvalues, assumptions and habits of mind that does not translate easily, if at all.If we fail to recognize this-and we very often do-we risk misreading the Bibleby reading foreign assumptions into it. Like Procrustes of Greek mythology,who shortened or stretched his guests to fit his bed, our unconsciousassumptions about language encourage us to reshape the biblical narrative tofit our framework.

In this chapter we will identify a few instinctive Western language habits.There is more we could say, but for now, we'll look at three assumptionsregarding the way we view language: sufficiency, equivalency and clarity.

SUFFICIENCY: OUR LANGUAGE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBESREALITY

To state our first point simply: Western readers typically believe that ifsomething is important, then we'll have a word for it. And the more importantsomething is in our culture, the more likely we are to develop specializedlanguage to describe it. Take the automobile, for example. The automobile isan important aspect of Western-especially American-life. On the whole, theword car is a useful catchall for all vehicle types. But we can be morespecific. You might drive a compact, subcompact, economy, sedan, wagon,coupe, convertible, SUV, pickup, crossover or hybrid.

Here is where cultural differences begin to show. Many Americans eat rice.But rice isn't particularly important to the majority of Americans. So we justhave one word for it. When it's in the field, we call it rice. When the grains

are harvested, we have trucks of rice. When the grains are milled andpackaged to sell in stores, we buy bags of rice. When we cook it, we serveplates of rice. But rice is very important in Indonesia, as in most of Asia, andso Indonesians have specialized vocabulary to describe it. In Indonesia thereare fields of padi, bags of betas and plates of nasi. These distinctions mayseem unnecessary to us, but we make distinctions that seem equallyunnecessary to Indonesians. Because Indonesia is a majority Muslim nation,pigs are not important in Indonesian culture. So the language has one wordfor them: pigs. We, by contrast, see pigs when they are in a barn.Slaughtered, we have pork. On the plate we have chops, loin, ribs, roast,bacon and sausage.

This is not merely a matter of vocabulary but of values. The words we useare a good indication of what we consider important. As our values change,so does our language. When we really need a word, we invent one. Think ofall the new vocabulary we've developed in the digital age-words like Internet,software and mp3. What we don't see as important, we don't bother to inventwords for. In other words, the frequency and number of words we have for agiven thing or experience and its value in our worldview are connected.

What does this have to do with the Bible? Problems arise for interpretationwhen another language has several words for something and ours has onlyone. Greek has four words for love: agape, philia, eros and storge. Or perhapsthe better way to say it is that English has only one word for four differentkinds of love. This may explain why Americans often confuse them in theirrelationships. While we recognize that philia, the friendship kind of love, iswonderful, it may be hard (culturally) for two American male friends to saythey love each other. To do so, they must use the same English word they useto describe their relationships with their parents, wives or children. SinceAmerican culture is pushing guys to express true friendshiplove, we aresearching for a good expression. At the moment, "Love you, man" seems tobe winning.

To use another example, most cultures have a traditional form of dancing.Where I (Randy) grew up, it was line dancing or square dancing. There wasalso modern dancing, which was basically a young couple making out whileshuffling their feet to music. My parents believed the second form of dancingwas not conducive to healthy Christian courtship; thus, they concluded,dancing is sin. Because we have only one word for dancing, all manner ofdancing was regarded as sin, leading to lots of generational Christiansquabbling. Indonesian Christians don't have this problem. They celebratetraditional dance, called tarian. They also recognize the inappropriate form,which they call dancing (merely borrowing the English word). Having thevocabulary to distinguish between forms of dancing makes it possible forthem to make more nuanced decisions about appropriate and inappropriatebehavior.

We also perceive a corollary point to be true: if we don't have a word forsomething, then it is likely not very important to us. Maybe pigs and ricearen't that important in every culture, but biblical values should be. OldTestament scholars will be quick to point out the challenge of translatingchesed (pronounced KHEH-sed). In the Ness, we see it translated lots ofways: lovingkindness (Gen 24:27), loyalty (Hos 6:4), loveliness (Is 40:6) andmercy (2 Sam 15:20). Chesed doesn't mean lots of things. But we need lots ofEnglish words to circle around a concept for which we don't have a word.Chesed is "a kind ly-loyal-merci ful-faithfu I- (the- sort-that- shows-up -in-actions) kind of love." Certainly chesed is important-even if English doesn'thave a word for it-both for understanding the Bible and living the Christianlife. This isn't merely an English problem. Paul struggles for a Greek word todescribe the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. He describes it as a "love joy-peace-patience-kindness-goodness-faithfulnessgentleness-self-control kind of fruit"(Gal 5:22). Paul is not giving us a list of various fruits, from which we maypick a few. Rather, he gives us a list of words that circle around the onecharacter of a Spiritfilled life he is trying to describe.

This seemingly simple matter of vocabulary has serious implications forthe Christian life. Sociologists suggest that people have a difficult timedescribing or even identifying something that they don't have the vocabularyfor. Some even suggest that one can have a hard time experiencing somethingfor which one has no corresponding word.' The Greeks had a word for thefeeling one has when one is happy: makarios. It is a feeling of contentment,when one knows one's place in the world and is satisfied with that place. Ifyour life has been fortunate, you should feel maharios. We use idioms inEnglish to try to approximate this experience. We'll say, "My life has reallycome together," or "I'm in a happy place," or "Life has been good to me." Weare not really discussing the details of our life; we are trying to describe afeeling we have. Happy sounds trite, so we avoid it. Actually, we aremakarios.

In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that if you are apeacemaker, then you are maharios. Since English doesn't have a word forthis feeling, translators have struggled to find one. What do you call it whenyou feel happy, content, balanced, harmonious and fortunate? Well,translators have concluded, you are blessed. Thus our English translationssay, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt 5:9). Unfortunately, this introducesanother problem. The English language prefers clear subjects for its verbs. Sothe missing puzzle piece in the Beatitudes is, How is one blessed? What goeswithout saying in our culture is that God blesses people. Consequently, weoften interpret this verse to mean, "If you are a peacemaker, then God willbless you." But this isn't what Jesus meant. Jesus meant, "If you are apeacemaker, then you are in your happy place." It just doesn't work well inEnglish. Alas, here is the bigger problem: maybe the reason we NorthAmericans struggle to find maharios in our personal lives is because we don'thave a word in our native language to denote it.

EQUIVALENCY: REALITY CAN BE EXPRESSED IN OURLANGUAGE

Viewed from one perspective, the Protestant Reformation began as an effortto correct a mistaken assumption about equivalency in language. Over time,the Roman Catholic church had developed a doctrine of confession thatincluded works of penance, such as reciting a certain number of prayers(think "Hail Marys" or "Our Fathers") and, most disturbing, the purchase ofindulgences to assure forgiveness of sins. By the late Middle Ages, churchleaders insisted this system is what Jesus had in mind when he called sinnersto repentthat do penance was equivalent to (meant the same thing as) repent.Martin Luther's history-changing ninety-five theses addressed this issue head-on. "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said `Repent,' willed that thewhole life of believers should be repentance," Luther argued in the openingsentences of his disputation. "This word cannot be understood to mean thesacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, which isadministered by the priests."4 The medieval church had superimposed certainpresuppositions onto Scripture by mistakenly assuming that the Latin termfor do penance was equivalent to the Greek term for repent. Becauserepentance is necessary for salvation (Is 30:15; 2 Cor 7:10), their mistakeundermined Christian faith and identity at its core. Is it possible that we riskequally dangerous misreadings by assuming equivalency between languages?

People who speak only one language, which is most Americans, oftenassume that there is a one-to-one relationship between languages. Thisderives from how we understand reality. We assume that everyone interpretsreality like we do. So when we run across a concept in a foreign languagethat describes an experience that's familiar to us, we assume they mean whatwe mean. Well, they don't.

Sometimes there is no equivalent. Several Eastern languages have no wordfor privacy. How could that be? To begin with, people in these cultures rarelyexperience it. As a missionary, I (Randy) "slept late," often not arising until 6a.m. When I staggered out of the bedroom, I commonly found an Indonesianpastor sitting politely in my living room, awaiting the (lazy) missionary.

While bedrooms were for family, the rest of the house was viewed muchmore like we would view a college dorm lobby. People walked in and out ofmy house. Many times I came home for lunch to find some stranger helpingout in the kitchen or washing clothes on my back porch. Early in my career, Iwould ask, "Who are you?" The person would stop, go out back and bathe,change clothes and then sit in my living room to explain. After tea (and a lotof what seemed to me to be beating around the bush), he or she wouldexplain what problem had brought them to the city. Their problem was nowmy problem-after all, I did ask who they were. (I learned not to ask.) "Mypersonal business" was a nonsensical expression. Everybody knew whateverybody was doing. I could stop a student on our campus and ask what mywife was cooking for lunch, and they would know. They would likely addthat she had paid too much for the chicken.

You see why there is no Indonesian equivalent to our word private. Ofcourse, someone could find himself in a private location. In that case, anIndonesian would say he is in "a place where he feels lonely." But it doesn'thappen as often as we might think. I had an Indonesian friend who ownedthree miles of beachfront property on a remote island. His neighbor alsoowned three miles of adjacent beachfront. When I stayed in my friend'shouse, I could reach out the window and actually touch the wall of hisneighbor's house. On the other side of each house stretched miles of desertedsandy beaches. I was flabbergasted and one time blurted, "Why didn't youbuild your house two miles that way?"

He looked at me and said, "We would be lonely."

For most North Americans, space is to be guarded, protected andpreserved. "Stay out of my personal space!" is a common sentiment. But forthe ancient world (and most of the non-Western world), space is to be used.That's why they drive on the shoulders of the road. Why waste usable space?In other words, while Westerners crave privacy, privacy is a situation that

Indonesians, for example, seek to avoid. They even have a word for "goingon an errand with a friend so that your friend doesn't have to go alone." Thatmay be surprising enough, but the real shock for me came when myIndonesian colleagues explained that this was an excused absence for theaccompanying student. Surely I couldn't expect a student to go somewherealone!

These different cultural associations with privacy affect the wayWesterners and non-Westerners read Scripture. We Westerners commonlythink that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, went to a private place in thegarden of Gethsemane to pray (Mt 26:36-39). Actually, none of the Gospelssay the place he prayed was private or solitary: "Sit here while I go overthere" (Mt 26:36); "withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them" (Lk 22:41);"he took Peter, James and John along with him," and then "going a littlefarther" (Mk 14:33, 35). It is clear only that he separated from the disciples.At Passover, the garden was likely packed with people; it was not a goodplace to find privacy. When my Indonesian students heard the traditionalWestern view-that Jesus was alone-they responded, "How dreadful Jesusmust have felt." We Americans assume that "Jesus needed a little alone time"to get ready to face his dreadful trial. We read our preferences into the story.We like to pray in solitary places, so we assume Jesus did too.

Interpretation leads to practice. Indonesian ministers have a great word for"quiet time": saat teduh. Interestingly, teduh means "quiet" and "calm," but ithas no connotation of individual or private space. Indeed, Indonesians almostalways have their quiet times with others. As an American Christian, my best"devotional time" is alone. In fact, many of us wonder whether a Christiancan grow without private time. Even if we could be with others, wouldn't itbe better to spend time alone with the Lord? Yet verses that we think supportthis idea, such as "Be still, and know that I am God," do not require a privatetime of stillness (Ps 46:10). Indonesians also love that verse. They like toremind me that God said that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen 2:18).

In fact, the Bible frequently uses "alone" as a negative term. Jacob was leftalone (Gen 32:24); Moses was critiqued for working alone (Ex 18:14).Indonesians would say, "Even if we could be alone, wouldn't it be better tospend time together with the Lord?" Our cultural value for privacy is strictlya Western value; it is not derived from the Bible. This is not to say thatprivacy is wrong, just that it is a neutral value. But when we impose it on thetext, we can come away with unbiblical interpretations.

What it says is not always what it means. The translator repeatedly has todecide between translating what a word or phrase says and what it means. I(Randy) was once translating between an Indonesian guide and a NorthAmerican pastor. The pastor asked if the guide could take him to Tomohonthe next day.

The guide said, "Yes." I translated, "Maybe."

The pastor then asked if the guide was available the following day.

The guide replied, "Maybe." I translated, "Probably not." That's what theguide meant.

Western readers are sometimes bothered by what appear to bediscrepancies between the sayings of Jesus. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says, "Ifanyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children,brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be mydisciple." Matthew records the saying differently: "Anyone who loves theirfather or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves theirson or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Mt 10:37). These twostatements don't mean the same thing in English. In English, to hate is not thesame as to love one thing less than something else. I love my cat less than Ilove my wife, but that doesn't mean that I hate my cat. So it may seem to usthat we have two different sayings of Jesus.

Not necessarily. One likely explanation is that Luke translated (fromAramaic into Greek) what Jesus said and that Matthew translated what Jesusmeant. Assuming that the first Gospel was written by the disciple Matthew,he was a native speaker of Aramaic. Matthew was already accustomed tomoving between languages. Luke, a native Greek speaker, didn't know whatwent without being said in the usage of Aramaic. Middle Easterners then (andnow) prefer dramatic language, what Bruce Metzger calls "picturesquespeech." We were reminded recently in a dramatic way when CNN coveredelections in Afghanistan. There were some irregularities at one of the pollingstations, and protestors were shouting. The English subtitles read: "Death tothe Vote Counters!" Really? Death? Well, that was probably a literaltranslation. We suspect what they meant was, "We're really upset!"

This problem-that language doesn't always say what is meantis due in partto the way the English language works. English is a subject-verb language; itis actor- and action-oriented. We prefer sentences with a clear subject and aclear predicate, and we like it best when the verb is in the active voice. It isdifficult to construct a meaningful sentence in English without a subject.Even when we describe the weather ("It is raining"), we supply a subject("it"). Other languages can manage without a subject in these situations; inIndonesian, one can say, "Exists rain." More significant than mere grammar,many languages are content with no real subject or actor in a sentence. Oneday as the sun broke out after the afternoon rains, I (Randy) looked out intothe front yard of our house in Indonesia and saw that our young son's tricyclewas broken. We had brought it from the United States, and it would not beeasy to replace. I was exasperated. I asked Jacob's Indonesian friends whathappened. They replied, "The tricycle is broken"-a perfectly good Indonesiansentence. I asked, "Who broke the tricycle?" The question caught them bysurprise. Indonesian isn't set up to express that kind of cause and effect. Theproper way to state it was, "The tricycle is broken."

But English cries out for a subject. In sentences without a stated subject,

one is always implied ("[You] Bring me that stapler"). Because English"needs" a subject, we tend to provide one. This is why, as we pointed outabove, "Blessed are the peacemakers" turns in our minds to "God blesses thepeacemakers." We don't make this adjustment on purpose. But it goes toshow how thoroughly our English language (even grammar, which we mightnot be able to explain) affects the way we think. This also helps to explainwhy teachers and professors systematically beat the passive voice out ofstudents' writing. Instead of writing "The epistle to the Romans was writtenby the apostle Paul," our grammar teachers have told us to write, "Paul wrotethe epistle to the Romans." We prefer clear, direct language in which agencyand action is easy to understand. When we run across writing in the passivevoice, we might suspect the author is trying to be vague and confusing onpurpose (as in so-called legalese).

Yet biblical writers often liked the passive voice. "Son, your sins areforgiven" (Mk 2:5). Western scholars call this the "divine passive," in whichthe agent/subject (God) is implied. "All things work together for our good" isprobably the better way to translate Romans 8:28. Yet we commonly read itas "God works all things together for our good." Sometimes we assignagency (and thus motives) where the biblical text is actually silent.Sometimes we also imply that direct action is required on our part when thetext is less direct. A frequent translation of John 14:1 reads, "Do not let yourhearts be troubled." The English suggests that I need to take action over myheart. Yet, in John's text, Jesus is giving the command to the hearts of hisdisciples to stop being troubled. In our minds, that doesn't even really makesense. But perhaps Jesus understood that we humans have less control of ourhearts than we like to admit.

The whole is more than the sum of the parts. The meanings of wordschange when you combine them. We know this is true on a basic level. Wecan define the words up and with. So we can figure out a sentence like, "Putthis book up with the others." We also know that put up with can have a

completely different meaning: for example, why we put up with Englishbeing so complex is a mystery to us! We instinctively adjust to these flexiblemeanings in our own language. But when we approach other languages, wetend to look for the literal, dictionary definitions of the words in question.

Joining words together, though, can be far more significant than merelyvocabulary. Some words have special meanings when they are paired withother words. In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means"grace." Pistis means "faith." What we didn't know until recently-what wentwithout being said in Paul's day-was that those two words together describedthe relationship between a patron and his or her client.

In the Roman world of the New Testament, business was conductedthrough an elaborate system of patrons and clients.' When we watch themovie The Godfather, we are seeing the modern remains of the ancientRoman patronage system. Like Marlon Brando who played the godfather inthe movie, the ancient patron was a wealthy and powerful individual (male orfemale) who looked after his or her "friends" (clients). The complex world ofRoman governmental bureaucracy, the far-reaching tentacles of the bankingsystem (usually temples) and the pervasive and powerful grasp of the tradeguilds made it impossible for ordinary craftspeople or farmers to conductbusiness on their own. They were entirely dependent upon their patrons. Likemost unwritten cultural rules, everyone knew what was expected of a patronand a client, even though expectations weren't engraved on a wall. Everyoneknew a patron's role was to solve problems for his or her clients, whether itwas trouble with the local trade guilds, refinancing a loan or smoothing overtensions with city leaders. When Paul was staying in Thessalonica, it wasreasonable to expect Jason to handle the "Paul problem," which he did byasking Paul to leave town (Acts 17).

In that world, an ordinary craftsman or farmer didn't have the social skillsor connections or wealth to negotiate with the various powerbrokers of a city.

He would seek out an individual, a patron, to help. Marlon Brando capturesthe sentiment well. The local merchant wants help. The godfather says, "Soyou want me to do you this favor?" Both sides understand the agreement: thegodfather solves the problem, and the merchant now must be loyal to thegodfather and be ready to help if he is ever summoned. In the Roman system,likewise, the client couldn't earn the "favor"; the patron showed "kindness" tohelp. Seneca, a philosopher from Paul's time, said the patron and the clienthad a relationship, a form of friendship.6 The client was now a "friend" of thepatron, but not a peer. The client was expected to reciprocate with loyalty,public praise, readiness to help the patron (as much as he could) and, mostimportantly, gratitude.' This kind gift had strings attached. (All gifts inantiquity had strings attached.) Seneca called it "a sacred bond."' Therecipient of the gift was obligated to reciprocate. Paul introduced Lydia toChristianity (Acts 16). She reciprocated by hosting Paul and his team at herestate.

The language of patronage permeated everyday life. We know well theChristian terms grace and faith, but these were common before Paul usedthem. They were part of the language of patronage. When the patron gaveunmerited gifts of assistance, these were commonly called charis, meaning"grace/gift.."10 The client responded with faithfulness to the patron, calledpistis, or "faith."" We see that when Paul explained our new relationship withGod, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system ofpatronage.12 Taken together, this vocabulary-so central to the Christian faith-means something different than the sum of its parts.13

CLARITY OVER AMBIGUITY: HARD FACTS ARE BETTERTHAN FRILLY WORDS

Americans have a divided mind when it comes to language. On the one hand,the English language is full of remarkable figures of speech and metaphoricallanguage. For example, the folks I (Brandon) grew up with in the South had asimile or metaphor for nearly every occasion. If someone appeared shocked

or surprised about something, an onlooker might observe he "looks like a calfat a new gate." If there was something not quite right about someone, wemight say she was "a half-bubble off plumb." If someone's work had beenparticularly hectic, he might say he'd been "busier than a one-armed paperhanger on a windy day." You could be as "nervous as a cat in a room full ofrockers." This colorful, colloquial language is proudly preserved in casualconversation. But when it comes to formal dialogue, or talking about thingswe consider important (God, for example), English speakers tend to privilegeclear, propositional language over colorful, metaphorical language. Thatconcrete, propositional language is better than ambiguous, metaphoricallanguage is just one more thing about language that goes without being saidin the West.

So when it comes to communicating the truth, Westerners drift moretoward propositions than to artistic expression. Because we are somewhatuncomfortable with the ambiguity of metaphors, we tend to distillpropositions out of them. We want to know what they mean, in categoricalterms. A philosophical description of God ("omnipresent") is better than ananthropomorphic one ("his eyes roam to and fro throughout the land"). Or sowe think. This is why books on Jesus often talk more about the facts of hislife than his parables. To us, things like metaphors and parables sometimesseem like unnecessarily frilly packages for a hard truth. We want to get pastthe packaging to the content; we want to know what it means. Theseassumptions about the value of propositions and our unease with ambiguouslanguage put us at something of a disadvantage when it comes to reading theBible. The biblical writers didn't make the distinctions we make regardingwhen metaphorical and potentially ambiguous language is appropriate. Werelegate it mainly to informal communication. But the writers of Scripturerecorded the profoundest truth in similes, metaphors, parables and othercolorful and expressive (and potentially ambiguous) forms of language.

The tension is eased somewhat when we account for differences in genre.

Language behaves differently in different literary genres. Imagine that youare playing cards. You see in your hand an ace of spades. Is that good or bad?It depends upon whether you're playing Spades or Hearts, and actually can bemore nuanced than that. Likewise in language: the game determines the rules."The mountains leaped like rams" is a true, authoritative, relevant andbeautiful statement when it is in a poem, but it would be nonsense in ageology textbook (Ps 114:4). In one historical text, we are told that the Lord"drove the sea back with a strong east wind" until it was divided, but in thesubsequent song, we are told, "By the blast of your nostrils the waters piledup. The surging waters stood up like a wall; the deep waters congealed in theheart of the sea" (Ex 14:21; 15:8). These statements do not contradict eachother; the game has simply determined the rules. In a song, you can usephrases like "by the blast of your nostrils." In fact, sometimes poetry says itbetter; I like "piling the water up" a lot more than the idea that an east windjust blew back the water.

Technically, when we say the game determines the rules, we are sayingthat genre influences how something is to be understood. Some biblicalgenres, such as apocalyptic literature, are not used in our culture today. Thebook of Revelation is apocalyptic, as are parts of Daniel. Such books revealor unveil the mysteries of God about the future and make heavy use ofsymbolism, often involving numbers and animals. The present time isdescribed as dire, and just when it appears things cannot get worse, Godintervenes and rescues his people for a glorious future. While we mayunderstand the big picture, the details are very confusing for those unfamiliarwith this genre. We struggle to make sense of horsemen and bowls of wrathand strange hybrid animal creatures. Right in the middle of a natural disaster,a guy rides by on a horse. What's up with that? This genre is foreign to us.

But we have our own unusual genres. While I (Randy) was in the junglesof Indonesia, a new genre of film entered American culture: the slasher film.When you know the genre of something, you can know a lot about it without

reading or seeing it. If you know that a movie is a slasher film, then beforeyou even see it you know to expect poorly lit scenes, excessive amounts ofcutlery, people closing doors and then items crashing through them, andwomen who cannot run more than ten feet without falling down. You willalso be prepared to close your eyes if someone is shown in the shower-andnot just because they are naked. Likewise, people know what to expect whenwe are told a movie is a chick flick. There will be no automobiles flippingover and exploding in slow motion. If you are told a biblical book is in theapocalyptic genre, you know before you even open it that there will betrumpets, plagues, stars, books, strange animals and lots and lots of numbers.

We have to be careful, though, once we have accounted for genre, not tosimply disregard metaphorical language as mere metaphor. The biblicalwriters were capable of writing in categorical terms, but they often preferredto speak about spiritual things metaphorically. And this made earlierinterpreters nervous because ancient readers of the Bible knew that there wasa lot at stake in a metaphor. The original Hebrew text of Exodus 15:3 reads,"The Lord is a warrior." The context is the Song of Moses. The Israeliteshave just filed through the Red Sea to safety and Pharaoh's army has drownedin the tide. The Lord, Moses implies, is a more powerful soldier than all thebattalions of Egypt. But the Greek translators of Exodus were uncomfortablewith this image. So they did just what we tend to do: they translated the verseas a proposition. In the Septuagint, the verse reads, "The Lord . . . shatterswars" or "bring[s] wars to naught."" Instead of portraying Yahweh as anarmed and bloodied soldier, they highlighted a particular implication of hisprowess. While they might be right-perhaps the best soldier is the one whobrings war to an end-the Septuagint interpretation narrows the meaning of thetext. Resolving the tension of the metaphor actually diminishes the breadthand application of the text. And that's too bad, as scholar lain McGilchristpoints out; the "point of a metaphor is to bring together the whole of onething with the whole of another, so that each is looked at in a differentlight.""

Metaphors and other artistic expressions can also say more with less. Anabsolutely delightful expression from Arkansas is, "I ain't got a dog in thatfight." I (Randy) have used it in Florida as a powerful administrative tool toindicate that (1) the issue at hand is not an integral part of my area ofresponsibility; (2) this is a messy problem with a lot of upset people; and (3)1 could get hurt if I get involved and I am not invested sufficiently to justifythe risk. Stating this propositionally takes longer and is often less effective.

There is yet a subtler danger with distilling propositions out of metaphors.Time and time again, the biblical writers use metaphors to connect centraltruths in Scripture. One of the most famous and enduring images of God is asshepherd (Ps 23, for example). In Ezekiel 34, God describes himself as theGood Shepherd and all the Jewish leaders as bad shepherds. What is Jesussuggesting, then, when he claims, "I am the good shepherd" (Jn 10:14)? He isnot just critiquing the leaders as bad. Is he using the metaphor to identifyhimself with God? His audience thought so. They picked up rocks to stonehim "for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (Jn 10:33).Once you start noticing the connections between metaphors, you start to seethem everywhere. It was Abel, the shepherd, whose offering pleased God.Saul was a bad king-and called a bad shepherd-but King David was a goodking who shepherded the people of Israel (1 Chron 11:2). If we simply distillthe propositions out of each of these accounts ("The Lord provides everythingI need"; "Jesus lays down his life for us"; "Saul was a bad king"; "David wasa good king"), we can miss the connection. The metaphor is not just a frillypackage. In this case, the package is actually the bridge connecting all theseideas. Real misunderstanding is at stake. Classical liberal theologians of thenineteenth century argued that Jesus never claimed to be divine. They missedthe crucial point that Jesus made important truth claims-including being Godincarnate-through his use of metaphorical language.

Consider another example. The prophet Isaiah sings the "song of thevineyard," a lament of the unfaithfulness and unrighteousness of the people

of Israel (Is 5:1-7). After much care and cultivation, God "looked for a cropof good grapes, but it [the vineyard, i.e., Israel] yielded only bad fruit" (Is5:2). Centuries later, when Jesus wanted to rebuke Israel's religious leadersfor failing to fulfill God's will for them, he could have stated it plainly: "Youare sinners." Instead, he summons this metaphor from Isaiah. In Matthew 20-21, Jesus uses the metaphor of the vineyard to teach about the kingdom ofGod and about his own ministry and identity (the parable of the workers inthe vineyard, Mt 20:1-16; the parable of the two sons, Mt 21:28-32; and theparable of the tenants, Mt 21:33-44). Combining the vineyard metaphorpopular with Isaiah and the prophets and another image"the stone the buildersrejected"-from Psalm 118:22, Jesus explains in no uncertain terms that he isGod's chosen son sent to redeem God's vineyard, Israel. What went withoutbeing said in Jesus' time is that metaphors bring with them the whole weightof the biblical witness Torah, Wisdom and the Prophets.16 Jesus' listenerswould have recognized immediately that he was drawing together thesedifferent strands of Scripture and that they were at risk of sharing thepunishment Isaiah pronounced for the unfaithful.17

CONCLUSION

Of the three blatant cultural differences we discussed in this section, languageis at once the most obvious and the most insidious. Serious misunderstandingcan occur when we fail to recognize all that goes without being said aboutlanguage and how we use it. There is no real substitute for becoming familiarwith the Bible's original languages. But that doesn't mean you can't becomesensitive to the difference language makes in the meantime.

To do this, we offer one simple suggestion: read from a variety oftranslations. Translators have different goals. Some English translationsfollow the grammar, syntax and voice of the original languages as faithfullyas they can while still rendering readings that make sense in English. Othertranslations are more concerned that the text be readable, comfortable,idiomatic English. In other words (and to overstate the point a bit): some

translations emphasize getting the original languages right, while othersemphasize getting the contem porary languages right. For this reason, youcan get a good sense for the differences between languages by reading abiblical passage in various English translations. Consider the followingtranslations of the first beatitude (Mt 5:3):

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Niv).The Ntv represents the traditional translation of this beatitude.

"God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for theKingdom of Heaven is theirs" (NLT). The goal of the New LivingTranslation is to render the original languages in good, contemporaryEnglish. The translators appear to recognize that English readers want a clearsubject and a verb in the active voice, so they supply a subject (God) andmake the passive Greek verb active.

"The poor in spirit are blessed, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs"(Holman Christian Standard Bible). In contrast to the NLT, this translationpreserves the passive voice of the original Greek. This is a less satisfyingEnglish sentence but more faithful to the original Greek.

"Blessed (happy, to be envied, and spiritually prosperous-with life joy andsatisfaction in God's favor and salvation, regardless of their outwardconditions) are the poor in spirit (the humble, who rate themselvesinsignificant), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven!" (Amplified Bible). Itwould probably be difficult to read long passages from the Amplified Bible.But the value of this translation is that it demonstrates how it sometimes takesmany words in one language to approximate or capture the essence of asingle word in another language.

"Happy are people who are hopeless, because the kingdom of heaven istheirs" (cEB). The Common English Bible abandons the traditional verbblessed altogether. This gives the verse a different feel.

When you read a passage in different translations, take a few moments toconsider the implications of the different renderings. Does the meaning orapplication of the verse change depending on the translation? Sometimes.This exercise can help you become sensitive to what goes without being saidbehind the words we use.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.Westerners are wired, by virtue of our worldview, to seek causeand-effectconnections in everything. We instinctively ask, "Why did this happen?"When we read the story of Job, for example, we tend to emphasize whythese things happened to job. We may be emphasizing the wrong point.Job never does know why those things happened. How might job'sexperience help us face life, since we also are rarely told by God whythings happen?

2.A young married student just stopped by to see me (Randy). His wifemiscarried last week. My heart is broken for them. Both are strongbelievers who are confident in God's abiding presence in the midst of thiscalamity. As I attempted to comfort them, I noticed how our expressionswere metaphors. When he spoke of the deeper bond he and his wife wereexperiencing, he said things like, "There is a silver lining to this darkcloud." He added, "We are hearing God sing songs of comfort over us inthe night," and "Our church family has wrapped us up in loving arms." Isit possible that direct statements of propositional truth aren't as good as wethink? Describe what you might say to a friend in a similar situation.

3.Describe how you would explain to a nonbelieving friend the concept of"The Lord is my shepherd" (Ps 23:1). Try to use propositional statementsinstead of metaphors, similes or analogies. How easy or difficult is it foryou to change this metaphor into propositional language? Do you feel likeanything is lost in the process, and if so, what?

Here is a literal back-translation to English of Psalm 23 ("The Lord is MyShepherd") as understood by the Khmus tribe of Laos:[

We could have used this translation in the chapter on language, because itillustrates well the travails of trying to render the message of Scripture intoother tongues. Here, though, we want you to notice how the Khmus peopleunderstood the final sentence, "And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord

forever." That line brings comfort to millions of Western Christians, and yetit is a terrifying thought to Khmus tribesmen. It's not the concept of eternalreward that bothers them. Rather, it is the idea of eternal reward presented tothem in individualistic terms. You (as an individual) will go somewhere elsewhen you die, alienated from your ancestors and from your living relativeswho have not been allowed access to this paradise. For Khmus people, andmany others in the world, their first reaction to the idea of spending eternityin heaven is, "What? And leave my family?"

