Can God Live Outside of Time? Why Would This NOT Be Important?

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." Genesis 1.1-5, NASB

Can God Live Outside of Time?

Why Would This NOT Be Important?

by R.E. Slater

Today I would like to compare the difference between the classical statement of theism vs the more contemporary statement of panentheism (not pan-theism, but pan-en-theism). With one you don't necessarily get the other nor do you need it. And with the other, it is important to see why, based upon historical results, the hypothesis and arguments of classicism simply have been unhelpful to today's contemporary Christian. I will save this last reflection for the end. But to appreciate this reflection we should first go through the details leading to it.

First Statement

Statement: Does God Live Inside or Outside or Time? Can God live both inside and outside of time?

Response: If using the panentheistic system of theology we can then posit God is a relational God (as panentheism attests to) and must therefore live inside of time in order to be a relational God. If God were to hypothetically live outside of time then God has no meaning to His creation because He has no relationship to His creation.

Additionally, if using process philosophy (e.g. process theology) this metaphysical system also requires a God living in relationship to creation (other terms which might be used in place of the word "creation" may be the cosmos, the universe, nature, etc). This means that the Creator-God is both the initiating Prehensive and resulting Concrescent Event to the birth of creation (process theology) as well its enduring provider, sustainer, maintainer, architect, and ends (panentheism).

1. Importantly, what this doesn't mean is that God controls these freewill (sic, limited agency) processes. Creation has inherited God's agency to live or chose as it will, This agency was birthed from the Creator's own Image of agency (e.g. freewill, whether determinant or indeterminant, based upon contextualization).

2. However, what this does mean is that God's Self, or His Image, precedes all, undergirds all, and guides all of creation towards an ends of willing fellowship despite creation's own struggle when receiving the inherent gift of God's freewill of God's Self or God's Image.

Said another way, the teleology of evolutionary creation whether physical or social will always be pointed towards creativity, novelty, uniqueness, value, generativeness, love, mutual benefit, and goodness in deep and complex inter-relationships (sic, holy fellowships) with all else. One might think of this as "process panentheistic teleology".

More articles on Process Philosophy and Process Theology

may be found on this site:

Index - Process Philosophy & Theology

Second Statement

Statement: Is it important to believe God exists outside of Time?

Response: No. Based upon panentheism and process theology God must always be inside of time holding creation together. This would then contradict classic theism's standard position of placing God (i) hypothetically outside of time transcendentally and therefore apart from any relationship to creation, or (ii) casually inside of time relationally in deference to His apparent transcendence which either abandons creation or exists simultaneous with and without creation. Basically, classic theism is a safe argument pretending wisdom though wholly impractical.

Is classical theism important? If so, why would it matter?

To posit God as both outside and inside of time is a theoretical conjecture, known as a theologoumenon.

A theologoumenon is a theological statement or concept that lacks absolute doctrinal authority. It is commonly defined as "a theological assertion or statement not derived from divine revelation", or "a theological statement or concept in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine".

Classic Theism's statement of the possibility of God existing outside of time might otherwise be described as both metaphysically and ontologically meaningless. As such, we might restructure our reply by the following observations:

(1a) If God lived outside of time then there is no God. At least not for us, nor for creation. Nor would we be able to answer this speculation as anything other than hyperbole. The speculation is untestable, unverifiable, and an irrelevant, meaningless classically conjectured theory.

(1b) Moreover, we are on our own. That is, we would experience a Divine Separation or Abandonment from God who Himself would experience a Divine Aloneness or Separation Himself save for the interior fellowship of His own Triune Personhood (commonly known as the Trinity or Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This creedal expression is yet another instance of a biblically imposed theologoumenon).

A Divine Aloneness where all relationality derives its psychological / social / physical beginnings. Expressed in another fashion, since we do not live outside of time, and if God is not present with us in our timeful experiences, we are therefore again on our own in a God-vacated time-filled creation.

(2a) Scientifically, creation is always bounded by time except in the period before the Big Bang. This means that the idea of time being "outside" itself is nonsense. So is the term "infinite" time. It has no meaning. This was discussed in an earlier posting:

Index - Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe

SubSection - The Origin of Time and Space

(2b) The only one "time" when there wasn't any time was before the Big Bang in that earlier period when spacetime was crunched down to one dimension. In that one dimension space there was an energy state known as radiation but without any timeful experiences. One could think of this primodial pre-Bang space as an infinite space with no time or with an infinitized time moving in all directions. But as time itself there was no time. Time is dependent upon matter which had yet been birthed in this radiated space of lost time and lost matter.

Importantly then, the "time" before the Big Bang was a "time" that was without both time and matter. It was simply a space inhabited by some kind of superheated and very dense radiation. It is only when this energy burst forth that both matter (first) then time (secondly, as a resulting consequence) were created. The universe instantaneously began the process of "process evolutionary growth" birthing matter which immediately birthed the perception of time in the universe (known as "the aarow of time").

Thus we may think of this pre-Big Bang era as a liquified plasmic space where time either was (i) nonexistent or (ii) everywhere existent as a potentiality in infinite constitution awaiting its birth. Some think of this early pre-inflationary period  as the biblical "void".

(3a) Theologically, as well as scientifically, if God lives outside of time then He exists somewhere where the cosmos isn't. And again, God becomes hypothetically meaningless to the cosmos we know and live within.

Moreover, if creation is sustained by God as classic theism states then God must be always present in its experience. And by extension, if God were to leave the cosmos then the cosmos could no longer exist. A process panentheist would also assent to this same argument. But placed in a panentheistic framework the argument would make more sense as to why it is so critical that God must always be in eternal relationship with the cosmos.

(3b) The reverse argument of whether God is if He is no longer in relationship to creation I think is a good one but without any conclusions. The best we can say is that hypothetically God may exist without creation but then God would exist permanently alone. He would not be able to create creation out of thin air. This is explained in the point (4).

Suffice it say, panentheism is given a bad rap when critics claim of it that God cannot exist without creation. Though I argue God may exist apart from creation He cannot create creation from nothing. This leaves God divinely alone eternally unable to undo what He left. 

Consequently, its more true to approach the argument from bottom up, if you will. That if there is no creation there then is no God. You have a permanent state of non-ness or nothingness. Both God and creation are bound to the other by reasons of how creation came to be... Let me explain.

(4a) Did God create from something or from nothing? These ideas are captured by the expressions of "creatio ex continua," meaning, "creation always was and could never come from nothing." Or, "creatio ex nihilo" which describes classic theism's position of God creating out of nothing." Until quantum physics these philosophical arguments could not be addressed...

In deference to the classic position of ex nihilo creation, the current state of quantum astrophysics says this is not possible. That something could not be created out of nothing. That there must be something there to create something from. Even for God given the initial conditions of the universe. Thus the previous ex continua explanation of a pre-cosmic void of supercondensed, superheated, state of radiation from which all the universe was birthed.

Expressed differently, if there was never any radiation/energy to create from, then there was never a God there to create, or give order (in Hebrew, shalom) to, that energy. Both God and the singularity state of energy must be there together in order for either one to be cosmically bound to the other.

This means that God could not just come inside of time from outside of time and willy-nilly create from nothing to produce something. There must be something there from which God may create, organize, order, re-order... you chose the adjective. And in order for something to be there then God must be there. Each eternally in fellowship, if not in pragmatic dependency, with the other.

Classical theology likes to give itself room to believe in the incredible, but it is not necessary to think incredibly of God unless we wish to make God more mythical than He is real. Thus, the state of astrophysics comes down on the side of creatio ex continua and not creatio ex nihilo.

Lastly, if we carry this idea of creation through all the way backwards into time, then creation itself is as old as God is when using "creatio ex continua" as the guiding conjecture. Neither God nor creation were ever without the other. Each are ancient and anciently related. Now this may upset classists who insist God must be first above all else. However, if He were then how to the cosmos come about? It cannot come from thin air or some "empty void". So then, it must always have been there.

And therein is the struggle. Hypothesizing that something comes from nothing when in this cosmic existence of ours it simply cannot be true. It must be there from which to be birthed. Thus and thus a "biblical void" filled with cosmic radiation quite adequately does the job releasing the ex nihiloist's from the burden of trying to create spontaneous generation from the ether as thought could be done in the Middle Ages. We might call this position as their half-way house though a process panentheist needs no such metaphysical gymnastic feats.

