Life in any culture different from our own is full of lessons and perspectives, if only we’ll look around and see them. Here are a few I’ve picked up on in our travels and conversations.
Uriah was a bad husband whose behavior likely drove his wife into David’s arms.
As a group of Deaf Ecuadorians sat and watched the story of King David’s adultery, they were fairly disapproving of Bathsheeba and the King. Of course, they blamed David far more than they did Bathsheeba (more on this later). However, their willingness to point fingers increased tenfold as we began to examine Uriah. Specifically, the soldier’s reluctance to go home to be with his wife was lambasted. Matters grew worse when the group realized Uriah was more concerned with this buddies in the field than with his wife’s loneliness.
Ultimately, the group concluded that Uriah’s behavior and fierce resistance to returning home was likely an indication of his character: neglectful husband. As a result, while Bathsheeba was wrong, it was pretty understandable – this adultery thing. Despite her obvious beauty, she was lonely and ignored. The most guilty person in all of this was Uriah, followed closely by David and, in a far distant third position, Bathsheeba.
Growing up in the southwestern United States, I learned a very different view of this story. Uriah, as I was taught, respected the bond that develops between men who lay down their lives for one another. The relationship between soldiers is rich and complex in the U.S., and it does not fade easily. Not all cultures, though, experience the life-long bond of brothers in arms. As a result, different conclusions come easily.
I gotta say, though: I can’t really refute the thinking here.
Baptism is immediate.
John the Baptist preached, called for repentance, and immediately baptized.
Philip taugh the Ethopian, then baptized him.
Seems pretty clear: profession of faith, then baptism. So…what’s up with these new Christian classes? Seem like sinful barriers to obedience to biblical commands.
Most of the people I work with are quite literal and chronologically oriented. As they see it, the Bible’s authors could have placed delays and postponements into the text, but opted not to since there were (apparently) no delays to record.
Financial condition is a safe predictor for eternal reward or damnation.
Jesus told a story. In the story:
Lazarus was poor. Lazarus did not know Jesus. Lazarus went to heaven anyway.
The rich man was rich. The rich man did not know Jesus. The rich man did not go to heaven.
Therefore, to the local Christians, it would seem that Jesus’ primary point was that our economic condition, which usually stems from either honest or dishonest approaches to income, is sometimes a better predictor for our eternal state than faith in Christ. It is not a singular predictor, but a solid one nonetheless. The rich man had to play dirty in order to be rich, and Lazarus’ poor condtion was proof of his refusal to worship money over relationships.
Ultimately, blame rests on he who tempts
Going back to Bathsheeba, Deaf Ecuadorian believers understand that the decision to sin rests in the sinner. However, they also place a large portion of blame on the one who tempts. The large emphasis on the community here results in a more corporate view of blame; that is, no one sins in a vacuum, nor without provocation. When marriages fall apart around here, each spouse tells friends, “If I find out who encouraged this and detroyed my marriage…” Fathers mourn their sons’ homosexuality and propose as a solution, “…go out and find who dragged my kid into this. I’ll beat that predator and that way my son won’t have anyone tempting him to re-enter that lifestyle.”
If we need proof, all we have to do is go back and realize that the serpent in the Garden gets a more harsh punishment than anyone else. See? The sinner is guilty, but he who tempts is just as bad.
As an American, though, I see things from the perspective of personal responsibility. I view sin as the sinner’s act, and anyone who tempts is not responsible for my own sin. I hail from a country that worships rugged individualism, in marked contrast to local customs, and as such do not readily perceive a communal aspect to temptation and sin.
Etcetera
Deaf people cannot be saved unless they set aside sign language and learn to speak. (Romans 10:8-10)
Jesus was a great sorcerer, proven by the fact that he ascended to a high place and summoned the spirits of the dead. (Mount of Transfiguration)
Lot’s daughter’s had deformed children (inbreeding).
Thus concludes today’s lesson in perspective. Tune in tomorrow as we discuss recipes for a local delicacy: guinea pig.
