Tag Archives: culture

Bible-shaped culture or culture-shaped Bible?

2 Replies

Bible in the shadowI realize in talking with others that there are lots of different views as to how the Bible interacted with the culture of the people who wrote it. No surprise, I know, but I understand better now how that deeply affects how we read the Bible.

Some people, for example, take an extremely low view of Scripture. The Bible, for them, is merely a sacred text like other sacred texts written by ancient peoples. Prophecies were written after the fact and adjusted to fit what actually happened. Laws were written to give “divine sanction” to existing situations. The slaughter of other nations is justified by describing it as holy war, while attacks on one’s own people are an affront against God. Women are oppressed and slavery is upheld because the Bible was written to uphold the status quo.

Others see the Bible as coming down from heaven untainted by human culture. If the Bible says God has storehouses for snow, then there are some sort of heavenly structures filled with frozen precipitation, waiting to be sent. If God said not to trim the corners of the beard, then there’s a heavenly reason for that. Laws were not shaped around man; man was shaped around the laws.

Then there’s a myriad of views in between, seeing God as speaking to human culture within the framework of a specific historical context. Heavenly truths expressed through earthly means. God’s word for a particular situation needing to be translated into God’s word for our situation.

That’s why some look at demon possession and say “epilepsy.” Others look at teachings about greeting with a holy kiss and say, “Yes, but that was then.” Others will only take the Lord’s Supper in an upper room.

If you had to state your views on how the Bible shaped and was shaped by the culture of its time, what would you say?

photo from MorgueFile.com

Anglos and Latinos

1 Reply

One and TwoI mentioned on Monday the classes that I’m preparing for the Summer Celebration at David Lipscomb University. (we had a major storm on Monday night which kind of complicated my posting anything yesterday) I mentioned addressing what Anglos and Latinos have to offer one another in a congregation.

I do plan to address the inaccuracies of those terms and the folly it is to try and see those groups as two distinct sets of people. Some thoughts:

  • Anglo is a misnomer. It is used to differentiate from Hispanics, but the term really applies to people of Anglo-Saxon descent. As used, it’s applied to Germans, Italians, etc., even though they are hardly Anglos.
  • Latino is too wide a group to deal with. It includes people of all races and a wide range of cultural backgrounds. It often encompasses indigenous peoples who have nothing Latin about them.
  • These groups are fluid. That is, there are people of Hispanic descent who are completely out of place in a typically Hispanic church and feel quite at home in a predominantly “Anglo” congregation. And there are people like me who often feel more at home in a Hispanic group than one where most people look and sound like me.

Given those limitations, I still think the discussion has merit. Over the next couple of posts, I’ll spell out some of my ideas about what each of these nebulous groups has to offer to the other.

One body, two languages

4 Replies

bilingualIn a couple of weeks, I’ll be teaching two classes in the Spanish track at David Lipscomb University’s Summer Celebration. I decided to expand on some material that I presented at a church in El Paso, talking about the different contributions that Anglos and Latinos bring to the church. (Anglo is a misnomer, I know. But it’s the most commonly used term)

The title is a phrase that’s a favorite of mine: “One Body, Two Languages.” The topic is a bit awkward in many ways; done poorly, it can misuse stereotypes and border on racism. In some places, especially in places like Florida, Texas or California, the mixing of the two groups has occurred to an extent that such discussions seem out of date. But in many parts of the country, it’s still relevant to talk about these things.

In many of our churches, the Hispanic groups find themselves in a dependent position. They often lack the resources to “pay their way” at church. (At that El Paso church I mentioned, the preacher spoke to me about the costs of maintaining the Hispanic outreach at their congregation, the “economic drag” on the church) In many cases, the leadership of the church is almost exclusively Anglo, with few Hispanic elders and deacons. The Hispanics often meet in a room that is inferior to the main auditorium where the Anglos meet. I’m generalizing, but in many churches, this is the case.

That’s why I want to talk to the Hispanics about what they have to offer. In the second session, I want to talk about what the Anglo church has to offer, besides the things mentioned above. There can be times when Hispanic groups can feel superior to the Anglo part of the congregation. The Hispanic groups may be growing more. They may have more intimate fellowship or a more active group. In places where the Anglo church is aging, Hispanic groups may be younger.

There is a need for both groups to recognize what the other has to offer.

What sort of things come to your mind? What can you see that one cultural group has to offer the other? Or do you think this discussion is completely out of place?

photo from MorgueFile.com

So how’s your list of widows coming?

6 Replies

Continuing yesterday’s discussion (thanks for the comments!), I want to give a good example of how our conversations are shaped by our current situation. Churches of Christ are part of the stream of belief that is called the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement flourished in the United States in the 19th century, and many of the doctrines that we hold were shaped around what was and wasn’t practiced in churches in general at that time (particularly Presbyterian and Baptist).

I know that idea is distasteful to many, which is why I want to offer an example. My colleague, Steve Ridgell, is doing a series of blog posts on gender roles in churches of Christ. Yesterday he brought something that is rarely discussed: the list of widows, as described in 1 Timothy 5.

“Honor widows who are truly widows.” (1 Timothy 5:3)
“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” (1 Timothy 5:9–10)
“If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows.” (1 Timothy 5:16)

So there was to be a list of widows that would be honored and cared for by the church. (Context shows that this care includes financial support) These women were to be active in the church, and there seems to be an implication that they will be expected to continue to serve. Seemingly, according to verse 12, they made some sort of pledge of devotion to the church.

Do you know of any congregation that does this? Do you know of any congregation that has seriously discussed how to fulfill this?

My thought is that we are quick to dismiss this passage because it hasn’t been a part of our practice nor that of churches around us. We may talk about it out of curiosity, but few seek to practice it in any way, despite it meeting all of the standards that command-example-inference hermeneutics would demand.

Some would argue that the lack of clarity on the exact practice is what limits us, but shouldn’t that merely be a call for further study and investigation as to what Paul is talking about?

We don’t practice it because nobody practices it. Which means our beliefs come less from the Word than from the beliefs of those around us.

Or am I missing something?

photo by Ariadna on www.morguefile.com

Victims of our worldview

4 Replies

Feeling particularly uninspired, I thought I’d share an article that I found interesting, which combines two ideas we’ve looked at recently:

  • how our worldview affects our interpretation of the Bible
  • the need to read the Bible looking for broad themes, rather than isolating individual passages

Found over at The Relentless Monk, the article is called “Are We ALL victims of our worldview?”

A few interesting quotes (for those lacking the time or patience to read the article):

  • “The problem is that we are all trapped in our presuppositions. Had my friend, or I, or the fundamentalist pastor down the street, been born in a different culture with different presuppositions about how the world works, what we see as the ‘plain meaning’ of anything would be different.”
  • “As I thought more about it, I realized that my friend was assuming that how he understood the text was, in fact, the way the author intended the text to be understood. From his perspective, things like symbolism, repetition, and literary structure were secondary, and few other people would notice them. He was assuming that what he saw as the plain meaning of the text was, in fact, it’s meaning. He was saying what we all say—that his presuppositions are the right ones.” (author’s emphasis)
  • “At the same time, however, my western worldview requires that what I believe be logical and consistent, and, in a general way, make sense.” (author’s emphasis)
  • “As I have learned more about the Bible, I have identified and rejected many of my past preconceptions, but I cannot imagine not holding Scripture to some standard of inherent logic. Is that logic some universal aspect of how humans understand truth, or is it, too, just a transient characteristic of my culture that is so ingrained that I will never be able to get out from under it?”

Interesting thoughts. Tell me what you think.