(4b) Consequently, the pseudo-Christian / classical-philosphical argument of time being outside itself is therefore nonsense. Time can never be unbounded from space. Without space there can be no time.

(5) Conclusion. Either God is in time in some manner (not forgetting that God is always existent in all timeful dimensionalities of the cosmos) or we aren't, the cosmos isn't, and neither is God. It is an untenable belief and argument to say God exists outside of time. Whether true or not it is meaningless and subsequently leaves a "godless void" to the cosmological void.

Third and Last Statement

Statement: What then might we conclude?

Response: Most will say for God to be God or, to retain His Godness, we must fully embrace all conjectural possibilities. Though I might not necessarily disagree with these ontological sentiments it also isn't necessary for God to be God, or to be Godful.

For myself, and many others, the more important question is the question of God's "with-ness". Whether the panentheistic cornerstone of relationality is substantially more important than the theistic necessity of transcendency. The first builds on connectedness to creation. The latter build on an ideal of disconnectedness apart from anything meaningful to creation.

Yet this latter set of theologians wants it both ways. To me, I find it a moot question. In fact, I find it creating a whole other set of theological problems by its insistence. How? By approaching God as a distant, perhaps, deigning Creator, God has created in the fellowship between man and God an unnecessary distance that doesn't need to be there. A distance too often separating our guilt driven souls or our prideful hearts from the nearness of God and His Holy presence in our lives in our journey through life's many harms and ills. The last thing we need is to think of God as being "out there" when He is actually "here right now and always with us."

The classical position of theism also puts a disconnection on (i) how we are to think of our responsibilities of earthcare and people care and, (ii) how God is actively with us as He sustains creation. These conditions do thereby inform us as to how God is present with us; how He is present with His holy world; and by His own existential holy presence; and through His existential Holy Spirit infilling us; all in order to caretake one another and His holy creation. God's presence makes our presence meaningful.

Thus, panentheism taken together with process theology make for powerful and complimentary teammates / companions sharing together the larger metanarrative of a deeply meaningful fellowship between Creator and Created. It really is unnecessary to think of this in any other way which might separate, or distance, this inherently divine fellowship from one another. As God is love so too God is present with us. He is never far from us but always with us in every instance of our lives guiding as He can through the mazes of a freewill creation.

38) For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 22, 2020
rev. June 24, 2020

RELATED REFERENCES

Science / Philosophy - Why Time Travel IS NOT Possible

Questions of Time: Is the Source to Time's Aarow based on Entropy or Gravitation?

How Panentheism Differs from Other Theistic Systems of God + Creation

ADDITIONAL ASTROPHYSICAL REFERENCES

(June 2020) What Happened Before the Big Bang?

(April 2019) What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Dark matter may be older than the big bang, study suggests

Dark Matter –“Emerged From an Eon Before the Big Bang”

Big Bang Inflation Theory

These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang

Solved: The mystery of the expansion of the universe

Relevancy22 Index - Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe

(cf. "Origin of Time and Space" posts)

* * * * * * * * * *

Image credit: Dark Matter, Berkeley Lab

Dark Matter –“Emerged From

an Eon Before the Big Bang”

https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/01/dark-matter-emerged-from-an-eon-before-the-big-bang-weekend-feature/

Posted on Jan 27, 2019 in Cosmology, Dark Matter, Physics, Science
[comments mine, R.E. Slater]

The Greek god of darkness was Erebus, one of the primordial deities in Greek mythology, born out of Chaos, the primeval void, foreshadowing the contemporary, emerging reality of the dark side of our universe. Enter physicist Sir Roger Penrose, and his Erebon field theory, a novel explanation of dark matter. Despite dedicated searches, no signs of a dark matter particle have turned up.

[sic, The conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Roger Penrose.[1][2][3] In CCC, the universe iterates through infinite cycles, with the future timelike infinity of each previous iteration being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next.[4] Penrose popularized this theory in his 2010 book Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. - Wikipedia]

Instead, physicists such as Penrose, hope we will be able to find some dark force, a portal into the dark world. Such a “dark photon” would be dark matter’s equivalent of a photon, the way that dark matter particles interact with one another.

“Dark photon searches are simultaneously straightforward and challenging, straightforward because the concept is general and simple enough that designing experimental searches is pretty easy, but challenging because we really have no clue where in the parameter space the dark photon could live,” says CERN Physicist James Beacham.

Sir Roger Penrose

Penrose, reported Physics World, proposes a solution that points to the existence of an aeon before the Big Bang. Correlated noise in the two LIGO gravitational-wave detectors may provide evidence that the universe is governed by conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) which assumes that the universe consists of a succession of aeons, “the boundaries of infinity,” speculates Penrose of the University of Oxford. “The Big Bang was not the origin of our universe,” he observed.

The apparent noise is actually a real signal of gravitational waves generated by the decay of hypothetical dark-matter particles predicted by CCC from a previous eon that can be seen in the cosmic microwave background – electromagnetic radiation left over from an early stage of the universe in Big Bang cosmology.

Penose argues that a significant amount of this noise could be a signal of astrophysical or cosmological origin – and specifically CCC.

Physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute, writes Hamish Johnston, editor of physicsworld.com, pointed out that some of the noise in the two LIGO detectors appears to be correlated – with a delay that corresponds to the time it takes for a gravitational wave to travel the more than 3000 kilometers between the instruments.

First proposed over a decade ago by Penrose, CCC assumes that each aeon begins with a big bang and proceeds into an unending future in which the universe expands at an accelerating rate. As this expansion becomes infinitely large, Penrose argues that it can be transformed back into the next big bang.

Penrose, Johnston writes, says that a “reasonably robust implication of CCC” is that dark matter consists of particles called erebons. As dark matter goes, erebons are extremely heavy and have masses of about 10–5 g. This is roughly the Planck mass and on a par with a grain of sand and about 22 orders of magnitude heavier than a proton.

When an erebon decays, Penrose states, it deposits all its energy into a gravitational wave frequencies well above the detection capabilities of LIGO, and would be detected and recorded as near-instantaneous impulses that could be mistaken for noise rather than a signal from the birth of the cosmos.

Erebon theory is a novel explanation of dark matter recently invented by Roger Penrose. Erebons are scalar particles of the order of a Planck mass which can only interact gravitationally. When erebons decay, they release their energy as oscillating classical gravitational waves on the order of the Planck frequency. Erebon theory is actually part of Penrose’ Conformal Cyclic Cosmology  (CCC) scheme, which is a competitor to the theory of inflation. Moreover, Penrose claims erebons may have already been detected by accident, quite analogous to the first accidental detection of the CMB.

*The Daily Galaxy, Max Goldberg, via Physics World,  Gizmodo,  Arxiv.org(PenrosePDF) and Physics Forums 

* * * * * * * * * *

Roger Penrose still looks for evidence

of universal rebirth

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/08/roger-penrose-still-looks-for-evidence.html

by Sabine Hossenfelder

August 21, 2018

Roger Penrose really should have won a Nobel Prize for something. Though I’m not sure for what. Maybe Penrose-tilings. Or Penrose diagrams. Or the Penrose process. Or the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems. Or maybe just because there are so many things named after Penrose.

And at 87 years he’s still at it. Penrose has a reputation for saying rude things about string theory, has his own interpretation of quantum mechanics, and he doesn’t like inflation, the idea that the early universe underwent a rapid phase of exponential expansion. Instead, he has his own theory called “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC).

According to Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, the universe goes through an infinite series of “aeons,” each of which starts with a phase resembling a big bang, then forming galactic structures as usual, then cooling down as stars die. In the end the only thing that’s left are evaporating black holes and thinly dispersed radiation. Penrose then conjectures a slight change to particle physics that allows him to attach the end of one aeon to the beginning of another, and everything starts anew with the next bang.

This match between one aeon’s end and another’s beginning necessitates the introduction of a new field – the “erebon” – that makes up dark matter, and that decays throughout the coming aeon. We previously met the erobons because Penrose argued their decay should create noise in gravitational wave interferometers. (Not sure what happened to that.)