Jeremy,
Uriah was the hero of this circumstance. It was his commitment to the king and his men and ultimately to God that revealed the sin of the king and his own wife. Too bad that David had the bad wife(s) and Bathsheba was a bad wife. One of the truths here is that the strongest faith is vulnerable to the enticements of the flesh. From what I understand, it isn’t the second look that causes man to sin. Nay nay, the sin is already in the heart and the first look is enough. The problem with sin is that it is never satisfied with the first look and it never stops when both are willing to sin. Somehow, God forgives and His linage continues through the sin.
Good post. Makes us think.
OK….try to look at the story very, very literally.
1. Uriah disobeyed his king (twice!) by sleeping with the servants.
2. Uriah chose not to see his wife, his “two become one” out of respect for men to whom he was not married.
3. Uriah made no mention of God as reason for not going home.
A highly literal view of the passage says, contrary to your assertion, that Uriah was not faithful to the king, his men, and God. He was only faithful to the men, and opted to ignore his wife in the process.
I see your point, though. The problem we face in an international setting, or in a high pluralistic cultural settings like the US, is that not everyone is going to see this passage the way I grew up seeing it. That is, the way you have expressed it. There is a valid point here in the locals’ view of things – Uriah DID disobey his king and he DID choose respect for his fellow soldiers over a biblical admonition to place his wife above all others.
Thanks for the comments.
Jeremy,
Uriah did disobey the King. Sometimes we choose to disobey because we do not understand the command. Disobedience can display the loyalty our leader is testing us on. David was a warrior and could not build the temple he longed to build for God. Could it be that Uriah was pleasing his king for no other reason than to show his loyalty? That is where I am coming from.
Satan fell and 1/3 of the angles fell. They were loyal to their leader. Personally, I believe Lucifer was the Arch Angle of Jesus and the angles who were assigned to him did so based upon the authority structure of God and their allegiance to Lucifer. It was most unfortunate, but 1/3 fell. We believers and the elect and the children of God will fill the void in the future.
The linage of Christ did come through the disobedience and sin of David. How God does that is a mystery to us but we must understand God’s plan is not based upon sin, it is based upon His will.
Jeremy, I think your observation of passage in question makes assumptions that facts do not support.
You say that neither the rich man or Lazarus knew Jesus but the text doesn’t make that claim. We don’t know whether they knew each other or not. From the text I can just as easily make the assumption that since Jesus knew Lazarus’ name He knew him as well as the rich man.
You go on to say that Lazarus’ financial position was “proof of his refusal to worship money over relationships.” Again nothing in the text or the entire Bible for that matter supports your assumption. I’ve known a lot of people over the 45 years of my ministry and 64 years of life who would be classified as poor who were extremely wicked. Their financial position had nothing to do with their refusal to worship money. In fact, I’ve known many who were so in love with money they would do anything to acquire it.
Then you say that in order for the rich man to accumulate his wealth he had to play dirty and was therefore dishonest. Again nothing in the text or the entire Bible supports your assumption. I know many people who are considered wealthy who are God-fearing believers in Jesus Christ. While they have amassed wealth by God’s grace they are not focused on wealth, they are focused on serving God. I might also add that I’ve known many wealthy individuals who, like some of the poor are so in love with money that they will do anything to get it.
You then cap off your assumption by saying, “… it would seem that Jesus’ primary point was that our economic condition, which usually stems from either honest or dishonest approaches to income, is sometimes a better predictor for our eternal state than faith in Christ.” which is totally refuted by Scripture. Whether a person has vast material possession or no possessions at all is not the determining factor of where they will spend eternity. It is not even an indicator of whether a person is righteous or not. Wealth of itself is neutral. Salvation is determined solely on one’s personal relationship to Jesus Christ.
It appears to me that you are one who looks at Scripture through the allegorical lens; always seeking the hidden meaning. I have found that in doing so we often reveal our own foibles instead of the clear teachings of Scripture.
While I agree with some of your observations, I totally disagree with this one.
Dr. Richard–Did you miss the part where Jeremy said “to the local Christians, it would seem that Jesus’ point…..”? He isn’t approaching the text this way. He’s having to work with other people’s assumptions based on their own cultural proclivities. You’re assigning an interpretational model to Jeremy that he does not claim.
