Are You Misreading Scripture?
Below is a copy of a book review I did for one of my courses at Liberty University. It discusses context, our pre-conceived ideas we bring to the text as Christians who live in Western society and culture, and how to (hopefully) read Scripture with more of an open mind. Enjoy!
Many people think that their interpretation of a given passage of Scripture is the correct one. But is that normally the case? Sometimes yes, but most of the time, no. The way many Christians read the Bible, no matter what culture they are from, is colored by the cultural persuasions and implicit philosophical assumptions of how they were raised. Even geographical location can make a marked difference. One such example is the Word of Faith movement. This has stemmed from the major prosperity of the western culture and many of their false teachers have capitalized on the idea that, if the ungodly can be wealthy and prosperous, why can’t Christians? Theological errors aside, that is simply self-centered. In the spirit of complete honesty, this book produced some skepticism and almost a cynical attitude when the title was shown in the reading assignments. However, after reading it, this author agrees with the majority of the author’s opinions on the basis of biblical interpretation. This work will provide a critical analysis of some of the main arguments and points made within Richards’s and O’Brien’s’ book, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes to show how discerning their work truly is for the Christian church.
There are many obstacles a faithful interpreter must overcome to interpret Scripture correctly. One such hurdle that people carry with them is their personal biases. These can come in the form of a cultural barrier, language separation, or even a dietary restriction that causes a difference of opinion on a particular text of Scripture. This book specifically deals with how Western Culture has misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misrepresented the Bible.[1] Authors Rudolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien seek to provide clarity to some of these biases in Western culture. This will, hopefully, allow the faithful expositor to examine the text without the presuppositions of Western culture.
Throughout the book, they emphasize three major themes. The first is regarding the things clearly seen above the surface. Then there are other things that are not clearly seen, but don’t take much digging to find out. And finally, there are those things which affect the reader, but yet the reader does not ever realize these things are affective their interpretive journey, lest they be pointed out to them by a trusted source. They state that their purpose is to demonstrate “some of the habits that we readers from the West (the United States, Canada, and Western Europe) bring to the Bible can blind us to interpretations that the original audience and readers in other cultures see quite naturally.”[2] Ultimately, their goal is quite noble. It is not to tear at the foundations of western society or to dismantle the American political system. Rather, they would that faithful interpreters/expositors of God’s Word should be careful not to insert their own cultural “mores”—as the authors call them—into the text of Scripture.[3] As readers from different time periods, cultures, backgrounds, etc., a good interpreter of God’s Word should ultimately be able to mitigate (as much as possible) biases when it comes to reading and interpreting a Biblical text.
The opinion of the book is mostly positive, with only a few negative things to point out in specific passages. Beginning with the good things about the book is a respectable place to springboard this critique. The first is the overall position of the book. Their goal, as has already been stated, is to provide another tool for Christians to be able to use to discover their hidden biases. Every reader brings something to the text. They want to help the reader identify cultural barriers that keep up from correctly interpreting the Bible. Consider the following quote from page 212 of the book: “We’re trying to help you become a certain kind of reader: the kind of reader who is increasingly aware of his or her cultural assumptions.”[4]
This is a wonderful thing. The Bible was not written to the modern reader or even about the modern reader. God speaks to believers through finding out what he said through the original authors and to their original audience. Many things begin to make sense in Scripture when the Bible is interpreted through this lens. As the authors go through and define the Western value systems and the Eastern value systems, there is a marked difference between the two.
In the first section, there is a pointing out of the obvious things that might hinder Western readers’ exegesis of Scripture. Sex, Money, Food, Race, and Language are the five key places they highlight, specifically from a collectivist mindset rather than a Western individualistic mindset. Sex is something that is taboo in some churches and others do not mind it so much. Yet it needs to be discussed. The authors go through the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their premise is not that homosexuality does not have a role to play in the wickedness of these cities, but there is a bigger narrative here. These cities were filled with all kinds of irredeemable wickedness, so homosexuality should not be singled out here.[5] However, homosexuality is the one that is highlighted in the text, so evidently it is important enough to emphasize to some degree. Money is also something that Western culture sees as unlimited. However, money is a limited commodity in most countries, and in some countries one is more suspect if they have more money than less. Most people in the west pile up more money than will ever be needed and sometimes refuse to share. In collectivist cultures, this is considered particularly selfish and greedy. The Bible points out this too. Consider Psalm 52:7, which describes the wicked man who “trusted in his great wealth and grew strong by destroying others!”[6]. This is against biblical financial standards and something we should not do. Jesus helped those in need, we should too.
Food is often viewed as a limited resource and thus should be kept and stored up in case one needs it if things go south. However, for someone to have great storehouses worth of food and be unwilling to share is also against biblical values. The authors suggest that, not only having too much and not sharing, but giving public shame to those who may serve a certain kind of food by not eating it is also against biblical and cultural standards. Westerners think some things are weird to eat, but what defines “weird”? Well, Westerners do of course! This is what Richards and O’Brien are getting at. If one goes to another country that has drastically different cuisine than Americans, then there should be a good effort to try and eat what is before in order to fellowship with those who may be different. In Scripture, for a Jew to disregard deity laws (even after converting to Christ) was a matter of disgust, and even public shame at times, to them. This is why it was such a struggle for Peter to acknowledge what God was telling Him in Acts chapter 10. He was a Jew and to call something clean that had been culturally unacceptable his whole life made Him sick.[7]
They go further in highlighting race and language barriers. Westerners sometimes view these things as hinderances rather than helps. However, these two things are often an opportunity to learn about other people’s groups. They give several tips for seeking to mitigate bias due to race and language barriers. A reader should analyze his or her assumptions about other people who might be different than them. Using a Bible Atlas can also help guide a reader, as well as simply letting the Biblical places and nuances regarding these two things guide the reader into a right mindset about race.[8] This author would most certainly agree with the analysis regarding all five of these presuppositions brought to the text. Some things are specifically of Western origin and there are many Christian readers in the West who do not like to change their thinking because, ironically, they might be criticized (or shamed) by others in their circle of believers.