Why do we find the concluding line of Psalm 23-"And I will dwell in thehouse of the LORD forever"-so comforting (Ps 23:6)? What goes withoutbeing said in the West is that you have to leave here and go there to get to thehouse of the Lord. This idea has a history. Ancient Greek mythologydescribed the dead as crossing the cold River Styx to Hades. Plato tweakedthis into a migration of souls, as he describes in the Myth of Er, by which oursouls cross from "here" to "there."2 Over the centuries, Christians graduallyadopted this way of thinking. At death we "cross over" to heaven. We leavehere (this world) to go there (the land of glory). We even biblicize the oldGreek myth. After the Reformation, hymn writers commandeered the Exodusstory of Joshua leading the people of Israel into Canaan and mixed it with theGreek myth of crossing the River Styx. "Crossing the Jordan into thePromised Land" became an image of the migration of the Christian soul toheaven. Some of you will remember the old hymn "He Leadeth Me." Thethird stanza reads:

Here we see death described as crossing the cold river over to the PromisedLand. Other hymns, such as "I Won't Have to Cross Jordan Alone," "I'm JustA'Goin' Over Jordan," The Far Side Banks of Jordan," "I'll Be Waiting by the

Jordan for You" and "When 01' Chilly Jordan Calls," all reinforce this image.

The Khmus tribesperson, for whom leaving his or her tribal home is aterrifying thought, would like the biblical image better: God brings hiskingdom here. The New Jerusalem descends down to our current home:"Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell withthem" (Rev 21:3). When we superimpose our image of leaving "this world ofwoe" onto the Christian story, we turn the gospel of good news into bad newsfor people like the Khmus.

Western individualism affects more than just our view of eternity. Onetime I (Randy) was browsing in a bookstore in the massive city of Jakartawith an Indonesian colleague. An Indonesian clerk was following us around.Whenever I selected a book, she took it from me. I felt like they were worriedI was going to steal something. They thought they were providing qualityservice. (These days, when I go to a big box store, I wish I could even find aclerk!)

After we had selected several books, we walked up to pay the cashier-orthe person I thought was the cashier. He carefully wrote out a receipt, listingall the book titles and prices in triplicate. He handed my books to someoneelse, who left, and then handed me two copies of the receipt. Another clerkescorted us to the actual cashier in another part of the store. She took mymoney and stamped two copies of my receipt, and we were then escorted toyet another counter. Upon delivering one of my stamped receipts, I washanded my books, neatly wrapped like a Christmas package. Actually, it hadbeen so long since I'd seen the books that it felt like a Christmas package.

Exhausted, I told my colleague, "I could make this store far moreefficient!" He politely asked how, and I explained that only one person wasneeded for all those tasks. I leaned back in my bus seat smugly.

He looked me in the eye and said, "Your idea would put five people out of

work."

I shrugged and he looked dismayed. I was saving time. He was saving jobs.I was thinking about the situation from my individual point of view. He wasthinking of the group. For me, it was an economics problem and certainly hadnothing to do with moral right or wrong. I obviously was not even thinking ofthe other people involved. He thought I should be ashamed.

In this section, we will look at three aspects of our Western worldview inwhich the differences between cultures are less obvious and, consequently,more dangerous. These perspectives reside just below the surface of ourconsciousness, out of plain sight. In chapter four, we talk about thedifferences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. In chapter five,we talk about the values of honor and shame. In chapter six, we address thetricky concept of time. These concepts can cause big problems because theyrepresent deeper values. We might concede that our mores, views of race andlanguage are culturally subjective, but we will be tempted to believe that thevalues discussed in this section are universal and objective. You might findyourself asking in these chapters, Why won't they do it the right way? For usas authors, these differences are increasingly difficult to explain clearly. Forall of us as readers, this is where serious misreading of Scripture can occur.

Individualism and Collectivism

Except for a brief stretch in the seventeenth century, and despite manymissionary efforts over time, Christianity never took root in Japan before themodern era. In The Samurai, Japanese Catholic novelist Shusaku Endoexplores some of the crosscultural challenges that made the Japanese slow toadopt the Christian faith. Speaking to a council of bishops about the progressof the mission in Japan, veteran missionary Father Valente explains:

The Japanese never live their lives as individuals. We Europeanmissionaries were not aware of that fact. Suppose we have a singleJapanese here. We try to convert him. But there was never a singleindividual we could call "him" in Japan. He has a village behind him. Afamily. And more. There are also his dead parents and ancestors. Thatvillage, that family, those parents and ancestors are bound to him tightly, asthough they were living beings. That is why he is not an isolated humanbeing. He is an aggregate who must shoulder the burden of village, family,parents, ancestors…. When the first missionary to Japan, Francisco Xavier,began his labours in the southern provinces, this was the most formidableobstacle he encountered. TheJapanese said, "I believe the Christianteachings are good. But I would be betraying my ancestors if I went to aParadise where they cannot dwell."'

What the fictional Father Valente articulates is a very real difference betweenhow Westerners and non-Westerners understand personal identity and therelationship of the individual in society.

Western societies are, by and large, individualistic societies. The mostimportant entity in an individualistic culture is the individual person. Theperson's identity comes by distinguishing herself from the people around her.She is encouraged to avoid peer pressure and be an independent thinker. Shewill make her decisions regardless of what others think; she may defy herparents with her choice of a college major or career or spouse. The highestgoal and virtue in this sort of culture is being true to oneself. The supremevalue is the sovereignty of the individual.

A great example of the individualist orientation of Westerners can be foundin debates among students, parents and educators over school uniforms.Anecdotal evidence indicates that uniforms reduce bullying and otherviolence among students, increase academic performance (because kids aren'tas concerned about what their classmate is wearing) and generally make theschool safer by making it easier to identify intruders (because students are alldressed alike). As compelling as an increase in safety and academicachievement might be, many people object to school uniforms because theyinhibit individuality. Some Americans argue school uniforms limit our FirstAmendment rights of free expression. Others put this issue more generallyand argue that eliminating a student's ability to choose his or her wardrobemeans that "student identity as an individual is lost," or that "being requiredto wear a uniform teaches an early lesson in lack of choice-something that iscontrary to core American values."' For some, maintaining individual choiceis more important than improving safety and education. This line of thoughtis likely to resonate with most of our readers.

Collectivist cultures are very different indeed. In a collectivist culture, themost important entity is the community-the family, the tribe or the country-and not the individual.' Preserving the harmony of the community is

everyone's primary goal, and is perceived as much more important than theself-expression or selffulfillment of the individual. A person's identity comesnot from distinguishing himself from the community, but in knowing andfaithfully fulfilling his place. One's goal is not to get ahead or move beyondone's community; after all, "the tallest blade of grass is cut first." Rather,members of collectivist cultures make decisions based on the counsel ofelders-parents, aunts or uncles. The highest goal and virtue in this sort ofculture is supporting the community. This makes people happy (makarios).

You may remember from the introduction my (Randy's) shock atdiscovering that Indonesian elders were considering barring a young couplefrom church membership because they had eloped, which was considered agrievous sin in their culture. The difference of opinion between the elders andme had to do with my being from an individualist culture and their beingfrom a collectivist one. In individualist cultures, people marry for "love" (orat least that's what we call it). What we mean is that the only person whodecides whom I should marry is me. It goes without saying for us that when itcomes to this most important of decisions, I should be free to do what seemsbest to me. It's no one's business but mine (and my future spouse's, ofcourse).

Things are not so simple in a collectivist culture. Arranged marriages aremuch more common in collectivist cultures, because it goes without sayingthat, in this most important of decisions, the community should decide what'sbest for the young people. Marriage is not simply between a man and awoman. One family marries another (which is more true than we Westernerslike to admit). And only the community can determine if two families make agood match. This might sound restricting to you. It does to most Westerners.But many non-Westerners view this supervision as helping: How can youabandon a poor twenty-two-year-old to make such an incredibly importantdecision on his or her own? To do so would be calloused and uncaring.

Still, we admit that, to us, it seems like meddling. And the meddling beginslong before the decision to marry. I (Randy) remember a conversation with agroup of parents in a remote Indonesian village.

"Is it true," they asked incredulously, "that American teenagers who likeeach other go out by themselves at night?"

"Yes," I replied. "We call it dating."

"Wow, you Americans are amazing," they observed. "If Indonesian kidsdid that, someone would get pregnant." I nodded that, indeed, Americanteenagers are models of self-restraint.

Indonesians look at the dating challenge differently. For Indonesians, itseems unfair to leave an individual in a situation in which his or her only realprotection is willpower. They seem to recognize that willpower is moreeffective the less you like someone. Ideally then, to be safe, you should onlydate people you don't particularly like; then your willpower will certainlyprotect you. The challenge is that the more you like someone, the lessrestraining your willpower becomes. I explain their concept this way: whenyou put sodium and chloride together, you get salt. Whose fault is it: thesodium's or the chloride's? Exactly. So it is with young love. My Indonesianfriends think that the community should protect the individual. What isChristian community for, they ask, if not to protect each other? IndonesianChristian teens, for their part, have told me (and I am inclined to believethem) that they are relieved that someone else is responsible for protectingthem.

Even though Western culture is individualistic, there are some venues orsubcultures in which collectivist mentalities are evident. One is team sports.In team sports, the goal is to work together to achieve a common goal, not todraw attention to oneself. We preserve this ideal in the saying, "There is no Iin team." Another place we see a collectivist mentality is in the military.

Personal identity is not celebrated in the military; that's why new recruitshave their heads shaved and everyone wears the same uniform. One isexpected to surrender his or her own personal desires and interests for thegood of his or her platoon and, ultimately, the country. Of course, evenwithin these collectivist subcultures, appeal is made to individual self-actualization. Team sports keep record of individual statistics and celebratethe superstar. As for the military, one longtime army slogan is "Be all thatyou can be." A newer one is "An Army of One"-an admittedly odd slogan,but clearly designed to appeal to an individualist.

Another way to note the differences between individualistic andcollectivistic cultures is by how names work. We get our convention of atripartite name (first, middle and last) from the Romans, but we don't use itlike they did. Our individualism shows up in our usage, while theircollectivism is displayed in theirs. Roman citizens were required to have agiven name (praenomen), a clan/ancestral name (nomen) and a family/tribename (cognomen). Somewhat the reverse of North American culture,Romans often used only their family name when they signed their letters.Given names were very common, but they were often just written as aninitial. Thus, the famous orator M. Tullius Cicero referred to himself simplyby his family name, Cicero. The individual name is even abbreviated: M. forMarcus. In Western culture, we want to differentiate ourselves from ourfamilies, so we emphasize our first names; they desired the opposite.Likewise, in the East today, the family name comes first. Americans oftenmess this up.4

It is difficult to present the values of a collectivist culture in a positive lightto Western hearers.' We as your authors often struggle to explain acollectivist worldview without sounding critical. In Western cultures,individual choice is to be protected at all cost. Communities that do notprotect it are oppressive; individuals who will not practice it are weak-minded. Conformity, a virtue in a collectivist culture, is a vice in ours.

Conforming is a sign of immaturity, a failure to realize your full potential, aninability to "leave the nest" or "cut the cord." Of course, it is equally difficultto put a positive spin on individualist virtues, such as self-reliance, in acollectivist culture. Non-Westerners often consider collectivism one of theirfinest traits. Such an individualist in the East is described as someone who"doesn't get along" or "breaks harmony" or "seeks his own glory" or "is self-important." Obviously, we prefer the idea that we are "self-reliant."

THE WRONG IDEA

Our individualist assumptions affect our reading of Scripture in many ways,some of them more serious than others. Because individualism goes withoutbeing said in the West, we can often get the wrong idea of what an eventdescribed in the Bible might have looked like. This can lead to the moreserious problem of misunderstanding what it meant.

My (Brandon's) acting career peaked in my teen years, when I playedJoseph in our church's Christmas production. I sang a solo while I quieted ourrestless baby Jesus (a real live newborn) and looked lovingly at Mary, a girl Iknew from youth group. We represented the holy couple as I'd alwaysimagined them: serene and solitary, huddled with the infant Savior in a tidybarn. I don't remember all the words to the song, but it had to do with beingfaithful in the face of the daunting and singular experience of fathering theChrist child.

This goes to show that pretty much the entire Christmas story has beenWesternized, a product of Victorian English customs and practices. Since weknow from prophecy that Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem, we don't askthe obvious question: why in the world would a guy drag his pregnant wifeacross the country? We assume the Romans must have required it (within thewill of God, of course). Sure, the Romans required a census, but they alloweda large window of time for people to register. It wasn't in Rome's best interestto suddenly require everyone in the empire to travel to their ancestral

homeland during one weekend. It seems clear in the text that Mary andJoseph were traveling during festival time-that's why all the inns were full.Bethlehem was what we might call a bedroom community, or suburb, forJerusalem. Joseph, unlike many Galileans, was apparently a regular attenderof Judean festivals. This might explain why Joseph wanted to visit Jerusalemwhen he did. But why take Mary when she was "great with child"? It wasn'tignorance; ancients knew how to count to nine. The reason is simple: ifJoseph was of the lineage of David, then so were all his relatives. So were allof Mary's relatives.' Moreover, in antiquity one's relatives were the birthingcrew. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem when they did because everybodyelse was going. We imagine Joseph and Mary trudging alone up to Jerusalem,in the quiet of night. Nope. They were part of two large clans-his and hers.(This also explains how Mary and Joseph could "misplace" the twelve-year-old Jesus later. They assumed that he was with his perhaps hundred cousinsas the extended family headed home. Only at evening did the boy Jesus gomissing.) The birth of Jesus was no solitary event, witnessed only by thedoting parents in the quiet of a cattle fold. It was likely a noisy, bustling eventattended by grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.7

Our individualist tendencies can also give us the wrong idea about howsome of the biblical books were composed. We envision Paul writing hisletters like we used to write them before email: we plopped down at a desk ina quiet place with pen and paper.,, We composed, privately, as we wrote. Wethen signed our name and mailed it off. Our signature indicated that thewords and thoughts in the letter were our very own. Ancient letter-writingwas different in just about every way. Ancients had no writing desks. Authorscommonly stood and dictated while a scribe sat with a sheet of parchmentbalanced on his knee or in his lap. Paul would not have locked himself awayin some private room to write. (It would have been too dark anyway.) Hemore likely would have sat in a public place: the breezy, well-lit atrium of aprosperous home like Lydia's, or in an upstairs balconied apartment. Familyand friends walking by would have stopped to listen (ancients read out loud)

and to offer advice (it shows you care).

Posture and place were perhaps the smallest differences. Six of Paul'sletters indicate they were written with a coauthor, yet we traditionally ignorethe other authors (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1-2; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). In antiquity, teamwork and cooperation were the norms.Paul always had a team. When he lost his first team partner, he did notjourney again until he had gotten another one (Acts 15:36-41). When he lefthis team in Berea on the second journey, he went on his own to Athens. Wedon't notice, but Luke's readers would have been alarmed: Paul was alone! Asthey would expect, Paul had no one to help him when he got into a bit oftrouble. Fortunately, when there was trouble in Thessalonica and Berea, Paulhad friends to help (Acts 17:9, 14). Luke notes that Paul (wisely) starts workin Corinth only after becoming part of a community with Aquila and Priscillaand, implicitly, their trade guild (Acts 18:2-3).

It is very natural, then, that just as partnership was assumed in ministry, soalso it was assumed in composing a letter. When it was time to write back tothe church in Corinth, Paul most likely gathered his beloved team membersaround him to discuss the needs in the Corinthian church and what theyshould say to them. After discussing the sticky issues at length, it was time tostart the letter, with a secretary (probably hired from the market) and stacksof wax tablets. The resulting letter would have been a collaborative effort.Even if we notice the coauthor in the letter's greeting at all (Sosthenes in ICorinthians and Timothy in 2 Corinthians, for example), we are likely toassume that they were passive participants. Surely Paul is the creative andtheological genius behind the letters, we think: the single, solitary, individualsource of the letter's content. Doubtful. It is more likely that the letters werecomposed with the coauthors actively contributing. Paul's missionaryendeavors were a team effort. This is more than just a bit of trivia. Scholarshave debated for cen turies whether all the letters attributed to Paul in theNew Testament were actually written by him. Many will argue that Paul

couldn't have written certain letters because they don't have Paulinecharacteristics-that is, they don't "sound" like Paul. But if Paul regularlyworked with coauthors and secretaries, if they actively contributed contentand turns of phrase, then this might explain why Paul's letters have variationsin style. They bear the marks of his partners. The Spirit's inspiration coveredthe entire process.

"ME AND JESUS"

Our individualist assumptions can influence our reading of Scripture in moreserious ways. In Western individualist cultures, the decision to become aChristian is a personal and individual decision. This is illustrated clearly by asong many of us grew up singing during the invitation at the end of a churchservice, when lost sinners were invited to accept Christ in faith. "I havedecided to follow Jesus," we sang, "no turning back, no turning back." Theindividual nature of the decision is evident from the first stanza: "I havedecided." But our individualist perspective is even clearer is a later verse."Though none go with me," we sing, "I still will follow." Certainly even forWesterners, the prospect of isolation because of the faith is not comforting.Yet it is in some ways natural. We are used to our decisions, and thus ourconversion, being personal and private affairs.

In collectivist societies, conversion is not strictly an individual decision, soit is often not an individual experience. This may seem strange and evenunbiblical to Western Christians, who emphasize a personal and individualdecision to follow Christ. But in non-Western cultures, group conversions-when whole families or tribes come to faith at once-are not uncommon.Granted, Jesus makes it clear that the decision to follow him may at somepoint put a believer at variance with his or her family. In what is surely one ofJesus' most difficult teachings-no matter where you're from-he claims, "Ifanyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children,brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be mydisciple" (Lk 14:26). But there are other times in Scripture when it is clear

that whole households come to faith together. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas aremiraculously freed from their chains in prison. The jailer, apparentlyrecognizing what happened as an act of God, asks the men, "Sirs, what must Ido to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Their response is striking: "Believe in the LordJesus, and you will be savedyou and your household" (Acts 16:31, emphasisadded). Three more times in the passage, the "whole household" ismentioned. The apostles share the gospel with the jailer and "to all the othersin his house"; they baptize him "and all his household"; and they rejoice thathe believed in God with "his whole household" (16:32-34). (See also Acts10:2; 11:14; 16:15; 18:8.)

For many Western readers, what goes without being said about theconversion of the jailer's household is that we assume each person in thefamily must have been convinced independently and privately of the truth ofthe gospel and must have made a personal decision to follow Jesus. ManyChristians will assume further that it was only the adults in the family whomade this decision, since only adults could have expressed their will in thematter. But this is not necessarily true. As the illustration from The Samuraiabove illustrates, conversion to a new religion is a serious decision forsomeone from a collectivist society. Duane Elmer, a professor of missionsand intercultural studies, explains in his book Cross-Cultural Connectionsthat when he shared Christ with Asian adults, he "was constantly told thatthey could not make a decision to follow Christ without asking a parent,uncle, aunt or all three." At first he thought this was an evasive maneuver, aruse to avoid making the hard decision of faith. Over time he realized thatthis is simply how collectivist cultures work. People "do not make majordecisions without talking it over with the proper authority figures in theirextended family."9 This is hard for us Westerners to understand. We believethey are simply doing what the authority figure(s) said and not making thedecision for themselves. This is not necessarily so. My (Randy's) Asian friendspeaks of his conversion this way: "My father is wiser than I am. If he saysJesus is better, then I know Jesus is better." My friend has a faith as strong

and rooted as mine. His certitude about Jesus came a different way than mine,but it is as firm. When the wise matriarch Lydia decided Paul's god was best,her household was convinced as well (Acts 16:14-15).

INDIVIDUALISM, COLLECTIVISM AND THE CHURCH

Of course biblical interpretation plays out in Christian practice, so that thereis something practical at stake in this discussion. In the West, the concept offamily continues to constrict, so that it often now refers only to one's parentsand/or children and select other near kin or close friends referred to as "aunt"and "uncle." We seem to be happiest when we can choose the people weidentify as family. In the East, by contrast, family is often identified solelybased on bloodlines. Once the relationship is determined, culture thenoutlines the expectations and obligations of each member. Essentially, then,one's identity and duties are defined by one's family: "Isn't this Mary's sonand the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters herewith us?" (Mk 6:3), and similarly by one's hometown: "We have found theone Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets alsowroteJesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (Jn 1:45). The way the Bibleportrays the family-specifically the expectations and obligations placed onfamily in collectivist cultures-challenges the way Westerners understand ouridentity and duties as the church, the "family of God."

The non-Western concept of family is broader than the Western. But Jesusexpanded it even more. For Jesus, family not only designated one'simmediate, biological relatives but included all who are knit together in faith.Once while Jesus was teaching in someone's home, a messenger told him hismother and brothers wanted to speak with him. Jesus pointed to his disciplesand said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will ofmy Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Mt 12:49-50).This is a radical statement in a culture in which birth determines your family.

But the apostle Paul continues Jesus' emphasis on spiritual family in his

epistles. In I Timothy and Titus, Paul uses family language to describe howthe church of Christ should function. First, he refers to his recipients as hissons in the faith (1 Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4). He gives instructions regarding therelationships between church members in familial terms. "Do not rebuke anolder man harshly," Paul says, "but exhort him as if he were your father.Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger womenas sisters, with absolute purity" (1 Tim 5:1-2, emphasis added). Indeed,Cynthia Long Westfall writes that in the New Testament, "Kingdomrelationships are depicted as the believer's primary family."10 This was notthe pattern in antiquity. Rome frowned upon claiming family ties withoutcause. Being family gave you obligations. Jesus and Paul's language aboutchurch as family was radical talk and not merely cultural convention.

Paul's vision of church life in his letter to Titus includes every memberencouraging and instructing the others to embody the gospel in theirbehavior. The older women are to teach the younger women "to love theirhusbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home …kind … and to be subject to their husbands" (Tit 2:4-5). Older men are toencourage the younger men to be self-controlled, to do good and to showintegrity and seriousness (Tit 2:6-7). When these relationships operateappropriately, the young learn to live the gospel by the examples of theirChristian "family," and the Christian community embodies the faith in such away that outsiders take notice and God is glorified."

This way of thinking about church is challenging to Western readers. Manyof us joke that "you can't choose your family." But we all know full well thatwe can choose our church. In the West, church is considered a voluntaryassociation. That is, people join a church freely and voluntarily, and they takeon certain responsibilities-or don't-as they choose. This view of church beganto predominate in North America after the Great Awakening of the 1740s.Before then, people (in Puritan New England, at least) became part of thechurch not when they chose to but when they were baptized as infants. Later,

they became full members when they gave an account of their personalexperience of conversion. Under this system, children were regarded aschildren of the covenant. The congregation had a responsibility to help rearthem to saving faith. As a result of the Awakening, however, many began tobelieve that the system of infant baptism led to an impure church that wasmixed with believers and unbelievers alike. They feared people would have afalse sense of security in their faith because they were baptized as infants,even though they had no personal relationship with Jesus. Many of the peoplewho felt this way eventually left the older established churches to form newones in which membership was based solely on believers' baptism. Adultswho could give an account of saving faith and symbolized it in baptism thenjoined the church voluntarily (i.e., not because they were "forced" throughbaptism as infants). In this new system, what legitimized the church waseveryone's decision to associate with it. People entered the church on thebasis of their individual experience and decision; they were free to leave onthe basis of their individual decision. They became part of the group, but theiridentity wasn't determined by the group.'2

If we're not careful, our individualistic assumptions about church can leadus to think of the church as something like a health club. We're membersbecause we believe in the mission statement and want to be a part of theaction. As long as the church provides the services I want, I'll stick around.But when I no longer approve of the vision, or am no longer "being fed," I'mout the door. This is not biblical Christianity. Scripture is clear that when webecome Christians, we become-permanently and spiritually-a part of thechurch. We become part of the family of God, with all the responsibilitiesand expectations that word connotes in the non-Western world. We don'tchoose who else is a Christian with us. But we are committed to them, boundto them by the Spirit. And we are not free to dissociate our identities fromthem-mainly because once we are all in Christ, our own individual identitiesare no longer of primary importance. Paul used the metaphor of a body toemphasize that all the parts belong to and depend on one another (1 Cor

12).13

But we can miss this, because a flaw in the English language workstogether with our love for individualism. In English, you can be both singularand plural. That is, we can't differentiate formally between you (singular) andyou (plural). Most languages don't endure this ambiguity. And deep down,we don't like to either. That's why English speakers in different regions comeup with colloquial terms to differentiate between the two: y'all, you'ns, youguys, you lot, youse (Scotland), your (Liverpool) and even yous guys (partsof New York). Biblical Greek could differentiate between you singular andyou plural. But we miss this in our English translations. Paul asked theCorinthians: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the HolySpirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not yourown" (1 Cor 6:19). We typically understand the singulars and plurals in thisverse backwards. In the original Greek, the you is plural and temple issingular. Paul is saying, "All of you together are a singular temple for theHoly Spirit." God doesn't have millions of little temples scattered around.Together we make the dwelling for the Spirit. Peter uses a beautiful metaphorfor this spiritual reality. He calls believers "living stones" who are being builttogether into "a spiritual house for a holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5 NASB).

Yet even in Peter's image of one temple in which we are each stones, we inthe West may assume that the emphasis is on the parts. We think, "Look, I'mthis unique stone right there." It's a little like buying a commemorative brickfor a building project, one with your name on it. We're happy to be part of thecollective as long as we are still individually recognizable. But what wentwithout being said for Peter and his audience-and much of the rest of theworld today-is that the emphasis is on the whole. They would have thought,"I'm an indistinguishable part of this whole, but a part nonetheless." Paul wasre flecting this thought in his letter to the Ephesians: "In him [Christ] thewhole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in theLord. And in him you [plural] too are being built together to become a

dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit" (Eph 2:21-22).

So why go to church? Why worship with a group? Because, in some waywe may not fully understand, the Spirit indwells the group in a way the Spiritdoes not indwell the individual. We are all built together to become one,whole building: a single dwelling for his Spirit. Like it or not, we need eachother. As Rodney Reeves noted, "I cannot worship God by myself."14

CONCLUSION

In 2010, novelist Anne Rice (famous for Interview with the Vampire)decided that she'd had enough of being a Christian. Ten years before, she hadconverted to the faith (or came back to the faith) and started writing a seriesof novels about the life of Christ. Eventually she couldn't take it anymore.She announced on Facebook that although she still believed in Jesus, shecould no longer associate with his followers. Here's what she said: "Today Iquit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always butnot to being `Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossiblefor me to `belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedlyinfamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. Myconscience will allow nothing else."15

While we certainly can resonate with her frustration, her perspectivebetrays a Western and individualistic view of the church that the Bible simplydoesn't support. She wanted to distinguish her own identity from that of thechurch, making it clear that her identity is not bound up in anything but herown faith. Her individual conscience provided a truer moral compass-in heropinion-than two thousand years of history. Now, we're not picking on AnneRice; she simply provides a famous example. But we see this tendency all thetime among Christian college students and young adults. It has becomeincreasingly popular in recent years for believers to call themselves Christfollowers instead of Christians. Like Rice, they don't want to be associatedwith the negative, nominal and cultural connotations of the word Christian.

Associating with Christ but not his church is a distinction Jesus would neverhave made. In his final prayer to the Father before his crucifixion, Jesusprayed that his followers would recognize that they are eternally knit togetherand that their corporate testimony would win even more followers to theWay. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone," Jesus prayed, "but for those alsowho believe in Me through their word"-that's us-"that they may all be one;even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, sothat the world may believe that You sent Me" (Jn 17:20-21 NASB). Jesusviewed us-his church-as a collectivist community. He came to establish apeople of God, over which he would reign as king. It is not really "me andJesus." He will reign in my heart because he will reign over all creation (Phil2:10). In the West, it may help if the church started thinking more in terms ofwe than me.

One practice that has been extremely useful for both of us in trying toidentify with a collectivist worldview is reading fiction written by authorswith a collectivist perspective. This provides readers the opportunity to beimmersed in a new point of view, experiencing the tensions and difficulties atleast vicariously. This can be particularly helpful if the novelists happen to beChristians; they'll help you wrestle with new ways of understanding theBible. In the "Resources for Further Explanation" at the end of the book,we've made a few suggestions of authors and novels that provide an effectiveimmersion into a collectivistic mindset.

Additionally, make a conscious effort to read the you in biblical texts asplural. Don't worry if you get it wrong." You're trying to correct a bad habit,and it's okay to overcorrect at first. Take the time to tease out the implicationsof interpreting the text through an individualist lens and through a collectivistone. To return to a previous example, if you understand 1 Corinthians 6:19 tomean: "your [sin gular] body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you[singular], whom you [singular] have received from God," you mightconclude a good application would be, "I need to quit smoking." (That's what

many of the people we grew up around believed.) If, however, you read "your[plural] body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you [plural], whom you[plural] have received from God," you might conclude Paul's concern hasmore to do with the community at large. In the context of I Corinthians 6,Paul is speaking about visiting temple prostitutes. If you read the passageindividually, you think in terms of personal repercussions, but Paul wasactually worried about how bad behavior contaminated the entirecongregation.

Reading in the plural is unnatural for Westerners. But it's an important skillto learn if we hope to be the Christian community God has made us to be.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1. It can be difficult for Westerners to think of their faith in plural terms. Youmay have been particularly challenged-or put off!by the idea that salvationmay be a corporate affair. In your mind, what are the dangers of readingthe Bible through a collectivistic lens rather than an individualistic one?What is at stake for you?

2. My (Randy's) anthropology professor worked in a remote tribal area foryears. His village friends gave him a nickname that meant, "Man whoneeds no one." This would be a positive American trait, but they were notintending to compliment him. People sometimes quote "God helps thosewho help themselves" as if it were Scripture. How Christian is the conceptof self-reliance?

3. Verry was one of my (Randy's) fellow professors in Indonesia. Verrywasn't originally from Manado, where we were teaching together. Oneday I asked, "How does a fellow from [his remote island] end up inManado?" Verry said that as a young man, he had hitched a ride on a boatand was headed to Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, to seek hisfortune. As a stowaway, he was put off the boat in Manado. Having no

money (this being before the days of cell phones), Verry remembered hisgrandfather once saying that they had relatives in some mountain villagenear Manado. Several days and many questions later, Verry was knockingon a door in a small village. When the man answered, Verry said, "I amthe son of …. who is the son of …. whose brothers were …" The man askedsome more questions. After about five minutes, they determined thatVerry was remotely related. They took Verry in. He lived there for eightyears! After all, they were kin. Most American Christians would beunwilling to live with that sort of obligation. It isn't practical. Imaginewhat could happen, we would argue. We might see Indonesians asimpractical, but they might see us as unchristian. What are a Christian'sresponsibilities to her or his family? Do you think our sense of obligationto family should be determined by culture or by Scripture?

4. Like Anne Rice, you may want nothing to do with some Christians.They've messed up or sounded off or otherwise embarrassed you and eventhe cause of Christ. Yet Paul said, "The eye cannot say to the hand, `Idon't need you!"' (1 Cor 12:21). What would Paul think of us stompingout of one church to join another one because we didn't like what was"going on" there?

5. What might a collectivist view of church membership entail for you inyour particular congregation and/or denomination? What are the gains andlosses of committing to one Christian community rather than lookingaround for one that might feel like a better or more natural "fit"?

Honor/Shame and Right/Wrong

On one occasion, I (Randy) was counseling an Indonesian couple in whichthe husband had just been caught in adultery. I was surprised that the wife'sgreatest pain seemed not to be the personal betrayal. In her words, the mostbasic concern was, "Where can I put my face?" He had "wronged her"-to usemy term-by "shaming her"-their term. This confuses us Westerners. In fact,the entire issue of honor and shame over against right and wrong (innocenceand guilt) is a bit of a mystery to us. As authors, we must confess that thischapter was one of the more challenging to write. English just doesn't havegood words to describe this system, and our cultural values run almost in theopposite direction. Conceptually, the topic under discussion in this chapter isclosely related to the subject matter of the last chapter. As will becomeclearer below, individualist cultures tend also to be right/wrong(innocence/guilt) cultures, while collectivist cultures tend to be honor/ shamecultures.' That means we're getting deeper into choppy waters. Here's whatwe propose: we'll define what scholars have meant by honor and shame bycomparing them to the Western concepts of right and wrong.' Then we'llshow how honor and shame worked in the ancient worldview by offeringsome Old Testament and New Testament examples.