Dale, I guess I read it in the context of Jeremy presenting how his interaction with those of different cultures impacted his view upon the text. Apparently I was wrong. Thanks for pointing out my error.
Blessings
We all do it at times. Just want to be sure that our write e’s get a fair reading and representation.
Thanks.
That should be writer’s.
Thanks for the breakdown of the passage in question.
I think the problem is that you’ve overlooked, as Dale said, the fact that I’m expressing the views of those from a different cultural mindset. Perhaps my mistake was not laying out in greater detail some of the local assumptions.
My people group is a pretty literal one. As far as they are concerned, Jesus did not say anything about knowledge of Him in the story. A personal relationship with Christ is not germane to the story, as far as they can tell. As well, their own economic position – poverty – creates in them a view of the world through which they are filtering this story: the rich are wealthy through oppression of the poor, which is a sin. The poor are poor because they decline to oppress anyone.
In time, I’ll figure out how to fit the text of this story in with the content of the rest of the Bible in a way that is as close to the absolute truth as possible, setting aside as many cultural assumptions as possible.
Thanks for interacting.
Jeremy, I do apologize for ascribing to you the view presented in this passage. I misread and misunderstood that you were simply presenting what some in the cultural setting you have ministered to.
Though I am now back to ministering in the good ole USA I still run into similar veins of interpretation as I just planted a church in an economically depressed area and those who we are reaching have little to no formal church background. One idea they possess is the one you presented that those who are better off than they are must be dishonest and therefore are going to hell. We’ve spent many an hour teaching the basics of the Gospel and daily godly living these past months so maybe I am overly sensitive.
Thank you for sharing your observation and forgive me my foible of misunderstanding and misapplication.
Blessings
Jeremy is not advocating these positions, Richard. He is observing their advocacy by others
David, Thank you for your response. Please see my reply to both Dale and Jeremy on this matter.
Spent last evening and preparing to leave in a few minutes to spend this evening with our SBC President. He is assisting us in building bridges between our Anglo and African American Baptist Churches here in Springfield by leading a “Festival of Hope.” Last night we had several hundred gather for worship. Praying tonight we’ll see more people from all our churches.
Blessings my brother.
What I am understanding is that, by description,
a ‘cultural’ interpretation of sacred Scripture involves the way in which a person of a certain time and setting and way of life encounters a verse of sacred Scripture,
and ‘understands’ it according to his own experiences in his own world.
Is that what is being said?
Some people apparently don’t get the point if this post.
Pointing out how our cultural presuppositions can influence out reading of the text. I don’t think they represent the author’s views on the texts.
Your post reminded me of one of the best books that I read last year: Misreading Scriptures with Western Eyes.
http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/12/review-of-misreading-scripture-with.html
Phenomenal post, Jeremy. It often helps us to see the text in a new light when we hear how other cultures have a gut reaction to it. We shouldn’t assume that our face value reading of the text isn’t at times culturally shaped as well.
You can only see what you can see. The amazing thing is that God is able to bring us to faith with the limitation of–essentially–being deaf, mute, and blind spiritually. And that in spite of the narratives that we have constructed both internally and externally that hide our rebellion against him.
But with that said: the goal of missions ought not to be to enforce a cultural perspective. It ought to be to introduce the Gospel and to teach people to understand who this Jesus is and to permit their knowledge of Jesus and of the Gospel to first change them and then change their culture.
Western culture perhaps ought to be considered both interesting and substantial much like a substrate in a chemical reaction MIGHT catalyze the reaction. But it is not necessary and is not the endpoint of our faith.
For example–and this probably will come as a shock to Baptists–I see very little evidence of voting in the Millenial Kingdom. Not that it is explicitly excluded, but there will be a King and he will rule. To some extent or another, so much for congregational polity?
In the Millenial Kingdom, there’ll be no need for voting. Jesus will rule with a rod of iron. Our KING will be with us. He will tell us what’s what. So, the need for congregational polity will be gone.
David
*cough*we are in the midst of the millennial kingdom even now*cough*
*runs away*
Chris,
You’re NOT one of those; are you?