If Penrose’s CCC hypothesis is correct, we should also be able to see some left-over information from the previous aeon in the cosmic microwave background around us. To that end, Penrose has previously looked for low-variance rings in the CMB, that he argued should be caused by collisions between supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. The search for that, however, turned out to be inconclusive. In a recent paper with Daniel An and Krzysztof Meissner he has now suggested to look instead for a different signal.

The new signal that Penrose et al are looking for are points in the CMB at the places where in the previous aeon supermassive black holes evaporated. He and collaborators called these “Hawking Points” in memory of the late Stephen Hawking. The idea is that when you glue together the end of the previous aeon with the beginning of ours, you squeeze together the radiation emitted by those black holes and that makes a blurry point at which the CMB temperature is slightly increased.

Penrose estimates the total number of such Hawking Points which should be in the total cosmic microwave background is about a million. The analysis in the paper, covering about 1/3 of the sky, finds tentative evidence for about 20. What’s with the rest remains somewhat unclear, presumably too weak to be observed.

They look for these features by generating fake “normal” CMBs, following standard procedure, and then trying to find Hawking Points in these simulations. They have now done about 5000 of such simulations, but none of them, they claim, has features similar to the actually observed CMB. This makes their detection highly statistically significant, with a chance of less than 1/5000 that the Hawking Points which they find in the CMB are due to random chance.

In the paper, the authors also address an issue that I am guessing was raised by someone else somewhere, which is that in CCC there shouldn’t be a CMB polarization signal like the one BICEP was looking for. This signal still hasn’t been confirmed, but Penrose et al claim pre-emptively that in CCC there should also be a polarization, and it should go with the Hawking Peaks because:

“primordial magnetic fields might arise in CCC as coming [...] from galactic clusters in the previous aeon […] and such primordial magnetic fields could certainly produce B-modes […] On the basis that such a galactic cluster ought to have contained a supermassive black hole which could well have swallowed several others, we might expect concentric rings centred on that location”

Quite a collection of mights and coulds and oughts.

Like Penrose, I am not a big fan of inflation, but I don’t find conformal cyclic cosmology well-motivated either. Penrose simply postulates that the known particles have a so-far unobserved property (so the physics becomes asymptotically conformally invariant) because he wants to get rid of all gravitational degrees of freedom. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, but I also can’t see any good reason for why that should be correct. Furthermore, I can’t figure out what happens with the initial conditions or the past hypothesis, which leaves me feeling somewhat uneasy.

But really I’m just a cranky ex-particle-physicist with an identity crisis, so I’ll leave the last words to Penrose himself:

“Of course, the theory is “crazy”, but I strongly believe (in view of observational facts that seem to be coming to light) that we have to take it seriously.”

* * * * * * * * * *

Penrose Erebons are unstable micro Higgs black holes

in-and outside the LIGO beam splitters.

https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2017/07/penrose-erebons-are-unstable-micro.html

by Leo Vuyk

July 25, 2017

The LIGO problem

So I assume that the correlated LIGO noise problem is solved by the decay with gravitational effects of small Erebons also called EDMBHs.

EDMBHs could be created by the continuous EM Lightning interference process on earth/planets and the solar flares (gamma rays), but even inside the beam splitters of the LIGO apparatuses, which seems to be a logic proposal for the bulk of UN-correlated noise between the two LIGO locations.

As a consequence, these beam splitters should show short lifetimes, by the little defects inside the glass burnt away by decaying Higgs knots. of 126-375-750 GeV.

However there is more discussion on "correlated noise" between the Hanford and Livingstone detector, which can not be related to beamsplitter damage by decaying Higgs knots, see:

Penrose: Correlated “noise” in LIGO gravitational wave signals: an implication of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.04169.pdf

According to Quantum FFF Theory, around stars (our sun) and even planets a continuous stream of magnetic interference based unstable Dark matter black hole Higgs particles ( or Erebons, masses: 126-750 GeV  and more)  are created which direct decay accompanied by small gravitational "noise"?

Future research however should concentrate on time shifts between the correlated LIGO events, which seem to show "nearly the same time shifts for the three GW events reported to date." . indicating a possible correlation with the main black hole merger location.

see:  On the time lags of the LIGO signals - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04191.pdf

"It is striking that these correlations are maximized by applying nearly the same time shifts as found for the GW events themselves — for all three GW events reported to date."

What Is Intersectional Theology? Let's Find Out.

Intersectional Theology cowritten by

Grace Ji-Sun Kim & Susan M. Shaw (Fortress Press)

Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide

Amazon Link

Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide offers a pathway for reflective Christians, pastors, and theologians to apply the concepts and questions of intersectionality to theology. Intersectionality is a tool for analysis, developed primarily by black feminists, to examine the causes and consequences of converging social identities (gender, race, class, sexual identity, age, ability, nation, religion) within interlocking systems of power and privilege (sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, nativism) and to foster engaged, activist work toward social justice. Applied to theology, intersectionality demands attention to the Christian thinker's own identities and location within systems of power and the value of deep consideration of complementary, competing, and even conflicting points of view that arise from the experiences and understandings of diverse people.

This book provides an overview of theories of intersectionality and suggests questions of intersectionality for theology, challenging readers to imagine an intersectional church, a practice of welcome and inclusion rooted in an ecclesiology that embraces difference and centers social justice.

Rather than providing a developed systematic theology, Intersectional Theology encourages readers to apply its method in their own theologizing to expand their own thinking and add their experiences to a larger theology that moves us all toward the kin-dom of God.

About the Authors

Grace Ji-Sun Kim is associate professor of theology at Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana. She is the author or editor of fifteen books, including Mother Daughter Speak (2017) and Embracing the Other (2015). She is a coeditor for the series Asian Christianity in the Diaspora. Kim is an ordained PC (USA) minister and blogs for the Huffington Post, Feminist Studies in Religion, Sojourners, TIME, and The Nation.

Susan M. Shaw is professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Oregon State University. She is author of Reflective Faith: A Theological Toolbox for Women (2014) and God Speaks to Us, Too: Southern Baptist Women on Church, Home, and Society (2008) and general editor of the four-volume Women's Lives Around the World: A Global Encyclopedia (2018).

Editorial Reviews

"Given the unprecedented religiopolitical realities of the early 21st century, this book needs to be at the top of every pastor's 'must read' list. In ways both academic and acutely personal, Susan Shaw and Grace Ji-Sun Kim invite us to the brave work of listening across lines of gender, race, class, nation, sexual identity, ability, age, and other forms of social difference in which we discover not only more of God and our neighbors, but also the still untransformed parts of ourselves." --Julie Pennington-Russel, First Baptist Church of the City of Washington, DC

"In this book, Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan M. Shaw offer a remarkable resource to the churches. The authors lift up the concept of intersectionality as a theological prism through which our lives, collectively and individually, can be more honestly assessed and appreciated. The book is an open window into new depths and breadths of what is involved in thinking truthfully about God and ourselves as radically relational beings who can find ourselves, and one another, only at the intersections of our many, varied, and evolving identities. Intersectional Theology is a brief, readable introduction to Christian theology at its most truthful best." --Carter Heyward, emerita, Espiscopal Divinity School and author of She Flies On: A White Southern Christian Debutante Wakes Up

"Kim and Shaw invite us to adopt a theology that embraces differences, disruptions, and the margins by listening beyond our comfort zone and into deeper layers of our faith so that we leave no one out. A gracious invitation that we would do well to take up in troubling times such as these. This book gives us the guide to do so." --Emilie Townes, Vanderbilt University Divinity School

"Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan M. Shaw offer a crisp, concise, and well-researched introduction to Christian intersectional theology that will take its place as a standard text for this new and increasingly important approach not just to Christian theology but to Christian practice in the world. Intersectional Theology is a primer on theological method that will help to solidify the increasingly nonnegotiable claims, at least in progressive circles, that theology begins in human experience, that human experience involves navigating one's multiple social identities within lived contexts of simultaneous oppression and power, and that the goal of Christian theology and practice should be justice and liberation for all, with no one left out. Highly recommended." --David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and director, Center for Theology & Public Life, Mercer University

Grace Ji-Sun Kim

What does the Mustard Seed have to do with Faith?