DEFINING A WESTERN VIEW OF RIGHT AND WRONG

We argued in the previous chapter that the formation of the individual self isa central value in individualist cultures such as that of the United States. An

important part of mature selfhood, for us, is knowing the difference betweenright and wrong. Ideally, then, we choose the right and avoid the wrong. Thissense of what is right and what is wrong is expected to be internal, within theheart and mind of each person, and people are expected to choose rightbehavior on the basis of the conscience. Rules and laws are established toguide people in the right path. But ultimately the goal is that people willinternalize the code of conduct so that it becomes not a matter of externalinfluence but of internal guidance. We even have a verse for this. Actually wedon't, but we (mis)paraphrase Paul and say: Christ's law should be written onour hearts and not on tablets of stone (2 Cor 3:2-3). Our point is that ourdecisions to act rightly are not necessarily made with other people in mind-toplease others, for example-but on the basis of an objective and largelyindividual sense of right and wrong.3

Things have not always been this way in the Western tradition. In biblicaltimes, it was an honor/shame world. Emperor Nero loved to sing, but singingreferred to singing in public. An old Greek proverb reasoned, "Hidden musiccounts for nothing."4 Likewise, ancients avoided doing evil not primarilybecause they were concerned about right or wrong, but because others werewatching. For this reason, the mythical "ring of Gyges" was considered theone temptation that no man could resist. The ring made its bearer invisible.With it on, a man could do whatever he wished without others knowing. Youmay recognize this storyline; J. R. R. Tolkien used it in the Lord of the Ringstrilogy. The movie didn't explain, though, why humans found the "one ring"so tempting. Plato knew. "No man can be imagined to be of such an ironnature that he would stand fast injustice" if he was free to act withoutanyone's knowledge, Plato wrote; "No man would keep his hands off whatwas not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market."5The suggestion is that ordinary humans do right only if others are watching.Plato argued that humans could (and should) resist the temptation of the ring;he argued for an inner motivation for moral conduct. Plato set the Greekworld, and later the Western world, on a path that would lead toward each

person having an inner (individual) voice to distinguish and choose rightfrom wrong.

This inner voice is strengthened by the concomitant Western habit ofdichotomizing everything, usually into good or bad. In fact, it is more basicthan that. We tend to view everything as an "eitheror." Aristotle's use ofsyllogisms and, ultimately, the dualism of Descartes have conditionedWesterners to polarize choices into two opposing categories.' (Many readerswill be trying to decide if we are right or wrong about this!) Eastern thought,influenced by the Tao and Confucius, the yin/yang, tend to strive forharmony rather than distinction, stressing more a both-and perspective ratherthan an either-or. Thus, I (Randy) teach my sons to be individuals, make uptheir own minds, stand out from the crowd, stop listening to the group. Ipunctuate my lesson with an American aphorism: "Take the road lesstraveled." My Chinese pastor-friend, by contrast, teaches his sons to live inharmony, to blend in, to listen to what the group is saying. Likewise, hequotes a time-honored Chinese aphorism, "It is the tall poppy that gets cutdown." Both fathers want their children to know what is right, but my sonsare to listen to their hearts, and his sons are to listen to their community.

Because Westerners-especially Americans-assume we should be internallymotivated to do the right thing, we also believe we will be internallypunished if we don't. American literature offers a sterling example of theWestern assumption that internal guilt will convict a wrongdoer of his crime.In Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Tell-Tale Heart," an unnamed narratortells the reader how he killed (for no real reason) the elderly man who livedwith him, dismembered him and then buried him under the floorboards of hisown bedroom. It is the perfect crime: he leaves no evidence, so he is sure toget away with it. But he is undone by his guilty conscience, which manifestsitself in a hallucination that the old man's heart continues to beat in his earsfrom beyond the grave. It's a gruesome illustration, we know. But it makesthe point. In the West, we know right from wrong objectively, and we

typically assume that our wrongdoings will find us out because ourconsciences won't let us rest until we confess.

DEFINING HONOR/SHAME

Things work differently in shame cultures. In shame cultures, people aremore likely to choose right behavior on the basis of what society expectsfrom them. It is not a matter of guilt, nor an inner voice of direction, but outerpressures and opinions that direct a person to behave a certain way.' Rulesand laws are less a deterrent for bad behavior than the risk of bringing shameon oneself or one's family. In fact, one should not regret actions that, in thewords of Dayanand Pitamber, "have been approved by those consideredsignificant. When a person performs any act in the interest of the community,he is not concerned about the wrongness or rightness of the acts."' If a personcommits violence that is approved by the community, then he has no reasonto feel shame (and certainly not guilt). A critical value in this sort of culture ispreserving "face," or the honor associated with one's name. As Duane Elmernotes, the Thai word for being shamed, for losing face, literally means "totear someone's face off so they appear ugly before their friends andcommunity." Likewise, the word among the Shona of Zimbabwe denotes, "tostomp your feet on my name" or "to wipe your feet on my name."' If a personfrom a shame culture commits a "sin," he will not likely feel guilty about it ifno one else knows, for it is the community (not the individual) thatdetermines whether one has lost face. This may seem unbelievable to manyof you. You may think, Is that even right? Surely, the person "deep downinside" feels at least a twinge of guilt. (In our experience, no, they do not.)Paul considered himself "faultless" even though he was persecutingChristians (Phil 3:6). It was only when he was confronted by another that herealized his sin (Acts 9:1-5); this was also the case with Peter (Gal 2:11-14).10 In a shame culture, it is not the guilty conscience but the communitythat punishes the offender by shaming him.

For example, in 1997, a government minister of Malaysia, Ting Chew Peh,

hoped to crack down on littering in his country. They put in place a fine offour hundred dollars (U.S.) for those caught tossing rubbish. But that wasn'tthe main deterrent. Offenders would be required to pick up trash whilewearing a T-shirt that read, "I am a litterbug." Ting Chew Peh "hoped publicshaming would deter others."11

The risk of shaming can likewise affect the way that entire governmentsact. After the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, Westerners rushed to help. Thehardest-hit region, Aceh, has always protected itself from outsider influence.(Most Westerners would call this isolationism.) In this case, preferences hadto be put aside. I (Randy) had never dreamed I would ever set foot in Aceh;yet, within weeks of the tsunami, I was leading medical teams there.Acehnese people were gracious and grateful. After a few months, though, theAcehnese government fretted over how their people would respond to somany foreigners everywhere. They worried the people might conclude theirgovernment wasn't protecting them properly from foreign influence. Therewas risk of shame. So the Acehnese government demanded that foreignersleave. They didn't want the foreigners to leave. They didn't expect them toleave. They made the demand in order to save face, to show that they caredabout their people.

Indonesian vice president Jusuf Kalla needed to show that he honored thewishes of the Acehnese provincial government, so he demanded allforeigners leave the country by March 26, which was three months away. Hedidn't actually want the foreigners to leave, nor did he expect them to. Asiansunderstood all this. Malaysian defense minister Najib Razak, speaking for thecountries of Southeast Asia, noted the timetable and later commented thatforeign aid would remain as long as needed. From his perspective, everyonehas saved face, everyone wins and everything is fine.

Well, not quite everything. Americans didn't understand. People in theUnited States were stunned and outraged, asking: How dare they kick us out?

Don't they want us there? America's government demanded an apology, and apower struggle began. Indonesia wanted and needed us there. If Indonesiastood firm, they would lose aid they desperately needed; if they gave in to theUnited States, the Acehnese provincial government would lose face.Ultimately, they apologized, to their shaming. Even after the apology, manyAmericans thought that the Acehnese were ungrateful, which represents acardinal sin in many Western cultures. No one won.

To summarize, in an innocence/guilt culture (which includes most Westernsocieties), the laws of society, the rules of the church, local mores and thecode of the home are all internalized in the person. The goal is that when aperson breaks one of these, her or his conscience will be pricked. In fact, it ishoped that the conscience will discourage the person from breaking the rulein the first place. The battle is fought on the inside. In an honor/shamesociety, such as that of the Bible and much of the non-Western world today,the driving force is to not bring shame upon yourself, your family, yourchurch, your village, your tribe or even your faith. The determining force isthe expectations of your significant others (primarily your family). Theirexpectations don't override morals or right/wrong; they actually are theethical standards. In these cultures, you are shamed when you disappointthose whose expectations matter. "You did wrong"-not by breaking a law andhaving inner guilt but by failing to meet the expectations of your community.For our discussion here, the point to notice is that the verdict comes not fromthe inner conscience of the perpetrator but from the external re sponse of hisor her group. One's actions are good or bad depending upon how thecommunity interprets them.

As is clear from all this, non-Western and Western cultures have a difficulttime understanding each other. Western readers of this book likely think thenon-Western view of honor is strange and convoluted. Our non-Westernfriends find us equally confusing. Westerners like to think of ourselves asholding to the moral high ground that is found within ourselves; non-

Westerners often view us as insensitive.

LANGUAGE AND SOME FINE DISTINCTIONS

The vocabulary for honor and shame is difficult for Westerners to keepstraight, not least because though we still use the terms honor and shame, weuse them differently.

First, shame is not negative in honor/shame cultures; shaming is.Technically, in these cultures, shame is a good thing: it indicates that you andyour community know the proper way to behave." You have a sense ofshame; if you didn't, you would have no shame. You would be shameless.This is different from being shamed. When an older American asks, "Haveyou no shame?" they mean, "Don't you know the proper thing to do?" Whenone is censured for not having a sense of shame, for being shameless, thenone is shamed.

We know that all this can be confusing. But remember that languages tendnot to have words for ideas that are not considered important. Sincehonor/shame isn't important in English, we are lacking in the words we need.Make no mistake, though: shame is important. It was why the Jewish officialskilled Jesus. They didn't kill him for going around preaching "love oneanother" or for healing the sick or for performing miracles. They killed himbecause he had taken their honor-a limited resource (more on that below).

This all means, of course, that how we view immorality-whether we viewit as wrong or as shameful-affects the way we read the Bible. In a landmarkessay, theologian Krister Stendahl demonstrated that the introspectiveconscience of Westerners is alien to the biblical authors.13 Beginning withAugustine, Christians understood Paul's conversion as a troubled conscienceweighed down by the guilt of sin but transformed by the soothing message ofChrist's forgiveness. Paul "saw the light," not so much literally as internally.Luther encouraged Western Christians to come to Christ via our own

consciences properly convicted from our reading of God's law. Today, weoften skip over Paul's statement that his life was blameless according to thelaw before he met Christ (Phil 3:4-6). Paul shows no sign of a troubledconscience before or after his conversion. Yet we don't know how to have aconversion without inner guilt. Doesn't Jesus promise a Paraclete("Advocate") that will convict the world? Absolutely (Jn 16). But what goeswithout being said for us is that "conviction" must be internal. In fact, wemight (mistakenly) assume that is the only way the Spirit might work.Actually, the Spirit uses both inner conviction (a sense of guilt) and externalconviction (a sense of shame). While the ancient world and most of the non-Western world contain honor/shame cultures and the West is made up ofinnocence/guilt cultures, God can work effectively in both.14

HONOR AND SHAME IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

When you know to look for it, the honor/shame aspect of the cultures of theBible becomes apparent in many ways. We have enough space to consideronly a couple examples. Scholars generally agree that the Holy Spiritconvicted biblical characters through external, not internal, voices. A veryfamiliar Old Testament story of how God convicted an unrepentant sinnerillustrates well how our assumptions about an introspective conscience cancause us to miss what's really happening.

The prophet Nathan was the tool of the Spirit to convict David of his sinwith Bathsheba (2 Sam 12). That much we usually get right. Nevertheless, wecommonly misread this story because we miss the undercurrent of honor andshame. We typically assume that David was aware of his sin but stubbornlyrefused to repent. Then, when Nathan confronts David-or, in a sense, trickshim-David's con science is pricked, he gives in to his inner conviction and hepublicly repents. It is far more likely that David had not given the matter amoment's thought. Remember, we Westerners tend to be introspective, butbiblical characters were generally not. From beginning to end, the entire storyof David and Bathsheba is steeped in honor and shame language, and this

explains why Western readers often find some parts of the story confusing.

The way the narrator opens the story is telling: "In the spring, at the timewhen kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and thewhole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah.But David remained in Jerusalem" (2 Sam 11:1).

David was not where he was supposed to be. He was lounging at thepalace, while Joab was doing the kingly role of leading the army. (Joab's rolewill come up again.) Already the issue of honor and shame is introduced.David is not acting honorably as king. Then matters get worse. "One eveningDavid got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. Fromthe roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and Davidsent someone to find out about her" (2 Sam 11:2-3).

Women (then or now) don't bathe in places where they could be seenpublicly. We might assume Bathsheba had been engaged in a ritual Jewishbath, but the text never says, or even suggests, that she was Jewish (herhusband was a Hittite).15 Furthermore, we are unaware of ritual purificationsdone at night. Since it is evening (remember, David had been in bed), it islikely it was dark and therefore Bathsheba had provided sufficient lighting-sufficient for bathing and sufficient for being seen while bathing. We mayassume Bathsheba was aware that her rooftop was visible from the palace,notably from the king's balcony. In antiquity, people were cognizant of theirproximity to the seat of power. Even today, White House offices are rankedby their distance from the Oval Office. We would be unlikely to believe aWhite House aide who said, "I just stepped out in the hallway to talk. I didn'trealize that the president of the United States walked down this hallway everyday at this time!" Likewise, we would be skeptical if Bathsheba asserted,"Oh, I didn't realize that was the king's balcony." We think the story is told ina way to imply she intended to be seen by the king. Her plan works.16

David likes what he sees, so he asks a servant to find out who she is. The

servant responds to the king's question with a question: "Is this notBathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" (2 Sam 11:3NASB).'7 This sort of response is customary in an honor/ shame culture. Theservant responded with a question because it would shame the king for aservant to know something that the king doesn't know. So he informs the kingby posing a question, giving David the opportunity to answer, "That'scorrect." Everyone saves face.

Then David has Bathsheba brought to his palace, where he sleeps with her.Then she goes home. When we find out she's pregnant, we may be tempted tothink, Uh oh. Now David is in trouble. There's no hiding what he's done now(2 Sam 11:5). But that's not really the point. David is the king; he could havepaid Uriah for the woman. But David isn't interested in acquiring Bathshebaas a wife or concubine; he wants to save face.

Most Westerners will likely misread here. First, we'll assume a measure ofprivacy that didn't exist in the ancient world. David's adultery with Bathshebawas not a private affair. He asked a servant to find out who the woman was.As soon as the king sent a servant to inquire who the woman was, everyonein the palace would be talking. Then he sent messengers (plural) to bring herto the palace. The entire palace would know that David sent for the wife ofUriah.

Also, the narrator wants us to know that the real conflict is between Davidand Uriah. The story quits referring to her as "Bathsheba" and switches to"the wife of Uriah" ("Mrs. Uriah"). In fact, it is quite possible that thenarrator never tells us her name. Bathsheba means "daughter of an oath" orprobably "daughter of Sheba." Likely, this term references her appearanceand origin-she is from Shebarather than her name. The story centers uponUriah, the named and undisputed victim in the story. The wife of Uriah came,spent one or more nights and then was sent away. (The text pours on shameby saying she was "sent away," not "she left.")

Everyone in the palace knew about it. "The wife of Uriah" is shamed, sinceDavid didn't keep her. When she sends word that she is pregnant, it is publicnews. Everyone knows. Everyone will also know that David sent for Uriah:"So David sent this word to Joab: `Send me Uriah the Hittite.' And Joab senthim to David" (2 Sam 11:6).

Now, we may not know why he sent for Uriah, but everyone else wouldhave. David is asking Uriah to let him off the hook. If Uriah comes home andspends one night with his wife, then the baby is "technically" Uriah's, eventhough everyone knows otherwise. Honor would be restored (among themen). Bathsheba may be the unhappy victim-either because she was assaultedoriginally or, more likely, because she was sent away afterwards. For ourpurposes here, though, we should note David's concern is not whetheradultery is objectively right or wrong. He doesn't appear to be nursing aguilty conscience. While in our Western culture, a "guilty conscience" can gowithout being said, in David's culture, honor and shame did not need to bestated overtly. The hints and innuendos were sufficient. David's concern wasnot soothing a guilty conscience but protecting his honor as king.

It is quite likely that Uriah had already heard the gossip by the time hereturned home. Supplies were constantly flowing between the city and thearmy. Everyone wanted news from home. If Uriah had no friend or servantsin the city to fill him in-which was unlikely, since his house was soprominently located-he would have found out what was going on somehow.Uriah was no messenger or courier; he was a soldier. Kings did not summonrandom soldiers. Before you keep that appointment, you would want to knowwhy. If the king intended to execute you, you would want to know so thatyou could fail to show up for the appointment. In any case, it is clear from thestory that Uriah finds out what's up before he sees David: "When Uriah cameto him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how thewar was going. Then David said to Uriah, `Go down to your house and washyour feet.' So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after

him" (2 Sam. 11:7-8).

The story tells us exactly what David is doing. He tells Uriah to go homeand he sends Uriah payment ("a gift") to let David off the hook. We don'tknow the reason-perhaps Uriah loved his wife or perhaps the gift was toosmall-but Uriah won't play ball: "But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palacewith all his master's servants and did not go down to his house. David wastold, Uriah did not go home"' (2 Sam 11:9-10).

Uriah's reason for sleeping at the palace entrance was to make a publicstatement. Everyone, including David, knows now that Uriah is not lettingDavid off the hook. The narrator doesn't want us to miss this: "David wastold." So David ups the ante; he calls Uriah back for another conference. Thevery act of a mere mercenary soldier-remember, Uriah is not an Israelite-having a second audience with the king is a veiled threat. He asks Uriah,"Haven't you just come from a military campaign? Why didn't you gohome?" (2 Sam 11:10). It is likely that Uriah is angry. His response shamesDavid in three ways. First, Uriah notes that everyone (with one exception)was where they were supposed to be: in the field with the army. "Uriah saidto David, `The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and mycommander Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open country. Howcould I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surelyas you live, I will not do such a thing!"' (2 Sam 11:11). Even God(symbolized by the ark) was there. Everyone was there, that is, but David.Second, Uriah notes the one in the field commanding the army-doing David'sjob-was Joab, not David. This was all the more poignant because Uriah was apaid solder, a Hittite mercenary. He has less reason to fight for Israel thanDavid had. Lastly, Uriah indicates to David he knows exactly what Davidwants and will not cooperate: "and make love to my wife."

So David switches strategies and tries to get Uriah to pass out drunk. Hecan then have the unconscious Uriah tossed into the front door of his house.

But that doesn't work either. "Then David said to him, `Stay here one moreday, and tomorrow I will send you back.' So Uriah remained in Jerusalem thatday and the next. At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and Davidmade him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his matamong his master's servants; he did not go home" (2 Sam 11:12-13).

Now it is clear to everyone, including David, that Uriah will not giveDavid an honorable way out of this mess. It was customary for Mediterraneankings merely to seize whatever they wanted. King Ahab wanted Naboth'svineyard, for example, so he took it (1 Kings 21:18). You may recall thatDavid himself refused to do this on another occasion (2 Sam 24:24). In thiscase, David takes the low road. He refuses to pay Uriah to divorce his wife;instead, he arranges for Uriah to be killed. We know the story, but thenarrator wants us to notice that more than Uriah (or other mercenaries) diedas a result of David's decision: "some of the men in David's army fell" (2 Sam11:17).

Nonetheless, the text gives no indication that David felt any inner remorse.We misread when we think David had a guilty conscience. David's honor isrestored; Bathsheba moves in so the baby is David's. Bathsheba probably gotwhat she wanted. Only Uriah suffered, and David likely considered it Uriah'sfault. Uriah had failed to play along. He had shamed David and Davidretaliated. Probably in David's mind, he had made Uriah a fair offer. Cest lavie, we might say. David summarized the episode this way in a message sentto Joab: "Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another"(2 Sam 11:25).

We want you to see that the honor/shame aspect of David's culturedetermined his conduct. At every step, he did what was typical for aMediterranean king at the time in a situation like this. And according to thehonor/shame system of David's day, the matter was resolved. It is likely thatDavid never gave it another thought. He was not likely tortured by a guilty

conscience. There was no further recourse. All parties were satisfied orsilenced.

Everyone is satisfied except the Lord. Note how the narrator words it:"After the time of mourning was over, David had her [Bathsheba] brought tohis house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing Davidhad done displeased the LORD" (2 Sam 11:27, emphasis added).

Although David had acted appropriately according to the broader culturalstandards of his day, God held him to higher moral standards. Even so, Godworked through the honor/shame system to bring David to repentance. Theculture of David's day didn't have a way to bring up the matter. WeWesterners might assume that God's Spirit would eventually convict David'sinner heart, like Poe's telltale heart. That's because Westerners areintrospective. We respond to internal pressure. But David doesn't appear to beexperiencing any inner pressure. No matter; God is not stymied by culture.God had introduced another element into ancient Near Eastern culture: aprophet. Instead of a voice whispering to his heart, a prophet shouted at hisface. Either way, God speaks. Since David's culture used shame to bringabout conformity, God used shame to bring David to repentance. "ThenNathan said to David, `You are the man!"' (2 Sam 12:7).

The moving story of David's subsequent repentance has stirred the heartsof believers for thousands of years. We have David's words of repentance:

Actually, David's words of repentance might trouble you a bit. First, Davidsays he sinned only against God. Well, it seems to us David sinned againstBathsheba, Uriah, Joab and certainly the Israelite soldiers who were killedjust because they were nearby. In fact, it seems there are plenty of peopleagainst whom David has sinned. Second, David confesses his sin as "frombirth." We were thinking more like one moonlit night on a palace stroll. InDavid's day, kings had the right to do the things David did. Kings (andgovernments today) take property from citizens. They send soldiers to war,where some die. David was within his cultural rights. He broke no laws.Well, he did break one: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" (Ex 20:17xlv). David had transgressed God's laws, not his country's. Thus, when hesays, "against you, you only, have I sinned," David is admitting that he isaccountable not only to the expectations for a king but that he is alsoaccountable to God.

This story illustrates three things powerfully. First, what goes withoutbeing said about sin and how God deals with it can lead us to miss importantfactors in the biblical text. If we assume David thought like a Westerner withan introspective conscience, we're likely to miss the point altogether. Second,God does not consider the matter closed just because David and the rest ofthe Israelites might. While culture determines how we understand theconsequences of sin, God's will and commands are universal. It doesn'tmatter if our culture says it's okay if God says it isn't. Third, this story makesit quite clear that God is capable of working through all cultural systems andexpectations to bring sinners to repentance. Perhaps God has used yourconscience to bring you to repentance in the past. We're not belittling thatexperience. (It was and is our experience too.) Likewise, though, the powerof the honor/shame system should not be underestimated. It is at least aspowerful, and some would argue more powerful, than our Westernworldview of guilt."' So does God work through shamebased or guilt-basedmethods? We think the answer is both.

God worked through the honor/shame system, but we would err if weimplied this was merely a system. God himself is concerned abouthonor/shame even if we Westerners are not. Throughout the Old Tes tament,God is concerned about the glory/honor of his name. The psalmists talk aboutthis a lot: "You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you descendants ofJacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!" (Ps 22:23,emphasis added); "Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, andyou will honor me" (Ps 50:15, emphasis added).

God is also willing to honor those worthy of it. "For the LORD God is asun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor; no good thing does hewithhold from those whose walk is blameless" (Ps 84:11, emphasis added)."He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, Iwill deliver him and honor him" (Ps 91:15, emphasis added).

It is also interesting that Bible characters often appeal to God's honor to gethim to act on their behalf. When the Israelites make the golden calf, God isangry. "`I have seen these people,' the LORD said to Moses, `and they are astiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn againstthem and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation"'(Ex 32:9-10).

Moses makes a two-pronged argument to persuade God to change hismind: (1) think about what the Egyptians will say about your name; and (2)you swore on your name and you don't want to get a bad name! Mosesdoesn't appeal to God's sense of justice ("it wouldn't be right") but to hissense of honor ("you will be shamed"): "Why should the Egyptians say, `Itwas with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountainsand to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger;relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servantsAbraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self" (Ex 32:12-13).

HONOR AND SHAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the same way that God used shame, through Nathan, to bring David torepentance, so also New Testament writers employed honor/ shame culturalassumptions to compel Christians to good works. Although Plato predates theNew Testament, his influence had not yet shaped Palestinian culture. It wasstill an honor/shame society.

During what we commonly refer to as the "white throne judgment," all themisdeeds from our past will be displayed for all to see: "For we must allappear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receivewhat is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" (2Cor 5:10).

For us, this is a bummer, but it's not devastating. I've always imagined thisas watching a film reel of my foibles (some of them worse than others). Thenwhen that uncomfortable formality concludes, it's off to heaven for eternityfor me. Not so bad, in the grand scheme of things. For Paul's first-centuryhearers, though, this news would have brought them to their knees. Thisjudgment is described as a public honor/shame event. (God has the time tojudge us all privately and individually, if he so intended.) Paul is applying ashame motivation to get the Corinthians to live worthily of the grace-gift Godhas given them. The very next line Paul writes is, "Since, then, we know whatit is to fear the Lord" (2 Cor 5:11). What is it we are fearing? That the Lordwill expose all our sins to the entire community of faith. He is warning themthat although they might not currently feel guilty about their sin, there willcome a day when they will be publicly shamed for their misdeeds before Godand everybody. Paul is trying to "scare them straight."

During his earthly ministry, Jesus worked within the honor/ shame system.In the ancient world, there was only so much honor to go around-it was alimited good. Everyone was scrambling for more. Jesus' opponentsunderstood this well. Public questions were never for information. If one

wanted information, you asked privately, as we often see Jesus' disciples do(Mt 24:3; Mk 9:28). Likewise, Nicodemus came at night because he didn'twant his question misunderstood. He was looking for answers from Jesus, nothonor. But public questions were contests. The winner was determined by theaudience, who represented the community. If you silenced your opponent,you gained honor and they lost some. Even though scholars often refer to thisas the "honor game," don't underestimate its seri ousness. As we mentionedabove, this is why the Jewish officials killed Jesus. They had beenchallenging Jesus publicly (Mt 12:1-7, for example), and every time they"lost," they lost honor. They were tired of it, and they wanted their honorback. In one of these "honor games" with Jesus, the Jewish leaders askedhim, "Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?" (Mt 22:17). Weoften fail to notice the two most important parts of the story, even thoughMatthew highlighted them.

First, Jesus' conflict with the Jewish leadership begins in the previouschapter: "Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, thechief priests and the elders of the people came to him" (Mt 21:23). Thequestions are posed in the most important public place in all of Israel. Therecouldn't be any higher stakes in the honor game.

The second point Matthew makes is at the end of the conflict story: "Noone could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask himany more questions" (Mt 22:46).

Jesus won. The leaders then decide to kill Jesus. Honor is at stake here.They cannot just go down to the assassin's booth at the market. Sticking aknife in Jesus in some Jerusalem alley would make him a martyr. They needto publicly disgrace Jesus in order to get their honor back. They need himexecuted as a criminal. This honor stuff is pretty serious. Some MiddleEasterners still kill over honor.19

It is within this context that we must understand the fact that Jesus

encouraged his disciples to be humble: "When someone invites you to awedding feast, do not take the place of honor" (Lk 14:8). If you are nothumble, you could suffer a terrible fate: "for a person more distinguished thanyou may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will comeand say to you, `Give this person your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will haveto take the least important place" (Lk 14:8-9). Our English versions don'ttranslate this well. This final sentence is better translated as, "you will gowith shame to the least important seat." Even so, for most of us, it is merelythe fate of having a lousy seat for dinner. For Easterners, you would beshamed in front of everyone. In Jesus' day, the loss of honor affected all areasof life. Arranged marriages might need to be reshuffled: perhaps your sonisn't worthy of his daughter after all. The bakers' guild might kick you out,even though your family has been members for generations.

Why does this matter for reading the Bible? If we misunderstand what'shappening in the story, we might wonder why a story is included in Scriptureat all. What is the possible application, for example, of a story that simplyrecords the bad behavior of its characters? In stories of right/wrong, we canidentify the bad guys and the bad actions. Sometimes in Scripture it is harder.We sometimes see "sin" where the narrator did not intend it-or worse, wedon't see "sin" when the narrator was waving it in front of our faces. In theoutrageous story in judges 19 of the Levite and his concubine, we likelymisread many parts. We see "sin" in several parts of the story: unfaithfulconcubine (v. 2), sexual assault (v. 22), rape (v. 25), cruelty (v. 28) anddesecration of the dead (v. 29). We wouldn't want to dispute any of thesesins, but we likely missed some the narrator considered more important. Theman repeatedly shamed the woman's family by taking her from her parentsbut never giving her a full marriage (vv. 1-3) and later insulted her father'shospitality (v. 10). Also, what the man had feared would happen in Jebus, anon-Israelite town (v. 12), actually happened in an Israelite town. Israeliteswere not being their brother's keeper; they were no longer considering eachother to be family (vv. 15, 22). They were not looking out for each other.

When the story concludes (v. 30), everyone who saw it was saying to oneanother, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day theIsraelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! Sospeak up!" (Judg 19:30). We today assume they are outraged over thechopped-up body. If so, it's hard to imagine the purpose of including the storyin the Bible. Just for shock value? Surely not. It is more likely that bystandersare expressing outrage over the fragmented state of Israel. If they won't standtogether and defend each other, they will end up as chopped apart as that poorwoman. With the tribe behaving shamefully, the people's hope and thepromise of God seem to be unraveling. The story is included to illustrate howbad things have become among God's people, to show the dire need of thepeople's return and the Lord's intervention.

How THEN SHALL WE LIVE?

Non-Western honor systems and Western guilt systems are both used toencourage appropriate behavior and to discourage inappropriate behavior.Because the Bible was written by Middle Eastern authors in cultures thattraded in the currency of honor and shame, we need to be sensitive to thelanguage of honor and shame in Scripture if we hope to learn how to livefaithfully as Christians. As we saw above, Paul used shame to discourage badbehavior. But he also used honor/shame language positively. In Ephesians4:1, the apostle calls his listeners to "live a life worthy of the calling you havereceived" (see also 2 Thess 1:11). The word worthy should alert us thathonor/shame language is being used. In the verses that follow, Paul mentionsspecific behaviors that fall in this category. But his point is to identifyrighteousness as conformity to the expectations of God's community. Thethought that should guide our conduct is that we are representatives of bothChrist and the community that bears his name. As such, we must be careful tolive in such a way that brings honor, and not shame, on Christ's name and hisfamily.

We deceive ourselves when we think sin is individual and independent of a

community's honor. Our individualism feeds the false sense that sin is merelyan inner wrong-the private business between me and God, to be worked outon judgment day. Paul thought otherwise. He considered sin yeast thatinfluenced the whole batch of dough (1 Cor 5:6). The church in Corinth washaving problems with the fellowship meal and the Lord's Supper. Slaves gotoff work at 5 p.m. Some of the wealthy, it appears, were arriving early andeating choice meats and drinking strong wine before the poorer membersarrived. This division of haves and have-nots struck against the very heart ofChristian fellowship. Paul exclaims,

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there aredivisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there haveto be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, forwhen you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers.As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don't youhave homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God byhumiliating those who have nothing? (1 Cor 11:18-22)

As far as Paul is concerned, the Corinthians were eating the meal of Christin an unworthy manner, which brings judgment. He adds, "That is why manyamong you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep" (1Cor 11:30). When we find what appear to be jumps in the logic, usuallysomething went without being said. We misread when we fill that gap withsomething that goes without being said in our own culture. In this case, whatwent without being said in Paul's day was that communities were"permeable."20 What we mean is that bad things could soak into people (andgroups). Ancients didn't understand the world like we do, but they were goodobservers. When one person in a group caught a cold, often others in thegroup got sick. When one person in a group began bad habits or behaviors,often others in the group did as well. We might say that one scenario followsbiology (viruses) and the other sociology (one bad apple spoils the whole

bunch). Nonetheless, contamination happens.

Paul warned the church about the same thing. If you allow this "infection"in the Christian fellowship, it will spread. We often misread this passage. Wefill in a value from our own culture: that is, "everyone pays for their ownsin." Thus we assume the ones who are getting sick or dying are the ones whowere eating unworthily. Paul never says that. Life seldom works that way.The actions of some have dishonored the entire community. Paul argues,"Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church ofGod by humiliating those who have nothing?" (1 Cor 11:22). Their actionswere shaming the church of God and therefore God was defending his honor(Mal 1:6-7)! God was smiting the church for not defending her purity (Mal2:2). He was not meting out early individual punishment for a few. Sin iscorporate; it permeates the whole body. We don't like to think that way, butit's true. It leavens the whole lump and the honor of us all is at stake.