David 🙂
I’m afraid I am one of those Bible believers.
People can believe the Bible without understanding it.
One more comment like that, Mr. Miller, and you’ll be sent to moderation for the next 6 months.
I’ll pull this car over right now!
You’re not my father. You can’t tell me what to do.
*sulks quietly*
Jeremy,
Well, he’s right. And he said “people” not “Chris” so I assume he meant “Dave and David”. Which is a kind of weird thing for him to say about himself, but hey, he’s pre-mil and weird theology breeds saying weird things.
With theology like that, running away is probably the best choice, Chris.
Thank goodness there is another!
Now I just heard myself repeat “there is another” in a Yoda voice….
Inaugurated millennialists need to stick together!
There is a wide road…
I think Dave likes Rexella and Jack. Well, I think he really likes the voice of that fella, who announces Jack and Rexella. He also has the graph from John Hagee. But, that’s Dave…. 🙂
I, on the other hand, am a solid Pre Trib. Pre Millenial, who bases everything on the Bible…not on Jack and Rexella.
David 🙂
*cough* agree with Chris*
Ruling with an iron rod? What…are we back at the church I attended as a child?
Doing cross-cultural ministry can be very enlightening. While we can point out some obvious mistakes with the cultural thinking in examples like these, we are often blind to our own cultural thinking. Of course, who really wants to be told that? Those kinds of cultural sensibilities go pretty deep, to our earliest formative years. They are deep seated and are often not dispelled without much turmoil. Usually, we are fine to live with a few errors in our theology as long as they are at best tangential to the core of Christian orthodoxy.
good to know that what is core to Christianity transcends time and place and culture
Well, before I make anymore comments, it looks like I’m gonna have to preface my thoughts for folks like Debbie and Ryan. I’m gonna have to make sure that I say things like: I love people. I’m not glad that anyone suffers. I’m not happy that people have to pay for the consequences of thier SIN. I believe that everyone can be saved…including abortion doctors and women, who have abortions, etc. Because, Debbie and Ryan think that I’m a mean, nasty, low down cuss, who is just tickled to death that people suffer the consequences of thier sins. When in fact, I do not rejoice over people suffering. I am not glad when some sinner has to face the music. But, that still doesnt change the fact that all the sin has consequences. And, I dont think it’s mean, nasty, or angry to spell this truth out.
I try not to write a book everytime I make a comment. In fact, when I see people write long comments, I usually skip right over that one, and go to the short ones. My ADD kicks in, and I just cant sit there and read long, drawn out comments. But anyway, I guess I’ll have to start making my longer, in order to point out to some people what should be obvious and taken for granted.
Anyhooo….sorry, Dave….for going in this direction on this post…but, you closed the comments to the other one where Debbie is angrily going off on me, and Ryan seems to be upset, as well, and they do not know me, nor did they understand what I wrote. I think they got me confused with Joe’s comments….that’s all I can figure.
David
I would like to know how other cultures read the Revelation of St. John. It is the sort of book that various situations can reflect themselves in.
Thanks for a great post, Jeremy. I’ve experienced some of the same things in E Africa — insights and questions that, even if I determine they are incorrect, help me to look at the Bible in different, often more meaningful ways. I’m reading Keller’s book, “Center Church.” and he talks about the cultural blinders that each of us have that often cause us to look at the Bible in very narrow ways. He uses a two-way bridge as an analogy of how we should go into another culture to present the gospel — we have to go both teaching the Word and listening to the culture. Keller affirms the supremacy of the Bible over culture and has no sympathy for the view that culture determines meaning. What he does say is, “More often than not, this interaction with a new culture shows us many things taught in the Bible—things we either missed altogether or though unimportant, possibly even ways in which we misread the Bible through the lens of our own cultural assumptions…Our interaction with a different culture leads us to ask the text questions that we may never have asked it before and to see many things we didn’t see clearly before…help[s] us to identify our own culturally bound presuppositions about the gospel.”
Oops, poor proof-reading. The Keller quote should be, “…missed altogether or **thought** unimportant….”