10 March 2024
The term "Misreading Scripture" is a short version of the title, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes.
Our authors dive right into mores -- all the customary words and behaviors of our local culture that are assigned moral impact. Indeed, they are typically learned in childhood so that they are never questioned. It typically elicits uncomfortable reactions if a foreigner transgresses them. It really has nothing to do with excellence in performance or expertise, but crossing them is treated like a threat to social stability.
Yet they do vary with time and location. They mention that, in the American South, a generation ago it was considered evil to handle or play with a common deck of gaming cards (Parker Brothers invented the Rook game to cater to this). As you traveled farther north, it became gradually more acceptable. In Minnesota, you had bridge tournaments in the church house. Regional and generational variations applied to tobacco use, beverage alcohol, hunting, or even parking on the grass in front of your house. Dancing, going to movies, theater, etc. -- it goes on and on.
If you tell me what you think of the idea of eating dog meat, it says a lot about where you are from. Not just whether, but why is strongly associated with your background. It's amazing the things American Christians assume are immoral in other cultures. Indonesians associate billiards with brothels. If you ask them what was the primary sin of Sodom, they won't say "sodomy" but practicing poor hospitality (see Ezekiel 16:49).
I can recall ministry professors telling pastoral students we simply must develop a pulpit style that moves people. To a large degree, we owe that to George Whitfield of the Great Awakening fame. He departed from centuries of professional ministerial standards by using theatrical oratory. Today church auditoriums tend to look more like theaters than the old one-room churches of the Colonial Period. Worship has become a highly refined production. Things have changed.
American culture is notoriously binary. Everything is either totally right or totally wrong, and the average soul wants a simplistic answer to everything. We have a very poor record of identifying things that are neutral, things having no moral consequence either way. Worst of all, American church folks are convinced the Bible teaches a binary outlook.
R/OB take a look at three areas in particular: sex, food and money. We only get to the first in this post.
Regarding sex, they point out the tradition of the Apostle Thomas. There is every reason to believe he actually did go off to India. What we choke on is the strong support for celibacy for everyone that still clings to the traditions based on his ministry. While the Acts of Thomas is an apocryphal book, it serves as an indicator of what his teaching was like, and it certainly is an antidote to the Western cult of worshiping sex. Here in America, particularly among evangelicals, celibacy is dismissed out of hand, despite Paul recommending it for everyone in 1 Corinthians 7.
The authors do not attempt to resolve the debate. They simply point out the inherent flaws in the American moral schizophrenia about sex, which I can say with certainty is wholly different from the Hebrew viewpoint. Their point is that neither path is inherently holy, much less holier than the other. Rather, each has its place and we need to take them both seriously. It's manifestly obvious that we do not. Just think for a moment how most churches minister to singles, as if they were social lepers. The basic assumption is that every single should find a good Christian mate. Meanwhile, we do a simply awful job of matchmaking in the first place, and have no concept of strong households (a term that includes far more than marriage and family).
I'll insert here that a huge problem is that churches have embraced the pagan idolatry of feminism, and this contributes to the scandalous statement by Lotharios that church girls are the easiest prey. How did we get to this place? By the same token, how many evangelical churches will even consider a single pastor, despite Paul's example?
The authors do note that the traditions about Thomas are probably off the mark, and that the church in Corinth was highly influenced by the prevailing Roman practices. Women had no options, married off just after puberty, and men were required to practice adultery. Paul's instructions were a very powerful moral restraint for that church. Giving young women options was a huge step in moral liberty.
This document is public domain; spread the message.