CONCLUSION

Let's return to the betrayed wife who had no place to put her face. We are allconfident the husband sinned-we get that from the Ten Commandments. Whyit was sin depends upon the culture. (Actually, it is sin because God said so,but our culture then explains to us "why" God didn't like it.) The greaterchallenge is then how we become ministers in this place of sin. Honor/shameisn't just an academic issue, a peculiarity of ancient worldview. While I(Randy) was developing ministerial training in Indonesia, the issue ofcounseling came up. It seemed like a no-brainer, but the matter unraveledquickly over issues I had never considered. First, as we have noted, there isno privacy in Indonesia. Everyone knows everybody's business. Whencouples are disagreeing with each other, there are usually other folks in thehouse. Also, the neighbor's house is only a couple of feet away. Unless theyare whispering in the bedroom, others will hear. In villages the walls ofhouses are made of split bamboo, and you can even hear whispering. There

are just no private issues. Second, a couple cannot go to see the pastorwithout everyone knowing a visit occurred. Third, a couple is very unlikelyto go to see the pastor until the entire village knows. More significantly, theyare unlikely to think they have a problem until someone else tells them.When neighbors tell the couple, "You two are arguing and need help," thenthey become aware of relationship problems. It is the vil lage's problem. Thecouple will live there in the future, whether or not they are together, so itaffects village life. This cheating husband's sin had an impact on the entirecommunity. So in what way was "private counseling" appropriate for thatcouple?

The further we move down the iceberg of culture, the more difficult itbecomes to prescribe practices for uncovering our presuppositions. This maybe the most challenging chapter yet. We recommend you see the Resourcesfor Further Exploration for suggested readings on this topic. You'll begin tosee honor/shame language in the Bible when you are more familiar with theconcept. In the meantime, pay attention to where stories take place inScripture. If an event or conversation is taking place publicly, there's a goodchance that honor/shame is at stake, such as in the story of Ruth and Boaz. Aswe mentioned above, the key difference between the questions Nicodemusand Jesus' disciples asked and those asked by Jerusalem's Jewish leaders wascontext: Nicodemus and the disciples questioned Jesus privately (see, forexample, Jn 3:2 and Mt 17:19). The Jewish leaders questioned him publicly.You might object that the primary difference was motive: Nicodemus and thedisciples were asking sincere questions, while the religious leaders weretrying to trap Jesus. That's true. But context indicates motive. Privatequestions were not honor challenges. Public questions were.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.The media frequently report a politician's misbehavior. Often someone willrespond, "What he does privately is his business. Public life and privatelife are separate matters." Yet the Bible views life holistically. A lack of

integrity in any part of a ship's hull is still a risk of breach; it doesn'tmatter if it is the port or the starboard side. Sin is never really private. Is adivorce really just the private business of two people? What about thechildren? What about the grandparents? Are coworkers and friends reallyimmune? How have you seen "private" sin have corporate consequences?

2.As bearers of the name of Christ, our conduct is not our own privatebusiness. It is the business of Christ's church together. This is clear whenPaul discusses the immoral man in Corinth (1 Cor 5:1-8). Paul brings fullweight to the matter by indicating it was a community problem. How doesthis chapter's discussion on honor and shame inform I Corinthians 5:1-8?

3.In Galatians 2, Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because he ate with Gentilesuntil "certain men came from James" (Gal 2:12). Note the context inwhich Paul rebukes Peter. Paul makes it clear he opposed Peter "to hisface" (2:11) "in front of them all" (2:14). He didn't pull Peter asideprivately to reason with him. Paul's goal was to shame Peter intoappropriate behavior. That was his culture; this is ours. So what should wedo when a church leader isn't acting appropriately?

4.We often imagine that after Peter denied Christ three times, his guiltyconscience led him to repent. The crowing rooster seems almost a plotdevice. Yet the text suggests it was the crowing rooster that shamed Peterinto repentance. How does-or should-shame and shaming play a role inthe lives of Western Christians? Can God convict us of sin through shameas well as through our conscience?

5.As we noted above, God is also concerned about honor and shame. Thewriter of Hebrews tells us that because of the faithfulness of thepatriarchs, "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God" (Heb11:16). Have you ever wondered if God would be honored or ashamed tobe known as our God? How do our actions as Christians bring God honoror shame?

Time

You might think that the one thing every culture could agree on is time. Arethere not twenty-four hours in a day and sixty seconds in a minute whetheryou live in Chicago or Singapore? Time doesn't seem culturally determined.It's based on the sun, for goodness' sake!

Yet most people who have lived abroad will tell you that time is one of theways cultures are most different. In the West, time is a hot commodity. Mostof us consider it a limited resource. Sure, there are twenty-four hours in aday; but there are only twenty-four hours in a day. We struggle to fit all ofour responsibilities-work, family, hobbies, leisure-into our busy schedules.We prove that other people are truly important to us when we "find time" or,better yet, "make time" for them. Because time is both limited and important,we talk about it as if it were a commodity that can be saved, traded or spentlike money. Indeed, we are convinced that "time is money." We are sensitiveto the fact that other people value their time, so we try not to "monopolize"their time or, perhaps worse, waste our own. We even develop strategies for"time management," which help us get maximum productivity out of thismost limited of resources. (Some of you may be skimming right now in orderto do just that.)

The importance of time in Western culture is further illustrated by thetime-related virtues we celebrate and the vices we bemoan. Efficiency-theability to do the most work in the least time-is an important Western virtue.So are punctuality, planning and predictability. These have theircorresponding vices. Inefficiency, tardiness, nearsightedness andundependability are among the deadly sins (at least of business) in America.

While we fret and wring our hands about the demise of time, many non-Westerners don't. My (Randy's) Indonesian fishermen friends seem to haveall the time in the world. I have deadlines. The end of the month is looming.I'm running out of time. I can hear my fishermen friends laughing. How canyou "run out of" time? In their world, "there is always tomorrow until oneday there's not [i.e., you die], and then it won't matter." For them,procrastination is a virtue. Why do today what you can put off untiltomorrow? When tomorrow comes, you might find you didn't need to do it atall. This gives many Westerners hives, because the sand is running out of thehourglass! The clock is ticking!

But our non-Western friends may be on to something. During the Y2Kpanic, I kept thinking of my Indonesian fishermen friends. Every morningthey get in their outrigger canoes and paddle out to sea. I'm not certain theyknow what year it is. If the Y2K bug had shut down all computersworldwide, the next morning my friends would have paddled out to sea tofish, never the wiser. If energy grids go down, famine breaks out and Westerncivilization collapses, my fishermen friends will paddle out to fish. After afew years, they might wonder why I haven't visited.

TALKING ABOUT AND MEASURING TIME

In the earlier chapter on language, we noted that what a culture values isoften evidenced by specialized vocabulary in the language that makes iteasier to describe and discuss it. It should come as no surprise, then, thatWestern and non-Western cultures have very different ways of talking about

time. Many Western languages, in cluding English, can describe the time ofan event quite precisely. We can easily denote whether something happenedin the past ("I ran"), is happening in the present ("I am running") or has yet tohappen ("I will run"). We can be even more precise. English can easilyindicate if something happens regularly ("I run") or if something used tohappen but doesn't anymore ("I have run"). It is even possible to describe thetiming of one activity in relation to another, both of which may happen in thefuture ("I will have run"). We certainly love to talk about when somethinghappened.

Many other languages do not make these distinctions. Indonesian, forexample, has no verb tense. Most Americans can't imagine such a thing:"How does anyone even communicate if you can't indicate past, present andfuture?" Indonesians do it pretty well. When it matters-such as "Pick me up atthe airport today" versus "Pick me up at the airport tomorrow"-they use thewords today and tomorrow. This flexibility in language makes Westernersnervous. Verb tense (time) is so crucial, in fact, to modern English that weread that emphasis into other languages. When my (Randy's) old Greekprofessor taught us verb tenses, we learned an aorist is a past tense verb. Thiswas confusing when we later learned there are present aorists and futureaorists. For Greeks, the past tense of the aorist is a lot broader than what wethink. Today we teach our students that Greek tenses emphasize aspect morethan time. We mean that the Greeks were more interested in whether or notthe action of the verb was durative (ongoing, repetitive or persistent).

Time, though, is more slippery than merely past and present. In manyIndonesian villages, church starts "midday." When I (Randy) was invited tospeak at a church, I initially asked what time church started. The term theyused for midday was siang. Being a conscientious American, I tried tocorrespond siang with a time on my wristwatch. Language tutors were wellaccustomed to working with Westerners. I was taught siang means 10:30a.m., and it ends with sore at 2:30 p.m. Indonesians are very friendly, so they

greet each other by saying, "Good morning," or "Good midday." But theydon't play by the rules! I would say, "Good morning," and they would reply,"No, it's already midday." But, blast it, I would look at my watch and itwasn't even 10 a.m. It took me years to realize that siang was connected tothe temperature, not the clock. Once the morning had turned hot, it was siang.When it cooled down in the afternoon, it was sore. That's complicatedenough; but remember, siang was the starting time for the church service.How do you start church at "hot"? That would make it difficult for everyoneto show up at the same time. It sure does. Folks wander in over the course ofan hour or so. But church never starts late.

The punctual reader is about to have a panic attack. Isn't it rude to show upwhenever you like? That's not how non-Westerners think of the issue. Mostcultures start and end events at the "correct" time. In the West, the correcttime is usually connected to a clock. Westerners today view time as discrete(meaning separate units) and thus quantifiable. Over time, as we becomebusier, the correct time to start events is becoming more specific. In the1970s, church started at 10:00 or 11:00 or noon. In the 1990s, church couldstart at 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. I (Randy) attend a church that begins at11:15 a.m. In the non-Western world, by contrast, the correct time is oftenconnected to a condition or situation. Some call this an "event" orientation, inwhich, as Duane Elmer writes, "Each event is as long or as short as it needsto be. One cannot determine the required time in advance. Time is elastic,dictated only by the natural unfolding of the event. The quality of the event isthe primary issue, not the quantity of minutes or hours."' Relationships trumpschedules, so things begin when everyone who needs to be there has arrived.

So while in the United States church begins at 11:15 a.m., whether or notpeople are in the building, in Indonesia church begins when people get there.I always thought, Wow, some people get here early and some late. Theydidn't think that way. Arriving just took time.

TIME AND THE BIBLE

At first blush, it may appear that the Bible supports our Western view of timeas linear and discrete. Surely the Western view of time as linear is due in partto the arrangement of our Scriptures. The biblical canon as we have it todaystarts with a clear beginning-creation-and stops with a clear end-the eschaton,or "end of all things," as described in Revelation. Although the Bible alsotalks about time in cyclical terms-Ecclesiastes famously teaches, "There is atime for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens"(Eccles 3:1)-the order in which our biblical books appear presents time asflowing toward an end. There are cycles in life and history, but history is notan endless cycle-and one is confident that the river of time will get where it'sgoing.

The earliest Christian creeds affirm this view of time and history. TheApostles' Creed begins with a word about creation ("I believe in God theFather Almighty, maker of heaven and earth") and ends with the promise ofredemption ("the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting. Amen").The way the books of the Bible are arranged in their current canonical orderhelps explain why the Christian view of time has always included a definitivebeginning and end. The first story in Scripture is creation; the final story isabout God's redemption of creation. Everything in the middle works its wayfrom point a to point b (not necessarily sequentially, as we'll see below).2

We can also trace our sense of the limited nature of time back to the Bible.The Psalms consistently remind us that we humans "are like a breath; [our]days are like a fleeting shadow" (Ps 144:4). In light of the brevity of ourlives, we are encouraged to ask God to "teach us to number our days, that wemay gain a heart of wisdom" (Ps 90:12). Paul reminds us to make "the mostof your time, because the days are evil," a command earlier generations ofChristians have taken very seriously (Eph 5:16 NASB). In other words,Scripture alerts us to be mindful of the time, aware that it will one day cometo an end. But one senses no haste in the text.3 You get the sense that even

though time is not a limitless resource, there is plenty of it.

The New Testament writers used two Greek terms-chronos and hairos-thatwe typically translate with the same English word: "time." Greeks commonlyused chronos to describe the more quantitative aspects of time, such aschronology or sequence. Chronos time is what we might call clock orcalendar time: discrete units of time that need to be measured (relatively)precisely. In the account of Jesus' birth in Matthew, for example, we're toldHerod "called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time[chronos] the star had appeared" (Mt 2:7, emphasis added). Likewise, in hisfirst epistle, Peter writes that his audience has "spent enough time [chronos]in the past doing what pagans choose to do" (1 Pet 4:3). Biblical language ofthings happening at "the ninth hour" or "early in the morning" weredesignations of chronos time, even if these chronos designations were lessprecise than we like (Mk 15:1, 33).

The ancients used kairos to refer to the more qualitative aspect of time,when something special happened. This term is used much more often-almosttwice as frequently-in the Bible. Sometimes translated "season," kairos timeis when something important happens at just the right time. Paul explains, forexample, "when the fullness of the time [kairos] came, God sent forth HisSon, born of a woman, born under the Law" (Gal 4:4 NASS, emphasisadded). God wasn't waiting for a precise date on the calendar, but for a periodin human history in which the conditions were most appropriate. Kairos alsocan be used to describe a situation or circumstance. In Ephesians 5:15-16,Paul encourages Christians to "Be very careful, then, how you live-not asunwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity [hairos], becausethe days are evil" (emphasis added).

What does all this mean for how we Westerners interpret the Bible? In theremainder of this chapter, we suggest the following. First, we Westernersinstinctively think in terms of chronos time. When we read a description of or

statement about time in the Bible, it goes without being said for us that theauthor is talking about a linear, discrete, measurable moment in history(chronos). This is problematic, because more often than not the biblicalwriters are describing hairos, not chronos. We can concentrate so much onchronos that we miss hairos. This confusion can lead us to draw the wrongconclusions from important texts. Second, we think of chronos in a verylimited and specific way. So even when a biblical writer is talking aboutchronos time, we are still prone to misinterpret the writer's intent.

KAIROS IN THE BIBLE

Understanding kairos can help us make sense of otherwise confusingnarratives in Scripture. The Christmas story begins with Jesus' birth and runsthrough his toddler years. This isn't immediately clear in the text. Matthew 1ends with the birth of Jesus, and the first verse of Matthew 2 introduces theMagi. Considerable time has passed, but the author didn't worry aboutchecking the clock or calendar. For the purposes of our Christmas pageants,Westerners customarily compress the narrative so that the angels, shepherdsand wise men all show up to adore the baby Jesus in the cattle trough. Itmakes a compelling scene, but it's not quite right. Why does the biblical storyspan so much time? What events transpired in the meantime?

When I (Randy), my wife and two babies moved to a remote part ofIndonesia, my wife wanted electricity and running water. She also wantedcabinets (or something) in the kitchen on which to put the dishes so that shedidn't have to stack them on the ground-all reasonable requests! I askedaround for a carpenter right away, since I knew that the process of makingcabinets would require many steps, including cutting the logs into planks,letting them dry for several weeks and planing the wood. "We don't dowoodworking on this island," I was told. "The people on the island ofSangihe are the woodworkers." That complicated things. I had to findsomeone willing to take a two-day boat ride to this other island. That personwould try to find a woodworker willing to come to my area. Of course, I had

to pay his costs and the costs for the carpenter to come. A week later, mymessenger returned.

"Where's the carpenter?" I asked.

"The carpenter is coming," he said, exasperated. "You can't expect him tojust drop everything and come now, can you?"

About a month later, the carpenter showed up with an apprentice. (Thenext time your cable company says the worker will be there tomorrowbetween 8 a.m. and noon, don't complain!) They moved into our carport. DidI expect them to sleep in the rain? Every morning he built a little fire in ourcarport and cooked breakfast. He and his apprentice would sit there for anhour or two sharpening tools, including the handsaw, one tooth at a time. Idon't remember how many weeks it took him to build cabinets. After hefinished my project, various neighbors in the area also arranged for him to doprojects for them. After all, a carpenter was in town! Take advantage of theopportunity (kairos). Seize the day (hairos). It may have been a year beforeall the work dried up and he left for home and family, with pockets full. Inthe meantime, I was counting the chronos; we hadn't been able to park in ourcarport in a long time.

While this may seem foreign to Westerners, in many parts of the world thisis quite normal. And it helps explain why the nativity story spans so muchtime. When Joseph went to Bethlehem to register, Mary gave birth to Jesus.They needed to wait a few weeks for Mary to recuperate before they traveledback, but it appears Joseph and Mary may have remained in Bethlehem fornearly two years. When the wise men arrived, they went to a house where thetoddler Jesus and his parents were living (Mt 2:11). What had Mary andJoseph been doing all this time? Not vacationing. Joseph was probablyfollowing work opportunities. He intended to return to Nazareth but wasstaying while there was work to be found. This was the time (hairos) forwork. He would leave when the time was passed. Americans find it hard to

leave town for a long weekend. Who will feed the cat? We cannot imaginesomeone leaving their home for a year or two. But in cultures in which hairosis more important than chronos, this is a common thing to do.

Understanding the Bible's preference for hairos has even largerimplications. This is particularly true in light of Western fascination with the"end of time." Because we in the United States fret over time, we figure Goddoes, too. God must be watching his watch, checking the time until the end oftime. Many of us were so sure the world was ending in A.D. 2000. We calledit Y2K. It was the perfect time to end time. We like round numbers.

As we mentioned before, the biblical authors, like many nonWesterners,were less concerned with clock or calendar time (chronos) and moreconcerned with the appropriateness and fittingness of events (kairos). Youmight say they were more concerned with timing than with time. Ourpreoccupation with the chronos of events means that when we read about the"Day of the Lord" in Scripture, we typically envision a literal calendar day, asif the Lord is scheduled to return on a Tuesday morning or something. It willcome at the right "time" (kairos not chronos), under the right conditions andin the appropriate season. The day of the Lord will occur when God is ready.

Let's look at an example that Jesus used. `Jesus spoke to them again inparables, saying: `The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared awedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had beeninvited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come"' (Mt22:1-3).

We recognize that the would-be guests are making excuses, but why theywere making excuses went without being said in Jesus' day. First, we assumethose invited were making personal decisions. (Hopefully, you recognize nowa community is involved in this.) Second, we commonly misread this parablebecause we assume the hot issue in the story is time. We assume the guestsdon't come because they don't have the time. Or perhaps the guests are

insulting the king because they won't take the time to attend, or worse, theyfeel the banquet is a waste of time. What we are certain went without beingsaid, though, was that the story was somehow connected to time. After all,banquet invitations note the day and time.

To understand what's going on here, we need to know a bit about theculture. When folks were invited, it was okay for them to decline theinvitation. But these people had accepted the invitation, so preparations weremade based upon their attendance4 In antiquity, one announced a banquet ashappening "soon." The exact date was always a bit negotiable for severalreasons. First, they didn't have five-day weather forecasts; who knew inadvance if the weather would be conducive to banqueting? Second, somesupplies had to come from out of town. When supplies were ready, youwould let the guests know the banquet was "near." Finally, one did not killthe fatted calf until the day of the feast. There was no refrigeration. When allthe preparations were made, the host looked outside. If the weather lookedgood, he'd give the order: "Today is the day." They'd kill the calf, andmessengers would go to tell the guests to come. The feast happens on theright day (hairos). Likewise, Jesus tells us the time (kairos) for the kingdomis near (Mk 1:15).

Jesus consistently discouraged his disciples from trying to divine the "dayand the hour" (chronos terms) of God's judgment or Christ's return. "Butabout that day or hour no one knows," Jesus said, "not even the angels inheaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mt 24:36). It is possible to be soworried about the time (chronos) for somethingsuch as the return of Christ-that we miss the time (hairos) for something-such as living like citizens of thekingdom of God.

CHRONOS IN THE BIBLE

Kurt Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse-Five in 1966 as a novelisticretrospective on the bombing of Dresden, Germany, during World War II. It

begins like this: "Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time…. Billy isspastic in time, has no control over where he is going next, and the trips aren'tnecessarily fun. He is in a constant state of stage fright, he says, because henever knows what part of his life he is going to have to act in next."5

Billy Pilgrim's unintentional time travel reads at times like the delusions ofa shell-shocked soldier trying to cope with a cold world. And at one level, itprobably is. One important thing to know about Billy is that he has beenabducted by aliens from Tralfamadore. The Tralfamadorians are eager toteach Billy the true nature of time. For Earthlings, his captors explain, time isa meaningful sequence in which one event follows the previous andcontributes to the next. One can learn from the past and use that knowledge toavoid future catastrophe. The Tralfamadorians know better. As they explainit, they see "all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains. Alltime is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings orexplanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment and you will find thatwe are all … bugs in amber."6 Their books follow this pattern. "There is nobeginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects.What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seenall at one time." 7

This might all sound like nonsense to you. That's sort of the point. BillyPilgrim's experience, and the frustration it causes both Billy and his readers,illustrates an important assumption and foundation of Western culture. Weorient ourselves, make sense of our circumstances and plan for the futurebased on a particular understanding of time and our relationship to it.Fundamental to Western culture is the assumption, which goes without beingsaid, that without sequence there is no meaning. When a Westerner recountsa major event, stories tend to move in chronological sequence leading to acrescendo. Unlike Tralfamadorian stories, Western stories have a beginning,a middle and an end. The sequence (chronos) is important. When you tell astory all out of sequence, the story quits making sense-or so we Westerners

think.

Not so elsewhere. In the non-Western world, stories often circulate aroundthe event until it coalesces; therefore, orderliness (but not the chronologicalsequence) is important. I (Randy) was often struck that telling stories forIndonesians is often more like making a soup: some ingredients had aspecific timing, but the other elements just needed to be added sometime. Ioften interrupted a story to ask, "Now, did that happen before or after whatyou just said?" Since my Indonesian friends liked me, they tolerated myirrelevant questions.

Because Westerners are so interested in time, we tend to find a lot ofsignificance in the order of events in Scripture. When we study the life ofJesus, we often want a chronology of his ministry. When something occurredmatters to us. Thus Western readers have a tendency to import our concernfor chronology into Scripture. Unfortunately for us, events in the Bible arenot necessarily presented in historical, chronological order. But publishershave helped us out, producing a Chronological Study Bible that "presents thetext of the New King James Version in chronological order-the order inwhich the events actually happened"-not in the order they appear in Scripture.We seem to assume that because the biblical stories are not in chronologicalorder, they are in the wrong order.

Historically, Western readers have been bothered by what they considerdiscrepancies in the biblical text regarding chronology. When two biblicalbooks or writers present the same information in a different order, orchronicle the same event but include different details, scholars have beenquick to assume that this means one-or both-of the accounts is wrong. Theycertainly can't both be right, can they? When we find the same story with adifferent sequence, such as the three temptations of Jesus in Matthew and inLuke, it unsettles us. Something is wrong. What is more interesting is that wethen want to figure out which sequence is "right." For us, the "correct"

sequence is the one that is chronologically accurate.

But the Gospel writers often composed their stories more like Indonesianstorytellers than like Western historians. The chronological sequence is oftenunimportant. Since Luke uses references to the temple as an organizing themein his Gospel, for example, the "correct" sequence for Luke is the one thatends where Jesus stood on the pinnacle of the temple and was urged to jump(Lk 4:9). Matthew has every major event in the life of Jesus occur on amountain. (This sometimes requires referring to a hill as a mountain, as in theSermon on the Mount.) For Matthew, the "correct" sequence is the one thathas the crescendo event on a mountain, where Jesus is taken to a highmountain to view the world's kingdoms. Either scenario is likely to botherWestern readers. Shouldn't the writers have told the story in the "correct"sequence? I suspect Matthew and Luke would both insist they did. Moreover,they would likely insist the other evangelist did as well. The chronologicalsequence simply didn't matter to them in the same way it matters to us.

Please note, however, that the biblical authors were intentional about thesequence in which they presented events, even if they weren't preoccupiedwith historical, chronological order. We Westerners can focus so much on thetime (chronology) that we miss the timing (the meaning of the sequence) in abiblical passage.

Often biblical writers were also teaching us by the sequence of stories.Scholars have long noted the way Mark tells the story of Jesus clearing thetemple (Mk 11:15-19).8 He sandwiches it in the middle of the story of Jesuscursing the fig tree (Mk 11:12-14 and Mk 11:20-25). Mark's arrangement ofthe stories indicates that the fig tree story is to tell us how to understandJesus' actions in the temple. Like the fig tree, the temple was full of activitybut was bearing no fruit. Jesus condemned it as a "den of robbers" asJeremiah had the previous temple (Jer 7:11).'

Mark likes this storytelling method. He tells us that Jairus comes to request

healing for his daughter (Mk 5:22-24). Jesus agrees. On their way to Jairus'shome, Jesus heals a woman who touched the hem of his cloak (Mk 5:25-34).Only after Jairus's daughter has died does Jesus heal her (Mk 5:35-43). Markconnects these stories in a number of ways. Both the girl and woman arecalled "daughter." The girl is twelve years old; the woman has been bleedingfor twelve years. Jairus falls to the ground; the woman falls to the ground.Clearly Mark wants us to read the stories together. Most important for ourpurposes here, Mark's sequencing of the events connects them. He wants usto interpret them together, compare and contrast the responses to Jesus. Wemay be inclined to think the story of the bleeding woman is told in the middleof the Jairus story merely because that's when it happened. In this case, ourlove for chronology can lead us to miss the kairos of Mark's point.

CONCLUSION

Much of the Bible's wisdom literature is concerned with kairos. It is notenough to know a wise saying. Wisdom is knowing when to use it. One iswise when she knows when to answer a fool and when not to (Prov 26:4-5).In this way, kairos can be as-or dare we say, more-important than chronos.When the preacher in Ecclesiastes reminds us that there is a "season" foreverything, he isn't talking about a calendar. Discerning the right timing(hairos) is an important part of the Christian life-knowing when to encourageand when to confront, when to celebrate and when to grieve, when to plantand when to harvest.

How do we become sensitive to the way Scripture is discussing time in agiven context? When you run across a word that indicates time is underdiscussion (day, hour, season, time, opportunity, etc.), decide whether youthink the biblical author has chronos or kairos in mind. (If you have access toa commentary or concordance or online resource, it might help you determinewhich term or kind of term is being used in the original language.) Take amoment to think through the implications of your decision. How might youinterpret the passage differently if the author is describing chronos? What if

he is describing kairos?

Pay close attention to the sequence of events in a biblical passage. Werecommend outlining the passage on a piece of notebook paper as you read.What happens first, second, third and so on? Is the main story (i.e., thehealing of Jairus's daughter) "interrupted" by another story (i.e., the healingof the bleeding woman)? If so, indicate that in your outline. Is the authorconnecting this story with the one before or after by repeating words orthemes? Answer these questions: What is the author trying to highlight byordering the events in this way? How would I misconstrue the meaning ofthis passage if I interpreted it in historical, chronological order rather than inthe order the author presents it?

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.It seems clear to most of us that "time" in Acts 7:17 is kairos. What aboutHebrews 4:7? Is this chronos or kairos?

2.Jesus speaks of the "time" (kairos) of the harvest (Mt 13:30). The time ofthe harvest is not a date on a calendar. What does this say aboutscheduling ministry?

3.What virtues and vices do you associate with chronos time (i.e.,punctuality, tardiness, etc.)? What virtues do we ignore-such as a "wordaptly spoken" (Prov 25:11 NIV 1984)-because we fail to see kairos time?

4.Scholars have noted that Acts 12:21-23 (the story of Herod's death) seemsout of chronological sequence. Herod died in A.D. 44, but the famine inActs 11 is in A.D. 46. Some suggest that Luke didn't know the correctchronology. Perhaps Luke was more interested in the kairos than thechronos of Herod's death. Look at the events in Acts 12. Herod opposedthe church, killed an apostle and arrested another. What point might Lukewant us to take away from his timing in the other stories he tells in the

second half of Acts 12?

5.When a biblical story doesn't give us chronology (chronos) connectors, weoften just drop any thoughts of time (sequence). We are all familiar withthe story of the widow's mite in Luke 21:1-4: As Jesus looked up, he sawthe rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poorwidow put in two very small copper coins. `Truly I tell you,' he said, `thispoor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave theirgifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had tolive on."'

If we read this story as emphasizing the virtue of giving sacrificially, wemight be ignoring the kairos of Luke's storytelling. When Luke tells thestory matters a great deal. Luke has just told us Jesus' warning to beware ofreligious leaders who (among other things) "devour widows' houses" (Lk20:47). They weren't termites; they were foreclosing on widows whocouldn't pay their debts. Then Luke tells us the widow gave "all she had."Some might object, "But she gave it to the temple-a gift to God! Surely,this is justified." Luke then immediately states: "Some of his discipleswere remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stonesand with gifts dedicated to God [paid for with offerings like the widow's].But Jesus said, As for what you see here, the time will come when not onestone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down"' (Lk21:5-6).

What is Luke saying to us through the timing (the sequence) of thestories? Is the widow a role model of sacrificial giving, or is Jesus holdingher up as an example of how religious folk can exploit the piety of thepoor? Should those of us who preach this story actually be afraid of it?

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov 26:4). That seems simpleenough. It's the kind of rule you can just take with you. Don't answer-got it.The problem is that the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to hisfolly" (Prov 26:5). Goodness, which is it? Well, this is a proverb, andproverbs can contradict. Our own proverbs do. "Haste makes waste," but"you snooze, you lose." Knowing when to do which requires wisdom.

We can handle these sorts of seemingly contradictory insights with a littlepractice. But what about those biblical promises and rules that, frankly, justdon't seem to actually be true? We are told, "The lamp of the wicked issnuffed out" (Prov 13:9; see also Prov 24:20 and Job 18:5); however, weshare job's doubt: "Yet how often is the lamp of the wicked snuffed out?"(Job 21:17). Asaph "saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have nostruggles; their bodies are healthy and strong" (Ps 73:3-4). We may not liketo admit it, but like Asaph and Job, we also see examples of when the lamp ofthe wicked is not snuffed out. We like to say, for example, that crime doesn'tpay. Well, not only does it often seem to pay; it's tax free. In the last fiscalmeltdown, we are pretty sure some folks who should have gone to jail arelounging on beach estates.

The rules in the Bible don't seem to work the way we would like. Paul tellsthe Galatians, "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of novalue to you at all" (Gal 5:2), and then he circumcises one of them (Acts16:3). That just doesn't seem right. A rule is a rule is a rule-right? We cannotimagine how anyone could see otherwise. When people break the rules, itusually infuriates us. We can't stand it when rules seem to mean different

things to different people. Treating everyone equally is a cardinal virtue inthe West, and "playing favorites" is a vice. Thus we like it that a much-quoted verse insists, "God does not show favoritism" (Gal 2:6). Nonetheless,there are hosts of other verses that suggest God does, in fact, showfavoritism. Paul quotes elsewhere, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom9:13). In fact, Paul says the Potter has the right to make some people fornoble purposes and some for destruction-election seems the ultimate exampleof favoritism (Rom 9:19-20).

We don't want to get into a discussion of election here! But the questionremains: how can the same writer, Paul, say, "Therefore God has mercy onwhom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"(Rom 9:18) and also assert, "God does not show favoritism" (Gal 2:6)? Wesuspect Paul would insist he does not contradict himself. Clearly, Paul viewssuch assertions (rules) differently than we do.

Romans 8:28 is popular with Western Christians: "God causes all things towork together for good" (NASB). Most Christians would feel comfortableasserting that this is one of those rules that stick. While we may not be surewhat to do with Paul having Timothy circumcised when he had just toldothers not to do it, we are sure that God works all things together for ourgood. Recently my (Randy's) congregation sang the beautiful andwonderfully stirring song "Your Love Never Fails" by Anthony Skinner andChris McClarney. The refrain states, "You work all things together for mygood." The congregation knows the verse in Romans doesn't say "my good,"but we are confident that as a member of God's people, it is an appropriateapplication. After all, could God work all things together for his people andyet not for me? Again, if we are honest, we can think of situations when itdoesn't seem so. As readers, you may be rushing to defend God's honor here.To suggest that a promise or rule doesn't apply to everyone would be toimpugn, in our culture, God's character. It seems to suggest that God isn'tfair-and we know that God is fair. Right?