Matthew 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32

Homebrewed Christianity

Grace Ji-Sun Kim & Susan Shaw

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Intersectional Theology

An Introductory Guide

https://readingreligion.org/books/intersectional-theology

by Grace Ji-Sun Kim, Susan M. Shaw

Review

“Intersectional theology recognizes that each of us exists in differing relationships to power and hierarchy based on gender, race, class, nation, sexual identity, ability, age, and other forms of social difference” (41). In Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide, authors Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan M. Shaw offer a concise and instructive guide on how to pay attention to social location and context in theological reflection that seeks to foster greater social justice. The authors apply Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionalityas analytical matrix to do “theology by questioning assumptions that are rooted in the dominant culture, purposefully pursuing justice, embracing the complexities and contradictions, and refusing to do theology as usual” (16).

Collaboratively written, this book performs what it sets out to teach, impressively weaving together multiple voices and perspectives, and presenting rich and diverse sources accessibly. 

Beginning with an introduction to intersectionality, Kim and Shaw explore social location through their own autobiography, highlighting the importance and difference it makes to develop a critical (self)understanding of one’s own intersectional identity in the process of theologizing. Several concepts are explored and interpreted constructively to demonstrate intersectional theological thinking at work—for example, the multiplicity of God, baptism, suffering, biblical interpretation, as well as a chapter on ecclesiology. The authors walk the readers through the different steps and stages of intersectional theological reflection, illustrating with examples and interjecting voices from diverse locations. Some of the deliberation moments elaborated on are, for example, the importance of understanding specific contexts and their histories; how to expand towards both/and thinking; employing power analysis to ideas and their implications; moving from center to margins when emphasizing critical reflection; and maintaining a self-critical stance of one’s own positionality within structure of domination. One strength of this work is the multitude of voices featured, from black liberation theology, womanist and ecowomanist perspectives, queer proposals, Asian conceptualizations, and more. 

In Intersectional Theology, readers will find guidance on how to enter an indeterminate process aimed at destabilizing universal truth claims, and holding multiple and competing perspectives to further justice in the praxis of communities. Acknowledging differences, and even tensions, between theologies does not have to be an obstacle, it can be an invitation. Kim and Shaw weave diverse voices together, not in unison, but in rich dialogue that shows how to appreciatively learn across differences, and tap into theological potential in moments where perspectives diverge. Intersectional Theology supports the reader in moving away from theologies that seek to be all-encompassing, and towards practicing continuous theological conversations that seek to hold convictions lightly, while insisting on growing the circle of engaged voices. 

This book is a very welcome addition to introductory theology guides. Though short, it is expansive in its incorporation of multiple voices and dynamic in its modelling of a mode of doing theology that is applicable to communal needs and practices. Intersectional Theology lends itself well for communal reading, and conversation in classrooms and communal settings where there is a desire to create liberative spaces and attend to the urgent demand to address the multiple oppressions impacting our lives. A glossary for some terms of analysis is provided, though perhaps it could be expanded when used for study with groups less familiar with theological jargon. The discussion questions after each chapter allow for deepening the personal reflection and facilitating conversations that maintain social justice commitments at the center of theological reflection.

About the Reviewer(s)

Heike Peckruhn is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Daemen College.

Date of Review: June 21, 2019

About the Author(s)/Editor(s)/Translator(s)

Grace Ji-Sun Kim is a Korean American theologian. Her many books include Mother Daughter Speak (2017), Embracing the Other (2015), and Colonialism, Han, and the Transformative Spirit (2013). Kim is Associate Professor of Theology at Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana. She is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church.

Susan M. Shaw is Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Oregon State University. She is author of Reflective Faith: A Theological Toolbox for Women (2014) and God Speaks to Us, Too: Southern Baptist Women on Church, Home, and Society (2008) and general editor of the four-volume Women's Lives Around the World: A Global Encyclopedia (2018).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Intersectionality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An intersectional analysis considers all the factors that apply to an individual in combination, rather than considering each factor in isolation.

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, ability etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Intersectionality identifies injustices that are felt by people due to a combination of factors. For example, a black woman might face discrimination from a business that is not distinctly due to her race (because the business does not discriminate against black men) nor distinctly due to her gender (because the business does not discriminate against white women), but due to a unique combination of the two factors.

Intersectionality broadens the lens of the first waves of feminism, which largely focused on the experiences of women who were both white and middle-class, to include the different experiences of women of color, women who are poor, immigrant women, and other groups. Intersectional feminism aims to separate itself from white feminism by acknowledging women's different experiences and identities.

Intersectionality is a qualitative analytic framework developed in the late 20th century that identifies how interlocking systems of power affect those who are most marginalized in society and takes these relationships into account when working to promote social and political equity. Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each oppressive factor in isolation, as if the discrimination against black women could be explained away as only a simple sum of the discrimination against black men and the discrimination against white women. Intersectionality engages in similar themes as triple oppression, which is the oppression associated with being a poor woman of color.

Intersectionality has been critiqued as being inherently ambiguous. The ambiguity of this theory means that it can be perceived as unorganized and lacking a clear set of defining goals; this arguably means that intersectionality will be unlikely to achieve equality due to its unfocused agenda. Without a clear focus, it is difficult for a movement to create change because having such a broad theory makes it harder for people to fully understand its goals. As it is based in standpoint theory, critics say the focus on subjective experiences can lead to contradictions and the inability to identify common causes of oppression.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Woman standing in library room | Photo by Lucas Souza on Pexels.com

WOMEN THEOLOGIANS YOU SHOULD

BE READING RIGHT NOW: 2019 EDITION

https://dailytheology.org/2019/03/09/women-theologians-you-should-be-reading-right-now-2019-edition/

March 9, 2019 · by Christine E. McCarthy · in Theology and Culture

On this International Women’s Day, a 2019 update to last year’s primer on new and notable works from women theologians and religious historians. Add them to your personal libraries and/or get your universities to buy them for theirs. All links go directly to the publisher’s websites.

• Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2019.

• The Catholic Women Speak Network, Visions and Vocations. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2018.

• M. Shawn Copeland, Knowing Christ Crucified: The Witness of African American Religious Experience. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018.

• Kelly Brown Douglas, Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015.

• Teresia Mbari Hinga, African, Christian, Feminist: The Enduring Search for What Matters. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2017.

• Linda Hogan, Keeping Faith with Human Rights. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2015.

• Mary Jo Iozzio and Patricia Beattie Jung, eds., Sex and Gender: Christian Ethical Reflections. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2017.

• Cathleen Kaveny, A Culture of Engagement: Law, Religion, and Morality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2016.

• Erin Kidd and Jakob Karl Rinderknecht, eds., Putting God on the Map: Theology and Conceptual Mapping. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.

• Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan M. Shaw, Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018.

• Kathryn T. Long, God in the Rainforest: A Tale of Martyrdom and Redemption in Amazonian Ecuador. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

• Staughton Lynd and Alice Lynd, eds., Nonviolence in America: A Documentary History, 3rd ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018.

• M. Therese Lysaught and Michael McCarthy, eds., Catholic Bioethics and Social Justice: The Praxis of U.S. Health Care in a Globalized World. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2018.

• Elizabeth McAnally, Loving Water Across Religions: Contributions to an Integral Water Ethic. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018.

• Catherine R. Osborne, American Catholics and the Church of Tomorrow: Building Churches for the Future, 1925-1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.

• Julie Hanlon Rubio, Hope for Common Ground: Mediating the Personal and the Political in a Divided Church. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2016.

• Christiana Zenner, Just Water: Theology, Ethics, and Fresh Water Crises, revised edition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018.

Forthcoming

• Karen Bray, Grave Attending: A Political Theology for the Unredeemed. New York: Fordham University Press, 2019.

• Robyn Henderson-Espinoza, Activist Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2019. (An early version of this list failed to indicate that Dr. Henderson-Espinoza identifies as a non-binary transgender Latinx, not as female or woman. We are very sorry for the error and remain pleased to include their forthcoming work in this list which lifts up underrepresented theologies and histories as well as the work of underrepresented scholars. Updated 16 March 2019.)

• Jennifer Herdt, Forming Humanity: Redeeming the German Bildung Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019.