The above statement leads into the rest of the book, which discusses individualism, honor and shame, perception of time, relationships, morality, and the obsession in the west of ‘God’s will for my life.’ It is important to understand that they are not approaching from a critical point of view. Rather, the authors speak in a pastorally admonishing way so as to gently correct misunderstandings that come with being a part of a particular culture. This book was quite enjoyable, as it helped this author to discover things about his own biases that he had not seen before. Having a deep interest in American history, there are things that were good and bad about it. The founders of this nation were extremely rationalistic, being products of the Enlightenment. Because of that, they broke away from the collectivist mindset and simply decided that individualism was better. This has resulted in an extreme cultural gap within the realm of Biblical interpretation in the West, especially amongst uber-conservative denominations.
Richards’ and O’Brien do a great job of a bringing the hyper-rationalism of the Enlightenment that has influenced every area of our lives back into biblical perspective on these particular issues. When it comes individualistic morality and right and wrong, there is a difference there. This author is going to use Peter’s vision in Acts 10 as a way to apply some of these principles of culturally sensitive hermeneutics to Scripture. This vision was especially surprising to Peter because that would have contradicted his collectivist mindset and possibly brought shame upon him and his family if he decided to eat something considered unclean by Jewish standards. Peter may not have wanted to “sacrifice relationships on the altar of rules”[9] Further his mindset was not on what he wanted. That would have been selfish. He was considering what would offend his brother or sister in Christ. Paul did the same in Romans 14 when he said that, if something offends our brother or sister in Christ, we should not seek our own satisfaction at the expense of their sensibilities. Peter and Paul agree on this issue, and any reader of Scripture knows they had their disagreements. The authors talk about collectivism and honor/shame, value-driven cultures. The Jewish culture was that way. Peter’s identity was in Christ, but his fellow brothers in sisters who were Jewish, like him, would have been offended if he had acted in such a selfish way to eat whatever he pleased. Peter was not simply reading himself into God’s vision, he was reading the implications of his actions on the whole of his community.[10]
Another tendency prominent amongst Western readers of Scripture is insert the pronouns you into every text with a ‘promise’ in it. Again, Peter would not have imagined sacrificing his relationship with his fellow believers over food. Nor would he have imagined trying to convince his Jewish Christian community to do something purely for themselves simply because they could or wanted to. The “rules” changed about food, but relationships didn’t. Again, the Romans 14 principle is something that Richards and O’Brien would no doubt agree with on food. Think about others and loving one’s neighbor more than doing what one wants simply because the rules have changed on certain dietary restrictions. They suggest reading writings from other collectivist writers, especially those Christ collectivists from the first century. This is his how Western readers can definitely become more culturally sensitive to the context of the Biblical writers.[11]
The final issue is the issue of inserting oneself into a text of Scripture. Peter did not insert himself immediately into God’s vision in Acts 10. Rather, and no doubt, he was thinking first of how this would affect his brothers and sisters in Christ. Would this put his family to shame in his community? Would it bring shame upon his community as a Jewish man, eating things they considered unclean? His perspective wasn’t, “I can do what I want because the rules have changed!” Peter understandably had a hard time accepting this vision from God. In the same way, the grand metanarrative of Scripture, and of God’s redemptive plans, are not about a small group of individual people. God is redeeming all of creation back to himself, and that includes those who trust in Jesus. God’s will does not have a seat for each person’s name. God’s will is much bigger than that.
This book is definitely an eye-opening experience for any open-minded student of God’s Word. It forces the Western reader to address his or her biases in a way that is pastorally loving and admonishing versus sharp and criticizing. It helps the reader to reconsider their moral duties and obligations when reading a biblical text and studying a book of the Bible. Not only that, but there are things that most readers do not pick up on, even in their own interpretations. This book slowly turns those presuppositions into the light of the Bible and Biblical culture. So much so that eventually, God allows us to have a deeper relationship with Him, through the studying of his Word. The authors end by exhorting anyone who may internalize the principles in their work to beware of the insertion of self into Scripture. The pronoun “you” isn’t always singularly referring to the reader. Being a culturally sensitive reader is not about being a “liberal compromiser,” as some would purport. Rather, it is about honoring the traditional understanding of when the Bible was written and who it was written by. Authors Richards and O’Brien do this in a unique and insightful way that carefully exposes the biases of all who may dare to venture the depths of the pages and find out how they, too, are misreading Scripture.
Footnotes —
[1] E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 11.
[2] Ibid., 15.
[3] Ibid., 29.
[4] Ibid., 212
[5] Ibid., 48.
[6] Ibid., 41.
[7] Ibid., 45.
[8] Ibid., 66.
[9] Ibid., 173.
[10] Ibid., 109-110, 134,
[11] Ibid., 172-173, 189.