In part three, we are diving deep beneath the surface of culturalconsciousness. The cultural differences we address in these chapters are sofundamental to human experience, we can't imagine Christian rules or valueschanging across cultures. For example, you might find it easy to imagine aculture in which identity derives from the group and not the individual (thathappens in the West on sports teams, as we mentioned). But you may find itharder to believe that what constitutes vice and virtue can change from oneplace to another.

If worldview is an iceberg, then we are deep underwater now. Thesecultural differences are often hidden from view or obscured by more obviousdifferences. For example, our tendency to read me instead of we is no doubtdue to our individualist (rather than collectivist) culture. Our sense of virtueand vice is likely influenced by this, too, and by our guilt (rather than shame)orientation. These final cultural differences may be the least obvious, but theyare often the most consequential for our interpretation. This is often whereprofound misunderstandings occur.

Rules and Relationships

For the millennia that passed before the Enlightenment, the vast majority ofhumans on the planet believed that in the beginning, God-or gods or someimpersonal mass of cosmic energy-created the heavens and the earth.Scientific discoveries and philosophical developments that emerged in theseventeenth century would undermine this belief in the West. But this chapterisn't about creation. It's about a far more subtle change of perspective thatgerminated in the Enlightenment and later took root deep in the modernWestern mind, permanently affecting the way Westerners-including WesternChristians-understand the way the world works.

For Christians before, during and after the Enlightenment, belief increation includes an important assumption about the relationship betweenGod and his creation. Christians have always believed that God not onlycreated the universe but also actively maintains it. All things have their beingby God's creative act, and they continue to exist because of his ongoingsupport (Acts 17:28; Col 1:17; Rev 4:11). God knows the number of hairs onour heads and when a sparrow falls from the sky (Mt 10:29-30). Scriptureattests that God has established certain natural processes to keep the universespinning the way it should. In the very beginning, God made the moon tomark the seasons; likewise, "the sun knows when to go down" (Ps 104:19). Itdoesn't need daily instructions. Plants and animals produce "according totheir kinds" (Gen 1). Nonetheless, the conviction remained that God isintimately involved even in these seemingly natural phenomena. God "sends

rain on the righteous and the unrighteous," after all (Mt 5:45). In fact, theBible teaches that God's relationship with his creatures and creation is suchthat he can at times interrupt the natural order of things to bring judgment onthe unrighteous-as when the sun stood still until Israel "avenged itself on itsenemies" (Josh 10:13) or when God parted the Red Sea and secureddeliverance for his people (Ex 14:21-30). The most significant case of God'sintervention in the natural order, of course, was when he raised Jesus fromthe dead.

In short, God's people have always recognized divinely ordained laws andpatterns in nature. At the same time, they have maintained that God is notconfined by these laws. His intimate relationship with his creation enableshim to bend his "natural" laws when it suits his purposes. Most non-WesternChristians still feel this way. They don't believe in coincidence. I (Randy)was praying with a group of Indonesians about a serious matter. We wereuncertain if God wished us to proceed. On that clear day, we suddenly hearda boom of thunder. I scarcely noticed and continued praying. My friends allstood up to leave. Clearly God had spoken (Ps 18:13).

The Western understanding of this relationship between Creator andcreation was among the first casualties of the Enlightenment. Throughadvances in mathematics, physics, astronomy and medical science, Westernintellectuals learned more about the fixed rules or laws by which the universeoperates. For some Western Christians, such discoveries increased their aweof and dependence upon the Creator God. New England pastor andtheologian Jonathan Edwards, for example, believed that "the things of theworld are ordered [and] designed to shadow forth spiritual things." Based onthe orderliness of creation, Edwards concluded, "We see that even in thematerial world God makes one part of it strangely to agree with another; andwhy is it not reasonable to suppose he makes the whole as a shadow of thespiritual world?"' So, for example, "The sun's so perpetually, for so manyages, sending forth his rays in such vast profusion, without any dimunition

[sic] of his light and heat, is a bright image of the allsufficiency andeverlastingness of God's bounty and goodness."' The more Edwards learnedabout the laws-the divine laws-that governed the cosmos, the more heunderstood about the Creator himself.

Many other Western Christians, however, became convinced that theuniverse is a closed system in which God no longer plays an active role. Onthe whole, the Western world did not abandon the idea of a Creator until thenineteenth century.3 What changed first was our understanding of God'srelationship to the cosmos. Sure, God created the heavens and the earth.Before Darwin's theory of evolution sparked humans to look at other aspectsof the universe through the lens of natural law, most folks assumed Godmade the material world. However, Westerners increasingly assumed thatGod no longer tampered with the world he had made. He was a masterwatchmaker who skillfully creates a quality timepiece, winds it up and thenlets it run on its own. No longer was God assumed to be the sustainer andmaintainer of the universe. He was now a distant deity whose relationship tocreation ceased after the event of creation. He left the world to operateaccording to rules and laws, which he prescribed. The God of the deists,whom we've been describing, was a creative genius, but he was not anengaged father. Increasing knowledge of the natural world did not, in general,inspire greater awe of and dependence upon God, but less.

This new view of God's relationship to the universe had enormousimplications. It has affected how Westerners view all of life and, truly, all ourrelationships. If God created the universe to operate by prescribed rules, wethink, he must have created everything to operate by established rules. Themost faithful way to emulate God's activity in the world is to establish rulesfor nations, states, cities and families. Our job as humans is to create littleuniverses with rules that imitate the rules God put in place to govern creation.God planted laws and principles in the world, this view says, and it is theduty of humans to discern them and apply them to our different needs. This

new perspective is clear from the writings that shaped Western culture,especially North American culture, in the late seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations powerfully and persuasivelydemonstrated how economics behave according to fixed and predictablelaws, just like the universe itself. Common Sense applied natural law topolitics. Ben Franklin looked to natural law as a guide for morality. Franklinwas raised by pious Calvinist parents but rejected traditional religious viewsby his teen years, when he had decisively become a deist. He set out toidentify morality in nonreligious terms. "I grew convinced," Franklinexplained in his autobiography, "that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealingsbetween man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life."Nature and experience told him that. The command of God impressed himvery little. "Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such," because aperson could determine how best to live simply by discerning the laws thatgoverned human behavior. To be moral, one must determine what principlesor laws produce the desired results in society. Their effectiveness approvestheir value.

Today Westerners have a tendency to view all relationships in terms ofrules or laws. The way we relate to the cosmos, to each other and to God isdetermined in large part by reference to natural and even spiritual "laws."This, of course, influences the way Westerners read the Bible. In this chapterwe'll look at two ways this view of reality affects the way Westerners misreadthe Bible: relationships as rules, and rules excluding relationships.

RELATIONSHIPS AS RULES

Because Western readers tend to understand relationships in terms of rulesand laws, we have a tendency also to understand ancient re lationships,including those we read about in Scripture, in terms of rules. Once we definerelationships with rules, Western readers typically assume that rules (in theform of laws) must apply 100 percent of the time; otherwise, the rule is

"broken." Likewise, rules (in the form of promises) apply to 100 percent ofthe people involved and apply equally; otherwise, we consider the rule to beunfair. Since God is both reliable and fair, surely his rules must apply equallyto all people. Natural laws, like gravity, are no respecters of persons, after all.When we cannot determine how to apply a biblical law or promise toeveryone, we declare it to be "cultural" and thus flexible in application. Weunpack these ideas below.

Rules define relationships. As we've said before (we really mean it!), thethings that go without being said are some of the most important parts ofculture. In contrast to the modern Western worldview, in ancient worldviewsit went without saying that relationships (not rules) define reality. Of course,relationships come with certain expectations. But if worldviews are likeicebergs-with the dangerous part underwater-then in the first-century worldthat Paul and Jesus inhabited, relationships were the underwater part. Ruleswere the part above the waterline. Rules didn't (and, in many places, stilldon't) describe the bulk of the matter; they merely described the visibleoutworking of an underlying relationship, which was the truly definingelement.

Westerners misread the biblical text when we assume that the rules, whichwe can see, are the total extent of the relationship, failing to see the part ofthe iceberg under the water, out of sight. Let us offer a contemporaryexample. While living in Indonesia, we (Randy and family) had a householdhelper, Sonya. My instinct was to define our working relationship by definingjob expectations and determining compensation. What time should she arriveand leave? What did we expect her to do around the house? How muchwould we pay her for her time? I was trying to establish rules, a contract. Isoon learned that in Indonesia, expectations are determined by rela tionship.So in the end, Sonya came "when needed." On top of her wages, I paid hermedical bills-not because we had agreed on a contract, but because I was her"father" (patron). Who else should pay them? Even though we left Indonesia

fifteen years ago and Sonya went on to marry a fine young man, our family'srelationship didn't end. "How does one quit being a'father'?" Indonesianswould wonder. We continue to pay the school bills for her children. I'm Opa("Grandfather"); of course we'll pay for their school. When the childrenmarry, I suppose we'll pay for the weddings. What kind of lousy grandfatherwould refuse to take care of his grandchildren?

Of course, relationships are always two-sided. After the tsunami in 2004, Iled a relief team to Indonesia, and we needed household help. It had been tenyears, but there was no question regarding whether Sonya would come. Asalways, she came when she was needed, even though it took her five days toreach us by boat. We never discussed whether she would come or what wewould pay her. We have a relationship with all kinds of strings attached.

The patron-client relationship of the first-century Roman world isanalogous to my relationship with Sonya, and the results were felt even moreprofoundly in first-century society. Unfortunately, modern Western exegetesoften define patronage-a key element of firstcentury Roman society-usingforensic language. We describe the relationship between a patron and a clientas contractual, like a business, rather than as familial.' Allow us anotherexample, this time an ancient one.

Imagine a young baker named Marcus in the town of Philippi. Marcuslearned to bake bread from his father. The family business stretched back tothe founding of Philippi five generations back. Marcus's family was,consequently, one of the founding members of the bakers' guild. A hundredyears ago, his ancestor had retired from the Roman army-he had baked breadfor the army of Octavius Augustus during the glorious victory over Anthony.As a reward, his family, which had originated in the province of Lydia inAsia Minor, had been given Roman citizenship and land in Philippi. He had atrue tripartite Roman name: Marcus Augustus Lydia.

When his father was young, Vesta (the goddess of fire and the protector of

bakers) became angry and a fire destroyed the family bakery. Marcus's fatherwent to a wealthy widow, a cloth merchant who was also from the provinceof Lydia, to seek help. Julia Lydia loaned his father the money to rebuild thebakery. Thus began an enduring relationship. Today, Marcus sells all hisbread to Lydia, including all the members of her extended household, whichcovers an entire city block of Philippi, plus all her other "friends" (the variousmerchants with whom Lydia does business). These customers give Marcus allthe business he and his young sons can handle. He sells his bread at areasonable price and his family makes a good (though modest) living. Lydiaensures that no one takes advantage of anyone else.

Three years ago, the barley sellers raised their prices. All the bakerspanicked. Naturally, Marcus asked his patroness to help. She invited thepatron of the barley merchants to dinner. During a civilized meal, Lydiamentioned her friend "Marcus" and his difficult situation. The two patronsdiscussed how they could best help their friends, arriving at a fair price forbarley flour. This trade negotiation disguised as a dinner discussion was abinding trade agreement. Lydia did what was appropriate as the patron ofMarcus the baker.

Of course such relationships were two sided. Last year, one of Lydia'sslaves awakened Marcus in the middle of the night. Lydia needed a favor.She had received special guests, and she was planning an elaborate dinnerparty for some wealthy families of Philippi for which she needed specialbread to serve at this important banquet. The guests had brought a letter thatshe planned to have read to the group. She needed Marcus to cook somethingspecial. How could he refuse his patroness? It took all night, but he madesure the bread was ready.

The "rules" for what was expected of a patron and a client were not paintedon Roman city walls (political slogans were). The rules for the trulyfoundational institutions of society, like family and pa tronage, went without

being said. Everyone knew what the proper behavior was. A good patronsolved the problems of his or her clients: assisting with trade guilds, businessdisputes, refinancing loans and easing tensions with city elders. Ordinaryfolks like Marcus had neither the clout nor the social graces to negotiate suchendeavors. The patron did "favors" for his clients who then fell under hiscircle of influence and protection. In return, the client was expected to beloyal (faithful) and was sometimes asked to do things for the patron.

Understanding the preeminence of relationships in the first century hasprofound implications for how we Westerners interpret the Bible.Instinctively prioritizing rules over relationships can lead us to misunderstandsome of Paul's actions and motives. It may even cause us to misunderstandhis gospel of salvation by grace through faith.

First, the patron-client relationship may have been a major challenge forPaul. How could Paul accept gifts, for example, without becoming someone'sclient?6 It appears that on several occasions Paul did not want to dependupon gifts from the church in Corinth because of the massive influence apatron could exert. So he earned his own living instead (1 Cor 4:12; 9:6).When Paul was later under arrest and unable to work, he had to depend upongifts, including gifts from the church in Philippi. But all ancient gifts camewith strings attached.7 It was tricky. To refuse the gift (and thus the offer offriendship) was rude. The strings-attached nature of patronage may explainwhy Paul's letter to the Philippians appears to be a thankless thank-you letter.The apostle hems and haws whenever he mentions the gift the Philippianssent him: "I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed yourconcern for me…. I am not saying this because I am in need, … I have learnedthe secret of being content … Yet it was good of you to share in mytroubles…. Not that I am looking for a gift" (Phil 4:10-12, 14, 17 NIV 1984,emphasis added). Well, did he want the gift or not? Remember, gifts hadstrings attached. And the gift may not have come from the church as a wholebut from an individual, such as Lydia or the jailer. If he accepted the gift,

Paul would become the client. As a client, Paul would be expected to come toPhilippi whenever his patron needed him. Paul was constantly on the move.He knew his calling involved relocating to new mission fields. And he hadhis sights set on Rome. He couldn't drop everything to respond to thesummons of a patron. Yet to refuse to come would make Paul ill-mannered,or worse, ungrateful-a cardinal sin in the ancient world.

The Philippians would have expected Paul to mention their gracegift(charis) in his letter. And he does. But he reinterprets the gift as an offering toGod, not to himself (Phil 4:18). He says the Philippians share in God's grace-gift with Paul. The gift has strings, no doubt. But now the relationship stringsare attached to God. If the Philippians later have "a need," they were to lookto Paul's God-not to Paul-to meet their needs (Phil 4:19). Thus God remainsPaul's only patron (Phil 4:13). Paul's profits and losses are connected to hissole benefactor (Phil 3:7-8).

Now Paul wasn't opposed to the patronage system; he probably couldn'timagine a world without it. He just didn't want to become entangled with thePhilippians. At the same time, Paul was not opposed to gifts having stringsattached. On another occasion Paul tries to use those same strings to tie theJerusalem mother-church to his Gentile churches. Paul gathered up fundsfrom his churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem. He talks about it for twochapters in 2 Corinthians (chapters 8 and 9). His zinger comes at the end:"Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others willpraise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospelof Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyoneelse. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because ofthe surpassing grace God has given you" (2 Cor 9:13-14, emphasis added).Their generous gift would tie the hearts of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem,who needed the gift, to Gentile Christians, who had given generously.

Because it was impossible to escape the patronage system, Paul worked

within it, even in his explanation of the Christian message of salvation.Patronage had its own vocabulary. Words we usually consider particularlyChristian terms-grace and faith-were common parlance before Paulcommandeered them. The undeserved gifts of assistance the patron offeredwere commonly called charis ("grace" and "gift").' The loyalty the clientoffered the patron in response was called pistis ("faith" and "faithfulness").9Roman philosophers noted that when one received a god's favor (charis), oneshould respond with love, joy and hope? When Paul sought to explain theChristian's new relationship with God, then, one of the ways he did so was interms of the ancient system of patronage-something everyone understood. Inother words, it went without being said that relationship is the premier anddeterminative aspect of charis, grace.

Relationships must follow the rules. Our confidence in a stable and orderlyuniverse leads us to prioritize rules over relationships, but it does more thanthat. The Western commitment to rules and laws make it difficult for us toimagine a valid rule to which there may be valid exceptions. When we beginto think of the world in terms of relationships instead of rules, however, wemust acknowledge that things are never so neat and orderly and that rules arenot as dependable as we once imagined. When relationships are the normingfactor in the cosmos, we should expect exceptions.

In the ancient world, rules were not expected to apply 100 percent of thetime. Israel did not keep the rules and God complained about it, but we oftengloss over the reality that the rules had been broken for centuries. Thecovenant, however, was broken only when it became clear that therelationship was over (e.g., Hos 1:9). The end came when the relationship,not the rules, was broken.

Consider this striking Pauline example. Paul asserts, "If you let yourselvesbe circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal 5:2). He makes asimilarly concrete claim elsewhere: "Was a man uncircumcised when he was

called? He should not be circumcised" (1 Cor 7:18). Paul was a vocalopponent of circumcision at the Jerusalem Council, where the early churchdecisively determined that one need not be circumcised in order to be aChristian (Acts 15). This appears to give us a hard and fast rule you can taketo the bank; there seems to be no room for exception. Yet in the versesimmediately following the Jerusalem Council, Luke tells us that Paulcircumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). Westerners can't help but ask, "Didn't Paulsay someone who was uncircumcised should stay that way?" (see 1 Cor7:18). Isn't Paul breaking his own rule? If we understand Paul's exhortation asa fixed and universal rule against circumcision, we are forced to make adifficult decision. Either Luke's account of Paul and Timothy's mission (and,by extension, the history of the early church) was inaccurate. Or Paul coulddo as he pleased, even if that meant contradicting his own teaching.

There is, of course, another option. Luke tells us that Paul's rationale forhaving Timothy circumcised had to do with relationships, not rules. Paul wasabout to evangelize in Timothy's hometown of Lystra, and Paul decided itwas important that Timothy be circumcised "because of the Jews who livedin that area." In other words, even in a matter as sensitive as the value ofcircumcision for Christian faith, relationships trumped rules.

Rather than an image of a contract or a courtroom, the Christian life ismore helpfully viewed as a journey along a road (a hodos, a "way"), to useJesus' image. Along this road, there is a ditch on both sides. The goal is toavoid both ditches, which means that the difference between good instructionand bad instruction depends upon which ditch you have drifted toward. Theproblem with the Western view of a rule is that it has to always apply. But"veer right" is only good instruction if you're headed into the ditch on the left.

Let me apply this in my (Randy's) life. As a stuffy old Bible professor, myChristian walk has often been defined by a list of don'ts: as in "I don't smoke,drink, cuss or chew or run around with girls that do." But perhaps the Spirit

sometimes tells this old stick-in-the-mud to loosen up. Perhaps sitting withmy Scottish colleague who is en joying a pint of Scottish ale may notendanger my immortal soul. I'm often perilously close to the ditch on theright. Such instruction-to veer left a bit-may be helpful for an old Phariseelike me, who regularly perches on the edge of the ditch of legalism. Yet thevery same advice ("veer left") is an absolutely dreadful thing to tell anineteenyear-old college student, who is at no risk of legalism. Many first-year students I know are dangerously close to the ditch on the left, the onemarked "lawlessness." The Spirit tells them to "veer right": to tighten up theirstandards. Again, such a whisper in my heart would be welcome but dreadfuladvice for me; it would likely propel me straight into the ditch of self-righteousness. But our Western worldview dislikes an image of the Christianlife that implies there are different rules for me and for you. The very wording-"d ifferent rules for me and for you"-rings of basic unfairness.Unfortunately for us, this is the example Jesus left for us. For wealthy andself-righteous would-be disciples, Jesus pointed out the exactingrequirements for righteous living (Lk 18:18-23), but to those weary of sin hecalled his way "easy" and "light" (Mt 11:30). Jesus required one disciple tosell everything to follow him (Mt 19:21), yet he apparently hadn't requiredPeter to do so (Jn 21). He asked one disciple to leave his family (Mt 8:21-22),but apparently he did not make the same request of Lazarus, Mary andMartha (Jn 11). It seems that rules applied, except when they didn't.

In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time.In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance.God announces about Ephraim: "Because of their sinful deeds, I will drivethem out of my house. I will no longer love them" (Hos 9:15). Later he says,"How can I give you up, Ephraim?" (Hos 11:8). God's judgment wasinfluenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9-10). Exodus 12:40-49explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua5:5-7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been.'' Ifrules apply except when they don't, then as Westerners perhaps we need more

wisdom in discerning when they don't. (We need help seeing the kairos forapplying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under thesun.)

Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many nonWesterncultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. TheIsraelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, everyIsraelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yetthe very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab(Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut fromhis inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme ofsacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) tothe Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice.Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and hisfamily were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did younotice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to herentire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family.Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments,consider that we "have been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20): that is, therighteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers.

Allow us another story. While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I wasinvited to speak at a "pastors only" meeting. In the audience of over onehundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of theConvention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: "Pastors must bemale." I should have left it alone.

"I thought this meeting was for pastors only," I remarked to the conferenceorganizer.

"It is," he replied.

"But there were women in the audience," I pointed out.

"Yes."

Now I was confused. "But your laws say pastors must be male!" Iexclaimed.

The convention president calmly replied, "Yes, and most of them are."

Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. Tothe non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans wouldlikely want to change the Indonesian law to read, "Most pastors must bemale," and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian-andarguably the biblical-view of law always left room for exceptions.

Paul states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority overa man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). "But what about Priscilla and Junia?"we might ask Paul. "They taught in church. You said women must keepsilent."

Perhaps Paul would answer, "Yes. And most of them do."

RULES EXCLUDE RELATIONSHIPS

As we discussed above, the Enlightenment provided a new viewpoint onGod's relationship to the universe. He had created rules that governed how itoperated. It remained to clever humanity to discover and decode those rules.The next small step was subtle. Once we had discerned the rules by which theuniverse operates, we Westerners no longer needed God as an explanation fornatural phenomena. For example, we referenced Matthew 5:45 above: "[God]sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Jesus likely meant whathe said, that the source of rain is God himself. We know today, though, thatrain is caused by quite natural (and somewhat predictable) weather patterns,warm fronts and cold fronts and the like. We might say, then, that God causesthe weather patterns that cause rain to fall on the righteous and the

unrighteous, leaving God in the equation but less directly involved. Most ofWestern society simply cuts God out of the equation: rain is caused bynatural weather patterns. We create a nice dualism. God is in charge ofsupernatural things, and natural things just run on their own.

The trick is that our definitions of natural and supernatural are everchanging. We humans set the line between natural and supernatural. Naturalindicates "things we understand." Supernatural things are things we don't(yet) understand. Since human knowledge is growing, the line keeps moving.The item itself never changes, but it moves-in our minds-across the line fromsupernatural to natural. Lightning was once considered miraculous,supernatural. 12 The major resistance to Franklin's invention of the lightningrod came from clergy who objected that it removed one of the instruments ofdivine justice!13 Once we understood something about how lightning works,we stopped considering it supernatural. Lightning never changed. Butsomething serious happened: God quit having a role in lightning, as far as wewere concerned. Once we understand a bit about how something works, weshove the divine out of it. Today, of course, we Westerners never evenassociate lightning with God (Ps 148:8). Putting aside the question ofwhether or not God actually uses lightning to smite people, our point is this:now that we understand the physics of lightning, Westerners remove it fromGod's hands. Thunder cannot answer Western prayers. Lightning does notsmite Western sinners. Once we understand a rule of the universe, we cutGod out of any relationship to it.

We want to be very clear here: your authors are not opposed to scientificinquiry or discovery. We like science. We don't believe sincere Christianfaith and a scientific understanding of the universe are fundamentallyincompatible. We do, however, want to caution against naturalism.Naturalism assumes the natural world and its laws (as opposed tosupernatural laws) can fully explain the universe. In naturalism, thesupernatural-if there is any such thing-has no effect on the natural world. For

Christians, science is our friend; naturalism is not. Naturalism tells us thatonce we understand the rules that govern the world, we have no need for arelationship with its Creator. And naturalism, for most Westerners, goeswithout being said.

This creeping naturalism in Western culture leads us to a posture the Biblecalls a vice: lack of faith. A full discussion of virtues and vices is in the nextchapter. But all these areas connect, so let's explore this particular connectionfor a moment. When I (Randy) was living in a remote part of Indonesia, I wasoften awakened in the middle of the night by grave news: "Quick, come tothe dormitory, so-and-so is dying." That will wake you up in a hurry. Thefirst few times it happened, I nearly killed myself dressing and running fullspeed through the dark to rescue a student from the precipice of death … onlyto discover that he or she had a cold. The old "take two pills and call me inthe morning" approach literally was the best treatment. Hundreds of studentswere sped toward recovery by the thousands of ibuprofen tablets Idistributed.

A few years later, I discovered that students considered me a man of littlefaith. All I did was give them medicine! They would always pray for thestudent after I had left. In my worldview, we had quit praying for colds andear infections a generation ago. We understood them, so God was no longerinvolved-although we never said it so crassly. This is a serious loss. We nolonger had a loving Father watching over us in the night. Our point is not thatthere is anything faithless about taking medicine. Our point is that at anunconscious level, our expectation that the universe operates according tonatural laws excludes the possibility from our minds that God mightintervene in our daily affairs.

CONCLUSION

Our commitment to rules is deeply entrenched. Today scholars debatewhether Junia was a male or female name. It is hotly discussed. Why?

Because Junia and Andronicus are both called apostles (Rom 16:7), andmany evangelicals believe a woman couldn't have been an apostle. Allowingone woman apostle would allow all women to be apostles (since rules have toapply to everyone). Therefore, some scholars have insisted that Junia was notan apostle. But this poses a problem, because scholarship has now shownconclusively that Junia is a feminine name. To preserve the sanctity ofuniversal rules, at least one scholar has suggested that neither Junia norAndronicus were apostles.14

More dangerous still, we sometimes exchange our relationship with theliving God for adherence to static rules. This tendency shows up in ourtheological language. Many evangelicals describe our standing before God interms of forensic justification. While there is nothing wrong with thedoctrine, it casts our connection to God in terms of rules, not relationship.But as Preben Vang argues, grace and faith are relationship markers and notforensic decrees.15 Paul used these terms to define a relationship, not toexplain a contract or a court ruling. Likewise, holiness is a relational and nota forensic term. Imagine a wedding ceremony in which the groom vowed, "Iwill kiss you twice daily, with one kiss lasting at least two seconds. I willmake at least one statement implying thoughtfulness every morning. I willprovide three hugs per week of medium snugness, lasting three seconds.Flowers will be provided on four dates a year of your choosing. Candy willbe given with flowers on one occasion per year." Such a vow does not arouselove. Rules never do. While a loving husband may perform all those actions,they are the results of the relationship, not the rules that establish it.

Our tendency to emphasize rules over relationship and correctness overcommunity means that we are often willing to sacrifice relationships on thealtar of rules. Exegetes may discuss which party in Corinth was "right.""'Paul doesn't seem to address their theology. He is more concerned with thestatus of their relationship. This raises an important question: doesrelationship ever trump theology? Such a question could convene a heresy

trial in many denominations. But Jesus prayed that his followers would "beone" (Jn 17:11). Does this mean that we must somehow "correct" thetheology of all other believers so that, as a result, we can "be one"? Paul inActs 21 does not take the opportunity to correct James's theology.'7 Most ofus would not have been able to let it slide. This may be an indication thatPaul prioritizes healthy relationship over doctrinal precision (Rom 12:18).

We are called to "live by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25). Even after two thousandyears, we are still uncomfortable with Paul's law-free gospel. It still seems tous that the best way to avoid sin is by knowing and keeping the rules, eventhough Paul asserts, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desiresof the flesh" (Gal 5:16). It is an uncertain path, but it leads to abundant life.To do this, we have to learn to identify when the Bible is prioritizingrelationship instead of rules or laws.

One way to do this is to pay attention to the motivation or rationale abiblical writer offers for a commandment. For example, the TenCommandments, as they are recorded in Exodus 20, begin with this claim: "Iam the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt" (Ex 20:2). Thisreminder, which precedes the first command, puts the rules (commandments)that follow in relationship terms. There is an implied "therefore" between "Iam the God who brought you out of Egypt" and "You shall have no othergods before me" (Ex 20:3).

We Westerners should also likely consider being less rigid about the ruleswe read in Scripture. I (Randy) remind my students that one of the perks ofbeing sovereign is that you get to do what you want. In fact, it often seems asif God is sovereign over everything except his rules. Like the Medes and thePersians, we seem to insist upon God being bound to his own rules. InIndonesia, I learned that one of the major responsibilities of the person "incharge" of an office is to determine when to make exceptions. Rules applyexcept when the one in charge says otherwise. Westerners might consider this

arbitrary; many non-Western Christians consider this grace. Fees apply toeverybody, unless the manager thinks someone really can't afford it. Then hemakes an exception.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.Paul discusses the gifts of the Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 12. While manyChristians believe the Spirit still grants these gifts today, many otherChristians believe they have ceased. Is it possible that naturalisticassumptions influence the way we interpret this passage? Do we assumethis sort of gifting has ceased because "natural law" tells us they areimpossible today?

2.In I Corinthians 8, Paul discusses the oft-debated issue of eating food thathas been sacrificed to idols. The Jerusalem Council had determined thatone of the few laws Gentile Christians should observe is, "You are toabstain from food sacrificed to idols" (Acts 15:29). Acts offers nojustification for the requirement. But Paul implies one in I Corinthians8:13: "If what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will nevereat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." Could understandingthis rule in terms of a relationship help make sense of how we apply thisconfusing regulation? Are Christians allowed to eat pork? (Most of usdon't wrestle with this one. If "freedom in Christ" applies to anything,surely it covers bacon!) What about the Christian missionary living in aMuslim village? Should she or he refrain from eating this meat because ofrelationships? Let's move closer to home. Our friend Scott, a NewTestament scholar and a gentle and godly man, enjoys a pint of ale. Helives and teaches in a Christian culture that believes in teetotaling. Henever consumes alcohol, citing 1 Corinthians 8:13. Is he right?

3.It may be scary to think that rules might not apply 100 percent of the timeto 100 percent of the people. How will we know when to apply them?How do we "keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25)? What does that look

like in practice?

4.Historically, Christians have opted to keep Old Testament law, except forthe ones we didn't like, such as those related to pork, parapets, paydaysand planting."' Isn't it arbitrary to suggest to Christians that one may pickand choose laws based upon cultural preferences? By what criteria do wedetermine which laws apply to us today?

5.Modern science is suggesting theories of how the universe came intoexistence. Many Western Christians are adamantly opposed to thesetheories. Is our opposition because we think it is flawed science, or is itbecause we know and fear our pattern? Once we understand howsomething works, we take God out of it. We all definitely don't want totake God out of creation.

Virtue and Vice

Once upon a time there lived a little red hen. The little red hen worked hardto keep her family fed. One day while the little red hen was searching forworms, she came across a few seeds. She asked around to the creatures on afarm who know such things-the cat and the duck and the dog-and they allagreed that she had found wheat seeds. When planted, they told her, theseseeds will grow into wheat, from which you can make delicious bread.

The little red hen decided to plant the seeds, so they might grow into wheatthat she might bake into bread. She asked her friends, "Who will help meplant the seeds?"

"Not I," said the cat. She didn't want to dirty her pretty paws.

"Not I," said the dog. He was too busy chasing his tail.

"Not I," said the duck. He preferred to float in the cool pond.

"Then I'll do it myself," said the little red hen. And so she did.

Time passed and the wheat grew, and the crop needed to be weeded.Eventually the wheat needed to be harvested, and the harvested wheat neededto be ground into flour, and the flour needed to be made into dough. At eachpoint the little red hen asked her friends to help her, and each time, lazy and

leisure-loving as they were, they found some reason to say no.

Finally the day came when the little red hen put that dough in the oven andbegan to bake her long-awaited bread. The smell of it baking waftedthroughout the farm. The little red hen- somewhat facetiously, as it turns out-wondered aloud, "Who will help me eat the bread?"

Suddenly all her friends had time in their busy schedules and were eager tolend a hand.