Biography

• Charles Marsh. Shea Tuttle, Daniel P. Rhodes, eds., Can I Get a Witness?: 13 Peacemakers, Community-Builders, and Agitators for Faith and Justice. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019.

How to Read the Bible & It's Violence (eg, "Reading the Heart of Jesus")

ASKING THE HARD QUESTIONS

WHEN READING THE BIBLE

Question #1...

How does Old Testament God of "Thou shalt not kill" come to be conscripted in the OT narrative "passages of violence" to justify the killing of women, children, and men in its war chronicles?

Hmmmm...

Perhaps we should ask this differently of God and the Bible...

Question #2...

How is it then that Jesus in the New Testament of God's "revelation" says to "Love one another?" After 2000 years of church history we know Jesus is both God incarnate (in the flesh) and the Son of God carrying out the Spirit of God's message to love. That is, Jesus is both God and man fully, indivisibly, completely. Simply, God is love. Jesus shows us that. 

So let's examine these statements...

• Is the OT God different from the NT God? (We call this kind of personality "dipolar" to oneself; thus, is God dipolar? More Sphinx-like or Zeus-like? Fickled in all His ways?).

• Perhaps God's people acted according to what they thought was just and right in their day? (Most likely, though I wouldn't call it "God ordained").

• Perhaps an evolutionary form of religion and social justice was still in its raw stages to be learned as an ancient civilization? (More than likely. Justice, freedom, and equality is still being worked out today in our postmodern societies as to what they mean).

• Are the Ideals of God's vision something which comes first ahead of the implementation of God's vision? (Yes. Ideals, or "calls to justice," cannot happen in a vacuum). 

• Why do literalists take the OT so, well, literally? (Likely because they haven't asked the questions of consistency of God's love apart from subjective and violent means and thinking).

• What should a "Law and Order" society actually mean in its execution? (Most probably it means "majority justice" by any means possible to meet majority ideals which really isn't justice so much as it is mob rule).

• Is the term "Justice" another one of those terms which can mean many things to many people except as it should mean? (Most probably; semantics being what they are can mean many things while being quite deceptive by the purveyors of falsehoods and lies).

• So who is God? Does God's justice mean "one thing then another" or did we hear God wrong? (Usually we hear what we want to hear. This is the testimony of Scripture as seen repeatedly throughout Scripture).

• Does the Scripture's testimony deny God's love? (No. It shows to us our unwillingness to love thoroughly. To allow racism, bigotry, tribal zeal to dominate in us over truly loving actions.

• How then should we read the Bible? (We shouldn't read Scripture to copy the actions of unloving or unjust societies but to learn from their failings... which must include the many failings of God's blinded and unrepentant people Israel. This also explains Jesus' anger with those claiming God's name though God "knew them not").

• So what's more true? God's love or our ability to mangle God's love into something it wasnt meant to be? (Yeah, both. The answer is quite self-evident when reading both the Old and New Testaments' narratives of how God's "people" responded to God's commands to love and be just and merciful... don't you think?).

• But I'm told that God told His people to do all these unloving things in the Bible! (The burden is always on us to discern another's words or actions... including our acclaimed "God appointed" preachers and leaders).

• So if God loves, if He loves truth and justice, seeks mercy and compassion, and wants forgiveness, what does this mean? (Quite simply, to do all in love; avoid mistaking love for sinful injustice; to learn humility; and to forgive those whom we've learned to hate).

R.E. Slater

June 18, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * *

Amazon Link

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes

Critical Thoughts & Notes

Article Link

E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes:

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. InterVarsity Press, 2012.

[Logos Edition.] (225 pages)

CRITICAL THOUGHTS

This is an excellent introduction for those unfamiliar with the basics of interpretation. I appreciate the authors’ study, experience, and their personal admission of their own biases/lenses by which they read and even write this book. This is a really helpful and accessible guide to entering into another world by exposing one’s own cultural context, and those who embrace this new way of thinking will have a far greater depth of understanding of the world, in addition to the Bible.

There were a few places that I felt they misstepped, and even contradicted their own theses. Those notes are highlighted below in bold and blue.

NOTES

Introduction: Coming to Terms with Our Cultural Blinders

In whatever place and whatever age people read the Bible, we instinctively draw from our own cultural context to make sense of what we’re reading. (11)

…all Bible reading is necessarily contextual. (12)

Another way to say this is that the most powerful cultural values are those that go without being said. It is very hard to know what goes without being said in another culture. But often we are not even aware of what goes without being said in our own culture. This is why misunderstanding and misinterpretation happen. When a passage of Scripture appears to leave out a piece of the puzzle because something went without being said, we instinctively fill in the gap with a piece from our own culture—usually a piece that goes without being said. When we miss what went without being said for them and substitute what goes without being said for us, we are at risk of misreading Scripture. (12-13)

[via: This reminds me of the axiom, “Those who do not study philosophy are the most bound by their philosophies.”]

Our goal is to raise this question: if our cultural context and assumptions can cause us to overlook a famine, what else do we fail to notice? (15)

We hope that Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes will offer a positive corrective by suggesting that there is a discernible pattern by which Western readers read—and even misread—Scripture. Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions and how they influence our reading of Scripture are important first steps beyond the paralysis of self-doubt and toward a faithful reading and application of the Bible. (16)

In short, while this is a book about biblical interpretation, our primary goal is to help us learn to read ourselves. (16)

If our cultural blind spots keep us from reading the Bible correctly, then they can also keep us from applying the Bible correctly. If we want to follow Jesus faithfully and help others do the same, we need to do all we can to allow the Scriptures to speak to us on their own terms. (17)

Richards, E. R., & O’Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (p. 17). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

PART ONE: Above the Surface

Mores are the social conventions that dictate which behaviors are considered appropriate or inappropriate. (26)

1. Serving Two Masters: Mores

Our hierarchy of what behaviors are better or worse than others is passed down to us culturally and unconsciously. (34)

If Thomas (and much of early Christian tradition) overemphasized the significance of celibacy, it should likewise be clear from this passage that it is possible to overemphasize the priority of marriage. (38-39)

John Stott, quoted above, and Catholic writer and minister Henri Nouwen are just two examples of celibate Christian singles who dedicated their lives to the service of Christ and his kingdom. (40)

[via: Nouwen was gay, a note for additional context.]

In Timothy’s church in Ephesus, some women were dressing inappropriately. Again we might assume Paul is concerned about sexual modesty. Contextually, however, a case can be made that Paul meant, “Women should dress economically modestly” so as not to flaunt their wealth. The remainder of 1 Timothy 2:9 reads, “with decency and propriety … not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” Paul mentions a triad of trouble (anger, quarreling/disputes and economics) for women here in 1 Timothy 2:8–9. (43)

Where two mores—sex and money—collide, we see which is more important to us. And when we project our own cultural mores onto the original audience of the Bible, we may fail to apply the Bible correctly in our own lives. It is certainly important for men and women alike to arrive for worship in attire that is sexually modest. But we seem to have no trouble turning sacred spaces into Christian country clubs. We see no dangers in the human tendency to assert our status in the way we dress. (43-44)

Start paying attention to your instinctive interpretations as you read biblical passages that have to do with values, in order to uncover which parts may be connected with cultural mores. To do that, take the time to complete these sentences: (1) Clearly, this passage is saying (or not saying) —— is right/wrong. (2) Is (that issue) really what is condemned? (3) Am I adding/removing some elements? The way you answer these questions can help you uncover what mores you take for granted. (48)

Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and especially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic 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 cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. – C. S. Lewis, “Introduction,” in Athanasius, On the Incarnation (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), pp. 4–5.