"I will," said the cat.

"I will," said the dog.

"I will," said the duck.

But the little red hen wouldn't have it. Where were all these socalledfriends when there was hard work to do?

"No," she said. "You did not help me plant the seeds, or weed the garden,or harvest the wheat or grind the grain. So you do not get to eat the bread. Iwill eat it myself." And so she did.

You are probably familiar with this story and its familiar moral. We bothgrew up with this story, and Randy's generation of Americans wasprofoundly influenced by it, or at least by the value it propagates. It teaches,to children who are too young to reason it out, a cultural value that goeswithout being said: you can't expect to benefit from hard work if you aren'twilling to do hard work.

This story causes more angst than many Western Christians realize. I(Brandon) live in the suburbs of Chicago. Invariably when I visit the city, Iencounter panhandlers on the streets who ask if I can spare a little change. Asa believer, I am taught to share. The first Christians, we all know, "sold

property and possessions to give to anyone who had need" (Acts 2:45). Jesuscommanded us, "Give to everyone who asks you" (Lk 6:30). So during thisencounter, the Christian voice in my head says, Share with those in need. Atthe same time, though, the voice of the little red hen sounds in my mind: No.They didn't work. And another thing: why does that beggar need changeanyway? Isn't he just going to misspend it?

Of course, these are unconscious thoughts. As soon as I verbalize them-orput them in print-I see them for what they are. Yet there they are lurking inthe shadows. Worse yet, I can justify them by citing Paul's exhortation in 2Thessalonians 3:10: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Whenour worldviews collide, as we have noted before, we quickly try to harmonizethem. In this situation, I am drawn to a single statement of Paul's and bypassall of Jesus' teachings about helping those in need.

The hidden tension between the voice of Jesus and that of the red hen oftenreveals itself when college students go on mission trips abroad. Suddenlythey become wonderful models of Christian generosity, giving withoutjudgment. We have seen examples of students giving away all of their extraclothes, returning home withliterally-only the clothes on their backs. Thestudents asked no questions; the recipients didn't have to pass any worthinesstests. It was enough that the person was in need. Yet upon returning home,the same students are often shocked by their own reaction to the beggar onthe street again. It seems that often the little red hen only applies in America.

The little red hen story illustrates a deep, hidden and dangerous tendencythat can lead us to misread the Bible. We are profoundly influenced by ourculture to recognize certain behaviors as virtues and other behaviors as vices.These values are propagated in a number of ways. One way is throughfolktales, such as the story of the little red hen. Think, for example, of thestory of the tortoise and the hare, which teaches that persistence and diligenceare virtues that lead to success, whereas inconsistency and bravado are vices

that lead to failure. These values are reinforced through cultural proverbs,such as "a penny saved is a penny earned" (the virtue of frugality), "early tobed and early to rise makes one healthy, wealthy and wise" (the virtue of hardwork) or "a stitch in time saves nine" (the virtue of taking care of yourpossessions). Some of these proverbs sound as if they come from Scripture(and many people believe they do), like this one: "God helps those who helpthemselves"-which is likely anti-biblical. God helps those who rely on him(Ps 91:15).

Virtues and vices are reinforced also through popular culture (and oftenmedia). Let's pick a relatively harmless example. It is an American virtue tohave teeth that look like a box of Chiclets. For this reason, we can easily passjudgments about people who are missing teeth; they must not be very smart.Perhaps you think your authors have crossed the line into pettiness? SurelyChristians don't judge people by their teeth. Not historically. In antiquity, noone brushed their teeth. Wisdom teeth were a gift from the Lord because bythe time they came in, you needed them! (Wisdom teeth became a problemonly in the last century when we began to keep all our teeth.) But think aboutit: Can you imagine a Jesus who doesn't have all his teeth? It seems likeheresy to suggest otherwise. We are not going to get into a theologicalargument, but most of the world would wonder why Westerners have thisthing about teeth. My Indonesian friends would likely think, Who cares ifJesus had molars? Now that the matter is on the table, we all admit that itdoesn't matter if Jesus had all his teeth (although we secretly hope he did).Weight control and oral hygiene are Western virtues, not ancient ones-nor,arguably, biblical ones. Nevertheless, in a picture or movie, we need aslender, fit Jesus with a full set of pearly white teeth (flowing hair and blueeyes are a nice touch, too). Virtues and vices, though, are issues far moresignificant than cosmetic dentistry. While we might grudgingly concede atooth or two, we are confident Jesus conformed to the rest of our virtues.

Of course we like to believe that our conception of what constitutes a vice

or virtue comes from Scripture. And sometimes it does. But we must beaware that through repetition over time, our culture shapes our understandingof vice and virtue at the unconscious level. Eventually, these values gowithout being said. And the unconscious cultural lessons often influence theway we perceive certain behaviors in Scripture and can lead us to ignore clearbiblical teaching on vice and virtue if it challenges a previously held culturalvalue. Sometimes the little red hen just shouts louder than Jesus.

PRIORITIZING VIRTUES AND VICES

Among the philosophers of Paul's day, it was common to state virtues orvices in lists of five, often followed by one that summarized the list. Pauluses this pattern, since it would have been familiar to his readers. To theColossians, Paul writes, "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to yourearthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed,which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). Paul uses "idolatry" to sum up his list of fivevices. These were the vices the Colossians had already put out of their lives(Col 3:7). Paul then exhorts them to continue their pursuit of godliness byremoving more: "But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things asthese: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do notlie to each other" (Col 3:8-9). Again, we see a list of five that is summarizedby Paul's command to stop lying to one another.

When looking at Paul's list, we need to note what went without being said.It is easy to major on the minor, to spend our reflective time concentrating onthe parts Paul was not emphasizing. We need to be sure to notice what Paulwanted us to notice. First of all, we would be missing the point if we focus onthe verbs Paul uses. Paul used a common image, often called today a clothingmetaphor, when he talks about taking off vices and putting on virtues.Technically, English has these words, doff and don, but we seldom use themanymore. This imagery was not Paul's point. It went without being said thatpursuing godliness was like changing one's filthy rags for beautiful robes.Changing clothing was the common parlance of the day. So Bible studies

shouldn't spend their time trying to describe vices and virtues as pieces ofclothing. Second, we also should not focus on the fact that Paul listed five. Itwas the custom of the day to list vices in this way. It wasn't that Paul couldonly think of five. Five wasn't a sacred number. It isn't an allegory, wherethese are the five toes as we walk in the Christian way, or the five fingers thathelp us hold on to godliness. The two lists together don't add up to ten tosymbolize the Ten Commandments. It was merely a Greek custom fordescribing virtues and vices. It went without being said. Similarly, sermons inthe United States today often have three points. It is just a custom; we allknow that.

Two other things went without being said for Paul and his audience. Listswere not intended to be exhaustive or exemplary or progressive. These werenot the only vices. They were also not the five worst vices. There doesn'tseem to be a progression in the lists from bad to worst. In Paul's day, it wentwithout being said that a great way to describe something was to make a list.Lists could be organized around some sort of theme. For example, Paulseems to emphasize sins of speech in the second list, probably because theColossians were having trouble with it. The main point Paul was making wasthat we need to be removing vices and adding virtues in an ongoing quest forgodliness. Good advice.

As Westerners, we have two tendencies when interpreting these lists ofvices. First, we often rank them. We consider certain vices as worse thanothers. Western Christians often view sexual sins as worse than others (wetouched on this in chapter one). It goes without being said among WesternChristians that sexual sins are really bad. In fact, when Western Christiansattempt to address other sins, they sometimes hear responses such as, "Youaren't paying attention to the important things" or "You're nitpicking." Toaddress some other sin opens one up to the charge of being a Pharisee. At thetime of this writing, an online conversation was occurring about a number ofmostly high-profile pastors who have resigned or are taking leaves of absence

due to "excessive pride." The question many have is what to do with them.We know that sexual immorality or financial misconduct can disqualify aperson from ministry. But can pride? Is pride a vice worth firing a pastorover? Is it as bad as adultery? The core question seems to us to be: are somesins or vices worse than others? We might insist that no, all sin is the same,and perhaps even cite James 2:10 ("For whoever keeps the whole law and yetstumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it"). Yet we clearly don'tbelieve it to be true at the gut level. Some sins will certainly get a pastorfired, and others will certainly not. When was the last time a pastor was firedfor gluttony?

Our second tendency is to emphasize vices and deemphasize virtues. Afterdiscussing vices, Paul offers a list of virtues: "Clothe yourselves withcompassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience" (Col 3:12). Againhe gives a list of five. Before Paul lists his summary word, love, he actuallyinterjects into his list an exhortation to forgive, likely because slander andsome of the other sins of speech that Paul is encouraging them to cast offhave caused hurt feelings in the church. What went without being said inPaul's day was that it is not enough to remove vices; one must acquire virtues.The clothing metaphor indicates that. Once you cast off the vices, you didn'twant to stand around naked! Put on virtues. Yet Westerners tend to restrictthe Christian life to avoiding vices.

In Scripture, the godly life is portrayed as a lifelong work, not a list ofdon'ts. The active pursuit of virtue, particularly through the disciplinedpractice of godly habits, is overshadowed. N. T. Wright, a world-renownedNew Testament scholar, argues persuasively that Westerners don't like to talkabout virtue as habit. That makes virtue seem contrived or inauthentic. Weonly value virtue when it is spontaneous. This prejudice makes it harder forus to notice language in the Bible about developing virtue.' It goes withoutbeing said in our minds that virtuous acts are supposed to just happen, tobubble up unexpectedly in our lives. Virtue isn't supposed to be the harvest

from crops carefully planted years ago and tended with constant attention.

As it is described in Scripture, developing virtue is a process that beginswith our thoughts and results in our deeds. In Psalm 101, the psalmistresolves,

It almost sounds self-righteous to Westerners. But what the psalmist isdescribing is a determination to pursue godliness.

SUPPLEMENTING WITH NEW VIRTUES AND VICES

In addition to ranking vices, we also supplement the biblical lists with virtuesand vices from our own culture. Thus self-sufficiency, likely a vice bybiblical standards, is considered a virtue in the West. Likewise, we addprocrastination and plagiarism to our list of vices, even though there isnothing explicit about either of these in the Bible. Even now, as a reader youmay be hastening to provide a biblical basis for these obvious vices. SurelyJesus wants us to plan and not procrastinate. When Jesus said not to worryabout tomorrow, we are sure he still wanted us to plan. Planning is animportant survival skill in middleclass America; that's not the same thing as avirtue. Plagiarism became a modern sin with the invention of publishers andcopyrights.

Let us use a different example. I (Randy) struggled with Indonesianstudents who "shared" homework answers. "Aren't we supposed to share withour brother in need?" they would ask. I pointed out that they were hurtingtheir own grade-an appeal to good old-fashioned American individualism.But they were willing to sacrifice for their fellow Christian. I insisted it was

dishonest. They pointed out that they had not lied; they had told me theyshared. The best I could do was say, "Sharing is Christian. Sharing work andthen claiming an individual grade is dishonest." I now tell students, in theUnited States and Indonesia, that they can work together on an exam. Theyjust need to tell me how they want the grade split: 50/50, 60/40 or whatever!

The problem of supplementing virtue and vice lists is more serious thanprocrastination and plagiarism (although you probably still think those arevery serious vices). Let us mention five Western virtues that are eithernonbiblical (that do not have support from the Scriptures) or anti-biblical(that directly contradict the teaching of the Scriptures).

Self-sufficiency. North Americans have much less respect for someone"born with a silver spoon in his mouth" than for one who "pulls himself up byhis bootstraps." We value someone who has the ability to make a way forherself without the help, and especially the handouts, of others. Self-sufficiency has the ring of wisdom. But the Bible doesn't support it. Jamesreminds us that putting too much faith in our own plans dishonors God.Rather "You ought to say, `If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this orthat"' (Jas 4:15). Paul suggests that one can't be truly Christian if the goal isself-sufficiency: "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfillthe law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).

Fighting for freedom. It is readily accepted in American public discourse,and among many American Christians, that "Freedom is worth fighting for."Jesus didn't think so. Jesus could have joined the Jewish resistance that wasfighting for the liberty of Israel from Roman rule. But he didn't. Worse, hetold his disciples not to. Instead of resisting the Romans, he taught radicalobedience. When a Roman soldier strikes you, turn the other cheek. When heforces you to carry his gear one mile, willingly carry it two (Mt 5:39, 41).Worst of all, he told them that when the fighting started, they should "flee tothe mountains" (Mt 24:16). John Wayne wouldn't have fled for the hills. In

this case, we prefer the Duke's example.

In fact, old spaghetti westerns undermine several other biblical values aswell. For those old enough to remember the TV Western Gunsmohe thataired for twenty years, Marshall Dillon loved Miss Kitty but never did marryher. In many westerns, when the shooting ended and the smoke faded, thehero got on his horse and rode away, leaving a grateful (but heartbroken)woman behind. Yet a Christian shouldn't ride off into the sunset like theHollywood hero. Rather, we should be like the thankful shopkeepers,blacksmiths and barbers who pause with their families to watch the hero rideoff into the sunset. Paul urged Christians to lead quiet lives and care for theirfamilies (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:12).

Pax Americana. Jesus comments, "My peace I give you. I do not give toyou as the world gives" (Jn 14:27). Jesus' disciples knew who Jesus meant by"the world." It was plastered on city walls, engraved on columns and stampedon coins. The Roman Empire prided herself on peace, the famed PaxRomana. Rome had indeed brought peace to that part of the world. For thefirst time, ships could ply the Mediterranean without fear of pirates. Travelerscould move freely along the roads with little fear of bandits. Roman peace,though, was secured by the sword. When trouble started, the Roman militarywas there to stop it. They entered with overwhelming force. No one messedwith them. Military force is an effective way to bring peace. The UnitedStates is famed worldwide for Pax Americana, for bringing peace the sameway the Romans did. It does work, but Jesus said he didn't bring peace thatway.

Paul stated, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace witheveryone" (Rom 12:18). Your authors are not avowed pacifists; we just wantto raise two objections to Pax Americana. First, we should not confuse PaxAmericana with the Christian way. We need to stop writing Scripture verseson the sides of bombs. We are rather confident such a practice would not

meet the WWJD criterion. Second, we suggest that we in the United Statesresort to military force much too quickly, a long time before we meet Paul'sstandard of "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you." Christians shouldecho the sentiment of the psalmist: "Too long have I lived among those whohate peace. I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war" (Ps 120:6-7).

Leadership. How would you rather be recognized: as a leader or afollower? For many Westerners, the term follower connotes a weakness ofcharacter, as when a person cannot resist peer pressure but "goes along withthe crowd." Follower connotes a lack of creativity and ambition, portrayingthe average office worker as a drone dutifully churning out unimportant workunder the direction of a (sometimes) talented and successful manager. Bycontrast, the term leader connotes a constellation of virtues. It implies that aperson is efficient, creative, productive and charismatic enough to encourageothers to be the same. Businesses want to hire leaders, not followers. And,perhaps ironically, so do churches. The importance of leadership amongChristians is illustrated by the fact that one of the most influential magazinesfor church leaders in the United States is called Leadership Journal. As muchas our culture pushes us to be leaders, the Bible urges us to becomefollowers. At a certain level we know this is true, so we talk about "servantleadership" as a way of distinguishing our position from others. Of course,we are to be followers of Jesus (Mt 4:19). But we are also to be followers ofthose who follow Jesus faithfully (1 Cor 11:1). God even wants us to followthose whose station in life demands our obedience, even if they are notChristians (Rom 13:1-2; 1 Pet 2:13). Leadership is a Western virtue;submission is a biblical virtue.

Tolerance. I (Brandon) teach Introduction to World Religions at a secularcollege. Among my students, the American virtue of tolerance is regularly onfull display. Students may roll their eyes or smirk now and then at notions ofthe supernatural that they consider quaint or naive, but if you press them, theyknow better than to criticize anyone's religious beliefs outright. Their

instinctive tolerance leads them to say silly things such as, "All of the world'sreligions are true." It would make more sense to say that they are all false.But that would be intolerant. Tolerance is clearly not a biblical virtue. Goddeclared to his people because of their tolerance, "I am determined to bringdisaster on you and to destroy all Judah" (Jer 44:11). Western Christians feelthe tension of wanting to affirm the uniqueness of Christ and the truth of thegospel while at the same time being perceived as tolerant of the beliefs ofothers. This isn't easy to do, considering Jesus said things like, "Enter throughthe narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads todestruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow theroad that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Mt 7:13-14). — — – – – – – – – – —

Self-sufficiency, freedom, "might makes right," leadership and toleranceare all virtues we will likely teach to the next generation, whether consciouslyor unconsciously. It should be clear by now that not all our Western virtuescome from the Bible, even if we insist that the Bible is our authority formoral conduct.

IGNORING OTHER VIRTUES

One important Western matrix of virtues that presents us with challengeswhen we read the Bible surrounds finances. We mentioned one popularproverb above that illustrates the virtue of frugality in Western culture: "Apenny saved is a penny earned." At least since Max Weber, scholars havenoted that Protestant Christianity (especially those of Puritan heritage) putssignificant emphasis on hard work, frugality and financial independence. IfRoman Catholicism talks about God's preferential care for the poor,Protestants believe that "God helps those that help themselves." One way thisplays out practically is that most Christians recognize the importance ofsaving money. Investing and putting money in the bank for the future or arainy day is good stewardship and requires and reinforces another virtue:

delayed gratification.

The parable of the rich fool is difficult for Westerners, because in it Jesuscomes uncomfortably close to undermining this important virtue. That'sbecause what Westerners call a virtue-savings-many others in the Christiantradition, including Jesus himself, may consider a vice-greed. In the parable,a wealthy man yielded an abundant harvest. That's good news. The bad newswas he didn't have room to store the extra grain. So he commanded hisservants to tear down his barns and build him newer, bigger barns. They did,and the rich man was pretty pleased with himself. "You have plenty of grainlaid up for many years," he said to himself. "Take life easy; eat, drink and bemerry" (Lk 12:19). This is what most of us strive for: enough savings to retireand live for decades on our surplus.

But God is not pleased with the man's decision. "But God said to him,`You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then whowill get what you have prepared for yourself?"' (Lk 12:20).

We are not sure what to do with this story, so we usually just ignore it. Weknow the rich man is the bad guy; God calls him a fool. But it isn't clear whathis vice was. Most Westerners will likely never consider that saving could beconsidered a vice. So we go hunting for a different one. Aha! It must be thathe wanted "newer, bigger" barns; he must have been wasteful andmaterialistic. No. The vice is the one staring us in the face, the vice that, forJesus and his audience, went without being said: the man didn't share. "I haveno place to store my crops," he had said. Sure he did. People around himwere hungry; he could have given the excess to his neighbors. Jesus wasn'tcomplaining that the man had full barns. He was complaining that the manhad more than he needed and was still unwilling to share.

This doesn't contradict the value of saving. Jesus didn't denounce the manfor working hard to fill his barns. The book of Proverbs is full of adviceabout hard work, careful planning and taking care of your people. The

problem was not that the man's barns were full. The problem-the man's vice-was that he didn't want to part with any of his possessions, even after hisbarns were full: "I will just build bigger barns." While Proverbs encouragesdiligence, it also states: "The generous will themselves be blessed, for theyshare their food with the poor" (Prov 22:9). In the very next few verses, Jesusencourages his disciples not to worry about the future. Do not be like the richfool; instead, "Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have nostoreroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable youare than birds!" (Lk 12:24, emphasis added)

Now, the biblical view of money is complicated. We're not suggesting thatit is un-Christian to save. But we are challenged by the assumption of manynon-Western Christians that saving in excess could be a vice. For the firstseveral centuries, Christians still viewed wealth as a limited resource. Theyrecognized that when a few people hoarded resources, the rest were left withlittle. In a famous sermon, "To the Rich," pastor and theologian Basil theGreat had harsh words for those wealthy people who save for the future whileothers starve in the present:

Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashedaway in secret places. For (they say), "what's to come is uncertain, we mayface unexpected needs." Therefore it is equally uncertain whether you willhave any use for your buried gold; it is not uncertain, however, what shallbe the penalty of inveterate inhumanity. For when you failed, with yourthousand notions, wholly to expend your wealth, you then concealed it inthe earth. A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with othermetals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, itdisappears again beneath the ground. From this, I perceive, it happens toyou that in burying your money you bury also your heart. "For where yourtreasure is," it is said, "there will your heart be also" (Mt 6:21). This is whythe commandments cause sorrow; because they have nothing to do withuseless spending sprees, they make life unbearable for you.2

Basil likely chose the language of burying wealth underground to allude toJesus' parable about the talents. One servant buried his talent. He didn't use it;he just kept it safe. Likewise, in Basil's day (and equally true in NewTestament times), if you had food and your neighbors were hungry, youwould have to hide the food. Basil said that to be so calloused as to hideresources from your needy Christian brothers and sisters required buryingyour heart with the treasure. Our emphasis on saving makes sense when weconsider that most of us think of our options as either saving or spending. Butthe biblical witness and Christian tradition suggest that there's another option:sharing. Rather than storing away all our excess for an uncertain future, Godappears to expect believers to be faithful in the present.

CONCLUSION

The formidable Augustine of Hippo believed that all Christian reading ofScripture should be governed by the pursuit of virtue. In his case, heemphasized love (charity) above all else. As far as Au gustine was concerned,reading Scripture should encourage the reader's love for God and for his orher neighbor. "So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divinescriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up thisdouble love of God and neighbour, has not yet succeeded in understandingthem."3 This may seem naive to us; surely not every passage of Scripture isabout the love of God or neighbor! And yet many of us find in the Biblesupport for virtues like self-sufficiency, leadership and others that arearguably unbiblical. Augustine, at least, was aware of the virtue that wasguiding his interpretation. We would do well to be so alert to our ownpresuppositions. The process of becoming sensitive to our presuppositionsregarding vice and virtue is similar to becoming sensitive about ourassumptions about mores.

Begin with yourself. Start paying attention to your instinctiveinterpretations as you read biblical passages that have to do with vice orvirtue. As you read, are you skipping over virtues and vices you don't like?

Are you considering some very serious and others almost optional? The wayyou answer these questions can help you uncover what vices and virtues youtake for granted.

Be sensitive to what the biblical author is trying to emphasize. InColossians 3:5, Paul offers a list of vices that "belong to your earthly nature":"sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry."If, as we argued above, lists are summarized by their final item, Paul isemphasizing idolatry. That's not a vice we talk about much as WesternChristians.

Finally, perhaps the best way to become sensitive to our ownpresuppositions-what goes without being said for us-is to read the writing ofChristians from different cultures and ages.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.Consider the qualities that employers, schools and institutions look for insuccessful candidates. Make a list. What virtues do they want people tohave? What do they consider vices? Compare these to the lists of vicesand virtues found in Colossians 3. Where is there overlap? Where is therecontradiction?

2.If we're not careful, preachers and teachers can harp on the same few sinsor issues we find particularly troubling. Think back over the last fewmonths. Based on your lessons or sermons, what might the people whohear you teach conclude are the Bible's top ten vices or virtues?

3.How much are you teaching biblical values versus cultural values? Moneymanagement is a helpful skill to survive in middle-class America. (Thepoor have no money to manage, and the wealthy hire money managers.) Ifyou plan to live in middleclass society, then you need to learn thesesurvival skills. Likewise, if you plan to live in Borneo, then you need to

learn how to sleep in the jungle. Neither set of skills is biblical, but bothare handy. It is fine for a church in the United States to offer courses inmoney management. A local Haitian church offers courses in Englishconversation. We would not consider ESL courses to be biblical; yet aren'tmoney management courses often pitched as biblical? By what criteria dowe determine if our teaching on a virtue such as money management isbiblical and not simply cultural?

4.In Proverbs 6:16-19, the writer expresses his disgust at the despicable deedsof the wicked. Take a minute to read the passage. Are you surprised at theexamples the writer gives? Or consider the way David describes thewicked in Psalm 101. What vices on these lists surprise you? Whichwould you also have singled out?

Finding the Center of God's Will

When I (Brandon) graduated from high school, I received as gifts a trunkloadof ink pens, picture frames, coffee mugs, journals, key chains and otherknickknacks all inscribed with the same Bible verse: "`For I know the plans Ihave for you,' declares the LORD, `plans to prosper you and not to harm you,plans to give you hope and a future" (Jer 29:11). This promise has becomethe standard scriptural blessing for young people making the transition toadulthood. The message is clear: you are striking out on your own, but don'tworry; God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. It's littlewonder, then, that every year, I (Randy) have to inform my students thatJeremiah 29:11 is not about their future career plans.

God was speaking to Judeans facing exile. That's clear from the immediatecontext. The preceding verse tells us that God is referring to Israel's time inBabylon. "This is what the LORD says: `When seventy years are completedfor Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring youback to this place"' (Jer 29:10). Israelite children were not on their way to theuniversity for the first time. The "plans" God refers to in Jeremiah 29:11 are"the good promise" to return the exiled people to their homeland. "'I willgather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,'declares the LORD, `and will bring you back to the place from which Icarried you into exile"' (Jer 29:14). It's clear this verse is about ancient Israeland not me. Nevertheless, each of us finds a way to make this verse all abouthimself or herself.

At one level, our culture's tendency to hijack this promise for high schoolgrads is a symptom of our tendency to take the Bible out of context. But wecan arrive at this interpretation even if we take context into consideration. Wemight reason the application of Jeremiah 29:11 this way: `As God loved andcared for his people then, so God will also love and take care of me."

Maybe so. But we think this application reveals a deeper, more dangeroustendency than ignoring context. This misreading lurks deep in the substrata of"what goes without being said." Western Christians, especially NorthAmerican Christians, tend to read every scriptural promise, every blessing, asif it necessarily applies to usto each of us and all of us individually. More tothe point, we are confident that us always includes me specifically. And thismay not be the case. In this chapter, we are discussing an aspect of theWestern worldview that is similar to the individualism versus collectivismtrait that we noted earlier. The idea is related but not the same. Thismisreading of Scripture arises from combining our individualism with a moresubtle, deeply hidden and deeply rooted aspect of our Western worldview: westill think the universe centers around us. The assumption is naive; but worse,it influences the way we read the Bible.

SELF AT THE CENTER

We come by this emphasis on me honestly. Europeans commonly immigratedto America for individual improvement.' French immigrant J. Hector St. Johnde Crevecoeur wrote extensively in the eighteenth century about hisexperience of and motivation for starting a new life in the New World. "Ienvy no man's prosperity, and wish no other portion of happiness than that Imay live to teach the same philosophy to my children," he wrote; "and giveeach of them a farm, show them how to cultivate it, and be like their father,good substantial independent American farmers.."' Crevecoeur's mainobjective was establishing an independent way of life and passing it on to hischildren. He doesn't talk about establishing a righteous community for the

glory of God, like many New England settlers had. In this way, theindividualistic and self-absorbed population of America developed by way ofa self-selecting process. Those attracted by the rugged frontier and solitarylife made the dangerous journey west. Those who weren't, didn't.

While every generation likes to critique the previous one, it seems to usthat Americans are becoming more self-centered.' My (Randy's) generationwas known as the "me generation." Rather than saving for their children'seducation, many spent their money on themselves. They continuallyremodeled their homes and even themselves. History has something to dowith this (as always). This generation was in elementary school during thetumultuous social upheaval of the 1960s. As teens and young adults in the1970s, many turned away from the activism of the previous decade andbecame focused on themselves. They wanted to have fun, be fulfilled andself-actualized and enjoy life. This is the generation responsible for the petrock. Perfect for a self-centered generation, the pet rock didn't need to be fed,walked or loved. When you lost interest, you could just throw it away (orpass it down to your kids).

When the "me generation" became Christians, we baptized thisegocentrism. We now felt guilty for spending all our money on ourselves. Sowe gave it to the church. Mainly to our own local church. The church growth(megachurch) movement was led by baby boomers and populated with the"me generation." We built modern cathedrals with children's ministry spacesthat Disney would covet. We still gave (and give) money to missions, butpreferably for a trip that includes me. We sing the (beautiful) praise chorus,"It's all about you, Jesus." Who are we kidding? It's all about Jesus-as long asit's in a service I like, in a building I like, with people I like, with music I like,for a length of time I like. At some point in this generation, "Take up yourcross and follow me" changed into, "Come to Jesus and he'll make your lifebetter."

My (Brandon's) generation is perhaps more self-centered, but we too have

our excuses. Many Gen Xers were latchkey kids, which meant they werehome alone after school in the evenings because both parents worked fulltime. In many ways, then, they raised themselves, with the help of afterschoolspecials that taught them they were special and unique and important. Rearedon a steady diet of self-esteem and positive reinforcement, at least at schooland on television, they are just as likely to consider themselves the center ofthe universe.

The generation coming up now, often called millennials, are usually thechildren of Gen Xers; and because the Gen Xers' parents (Boomers) weren'tvery involved in their lives, parents of millennials tend to over-parent.They've been labeled helicopter parents, because they hover over their kidsand make sure they get everything they need all the time. This constantattention means the millennials have a strong sense of self-esteem (vergingon narcissism, some would say), a strong sense of entitlement (becausethey've always gotten what they've wanted) and don't take criticism very well.They, as the generations before them, are obsessed with self-improvement,selfactualization and self-expression.

So for generations now, Americans' primary concern has been themselves.In his 2005 book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives ofAmerican Teenagers, sociologist Christian Smith coined a now-famous termto describe the religion of most teens in the United States. He called itmoralistic therapeutic deism. One aspect of moralistic therapeutic deism isthe assumption that the purpose of religious faith is "providing therapeuticbenefits to its adherents." The average teen, according to Smith, doesn't viewhumans as existing to do the will of God; rather, they view God as existing tomeet human needs. Smith goes on, "What appears to be the actual dominantreligion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure,at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolveproblems, and getting along amiably with other people."' Need a friend? Godis there. Looking for direction in life? God has a plan. Want a more fulfilling

marriage? God has the answers.

We believe Smith's observations are true of more than just Americanteenagers. The prevailing model of ministry in the United States for the pastgeneration has reinforced this cultural value. Much preaching is focused onthe felt needs of listeners; this style communicates that the value of theScriptures, and ultimately the gospel itself, is what it can do for me. Thismeans that while the church has not created the American preoccupation withme, it has certainly reinforced it. If we are encouraged to think about ourrelationships with God and the church in terms of what's in it for me, it's onlynatural that we approach the Bible the same way. And you guessed it: thistendency can cause us to misread the Bible.

SELF AND SCRIPTURE

Now, what makes this misreading so tricky is that it is built upon at least twovery positive beliefs. First, we assume that the Bible applies to us. One of theimportant commitments of evangelical Christianity is that the Bible is for usin every age. Every part of the Scriptures, even though they record events thathappened in other countries and thousands of years ago, has application forus today. That is to say, we acknowledge that the Bible records history, but itis not only about things in the past. It is also relevant for Christians in thepresent and, by extension, in the future. A second influential, and accurate,assumption is that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Becausehis character does not change, we are confident he will deal with us as he hasdealt with his people previously. He was trustworthy then; he is trustworthynow. We then extrapolate that promises that applied to his people in the pastcontinue to apply to his people in the present. If they didn't, we reason, Godwould be unpredictable. But he isn't. We trust him because "his compassionsnever fail" (Lam 3:22).

We wholeheartedly affirm both of these statements: that the Bible appliesto us and that God is not capricious. The problem is that these foundational

ideas are tweaked when we view them through the lens of me. The Christianchurch has always believed that the Scriptures are for us. But our historicallocation changes what that means. As Eugene Peterson has argued, theoriginal process through which God worked with his people was throughspeaking-writingreading (aloud)-listening. That is, until the Reformation,people heard the Scriptures in church-and only in church. That meant thenatural question when interpreting the Bible was, "What does this mean tous?" With the double-edged gift of Gutenberg's printing press, the process isoften reduced merely to writing-reading. Now we read the Bible alone in ourhomes. This allows a communal process to become individualized. Worse,one can own the Word of God (meaning a book), rather than hear the Wordof God, which is usually a communal act. The act of carrying around a bookgives the individual the perception: I have the Word of God.' Now instead ofasking, "What does this mean to us?" our instinctive question is, "What doesthis mean to me?" The shift to individual, reader-centered interpretation wasnatural, post-Gutenberg. But we must never lose sight of the implications ofthat shift.

Additionally, what goes without being said is that it's all about me. Webelieve the Bible endorses our preoccupation with ourselves. We infer fromScripture that God has made us unique, has a special plan for each of us andtherefore must have something to say to us specifically in the pages ofScripture. God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knewyou, before you were born I set you apart" (Jer 1:5). Likewise, Isaiah andPaul spoke of being called by name (Is 49:1) or set apart (Gal 1:15) in theirmother's wombs. As a Westerner, I find myself thinking: if God chose themin their mother's womb, then he must have chosen me, too. I may even citePsalm 139:13 as proof. But the reasoning is circular; we assume that's what itmeans because our culture tells us we are special and unique. The point theBible is making seems to be quite the opposite. Jeremiah, Isaiah and Paulwere apparently making the point that they were an exception. Unlikeeveryone else, they were set apart for a special word and a special task from

the Lord. But in the way we read it, Jeremiah is "special," just like everyoneelse.

These assumptions have serious consequences for the way we readScripture. To begin with, our focus on me in our Bible reading affects if weread the Bible before it ever affects how we read it. What we mean is this:our preoccupation with what the Bible says to me leads us to prioritize certainparts of the Bible and ignore others. Do you have a favorite verse or book ofthe Bible? What makes it your favorite? It is likely that it means somethingspecial to you, challenges you, encourages you. The fact is, I am quitenaturally concerned only with what pertains to me or has application for me.We call this a concern for relevance. And that means we, not God, determinewhat is relevant. If we want answers about how to share the gospel withunbelievers, we're likely to find the book of Acts relevant. But what do we dowith Judges? Let's be honest. When we don't immediately recognize therelevance of a passage-if it's not immediately clear what I can get out of it-weare less likely to read it. This leaves us basing our Christian life on less thanthe full counsel of God.

Our preoccupation with me also leads us to confuse application withmeaning. We attend lots of Bible studies. After a verse is read, participantsare frequently asked for comments. People often begin their replies with,"What this verse means to me is …" Technically, the verse means what itmeans. What the participant actually means is, "How this verse applies to meis …" which is a wonderfully appropriate point to make. We affirm that God'sWord has application for his people. But when we confuse application withmeaning, we can ignore the actual meaning of the text altogether. ThisAmerican worldview trait, particularly among Christians, can lead us tobelieve that we (meaning I) have a privileged status in God's salvationhistory. I may not be sure what God's plans are, but I am confident that at thecenter will be me. We read a verse and say this verse is about me or mycountry or my time in history. God's "plan" is centered around me.

Compounded by other cultural tendencies, such as our assumption thatrules must apply 100 percent of the time to 100 percent of people, ouremphasis on me can lead us to have unrealistic expectations of God which,when shattered, can cause us to doubt the truth of Scripture and the promisesof God. Consider Psalm 37:25: "I was young and now I am old, yet I havenever seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread." Takingthis verse alone and at face value, couldn't it lead you to believe that if youare a Christian, you will never be hungry? What happens, then, when youfind yourself unable to make the rent or buy groceries? Do you assume thatGod has failed to keep his promises? We wonder, If this verse is not true forme, can it be true at all? We will touch on these issues at greater length belowas we walk through three well-known Bible passages from Jeremiah 29,Romans 8 and Matthew 24.

GOD HAS A WONDERFUL PLAN FOR MY LIFE

"`For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, `plans to prosperyou and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future"' (Jer 29:11). Aswe noted above, this is a popular "theme verse" for many of our students. Thecontext of the passage is undisputed. The inhabitants of Jerusalem were onthe brink of disaster. The Babylonians were knocking at the door. Death andslavery were best-case scenarios. God had miraculously delivered Jerusalemfrom the Assyrians about a hundred years earlier: "That night the angel of theLORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in theAssyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning-there were all thedead bodies!" (2 Kings 19:35). Some self-proclaimed prophets werepredicting God would do this sort of thing again. God sent Jeremiah to set thenation straight, to break the bad news. There would be no miraculous rescuethis time. Even so, God did add that he had plans to ultimately prosper andnot to harm his people. That is usually as far as our students get.

Your authors are 100 percent certain that God had plans and heaccomplished them, just as he intended. The passage itself reminds the

reader, "Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD'Scommand" (2 Kings 24:3). But we think that this verse is commonly misreadin three ways.

First, Western readers tend to ignore the context. The city of Jerusalem wascaptured, looted and burned. The king, Zedekiah, didn't fare better. "Theykilled the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, boundhim with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon" (2 Kings 25:7). It may bethat we ignore the context because it doesn't apply to us. We noted above thatwe are prone to ignore passages we consider irrelevant to us. What could beless relevant than the fate of Zedekiah and his sons? Surely we shouldn'texpect a similar fate. The general context of exile, too, seems irrelevant. Tous, the context of Jeremiah 29:11 feels like little more than a plot detail orfiller to highlight the main point, which is a direct promise to us. And thispromise is indeed most relevant. For what is it that we want? We wantdirection: wisdom in choosing a career or finding a spouse or handling anunruly child or an uncooperative colleague. I (Randy) bought a house justmonths before the housing collapse. My wife and I prayed about it. Surely,God has a plan to prosper us and our (underwater) house.

Herein lies the second way Western readers misread the passage: weunconsciously turn the us into me. We understand the object of the sentence,you, to mean "each one of you individually." We then read Jeremiah 29:11as, "I know the plans I have for you, Brandon." But remember that Israel wasa collectivist culture. They understood the object of the sentence, you, tomean "my people, Israel, as a whole."' If God meant each Israeliteindividually, then the promise is nonsense before the words are fully out ofGod's mouth. We must teach every new student that the "plans to prosperyou" involved the killing and enslavement of thousands of individualIsraelites (2 Kings 24-25), who might dispute the promise "not to harm you."Moreover, Jeremiah 29:4-7 indicates that God's blessing extended to Israel'senemies, the nations in which the Israelites were living as exiles. Yet through

all this, God prospered Israel. He didn't spare them from exile. He prosperedthem in spite of their condition of exile. Certainly many individualslanguished without prospering, without the prospect of a bright future.Enslavement and suffering were their plight. The promise may not apply tome, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to us.

Third, we Westerners tend to microwave this verse. That is, we fast-forward the outcome. God does indeed prosper his people. About seventyyears later, they are returned to the land with blessing. Most WesternChristians who quote this verse would not be happy to acknowledge that theplans God has for his people may not be clear for two generations. Worse, thetwo intervening generations may endure all manner of hardship. Toacknowledge this is to admit that the payoff doesn't include me and rendersthe text irrelevant to me. It also offends our sensibility, discussed in aprevious chapter, that promises (rules) must apply to everyone equally all thetime.

To avoid misapplication, we should determine what the text meant thenbefore we try to apply it to ourselves now. We suggest a better interpretationof Jeremiah 29 runs something like this: even though Israel is in the conditionof exile, God will prosper them by prospering those who enslave them (Jer29:7). Someday he will deliver them from exile, but that will happen well inthe future. Until then, Israel is to rest assured that God is at work for theirdeliverance, even when he does not appear to be.

The application of this interpretation is broader and profounder than ourtypical misreading. Remember that the New Testament describes Christiansas living in a state of exile.? We are "foreigners and exiles" (1 Pet 2:11),members of "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" (Jas 1:1), whose"citizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3:20). Like the Israelites in Jeremiah 29, thechurch is "God's elect, exiles scattered throughout" the world (1 Pet 1:1). Amore likely application of Jeremiah 29:11, then, is that God is working to

prosper his church. Though at times it appears the church cannot resist itsenemieswhether hostile governments or worldviews or the unfaithfulness ofits own people-God is committed to making it grow, like the mustard seed.He has promised the total consummation of his church. But until that day, welabor faithfully, knowing that God is working his purposes for his church, ofwhich each of us is a part but not the focus.

GOD HAS A PLAN FOR MY MESS

Another passage we regularly misread because of our assumption that usmeans me is Romans 8:28: "And we know that in all things God works forthe good of those who love him, who have been called according to hispurpose." If Jeremiah 29:11 is a popular verse to quote to graduates, thenmany people consider Romans 8:28 a helpful word for those dealing withgrief or disappointment. Early in my (Randy's) missionary career, I wassummoned to a village to preach at the funeral of a two-year-old who hadfallen out a window. Since many Indonesian houses are on stilts, this type ofdeath is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Many well-intended Indonesianpastors (trained in Western theology) sought to comfort the grieving parentsby asserting this accident was actually a divine good in disguise (my words).Several years later, my wife and I received twin girls at birth for foster care.Both were medically needy. The smaller one died before age one. Again,well-meaning Christian friends assured us that this was for the best. Whetherit is the death of a loved one, the end of a career or a missed opportunity,sincere Christians are inclined to quote Romans 8:28 to assure the suffererthat God is still working with them and for them. Their use of this verseimplies that the current tragedy may seem like a setback, but in fact it is partof God's plan to accomplish something greater, something that will be clearin retrospect.

We reach this application by misreading in two ways. First, wemisunderstand "all things." Without thinking, we turn "God works all thingstogether for good" into `All things are good."' Clearly, this is not what the

passage means. A few verses later, Paul indicates his audience is facingserious trials, including "trouble or hardship or persecution or famine ornakedness or danger or sword" (Rom 8:35). In Romans 8:28 he is assertingthat all things-good things, bad things, senseless things, the actions of goodpeople or bad people, good governments or bad empires-are all tools in thehands of an active, caring God who is faithful to bring about his purposes.This verse never meant that everything that happens is a good thing. It doesn'tmean that now.

We may still feel good about this verse after that clarification. In fact, wemay feel better. We already suspected that to make a bad thing into a goodthing was a wrong thing to do. We know bad things happen. The trouble isthat we have a hard time understanding why bad things happen. We oftenhear, "Everything that happens is the will of God!"

We respond, "Do you always do the will of God?"

"No," someone will grudgingly admit. Correct. One definition of sin is "notdoing the will of God." It is a gross misreading of Scripture to use this verseto try to turn a bad thing into a good thing by suggesting that God causes allthings to happen. God may bring good things from the ashes of bad things,but that is not the same thing. Often Job is cited. Someone will remind methat job was given new sons and daughters (Job 42:13). Meaning nodisrespect, it would not make us "even" if God took away my current sonsand then later gave me two new ones. I would never, ever want to quoteRomans 8:28 to a grieving parent. The point of this verse is not to say, "Hangin there; God's gonna make it up to you."

Our second mistake is following the instinct to interpret the verseindividually. We naturally assume that good means good for me. It'simportant to remember that every Christian martyr has believed Romans 8:28to be true. And, in worldly terms, things did not work out well for them.Romans 8:28, like Jeremiah 29:11, may well refer to us and not to me. All

things work together for the good of God's people (collectively), even thoughindividual believers may endure all manner of senseless suffering and death.We must be very careful applying a promise intended for the people of Godin general to an individual or even a specific group or generation. If there isindividual application, it is likely along the lines that John Calvin proposedfor this verse. For Calvin, Romans 8:28 was a reminder that, "though theelect and the reprobate are indiscriminately exposed to similar evils, there isyet a great difference; for God trains up the faithful by afflictions, andthereby promotes their salvation."9 In other words, this is not a promise thatGod will protect us from harm or heartache. Rather, it is a promise thatthrough the inevitable harm and heartache that come with being human, Godcan train us up in godliness. The focus, in this case, is better preparing us (hispeople) for God's service, rather than expecting God to work things for ourgood.

GOD'S PLANNED END WILL HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME

While we were writing this book, Christian preacher and broadcaster HaroldCamping predicted, based on his calculations of dates and figures in biblicalprophecy, that the world would end on May 21, 2011. If you're reading thisbook, he was mistaken. Camping is just the most recent in a long line ofcommentators who believed God's appointed end times would come withintheir lifetime. The imminence of Christ's second coming was heralded in the1990s by the phenomenally popular Left Behind series. I (Brandon)remember Sunday school classes studying the book together and scouring thenewspaper for signs of the eschaton (end of all things). The authors of LeftBehind capitalized on momentum generated a generation before, when HalLindsey created a name (and a fortune) for himself with The Late GreatPlanet Earth (1970).10 Lindsey identified apocalyptic symbols, primarilyfrom the book of Daniel, as indications that the end was coming in his day.The King to the North was Russia. The ten-headed beast was the EuropeanEconomic Community, an ancestor of the current European Union. The

scorpions that stung with their tails in Revelation were military helicopters.Admittedly, it all seems a bit silly now, but I (Randy) was ready to drop outof college, because I had become convinced that the end was coming in 1984.

Why do Westerners seem convinced that Christ will come on our watch?The truth is, we aren't the first. The Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of OldTestament books discovered near Qumran, the commune of the Essenes onthe rim of the Dead Sea. This reclusive group of Jews from Jesus' day hadseveral peculiarities. One of the lesser known was a method of biblicalinterpretation that scholars often call pesher. This method of interpretationrequires two presuppositions. First, it assumes a verse of Scripture is referringto the end of time, even if it doesn't originally appear to be. For example:

Habakkuk refers to the Chaldeans as fierce warriors sweeping away all intheir path. Yet God has marked them for judgment (Hab 1:12). This passageseems to be referring to Chaldeans who were threatening God's people inHabakkuk's day. The Essenes begged to differ. The pesher exegetes insistedthe verse is actually referring to the eschaton.

Second-and this is the most important ingredient-the pesher exegeteinterprets his or her current time as the eschaton. Thus, step one is assuming agiven passage is actually about the end of time; step two is assuming thattime is now. The folks at Qumran interpreted the passage above this way;they believed Habakkuk was actually talking about the end of time, whetherhe knew it or not. Trouble is, the Chaldean threat is long gone. But pesherexegetes are nothing if not determined. The Essenes reasoned that the termChaldeans was really code for Chittim, who had the famed warships made

from pine trees on Cyprus. They then expanded the meaning of Chittim(Cyprus) to include all of Greece (and eventually Rome). God's people werewarned that the ships of Chittim would come to attack ('And ships shall comefrom the coast of Chittim," Num 24:24 KJv). Therefore, God's people neededto take notice when Roman warships landed to attack. Fear not! ForHabakkuk has foretold that God would smite the Romans and give victory tohis people (the folks at Qumran). Wow, it took a minute to get there, andrequired substituting one name for another and pulling in references fromother books of the Bible. But in the end, Habakkuk 1:6 was interpreted as apromise to the Essenes at Qumran to deliver them from the Romans in theend times, which is now.

Does this method sound familiar? It's the one Hal Lindsey used to bringcommunism into God's plan for the end times. And it remains a popular wayfor Christians to read the Bible, especially books like Daniel and Revelationand passages like Matthew 24:3-8, when Jesus speaks of the "end of the age."Its persistence in the West may well be due to our focus on me. For pesher towork, the interpreter has to feel that his or her times are the end times. As wehave argued, North American Christians are predisposed to this element inour worldview that emphasizes me. God's Word is a message for me. Theseapocalyptic texts would be irrelevant-would have no meaning for me-if theevents they describe were not planned to occur in my lifetime. Perhaps thesensibility runs even deeper. Do we think, Of course, I would be on stagewhen the world ends. How could God do such a dramatic event without me?We don't say it so bluntly, but the subconscious reasoning often runs thisway: Of course the world couldn't end before I got here, but now that I'mhere, there isn't any reason for God to wait any longer. When we state it soblatantly, we immediately see it as absurd; however, we should not dismissthat it was driving our (mis)reading. It is the part of the iceberg under thewater that sinks the ships. It leads us, unconsciously, to read Jesus' words-"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars…. Nation will rise against nation,and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in

various places" (Mt 24:6-7)- and apply them immediately to ourcontemporary situation. Aren't all these things happening right now? Indeedthey are. Doesn't that mean the end is coming in my lifetime? Notnecessarily. Such things have been happening for the two thousand yearssince Jesus uttered this prophecy. And seizing on these things specificallymakes us miss his command. "See to it that you are not alarmed," he says."Such things must happen," but "all these are the beginning of birth pains,"not sure signs of the end (Mt 24:6, 8).

The servant who was ready when his master showed up was blessed:makarios (Lk 12:37-38). When his disciples asked about the end, Jesus toldthree parables in a row (Mt 24:3). The first warned that the master couldcome at any time, "So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man willcome at an hour when you do not expect him" (Mt 24:44). The secondparable warned it could be sooner than we think (Mt 24:50). The thirdparable warned it could be later than we think (Mt 25:5). Jesus' point seemsclear. Jesus has covered all the bases: could be sooner, could be later. Thefirst parable carried the main point: Jesus "will come at an hour when you donot expect him." Yet we never seem to weary of guessing.

CONCLUSION

This cultural assumption about the supremacy of me is the one to which weWesterners are perhaps blindest. We rightly search for the center of God'swill, but with the unspoken assumption that once we find it, the seat will havemy individual name on it. We have hundreds of years of culturalreinforcement driving us to read the Bible with ourselves at the center. Thereare those who are striving to correct the tendency in certain areas of ourtheology. Some theologians have been encouraging us to recognize that whenthe Bible talks about atonement, it has more than just personal, individualsalvation in mind. It refers, too, to the restoration of creation which "has beengroaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" and longs

for the day when "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage todecay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God" (Rom8:22, 21). They have an uphill battle to fight. Regardless of whether youthink these theologians are right or wrong, it seems evident to us that some ofthe objections to their proposals have less to do with systematic theology orexegesis than with our deeply seated cultural conviction that me is important.The idea that we are only a part of God's redemptive plan is hard to swallowfor Christians raised to believe that if I had been the only sinner ever born,Jesus would still have gone to the cross for me.

When we realize that each passage of Scripture is not about me, we begingradually to see that the true subject matter of the Bible, what the book isreally about, is God's redeeming work in Christ. God is restoring all ofcreation (including me), but I am not the center of God's kingdom work. Thisis a much greater thing to be absorbed with than ourselves. Here are a coupleof tips for making that happen.

First, beware of thinking of the Bible in terms of "what this means to me."Remember, the Bible means what it means. When we're talking about therelevance of the Bible in our personal lives, we should ask, "How does thisapply to me?" Remember, too, that you should try to answer the question"What did this passage mean to the original audience?" before asking, "Howdoes this passage apply to me?"

Second, to avoid deriving a strictly individual interpretation of a biblicalpassage, ask yourself how you might apply the passage differently if youinterpret it in corporate terms, rather than in individual terms. Practice asking,"How does this passage apply to God's people?" Proverbs 22:6 reminds us:"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will notdepart from it" (KJv). It likely that some readers have trained up theirchildren properly in the Christian path, and yet that their children havedeparted from it. When this verse is read individually (and with the Westernvalue that promises must apply to everyone 100 percent of the time), then we

have to conclude that you must have failed to train your child properly. If weunderstand this verse corporately, then perhaps the better application is: ifGod's people (corporately) train their children in the Christian path, thenthere will be a next generation of Christians to follow after them.

QUESTIONS TO PONDER

1.If the Lord were to return soon, many Western Christians are confident wewould be included as part of the faithful remnant who did not receive themark of the beast and who did not let our robes be soiled (to draw uponimages from Revelation). Yet many non-Western Christians worry thatWestern Christians are the ones drunk in Babylon. Who is right? And howdo we know? Does our culturally habitual self-focus make it hard toimagine that we may receive God's rebuke instead of his blessing?

2.With the outbreak of the HIN1 virus, moderns have been reintroduced tothe threat of pandemics. We have always been susceptible, of course, butmost of us have short memories. When the next plague strikes, do we citePsalm 91:5-7?

Is this verse relevant for me? Before you rush to claim it, bear in mind thatJesus didn't. Satan tried to get Jesus to claim the promises of this psalm,especially verses 11-12, and Jesus refused (Lk 4:9-11). How would wedetermine the appropriate application of these verses? Who does "you"refer to?

3.In 2 Corinthians 6, Paul again talks about God in us working together (v. 1)in all things (v. 4 Ness). His point here is much the same as in Romans8:28. This passage isn't as popular, however, perhaps because Paul listssome of the "things" (vv. 4-5): troubles, hardships and distresses, beatings,imprisonments, riots, hard work, sleepless nights and hunger. Many non-Western Christians affirm that God has worked beatings andimprisonments for "the good." Can God work these things together for ourgood? How does reading this verse as applying specifically to me makethis interpretation difficult?

4.An old worship song by Steve Camp accuses Christians of playing marbleswith diamonds when we use prayer for trivial purposes.ll ShouldChristians pray for a parking space? God cares about sparrows; doesn't hecare about how far I walk? I (Randy) remember when my sons wereyoung. I would wipe their runny noses. Now they need to wipe their ownnoses. I don't love them less. They are older. When we are youngChristians, perhaps there is a place for praying over every case of sniffles.Paul encourages Christians to grow up (1 Cor 3:2). Does he mean that weshould stop praying over every small setback, inconvenience or minorillness? If endurance leads to godliness (2 Pet 1:6), what should we bepraying for? And what does this imply about how concerned God mightbe about our temporal comfort?

5.How often are my "prayer requests" actually just asking God to change asituation into something more comfortable or convenient for mepersonally?

Three Easy Steps for Removing Our Cultural Blinders?

As we were putting the final touches on this book, I (Brandon) spoke with mygood friend Phebe about it. Phebe is Syrian and speaks Arabic as a firstlanguage. She and her husband, a Canadian, are high-school sweethearts whomet at a boarding school in Germany. Before moving to Europe, her husbandgrew up in Ecuador. After they married, they spent time as missionaries inAfrica. They now live in the Chicago suburbs. They are perhaps the most"international" couple I know.

Phebe was intrigued by the project. She was glad to hear Westernerstalking about the ways our cultural location affects our interpretation ofScripture. I told her we were struggling to make the book practical, to offerconcrete suggestions for how our readers could apply the information in thesechapters to their own study of Scripture.

"That's sort of a Western thing to want, isn't it?" she asked with a smile."Three easy steps for identifying our cultural presuppositions!"

She's right, of course. Westerners like systems, processes and checklists.It's easy for us to believe that if we just work the right steps in the right order,we're guaranteed to achieve the right outcome. That's why so much literatureon biblical interpretation focuses on methodology. Many of us believe that ifwe simply identify the right process for reading the Bible-do the right steps inthe right order-we'll eliminate the opportunity for misinterpretation.Unfortunately, methodologies are the products of culture. And as we've

argued throughout this book, our cultural values and assumptions are veryoften the problems.

So if you hope this concluding chapter will include three easy steps forbecoming a more culturally sensitive reader of Scripture, you are going to bedisappointed. There are no shortcuts in the process of removing culturalblinders. If you are thirty years old and Western, then you've been developingWestern habits of thinking and reading for thirty years. It's unreasonable toexpect to reverse those habits by reading a single book or bearing a fewprinciples in mind. We're not trying to teach you a new methodology. We'retrying to help you become a certain kind of reader: the kind of reader who isincreasingly aware of his or her cultural assumptions. And that takes time,self-reflection and hard work. We're convinced the reward is worth the hardwork. So instead of a checklist, we want to offer you some advice.

EMBRACE COMPLEXITY

It may be tempting to think that tricky biblical passages can be easilyexplained by appealing to just one cultural difference. We suggested inchapter five, for example, that the key to understanding the story of Davidand Bathsheba is awareness of honor and shame dynamics in the text. Butremember that in this book we've simplified complicated matters for the sakeof clarity. In many other stories, several different things may go withoutbeing said that will affect our interpretation. Take the story of the three wisemen in the accounts of Jesus' birth for example. In Jesus' day, several thingswent without being said. First, people assumed stars know things that merehumans don't. It goes without being said for us, by contrast, that stars don'tknow anything; they are made of hydrogen (see chapter seven). Additionally,it goes without being said for us that God sent the star to the magi-how elsewould they know of Jesus' birth?which the text does not say. It went withoutbeing said for the Jewish audience, however, that God forbade seekingguidance from the stars. But we typically ignore this point when we tell the

story; it doesn't fit our values. Third, we assume that since there are threegifts, there must have been three wise men. Our cultural mores dictate thateverybody at the party brings a gift (see chapter one). But this is unlikely. InJesus' day, three men traveling with treasure would have been robbed.Finally, since we misunderstand how God is involved, we assume the wisemen's journey must have been a good thing. After all, God works all thingstogether for good (see chapter nine). Therefore, we turn the event into apositive children's story, even though the outcome was that it nearly got Jesuskilled, and it did indeed get a lot of innocent babies killed.

In other words, be prepared to embrace complexity. We may importseveral presuppositions unto any given text. Sorting them out will take somework. Expect it.

BEWARE OF OVERCORRECTION

In the early 2000s, when open theology was dominating many evangelicaltheological conversations, I (Brandon) was initially drawn to the idea. I wasattracted to the notion that God might not micromanage my worldly affairs,predetermining where I went to college, whom I married, what I did for aliving and so on. I quickly swung from believing that God charted my everystep in life to believing God didn't really care what decisions I made, as longas I made good ones. Classic overcorrection.

We Westerners have a tendency to overcorrect. We're all-ornothing sort ofpeople. For this reason, once we've identified an interpretation, application ordoctrine as "cultural," it's tempting to abandon it altogether. If, for example,you once had a tendency to assume every promise in the Bible applies to youdirectly, you might be tempted to overcorrect and assume that none of thepromises in the Bible apply directly to you. Resist the temptation. What thepsalmist announced was true:

But it is equally true that sometimes God does not give us victory over ourenemies. For the very same psalm asserts: "But now you have rejected andhumbled us; you no longer go out with our armies" (Ps 44:9).

Becoming the sensitive kind of reader we're hoping to inspire meansallowing for nuance and resisting the tendency to make all-ornothingovercorrections. Let us always trust in the faithfulness of God to keep hispromises. But let us not, in the process, take away God's right to judge aperson, group or generation. We should not insist that God's promises to "hispeople" must always include every individual, especially me.

BE TEACHABLE

One thing we have hoped to bring to your attention in this book is how oftenChristians assume a position on an issue based on our worldview and thendefend it with great passion as if it were the clear teaching of the Bible. Aswe noted above, money management is an important skill to survive inmiddle-class America. But it is not one of the Ten Commandments. Wethink, Of course, God wants everyone to save for the future. Yet IndonesianChristian fishermen don't save. The fish would spoil if you tried to save somefor tomorrow. (Interestingly enough, so did the manna in the wilderness; seeEx 16:4, 19-20.) After all, Jesus told those who worried about tomorrow toconsider the lilies of the field (Mt 6:28).

While we don't want our readers to overcorrect Jesus didn't command all

his disciples to sell everything they have and give the money to the poor-wewant you to be teachable, open to having your presuppositions changed sothey conform more closely to the Scriptures. Our hope is that we'll all betransformed "into [Christ's] image with ever-increasing glory" (2 Cor 3:18).That process requires that we be willing to abandon our old assumptions.

EMBRACE ERROR

Whether we like it or not, we learn more when we get something wrong thefirst time than we do when we are right from the beginning. This is true ofmost endeavors, including interpreting Scripture. Now, evangelicals areserious about the Bible; we recognize there is a lot at stake in interpretation.How many of us have been frightened by James's warning: "Not many of youshould presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we whoteach will be judged more strictly" (Jas 3:1 NIV 1984)? So we're not askingyou to take the responsibility of biblical interpretation less seriously. But weencourage you to allow yourself the space to make mistakes and learn fromthem.

The more attention you pay to what goes without being said for you, themore natural this sort of reading will become. And as that happens, you'lldiscover you've been wrong in ways you never imagined! Your authors arealso still discovering new cultural blinders of our own that we didn't discussin this book. For example, efficiency is considered a primary "good" in theNorth American worldview, at least. When we demonstrate that a process orpolicy is more efficient than another, we don't have to make any otherarguments of support. Consistent with this value, in Western theology allspiritual beings (outside of God) are reduced to one kind: angels. Thusdemons, evil spirits, unclean spirits, cherubs and seraphs are all commonlypresumed to be angels, just good or bad (fallen) ones. Very efficient! Weignore the fact that the Bible describes them quite differently: cherubs areridden (Ps 18:10), seraphs have wings (Is 6:2), fallen angels are locked away(2 Pet 2:4) while evil spirits wander about (Lk 11:24). Instead, we interpret

the terms evil spirits, demons and unclean spirits as mere synonyms, althoughwe don't think a case can be made for this from Scripture. We suggest ourWestern value of efficiency-not exegesis-leads us to assume that seraphs areangels (and, thus, that angels have wings).

Don't be afraid of being wrong. Fear only failing to learn from yourmistakes.

READ TOGETHER

So how do we avoid misreading Scripture with Western eyes? How do weremove our cultural blinders? We believe that being aware of a misreading ishalf the battle. Misreadings occur for different reasons. Like Procrustes ofGreek mythology, who shortened or lengthened his house guests to fit hisbed, sometimes we distort the text to fit our worldview. We are likelymisreading when our reading of the text requires us to ignore the context, toshorten the text to just this or that verse or part of a verse. We are likelymisreading when our reading of the text requires us to lengthen the text, bypulling in verses from other parts of the Bible until we get all the pieces weneed.

Other times, though, we misread because we read alone. That is, we oftenhear only the interpretations of people just like us. If we want to know whenwe're reading ourselves into the Bible, rather than allowing the Bible to speakin its own terms, we need to commit ourselves to reading together. Theworldwide church needs to learn to study Scripture together as a globalcommunity. Paying attention to our brothers and sisters abroad can open theecho chamber and allow new voices in. For your authors, our non-Westernfriends have helped us. As a result of some godly Indonesian elders who wereseeking to be faithful to God's command to obey parents, I (Randy) read Paulmore seriously and listen more carefully to the sage advice of my own father.There is danger in allowing a homogenous group of white, middle-classAmerican teenagers to decide together what Scripture means. They are liable

to interpret Philippians 4:13 as God's promise that they will be able to affordthe next generation cell phone. The same danger lurks when a white, middle-class American church decides what Scripture means or, worse, an equallyhomogenous seminary trains the next generation of theologians. May we seekto read Scripture with "persons from every tribe and language and people andnation" (Rev 5:9).

As we do so, we need to remember that all people everywhere have theirown cultural blinders. Christians in the United States tend to praise AsianChristians for their emphasis on community, for example. We note, "ThoseKorean Christians really understand biblical community." Well, perhaps theydo; that may not be because they are more spiritually in tune, however, butrather because their culture predisposes them to think of the group before theindividual. Similarly, we have heard Korean Christians applaud AmericanChristians for generosity and forgiveness. Americans are quick to forgive-most U.S. Christians aren't still angry at Japan over Pearl Harbor-and thismay make it easier for them to actualize Jesus' commands to forgive. AnAsian emphasis on community is just as much an accident of language andculture as our emphasis on individuality. All of us read some parts faithfullyand misread other parts. Because of our different worldviews, we oftenmisread different parts.

And that's why we need each other. Because whether we are "Gentile orJew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free," we donot study the Scriptures only for ourselves. We study the Scriptures, toparaphrase Paul, so that the "word of Christ [may] dwell in you richly as weteach and admonish one another with all wisdom" (Col 3:11, 16).

I must thank my wife, Stacia, for walking with me for thirty-two years, evenwhen it meant fishing villages in Indonesia and farming towns in Arkansas.Our two sons are our greatest joy. Josh clarified my thinking in many aconversation about the book, even though he was busy finishing his Ph.D. inliterature from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Our younger son,Jacob, shared my daily commute for four years and helped start this project.He is now a Ph.D. student in the medical school of the University of Florida.

This book could not have been written without the lessons I learned inIndonesia years ago. My apologies if I confused any details in the stories. Iam indebted to my colleagues there, especially Joubert, Jether, Charlie andDon. Mere thanks aren't sufficient. I am a better person because of you four.

RANDY RICHARDS

Because I process best out loud, my patient and insightful wife, Amy, heardnearly everything written here more than once-over dinner, in the car, onwalks. And because she is a "third-culture kid" who grew up in southeastAsia, her wisdom and experience sharpened my thinking on most of theissues we cover in this book.

My college roommate and dear friend Sammy Lange was the first ChristianI ever knew well who wasn't from the United States. Sometimes on purposeand very often unintentionally, Sammy forced me to wrestle with my culturalpresuppositions as we studied and worshiped and served together. In manyways, he began the process that led to my participation in this project.