2. The Bible in Color: Race and Ethnicity

The Cushites were not demeaned as a slave race in the ancient world; they were respected as highly skilled soldiers. It is more likely that Miriam and Aaron thought Moses was being presumptuous by marrying above himself. That makes sense of the tone of the passage. “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?” they whined. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” (Num 12:2). In other words: Moses is not the only prophet here. Who does he think he is? (61)

It is possible, though, that the divisions among the churches in Corinth were not theological. We may be failing to note ethnic markers that Paul sprinkled all over the text. Apollos was noted as an Alexandrian (Egyptian) Jew (Acts 18:24). They had their own reputation. Paul notes that Peter is called by his Aramaic name, Cephas, suggesting the group that followed him spoke Aramaic and were thus Palestinian Jews. Paul’s church had Diaspora Jews but also many ethnic Corinthians, who were quite proud of their status as residents of a Roman colony and who enjoyed using Latin. This may explain why Paul doesn’t address any theological differences. There weren’t any. The problem was ethnic division: Aramaic-speaking Jews, Greek-speaking Jews, Romans and Alexandrians. (66)

3. Just Words? Language

But language is much more than words. As we have argued in these first chapters, the most powerful cultural values are those that go without being said. (70)

While it is easy to tell that you are hearing or reading a foreign language, what is not at all obvious is how our language, and our understanding of how language works, affects everything else we think and do. Few of us ever reflect on the mechanics of our native languages or the values and patterns that lie beneath them. These things reside further down the iceberg, under the water. So we are unlikely to recognize what it is about our own language that goes without being said. (71-72)

It is important for us to remember that when we read the Bible in our native language, mostly what has been changed is the words. Behind the words, now in a language we understand, remains that complex structure of cultural values, 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 Bible by reading foreign assumptions into it. Like Procrustes of Greek mythology, who shortened or stretched his guests to fit his bed, our unconscious assumptions about language encourage us to reshape the biblical narrative to fit our framework. (72)

To state our first point simply: Western readers typically believe that if something is important, then we’ll have a word for it. And the more important something is in our culture, the more likely we are to develop specialized language to describe it. (72)

Our cultural value for privacy is strictly a Western value; it is not derived from the Bible. This is not to say that privacy is wrong, just that it is a neutral value. But when we impose it on the text, we can come away with unbiblical interpretations.| What it says is not always what it means. (79)

English is a subject-verb language; it is actor- and action-oriented. We prefer sentences with a clear subject and a clear predicate, and we like it best when the verb is in the active voice. (80)

The whole is more than the sum of the parts. The meanings of words change when you combine them. We know this is true on a basic level. We can define the words up and with. So we can figure out a sentence like, “Put this 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 English being so complex is a mystery to us! We instinctively adjust to these flexible meanings in our own language. But when we approach other languages, we tend to look for the literal, dictionary definitions of the words in question. (81)

…when it comes to formal dialogue, or talking about things we consider important (God, for example), English speakers tend to privilege clear, propositional language over colorful, metaphorical language. That concrete, propositional language is better than ambiguous, metaphorical language is just one more thing about language that goes without being said in the West. | So when it comes to communicating the truth, Westerners drift more toward propositions than to artistic expression. Because we are somewhat uncomfortable with the ambiguity of metaphors, we tend to distill propositions out of them. (84)

Once you start noticing the connections between metaphors, you start to see them everywhere. (87)

Classical liberal theologians of the nineteenth century argued that Jesus never claimed to be divine. They missed the crucial point that Jesus made important truth claims—including being God incarnate—through his use of metaphorical language. (87)

There is no real substitute for becoming familiar with the Bible’s original languages. But that doesn’t mean you can’t become sensitive to the difference language makes in the meantime. (88)

PART TWO: Just Below the Surface

4. Captain of My Soul: Individualism and Collectivism

The Japanese never live their lives as individuals. We European missionaries were not aware of that fact. Suppose we have a single Japanese here. We try to convert him. But there was never a single individual we could call “him” in Japan. He has a village behind him. A family. And more. There are also his dead parents and ancestors. That village, that family, those parents and ancestors are bound to him tightly, as though they were living beings. That is why he is not an isolated human being. 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 formidable obstacle he encountered. The Japanese said, “I believe the Christian teachings are good. But I would be betraying my ancestors if I went to a Paradise where they cannot dwell. – Shusaku Endo, The Samurai, trans. Van C. Gessel (New York: New Directions Books, 1982), pp. 164–165.

Roman citizens were required to have a given name (praenomen), a clan/ancestral name (nomen) and a family/tribe name (cognomen). (99)

It is difficult to present the values of a collectivist culture in a positive light to Western hearers. We as your authors often struggle to explain a collectivist worldview without sounding critical. In Western cultures, individual choice is to be protected at all cost. Communities that do not protect 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, an inability to “leave the nest” or “cut the cord.” Of course, it is equally difficult to put a positive spin on individualist virtues, such as self-reliance, in a collectivist culture. Non-Westerners often consider collectivism one of their finest 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.” (99-100)

Six of Paul’s letters indicate they were written with a coauthor, yet we traditionally ignore the other authors (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1–2; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). (102)

Even if we notice the coauthor in the letter’s greeting at all (Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians and Timothy in 2 Corinthians, for example), we are likely to assume that they were passive participants. Surely Paul is the creative and theological genius behind the letters, we think: the single, solitary, individual source of the letter’s content. Doubtful. It is more likely that the letters were composed with the coauthors actively contributing. (102)

But we can miss this, because a flaw in the English language works together with our love for individualism. In English, you can be both singular and plural. That is, we can’t differentiate formally between you (singular) and you (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 come up with colloquial terms to differentiate between the two: y’all, you’ns, you guys, you lot, youse (Scotland), yous (Liverpool) and even yous guys (parts of New York). Biblical Greek could differentiate between you singular and you plural. But we miss this in our English translations. (108)

Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else. – Jessie Kunhardt, “Anne Rice: I Quit Being a Christian,” The Huffington Post, accessed May 15, 2012.

Associating with Christ but not his church is a distinction Jesus would never have made. (110)

[via: I have a difficult time with the Anne Rice example and metaphor. First, most critics–including Richards and O’Brien–gloss over the rationale for Rice’s statement, being more about beliefs, than about the “community” of Christians. Second, “church” also means something quite different today than in Jesus’s day. So, how can we know what Jesus would or would not have supported given the institutionalization of our “contemporary ekklesia?” Did he not also rail against the Pharisees even though he was most in line with that sect?!]

Additionally, make a conscious effort to read the you in biblical texts as plural. Don’t worry if you get it wrong. You’re trying to correct a bad habit, and it’s okay to overcorrect at first. (110)

[via: I’m not sure what I think about this advice. Is “overcorrection” the right response to “misreading” when it comes to hermeneutics. A part of me feels the need to be more accurate and studied.]

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

…the one 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. You may recognize this storyline; J. R. R. Tolkien used it in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. 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 iron nature that he would stand fast in justice” if he was free to act without anyone’s knowledge, Plato wrote; “No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market.” (Plato, Resp 2. See also H. G. Wells, The Invisible Man (1897), where the invisible man (Griffin) is unable to resist stealing.) (114-115)

This inner voice is strengthened by the concomitant Western habit of dichotomizing everything, usually into good or bad. In fact, it is more basic than that. We tend to view everything as an “either-or.” Aristotle’s use of syllogisms and, ultimately, the dualism of Descartes have conditioned Westerners to polarize choices into two opposing categories. [Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offers helpful perspective here; see The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why (New York: Free Press, 2003).] (Many readers will 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 for harmony rather than distinction, stressing more a both-and perspective rather than an either-or. (115)

In a shame culture, it is not the guilty conscience but the community that punishes the offender by shaming him. (117)

To summarize, in an innocence/guilt culture (which includes most Western societies), the laws of society, the rules of the church, local mores and the code of the home are all internalized in the person. The goal is that when a person breaks one of these, her or his conscience will be pricked. In fact, it is hoped that the conscience will discourage the person from breaking the rule in the first place. The battle is fought on the inside. In an honor/shame society, 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, your church, your village, your tribe or even your faith. The determining force is the expectations of your significant others (primarily your family). Their expectations don’t override morals or right/wrong; they actually are the ethical standards. In these cultures, you are shamed when you disappoint those whose expectations matter. “You did wrong”—not by breaking a law and having 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 from the inner conscience of the perpetrator but from the external response of his or her group. One’s actions are good or bad depending upon how the community interprets them. (118-119)

We typically assume that David was aware of his sin but stubbornly refused to repent. Then, when Nathan confronts David—or, in a sense, tricks him—David’s conscience is pricked, he gives in to his inner conviction and he publicly repents. It is far more likely that David had not given the matter a moment’s thought. (120-121)

God worked through the honor/shame system, but we would err if we implied this was merely a system. God himself is concerned about honor/shame even if we Westerners are not. (127)

Moses doesn’t appeal to God’s sense of justice (“it wouldn’t be right”) but to his sense of honor (“you will be shamed”): “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and 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 servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self” (Ex 32:12–13). (128)

[via: What is the distinction here, if any, between shame and/or reputation?]