Last but not least, I must thank Randy for agreeing to partner with me towrite this book. He was there at the very beginning of my theologicaleducation, so it's a real honor to work with him now as a colleague andfriend.

BRANDON O'BRIEN

Introduction: Coming to Terms with Our Cultural Blinders

For a great general introduction to the differences between how Westernersand non-Westerners think, see:

Nisbett, Richard. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and WesternersThink Differently … and Why. New York: Free Press, 2003.

For more on the changing demographics of Christians worldwide and theimplications of these changes for biblical interpretation, see:

Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity.New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Kenneth Bailey's work in this area is excellent and quite readable. We highlyrecommend his books for exploring this topic. For an introduction to theways being unaware of our cultural blind spots has affected the wayWesterners conceive of church, see especially:

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Rah, Soong-Chan. The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church fromWestern Cultural Captivity. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

For an introduction to how non-Western Christians (and minority WesternChristians) understand the task and challenges of theology (and how thataffects biblical interpretation), see:

Felder, Cain Hope, ed. Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical

Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Fields, Bruce L. Introducing Black Theology: Three Crucial Questions forthe Evangelical Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Greenman, Jeffrey P. and Gene L. Green, ed. Global Theology in EvangelicalPerspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission.Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2012.

Parratt, John, ed. An Introduction to Third World Theologies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Chapter 1: Serving Two Masters

The best general books on biblical values are:

Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina, ed. Biblical Social Values and TheirMeaning: A Handbook. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

Rohrbaugh, Richard L., ed. The Social Sciences and New TestamentInterpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

For more specific values, see:

Campbell, Ken M., ed. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. DownersGrove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2003.

Cohick, Lynn H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: IlluminatingAncient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Ebeling, Jennie R. Women's Lives in Biblical Times. New York: T & T ClarkInternational, 2010.

Hanson, K. C., and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus:Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a ChristianTradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Chapter 2: The Bible in Color

A great treatment of the biblical perspective on race and ethnicity is:

Hays, J. Daniel. From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology ofRace. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2003.

For specific discussions of race in the Bible, see:

Adamo, David T. Africa and Africans in the Old Testament. San Francisco:Christian Universities Press, 1998.

Bilde, Per. et al., ed. Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Aarhus, Denmark:Aarhus University, 1992.

Brenner, Athalya. Color Terms in the Old Testament, Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament, Supplement Series 21. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1982.

Brett, Mark G. Ethnicity and the Bible. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Copher, Charles B. "Three Thousand Years of Biblical Interpretation withReference to Black Peoples." In African American Religious Studies,edited by Gayraud Wilmore, 105-28. Durham, N.C.: Duke UniversityPress, 1989.

Hall, Jonathan M. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997.

Snowden, Frank M. "Attitudes towards Blacks in the Greek and RomanWorld: Misinterpretations of the Evidence." InAfricaandAfricans inAntiquity, edited by Edwin Yamauchi, 246-75. East Lansing: MichiganState University, 2001.

For discussions of race in Western Christianity, see:

Emerson, Michael 0., and Christian Smith. Divided by Faith: EvangelicalReligion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2000.

Keener, Craig S., and Glenn Usry. Defending Black Faith: Answers to ToughQuestions about African -American Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVPAcademic, 1997.

McNeil, Brenda Salter, and Rick Richardson. The Heart of Racial Justice:How Soul Change Leads to Social Change. Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Okholm, Dennis L., ed. The Gospel in Black and White: TheologicalResources for Racial Reconciliation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsityPress, 1997.

Pearse, Meic. Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots ofGlobal Rage. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Perkins, Spencer, and Chris Rice. More than Equals: Racial Healing for theSake of the Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Chapter 3: Just Words?

Although the following is a rather technical read, McGilchrist has a greatchapter on the nature of language in the Western mind:

McGilchrist, lain. The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and theMaking of the Western World. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,2010.

Some readers may find discussions of the biblical languages helpful, such as:

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Chapter 4: Captain of My Soul

We consider fiction to be a great way to gain an understanding of the mindsetof collectivist cultures. Here are a few that have been enlightening for us:

Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor, 1959.

Endo, Shusaku. The Samurai. Translated by Van C. Gessel. New York: NewDirections Books, 1982.

This book illustrates the challenge of maintaining a collectivist religiousworldview in individualist America:

Potok, Chaim. The Chosen. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. Firstpublished 1967.

There are also helpful treatments of the differences between individualist andcollectivist cultures in books on crosscultural communication, such as:

Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Connections: Stepping Out and Fitting InAround the World. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002.

As for study Bibles, we recommend the following:

NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008.

Chapter 5: Have You No Shame?

For general introductions to the topic of honor and shame and how it affectsbiblical interpretation, see:

deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking NewTestament Culture. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2000.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville,Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

For a brief introduction to the way our Western assumptions about the powerof internal conscience affects how we read the Bible, see:

Stendahl, Krister. "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of theWest," Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215.

Chapter 6: Sand Through the Hourglass

Because it is a novel, the following has limited value for explaining aWestern view of time. But Vonnegut capitalizes on Western assumptionsabout the relationship between time (and especially chronology) andmeaning:

Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death. New York: Dell Publishing, 1991. First published 1966.

A brief attempt to explain an Eastern understanding of time, from an Indianpoint of view, can be found at:

Nakamura, Hajime. "The Notion of Time in India." Accessed February 18,2012, <www.drury.edu/ess/Culture/indian.htm>.

For a technical survey, see:

Aveni, Anthony F. Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures. NewYork: Tauris Parke, 2000.

Chapter 7: First Things First

For a technical discussion to assist American attorneys working with theJapanese, see:

Minami, Ken R. "Japanese Thought and Western Law: A Tangential View ofJapanese Bengoshi and the Japanese American Attorney," Loyola of LosAngeles International and Comparative Law Review 301 (1986);<http://digitalcommons .Imu.edu/ilr/vol8/iss2/4>.

For discussions of patronage, see the books by deSilva and Rohrbaugh listedabove.

Chapter 8: Getting Right WrongWright, N. T. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New

York: HarperCollins, 2010.

Chapter 9: It's All About Me

For a general introduction to the process of interpretation that takes seriouslythe differences between meaning and application, see:

Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God's Word: A Hands-OnApproach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2001.

Introduction

'Eugene Peterson, The Pastor: A Memoir (New York: HarperOne, 2011), p.231.

2Ibid.

'The relationship of the Bible to its original cultures is complicated.Sometimes the Bible espouses a value that was foreign even to the ancientcultures in which it was written, such as restrictions on escalating violence(only an eye for an eye) or Paul's condemnation of sex outside of marriage.Other times a biblical value has so permeated modern culture that it has lostits original countercultural impact, such as forgiving those who wrong us.

'Mark Allan Powell, "The Forgotten Famine: Personal Responsibility inLuke's Parable of the Prodigal Son,"' in Literary Encounters with the Reign ofGod, ed. Sharon H. Ringe and H. C. Paul Kim (New York: T & T ClarkInternational, 2004).

'For example, the French translation (NEG 1979) calls him the "lost son" asdoes the Indonesian (LAI); the German (HOF) titles it "the parable of the twosons"

'For more on this, see the first chapter ("Where You Start Determines WhereYou Finish: The Role of Presuppositions in Studying the Life of Jesus") inRobert Stein, Jesus the Messiah (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,1996).

7Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 3.

'Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church fromWestern Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009),p. 16.

Chapter 1: Serving Two Masters

'According to Wikipedia, "Sometimes referred to as `Christian cards' or'missionary poker,' Rook playing cards were introduced by Parker Brothers in1906 to provide an alternative to standard playing cards for those in thePuritan tradition or Mennonite culture who considered the face cards in aregular deck inappropriate because of their association with gambling andcartomancy" ("Rook (card game)," Wihipedia, last modified January 28,2012, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Rook_(card_game)>).

2See Eric Reed, "Trouble Brewing: Is a Relaxed Attitude Toward AlcoholAmong Clergy Leading to a New Battle Over Prohibition?" LeadershipJournal 30, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 35-38.

'For a helpful account of Christian views of theater in England and theAmerican colonies before the Great Awakening, and of how preachers likeWhitefield utilized theatrical elements in their preaching, see Harry S. Stout,The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of ModernEvangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

4We are not using the term compromise negatively here. The adoption of amore theatrical approach to Christian worship has had serious consequences,both positive and negative. Our point here is simply to illustrate our desire toresolve the tension we often experience when Christian and secular moresconflict.

5Ancients understood the inhabited world as a disc surrounded by the "OuterSea." "The ends of the earth" were the cardinal endpoints on the rim of the

disc: the Arctic on the North, India on the East, Ethiopia on the South andSpain on the West. This is likely why Luke mentions that the eunuch wasfrom Ethiopia (an otherwise unnecessary note). According to early tradition,Paul took the gospel to the "western end of the earth," meaning Gibraltar. Wesee the early church took Jesus' command quite seriously. See E. Earle Ellis,"`The End of the Earth' (Acts 1:8)," Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991):123-32.

6Eusebius, The Church History 3.1. We recommend the translation andcommentary by Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2007), p.80. Incidentally, Thomas likely is getting a bad rap. The Gospel of John usesThomas as the ideal professor of faith. Throughout the fourth Gospel,disciples assert beliefs about Jesus, all of them true but inadequate. Finally,after the resurrection, Thomas makes the correct full profession of faith: "MyLord and my God!" (Jn 20:28).

'See j. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: ACollection ofApocryphalChristian Literature in anEnglish Translation Based on M. R. James (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1999). Western Christians tend to be dismissive ofthis tradition, but there is little reason to discount it. Christian presence in theEast is quite early, as the existence of Christian imagery in Chinese scriptsuggests.

'Paul's views on marriage are debated. See Margaret MacDonald, "Marriage,NT," in The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld(Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 3:812-18. Also, see Bruce Winter, RomanWives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the PaulineCommunities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

9Christine Gardner, author of Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric ofEvangelical Abstinence Campaigns (Berkeley: University of California Press,2011), offers interesting insights on this topic in an interview with

Christianity Today (November 2011), available online at<www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/makingchastity-sexy-interview.html>.

1° Albert Mohler, "Looking Back at `The Mystery of Marriage'-Part One,"August 19, 2004, accessed May 31, 2011,<www.albertmohler.com/2004/08/19/looking-backat-the-mystery-of-marriage-part-one/>.

"Christian tradition has privileged singleness. One night St. Francis of Assisiwas tempted by the devil to leave the chaste life and start a family. Intypically dramatic Franciscan fashion, the monk "went out into the gardenand plunged his poor naked body into the deep snow. Then with handfuls ofsnow he began to form seven snowmen, which he presented to himself,saying to his body: `Look, this larger one is your wife; those four are yourtwo sons and two daughters; the other two are a servant and a maid whomyou should have to serve you. Hurry, then, and clothe them since they aredying of cold. But if it is too much for you to care for so many, then take careto serve one Master!"' (Bonaventure, The Life of St. Francis, trans. EwertCousins. Harper Collins Spiritual Classics [San Francisco:HarperSanFranciso, 2005], p. 47).

12Albert Y. Hsu offers an excellent brief overview of the history of Christianviews on marriage and singleness in Singles at the Crossroads: A FreshPerspective on Christian Singleness (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,1997), pp. 32-47.

13John Stott, "John Stott on Singleness," Christianity Today (August 2011),<www .christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/augustweb-only/johnstottsingleness.html>. Emphasis added.

14Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and

Reimagined in His Own Time (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010). Ourargument here draws upon pp. 72-118.

15Roman women had more freedom than is commonly thought but wererestricted in ways that sometimes surprise. Furthermore, the role of women inthe Roman Empire was undergoing significant changes during NewTestament times. See Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows.

16Erik Eckholm, "Unmarried Pastor, Seeking a Job, Sees Bias," The NewYork Times (March 22, 2011),<www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/us/22pastor.html?pagewanted =all>. Thestory is about Mark Almlie, who has had trouble finding a job as a pastorbecause of his marital status. He originally described his experience on theblog Out of Ur (www.outofur.com). See "Are We Afraid of Single Pastors?"(January 31, 2011) and Are We Afraid of Single Pastors (Part 2)" (February15, 2011).

"Mason Locke Weems, The Life of George Washington (Philadelphia:Joseph Allen, 1833), p. 206.

""California Superintendent Gives $800,000 in Salary Back to Schools,"Associated Press, August 31, 2011,<www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/31/california-superintendent- gives-800000-in-salary-back-to-schools/#ixzzlWhtj8YSR>.

19See Bruce Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: the Influence of Secular Ethicsand Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), esp. pp. 127-30.

20We are speaking here primarily of white Westerners. The reasons forformal dress on Sundays are somewhat different in other communities,including among African American Christians.

21North Americans often enjoy commenting upon Asians eating dogs, oftenwith a condescending tone. Michael Romanowski and Teri McCarthy tell thestory of a Chinese couple hosted in a North American home. They wereappalled that the hosts allowed a filthy animal (a dog) to eat under their tableand poop on the floor; Teaching in a Distant Classroom: Crossing Borders forGlobal Transformation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009), pp.34-36.

22Khaled Diab, "Why Muslims Don't Pig Out," The Guardian, July 2, 2008,<www .guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/islam.religion>.

23C. S. Lewis, "Introduction," inAthanasius, On the Incarnation (Crestwood,N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996), pp. 4-5.

24See, for example, E. Randolph Richards, "Stop Lying," Biblical Illustrator(Spring 1999): 77-80.

Chapter 2: The Bible in Color

1Kwame Anthony Appiah, "Race," in Critical Terms for Literary Study, ed.Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1990), p. 276.

2We won't even consider the prejudice some North American Christiansmight express: "How dare a Korean presume to come to America to start achurch, unless it is a Korean-American church?"

3J. Daniel Hays has done a fine job pointing out that maps of the ancientworld very often locate Cush in modern Ethiopia, which is the wrong place.He wonders if scholars are trying to keep the Cushites from being black,which they were. See Hays, "Racial Bias in the Academy … Still?"Perspectives in Religious Studies 34, no. 3 (Fall 2007): 320-21.

'Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Booksof Samuel (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1899), p. 359.

=Hays, "Racial Bias in the Academy," p. 323.

6J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology ofRace, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsityPress, 2003), pp. 88-103.

7The matter may be more complicated, as recent scholarly discussions show.Most of us assume that Jew equals Israelite. Yet Jews, Galileans, Samaritansand Idumeans were all Israelites. Paul in his letters never refers to himself asa Jew, but as an Israelite (Rom 11:1). Some scholars are insisting that "Jew"should be translated "Judean," as the Greek literally means. Thus, a "Jew"(Judean) was an Israelite who insisted that God was worshiped at the templein Judea. A Samaritan was an Israelite who insisted that God was worshipedat the temple in Samaria. Traditionally, Western scholars have painted thedifference between Jews and Samaritans as ethnic and not religious.

'Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 105.

'The distinction is difficult to explain in English, because we don't have aword for a difference that was very important to them. Some Jews wereraised in homes where Greek was the primary language. These Jews werecalled "hellenists" (from Hellas, meaning "Greece") or "Grecian Jews." OtherJews were raised in homes where Hebrew (or, more likely, Aramaic) wasspoken. These Jews were called "Hebraists" or Hebrew-speaking. Usually,this distinction was also geographic. Jews raised in Palestine were Hebrew-speaking. Jews raised outside Palestine (in the Diaspora, the "dispersion")were Greek-speaking. Since Greek was the common language of the easternRoman Empire, a Jew from Alexandria, Egypt or Babylon would still be

termed a Grecian Jew. This distinction often carried religious overtones aswell. Hebraists, or Hebrew-speaking Jews, often considered Hellenistic Jewsless diligent in their practice of religion.

1OThe family tree is a little confusing. See Gen 41:50-52; 50:22-23 and IChron 2:21-23.

"Technically, "up" referred to elevation. Jerusalem was on a mountain, so onetraveled "up" to get there. Nonetheless, writers noted this when referring toJerusalem. Note the contrast: "go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of theLORD in Jerusalem" (1 Kings 12:27) and "the people came to worship theone at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other" (12:30). They didnot go "up" to Bethel, even though Bethel was one thousand feet higher thanJerusalem.

'21t is possible the man merely objects to purchasing land that included awidow of any kind, but this seems less likely. A widow was usually involvedin this sort of purchase. It is also possible the kinsman wasn't expected to beheld to the law and Boaz was indicating that it was expected. But these aresuppositions without textual clues. "Moabite" is actually in the text of theircomments. We think the repetition is important.

13Jack E. White, "Prejudice? Perish the Thought," Time 153, no. 9 (March 8,1999): 36.

Chapter 3: Just Words?

'See, e.g., John B. Carroll, ed., Language Thought and Reality: SelectedWritings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (Boston: MIT Press, 1956).

'The very insightful work of Ruby K. Payne demonstrates how our socialclass worldview is reflected in our language patterns. For example, Payne

shows two very different ways to tell the "Cinderella story," depending uponone's social class. See Payne, "The Role of Language and Story," in AFramework for Understanding Poverty (Highlands, Tex.: aha! Process, Inc,2005).

'Most of us have said at some point, "I feel … I don't know … It's hard todescribe." Words like Schadenfreude or Sehnsucht have entered our Englishconversations because we have felt that way but didn't know how to describeit in English. It is more than just words, though. Wikipedia defines Sehnsuchtas "difficult to translate adequately and describes a deep emotional state …The stage director and author Georg Tabori called Sehnsucht one of thosequasi-mystical terms in German for which there is no satisfactorycorresponding term in another language" ("Sehnsucht," Wihipedia, lastmodified March 17, 2012, <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sehnsucht>).

'See Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the ChristianChurch, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 206.

51 have described the Roman patronage system in E. Randolph Richards,"Flattery, Favors and Obligations: Patrons and Clients in Greco-RomanCulture," The Biblical Illustrator (Spring 2011). See also the fine descriptionin David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000). 6Seneca, Ben. 6.16.

'Ibid., 4.18.

8Jesus was countercultural when he stressed giving without expecting areturn (Lk 14:12-13). The Roman world expected and even requiredreciprocation. Western culture has largely adopted Jesus' viewpoint; wedespise gifts with strings attached.

9Seneca, Ben. 2.18.5.

'°Plutarch, Mor. 1101B.

"Seneca, Ben. 1.1.3.

'21n this same way, Paul used another common aspect of Roman society,adoption, to explain other aspects of our new relationship with God (e.g.,Rom 8).

13For more on the significance of the patron-client relationship for biblicalinterpretation, see chap. 7.

'4By Septuagint, we are referring to the Greek translation of the OldTestament that was in common use in the time of the New Testament.

"lain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and theMaking of the Western World (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,2010), p. 117.

16Note again, in Isaiah, God was looking for fruit from Israel. In the Gospels,Jesus is looking for fruit from Israel (see Mk 11:13).

"This method of interpretation was called midrash. Its goal was to provide acontemporary application from Scripture. A generation before Jesus, a greatJewish teacher, Hillel, outlined seven "rules" for midrashic interpretation.Jesus' followers were familiar with this way of reading and applyingScripture.

Part Two: Just Below the Surface

'From an interview with Dr. William Smalley in The Wichita Eagle, January7, 1960, published in Lowell D. Holmes, Anthropology: An Introduction, 2nded. (New York: Ronald Press, 1971), p. 311. It can also now be found at<http:// t4global.org/pdf/Psalm.pdf>.

2plato, Resp. 10. Plato describes good souls as going up and bad souls goingdown. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (1670) is a major influence, too.

'Joseph H. Gilmore (1834-1918).

Chapter 4: Captain of My Soul

'Shusaku Endo, The Samurai, trans. Van C. Gessel (New York: NewDirections Books, 1982), pp. 164-165.

"'School Uniforms Pros and Cons," Libertarian Logic, accessed March 22,2012, <www.libertarian-logic.com/school-uniforms-pros-and-cons.html>.

'Another great example is the novel by Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart(New York: Anchor, 1959), perhaps the most widely read book in all ofcontemporary African literature. Its insights into the culture of the Igbopeople of Nigeria, the influence of colonizers and Christianity, and the Igbofight for continued distinctiveness is enlightening.

'Many of my Asian friends have what they call a "Wal-Mart name," like myfriend Aaron Son. They pick an American first name, often one somewhatsimilar in sound to their true first name, and then add the family name. Theysay they do it because we can't pronounce their names correctly. While that islikely true, it also avoids the problem of us saying their true name backward(given name first).

5We commonly hear students say, "Freedom is worth fighting for," as if theyare quoting a Scripture. We become quite unpopular when we point out thatJesus didn't think so. He did not join the Jewish resistance against theRomans. He even told people to turn the other cheek and to walk the secondmile. Students often stomp off muttering that Jesus came to set us free (and Isuppose, he needs our help fighting).

6See, for example, Kenneth Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 36.

7Becoming pregnant out of wedlock would shame Mary. (See the nextchapter.) In our culture, we often ostracize those who are shamed. In Mary'sculture, her entire family would bear the shame and would not think toostracize her: "she belongs to us" When Joseph married her, however, theshame would be removed. The child would be considered his. Thus, "Isn'tthis Joseph's son?" (Lk 4:22).

'For a detailed description of the practicalities of writing letters in NewTestament times, see E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First Century LetterWriting (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004).

'Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Connections: Stepping Out and Fitting InAround the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002), p. 138. Thisfield of study largely began with Bruce J. Malina's The New TestamentWorld: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (1981) and has burgeoned in thelast thirty years with numerous publications by Jerome Neyrey, John J. Pilch,Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Douglas E. Oakman, Philip Esler and WolfgangStegemann.

1OCynthia Long Westfall, "Family in the Gospels and Acts," in Family in theBible, ed. Richard S. Hess, M. Daniel Carroll R. (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2003), p. 136.

"We do not wish to oversimplify. The passages in Titus and Timothy arecontroversial. We are not suggesting that "family" is the exhaustive solutionto understanding this passage. We are noting, though, that family is theoverarching metaphor.

12There are several thorny and interrelated issues at work here, including the

struggle by many after the Awakening to secure religious liberty in theAmerican colonies. The decline of an established (i.e., tax-supported) church,the rise of Christian denominations, and the emphasis on voluntaryassociation in church formation contributed to religion becoming anindividual (consumer) choice, rather than a matter of family/clan heritage ortradition.

"We hear a lot in our churches today about everybody belonging, but inpractice we are often lacking. We can be accused of having "services" for thisgroup and "ministries" for that group and all kinds of problems arise whenthe folks from the different groups bump into each other.

"Rodney Reeves, Spirituality According to Paul: Imitating the Apostle ofChrist (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011), p. 110.

"Jessie Kunhardt, `Anne Rice: I Quit Being a Christian," The HuffingtonPost, accessed May 15, 2012 <www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/anne-rice-i-quit-a_n_663915 .html>.

16 Unfortunately, you cannot merely read a good translation. The NewInternational Version 2011 (a very good translation) translates I Corinthians6:19 very individualistically: "your bodies are temples." If the thought ofguessing wrong bothers you, find a good study Bible and watch the footnotes.It will alert you when a plural "you" is especially significant. We recommendtwo good study Bibles in the appendix.

Chapter 5: Have You No Shame?

iWe know these are dreadfully clunky terms. Guilt-based and shame-basedcultures are common terms as well. The attempt to use parallel terms, though,may be misleading. Our American culture is largely a guilt-based culture; thestress is more on guilt rather than innocence. Yet, in many Asian cultures, the

stress is more on honor than shame. This is another example of what wediscussed in chapter three. In English, we just don't have a good word forthis.

2 This scholarship about honor/shame cultures is actually a fairly recent fieldof study, and scholars are still quibbling over the terminology a bit. See thepioneering works of Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, David deSilva andJerome Neyrey.

'Duane Elmer provides a very helpful description of guilt and shame culturesin Cross-Cultural Connections, pp. 171-81.

'According to Suetonius, Nero would quote it to his friends: occultae musicaenullum esse respectum.

5Plato, Resp 2. See also H. G. Wells, The Invisible Man (1897), where theinvisible man (Griffin) is unable to resist stealing.

'Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,offers helpful perspective here; see The Geography of Thought: How Asiansand Westerners Think Differently and Why (New York: Free Press, 2003).

71n Indonesian, one translates "guilty" as bersalah, which means to "make amistake." A missionary colleague from the United States reminded me(Randy) of the challenge of evangelizing in Hong Kong, using Rom 3.23,where "sin" means a "criminal activity" in Cantonese. Thus, his Hong Kongfriends easily disputed Paul's claim that "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23), sincethey could assert, "I have never sinned (engaged in criminal activity)."

BDayanand Pitamber, "Psychological Enquiry into the Phenomenon ofPhysical Violence Against Harijans," quoted in Elmer, Cross-CulturalConnections, p. 172.

'Elmer, Cross-Cultural Connections, p. 175.

101n a now-famous essay, theologian Krister Stendahl convinced many NewTestament scholars that Paul had no Western inner voice of conscience; seethe discussion below and n. 13.

"Cited in Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Connections (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 174.

12King Saul attempts to use shame to motivate his son Jonathan to actappropriately: "Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to yourown shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?" (1 Sam 20:30).By using the phrase "to your own shame and to the shame of the mother," theNlv's translators, like most Westerners, confuse shame with shaming. What isimportant to note, however, is that Saul doesn't tell Jonathan to search hisheart to discover what is right; rather, Jonathan is to think about the shamingthat he will bring upon himself and his family.

13Krister Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience ofthe West," Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215. This essay wasthe invited address at the Annual Meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, September 3, 1961.

14See David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity (DownersGrove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2000).

15 Her father's name, Eliam, means "people of my god," but it does not use"yah," which specifically noted the Israelite God.

16While we have held this interpretation of the story for many years, it isbeginning to appear elsewhere. For a recent popular version, see JohnBisagno, How to Create and Deliver Purpose Driven® Sermons for Life

Applications (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), p. 94: "In no way canBathsheba be pronounced fully innocent in her affair with David" If we havemisread the story and Bathsheba was innocent, then she was coerced and isthe victim of rape. We do not condone rape in any scenario, even one thatoccurs in the Bible. While women are often the victim of violence, it seems tous that this story is told in a way to implicate both her and David.

17We had to switch to the New American Standard Bible translation, whichis more literal. The NIV translates the messenger's intention, which was toinform the king.

"'Research consistently shows that Western people will act more ethicallywhen made aware of themselves by looking into a mirror. Sam Taute, "WhyEmployees Lie (And How to Get Them to Stop)," SmartBlog on Leadership,August 18, 2011, <http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2011/08/18/why-employees-lie-and-how-to- get-them-to-stop/>.

19See, for example, Nadya Labi, "An American Honor Killing: One Victim'sStory," Time, February25,2011,<www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2055445,00html#ixzzliuMrykKX>.

20We are borrowing Stanley Hauerwas's term here. He is likely correct in hisreading of this passage. See Hauerwas, "The Sanctified Body: WhyPerfection Does Not Require a Self," in Embodied Holiness: Toward aCorporate Theology of Spiritual Growth, ed. Samuel M. Powell and MichaelE. Lodahl (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp. 19-38.

Chapter 6: Sand Through the Hourglass

'Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Connections: Stepping Out and Fitting InAround the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp. 120-

21.

2We are not claiming that the arrangement of the biblical books is necessarilydivinely inspired.

'One can reasonably argue there is urgency in Jesus' admonitions to keepwatch because you don't know when the master is returning (Lk 12:35-40).We would suggest, though, that Jesus' emphasis is on vigilance and noturgency.

4There are some honor/shame things going on in this story.

5Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five, or the Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death (New York: Dell Publishing, 1991 [originally published in19661), p. 23.

6Ibid., pp. 85-86.

7Ibid., p. 88.

'See, for example, the explanation of Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark:A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 312.

9When the temple is destroyed and the people banished, then, as Jeremiahdescribed, "there will be no figs on the tree" (Jer 8:13).

Chapter 7: First Things First

"Jonathan Edwards, "Images of Divine Things," in Typological Writings(WJE [Works of Jonathan Edwards] Online 11), ed. Wallace E. Anderson,Mason I. Lowance Jr. and David H. Watters (New Haven, Conn.: JonathanEdwards Center, Yale University, 2008), p. 54.

2Ibid., p. 55.

3See James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief inAmerica (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).

'Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, ed. John Bigelow (Philadelphia: J. B.Lippincott, 1869), p. 166.

5Troels Engberg-Pedersen in his discussion of gift-giving notes this problemwell: "It is the mutual emotional attitude and relationship between giver andreceiver that defines the gift element in those acts"; see "Gift-giving andFriendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God's Charis andIts Human Response," Harvard Theological Review 101 (2008): 15-44 (quoteis on p. 20). Nonetheless, it is difficult (post-Kantian) to describe therelationships of gift-giving without using terms that move the reader toward"rules"

11. Howard Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul'sRelations with the Corinthians, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zumNeuen Testament 2/23 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1987), pp. 1-34, 165-258. For agood explanation of the power of a patron, see John K. Chow, Patronage andPower: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, Journal for the Study of theNew Testament 75 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), esp. p. 129.

'Luke also critiques the reciprocity inherent in the patronage system (Lk 6:32-35). We should give "without expecting to get anything back" (Lk 6:35), adirect rebuttal of the patronage system. He even uses chat-is in vv. 32-34,which is often translated "credit" or "benefit."

'Plutarch, Mor 1101B.

'Seneca, Ben. 1.1.3.

10See Seneca, Ben. 4.5.1 and Plutarch, Mor. 1100F, 1101C.

"Either Israel was celebrating Passover with uncircumcised sons or Israel hadnot been celebrating Passover during the forty years in the wilderness.

121n the seventeenth-century ceremony to consecrate church bells, the priestprayed their sound would "temper the destruction of hail and cyclones andthe force of tempests and lightning; check hostile thunders and great winds;and cast down the spirits of storms and the powers of the air." See J. L.Heilbron, Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Study in EarlyModern Physics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), p. 341.

"Al Seckel and John Edwards, "Franklin's Unholy Lightning Rod," accessedAugust 13, 2011, <www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm>.

14 See David Huttar, "Did Paul Call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans16:7," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52 (2009): 747-78.

19Preben Vang, 1 Corinthians, Teach the Bible Commentary Series (GrandRapids: Baker, 2013).

16See Jerome H. Neyrey, "Body Language in I Corinthians: the Use ofAnthropological Models for Understanding Paul and His Opponents," Semeia35 (1986): 129-70, esp. 137.

"At the least, it appears Paul would disagree with James's assertion that allGentiles must abstain from meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cot 8).

"Just to cite some examples: don't eat pork (Lev 11:7); roofs must haveparapets (Dent 22:8); paydays must be daily (Dent 24:15); and there must beno symbiotic planting (Lev 19:19).

Chapter 8: Getting Right Wrong

'Yet Wright argues this is the very process for gaining virtue: "Virtue … is

what happens when someone has made a thousand small choices, requiringeffort and concentration, to do something which is good and right": AfterYou Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York: HarperCollins,2010), pp. 20-21.

2 Basil, "Sermon to the Rich," in Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 31,cols. 277c-304c.

'Augustine, Doctr. chr. 1.86-88.

Chapter 9: It's All About Me

'Native Americans and African Americans tend to have more collectivisttraits.

2J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer andSketches of Eighteenth-Century America (New York: Penguin, 1963[originally published in 17821), p. 65.

'See Jean Twenge, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans AreMore Confident, Assertive, Entitled-and More Miserable Than Ever Before(New York: Free Press, 2006).

Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, Soul Searching: TheReligious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005), pp. 163-64.

'See Eugene Peterson, Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 92-99.

6The old Greek translation of Jeremiah uses the you plural form.

'See, for example, E. Randolph Richards, "In Exile but on the Brink of

Restoration: The Story of Israel in the General Epistles," in The Story ofIsrael: a Biblical Theology, ed. Marvin Pate (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 232-54.

'This verse could be translated "all things work together for good." Theresulting interpretation remains the same. "God" is the understood subject ofthis divine passive. If all things work together, the clear meaning is that Godis the agent who works all things together for good.

'John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to theRomans, trans. and ed. John Owen (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,1849), p. 315.

10There are historical antecedents. Lindsey is just perhaps the most famousvoice.

"Steve Camp, "Playing Marbles with Diamonds" (Birdwing Music, 1989).