Although Plato predates the New Testament, his influence had not yet shaped Palestinian culture. It was still an honor/shame society. (128)

[via: Stipulated, but not substantiated. Hellenism’s spread was pretty vast and vigorous.]

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 a limited good. Everyone was scrambling for more. Jesus’ opponents understood this well. (129)

[via: Honor/shame as a zero sum game. Is this accurate?]

In Ephesians 4:1, the apostle calls his listeners to “live a life worthy of the calling you have received” (see also 2 Thess 1:11). The word worthy should alert us that honor/shame language is being used. (132)

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 merely an inner wrong—the private business between me and God, to be worked out on judgment day. (132)

Ancients didn’t understand the world like we do, but they were good observers. When one person in a group caught a cold, often others in the group 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 follows biology (viruses) and the other sociology (one bad apple spoils the whole bunch). Nonetheless, contamination happens. (133)

In the meantime, pay attention to where stories take place in Scripture. If an event or conversation is taking place publicly, there’s a good chance that honor/shame is at stake, such as in the story of Ruth and Boaz. As we mentioned above, the key difference between the questions Nicodemus and Jesus’ disciples asked and those asked by Jerusalem’s Jewish leaders was context: Nicodemus and the disciples questioned Jesus privately (see, for example, Jn 3:2 and Mt 17:19). The Jewish leaders questioned him publicly. You might object that the primary difference was motive: Nicodemus and the disciples were asking sincere questions, while the religious leaders were trying to trap Jesus. That’s true. But context indicates motive. Private questions were not honor challenges. Public questions were. (135)

6. Sand Through the Hourglass: Time

…time is one of the ways cultures are most different. In the West, time is a hot commodity (137)

In the non-Western world, by contrast, the correct time is often connected to a condition or situation. Some call this an “event” orientation, in which, as Duane Elmer writes, “Each event is as long or as short as it needs to 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 is the primary issue, not the quantity of minutes or hours.” Relationships trump schedules, so things begin when everyone who needs to be there has arrived. (140)

the biblical authors, like many non-Westerners, were less concerned with clock or calendar time (chronos) and more concerned with the appropriateness and fittingness of events (kairos). You might say they were more concerned with timing than with time. (145)

Western stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. The sequence (chronos) is important. When you tell a story 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 around the event until it coalesces; therefore, orderliness (but not the chronological sequence) is important. (147)

Western readers have a tendency to import our concern for chronology into Scripture. Unfortunately for us, events in the Bible are not necessarily presented in historical, chronological order. (148)

Since Luke uses references to the temple as an organizing theme in his Gospel, for example, the “correct” sequence for Luke is the one that ends 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 a mountain. (This sometimes requires referring to a hill as a mountain, as in the Sermon on the Mount.) For Matthew, the “correct” sequence is the one that has the crescendo event on a mountain, where Jesus is taken to a high mountain to view the world’s kingdoms. Either scenario is likely to bother Western 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 chronological sequence simply didn’t matter to them in the same way it matters to us.| Please note, however, that the biblical authors were intentional about the sequence in which they presented events, even if they weren’t preoccupied with historical, chronological order. We Westerners can focus so much on the time (chronology) that we miss the timing (the meaning of the sequence) in a biblical passage. (148-149)

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’s home, 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). Mark connects these stories in a number of ways. Both the girl and woman are called “daughter.” The girl is twelve years old; the woman has been bleeding for 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 our purposes here, Mark’s sequencing of the events connects them. He wants us to interpret them together, compare and contrast the responses to Jesus. We may be inclined to think the story of the bleeding woman is told in the middle of the Jairus story merely because that’s when it happened. In this case, our love for chronology can lead us to miss the kairos of Mark’s point. (149-150)

PART THREE: Deep Below the Surface

7. First Things First: Rules and Relationships

Because Western readers tend to understand relationships in terms of rules and laws, we have a tendency also to understand ancient relationships, including those we read about in Scripture, in terms of rules. (160-161)

Rules define relationships. … In contrast to the modern Western worldview, in ancient worldviews it went without saying that relationships (not rules) define reality. (161)

modern Western exegetes often define patronage—a key element of first-century Roman society—using forensic language. We describe the relationship between a patron and a client as contractual, like a business, rather than as familial. (162)

institutions of society, like family and patronage, went without being said. Everyone knew what the proper behavior was. A good patron solved the problems of his or her clients: assisting with trade guilds, business disputes, refinancing loans and easing tensions with city elders. Ordinary folks like Marcus had neither the clout nor the social graces to negotiate such endeavors. The patron did “favors” for his clients who then fell under his circle of influence and protection. In return, the client was expected to be loyal (faithful) and was sometimes asked to do things for the patron. (163-164)

Patronage had its own vocabulary. Words we usually consider particularly Christian terms—grace and faith—were common parlance before Paul commandeered them. The undeserved gifts of assistance the patron offered were commonly called charis (“grace” and “gift”). The loyalty the client offered the patron in response was called pistis (“faith” and “faithfulness”). Roman philosophers noted that when one received a god’s favor (charis), one should respond with love, joy and hope. When Paul sought to explain the Christian’s new relationship with God, then, one of the ways he did so was in terms of the ancient system of patronage—something everyone understood. In other words, it went without being said that relationship is the premier and determinative aspect of charis, grace. (166)

In the ancient world, rules were not expected to apply 100 percent of the time. Israel did not keep the rules and God complained about it, but we often gloss over the reality that the rules had been broken for centuries. The covenant, however, was broken only when it became clear that the relationship was over (e.g., Hos 1:9). The end came when the relationship, not the rules, was broken. (166)

The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the 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 from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. (169)

The trick is that our definitions of natural and supernatural are ever changing. We humans set the line between natural and supernatural. Natural indicates “things we understand.” Supernatural things are things we don’t (yet) understand. Since human knowledge is growing, the line keeps moving. (170-171)

Putting aside the question of whether or not God actually uses lightning to smite people, our point is this: now that we understand the physics of lightning, Westerners remove it from God’s hands. Thunder cannot answer Western prayers. Lightning does not smite Western sinners. Once we understand a rule of the universe, we cut God out of any relationship to it. (171)

We want to be very clear here: your authors are not opposed to scientific inquiry or discovery. We like science. We don’t believe sincere Christian faith and a scientific understanding of the universe are fundamentally incompatible. We do, however, want to caution against naturalism. Naturalism assumes the natural world and its laws (as opposed to supernatural laws) can fully explain the universe. In naturalism, the supernatural—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 that once we understand the rules that govern the world, we have no need for a relationship with its Creator. And naturalism, for most Westerners, goes without being said. (171)

[via: This is going to be problematic, for as Sean Carroll persuasively argues, science will conclude naturalism.]

Our point is not that there is anything faithless about taking medicine. Our point is that at an unconscious level, our expectation that the universe operates according to natural laws excludes the possibility from our minds that God might intervene in our daily affairs. (172)

…does relationship ever trump theology? Such a question could convene a heresy trial in many denominations. But Jesus prayed that his followers would “be one” (Jn 17:11). Does this mean that we must somehow “correct” the theology of all other believers so that, as a result, we can “be one”? (173)

…we have to learn to identify when the Bible is prioritizing relationship instead of rules or laws. | One way to do this is to pay attention to the motivation or rationale a biblical writer offers for a commandment. (174)

8. Getting Right Wrong: Virtue and Vice

We are profoundly influenced by our culture to recognize certain behaviors as virtues and other behaviors as vices. (178)

Can you imagine a Jesus who doesn’t have all his teeth? (179)

Weight control and oral hygiene are Western virtues, not ancient ones—nor, arguably, biblical ones. Nevertheless, in a picture or movie, we need a slender, fit Jesus with a full set of pearly white teeth (flowing hair and blue eyes are a nice touch, too). Virtues and vices, though, are issues far more significant than cosmetic dentistry. While we might grudgingly concede a tooth or two, we are confident Jesus conformed to the rest of our virtues. (179)

…five Western virtues that are either nonbiblical (that do not have support from the Scriptures) or anti-biblical (that directly contradict the teaching of the Scriptures). (183)

• Self-sufficiency
• Fighting for freedom
• Pax Americana
• Leadership
• Tolerance

Self-sufficiency, freedom, “might makes right,” leadership and tolerance are all virtues we will likely teach to the next generation, whether consciously or unconsciously. It should be clear by now that not all our Western virtues come from the Bible, even if we insist that the Bible is our authority for moral conduct. (186-187)

Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashed away in secret places. For (they say), “what’s to come is uncertain, we may face unexpected needs.” Therefore it is equally uncertain whether you will have any use for your buried gold; it is not uncertain, however, what shall be the penalty of inveterate inhumanity. For when you failed, with your thousand notions, wholly to expend your wealth, you then concealed it in the earth. A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with other metals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, it disappears again beneath the ground. From this, I perceive, it happens to you that in burying your money you bury also your heart. “For where your treasure is,” it is said, “there will your heart be also” (Mt 6:21). This is why the commandments cause sorrow; because they have nothing to do with useless spending sprees, they make life unbearable for you. – Basil, “Sermon to the Rich,” in Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 31, cols. 277c–304c.

…perhaps the best way to become sensitive to our own presuppositions—what goes without being said for us—is to read the writing of Christians from different cultures and ages. (190)

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

Western Christians, especially North American Christians, tend to read every scriptural promise, every blessing, as if it necessarily applies to us—to each of us and all of us individually. More to the point, we are confident that us always includes me specifically. (193)

At some point in this generation, “Take up your cross and follow me” changed into, “Come to Jesus and he’ll make your life better.” (195)

Much preaching is focused on the felt needs of listeners; this style communicates that the value of the Scriptures, and ultimately the gospel itself, is what it can do for me. This means that while the church has not created the American preoccupation with me, it has certainly reinforced it. If we are encouraged to think about our relationships with God and the church in terms of what’s in it for me, it’s only natural that we approach the Bible the same way. And you guessed it: this tendency can cause us to misread the Bible. (196)

Now, what makes this misreading so tricky is that it is built upon at least two very positive beliefs. First, we assume that the Bible applies to us. One of the important commitments of evangelical Christianity is that the Bible is for us in every age. Every part of the Scriptures, even though they record events that happened in other countries and thousands of years ago, has application for us today. That is to say, we acknowledge that the Bible records history, but it is not only about things in the past. It is also relevant for Christians in the present and, by extension, in the future. A second influential, and accurate, assumption is that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Because his character does not change, we are confident he will deal with us as he has dealt with his people previously. He was trustworthy then; he is trustworthy now. We then extrapolate that promises that applied to his people in the past continue to apply to his people in the present. If they didn’t, we reason, God would be unpredictable. But he isn’t. We trust him because “his compassions never fail” (Lam 3:22).

| We wholeheartedly affirm both of these statements: that the Bible applies to 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 Christian church has always believed that the Scriptures are for us. But our historical location changes what that means. As Eugene Peterson has argued, the original process through which God worked with his people was through speaking-writing-reading (aloud)-listening. That is, until the Reformation, people heard the Scriptures in church—and only in church. That meant the natural question when interpreting the Bible was, “What does this mean to us?” With the double-edged gift of Gutenberg’s printing press, the process is often reduced merely to writing-reading. Now we read the Bible alone in our homes. This allows a communal process to become individualized. Worse, one can ˆ the Word of God (meaning a book), rather than ˆ the Word of God, which is usually a communal act. The act of carrying around a book gives the individual the perception: I have the Word of God. Now instead of asking, “What does this mean to us?” our instinctive question is, “What does this mean to me?” The shift to individual, reader-centered interpretation was natural, post-Gutenberg. But we must never lose sight of the implications of that shift. (196-197)

When we don’t immediately recognize the relevance of a passage—if it’s not immediately clear what I can get out of it—we are less likely to read it. This leaves us basing our Christian life on less than the full counsel of God. (198)

We wonder, If this verse is not true for me, can it be true at all? (199)

…we should determine what the text meant then before we try to apply it to ourselves now. We suggest a better interpretation of Jeremiah 29 runs something like this: even though Israel is in the condition of exile, God will prosper them by prospering those who enslave them (Jer 29:7). Someday he will deliver them from exile, but that will happen well in the future. Until then, Israel is to rest assured that God is at work for their deliverance, even when he does not appear to be. (201)

Perhaps the sensibility runs even deeper. Do we think, Of course, I would be on stage when 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 this way: Of course the world couldn’t end before I got here, but now that I’m here, there isn’t any reason for God to wait any longer. (206-207)

This cultural assumption about the supremacy of me is the one to which we Westerners are perhaps blindest. We rightly search for the center of God’s will, but with the unspoken assumption that once we find it, the seat will have my individual name on it. We have hundreds of years of cultural reinforcement driving us to read the Bible with ourselves at the center. There are those who are striving to correct the tendency in certain areas of our theology. (207-208)

Conclusion:

Three Easy Steps for Removing

Our Cultural Blinders?

• EMBRACE COMPLEXITY

• BEWARE OF OVERCORRECTION

• BE TEACHABLE

• EMBRACE ERROR. Whether we like it or not, we learn more when we get something wrong the first time than we do when we are right from the beginning. (215)

• Don’t be afraid of being wrong. Fear only failing to learn from your mistakes. (216)

• READ TOGETHER

RESOURCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Introduction: Coming to Terms with Our Cultural Blinders

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

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

For more on the changing demographics of Christians worldwide and the implications 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. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Kenneth Bailey’s work in this area is excellent and quite readable. We highly recommend his books for exploring this topic. For an introduction to the ways being unaware of our cultural blind spots has affected the way Westerners 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 from Western Cultural Captivity. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

For an introduction to how non-Western Christians (and minority Western Christians) understand the task and challenges of theology (and how that affects 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 for the Evangelical Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Greenman, Jeffrey P. and Gene L. Green, ed. Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: 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 Their Meaning: A Handbook. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

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

For more specific values, see:

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

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

Ebeling, Jennie R. Women’s Lives in Biblical Times. New York: T & T Clark International, 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 Christian Tradition. 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 of Race. 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 of the 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 with Reference to Black Peoples.” In African American Religious Studies, edited by Gayraud Wilmore, 105–28. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989.

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

Snowden, Frank M. “Attitudes towards Blacks in the Greek and Roman World: Misinterpretations of the Evidence.” In Africa and Africans in Antiquity, edited by Edwin Yamauchi, 246–75. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2001.

For discussions of race in Western Christianity, see:

Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Keener, Craig S., and Glenn Usry. Defending Black Faith: Answers to Tough Questions about African-American Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 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: Theological Resources for Racial Reconciliation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Pearse, Meic. Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Perkins, Spencer, and Chris Rice. More than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Chapter 3: Just Words?

Although the following is a rather technical read, McGilchrist has a great chapter on the nature of language in the Western mind:

McGilchrist, Iain. The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making 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 mindset of 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: New Directions Books, 1982.

This book illustrates the challenge of maintaining a collectivist religious worldview in individualist America:

Potok, Chaim. The Chosen. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. First published 1967.

There are also helpful treatments of the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures in books on crosscultural communication, such as:

Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Connections: Stepping Out and Fitting In Around 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 affects biblical interpretation, see:

deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament 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 power of internal conscience affects how we read the Bible, see:

Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” 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 a Western view of time. But Vonnegut capitalizes on Western assumptions about the relationship between time (and especially chronology) and meaning:

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 Indian point 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. New York: Tauris Parke, 2000.

Chapter 7: First Things First

For a technical discussion to assist American attorneys working with the Japanese, see:

Minami, Ken R. “Japanese Thought and Western Law: A Tangential View of Japanese Bengoshi and the Japanese American Attorney,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 301 (1986); <http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol8/iss2/4>.

For discussions of patronage, see the books by deSilva and Rohrbaugh listed above.

Chapter 8: Getting Right Wrong

Wright, 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 seriously the differences between meaning and application, see:

Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Richards, E. R., & O’Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (pp. 221–225). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.