Does a culture of individualism make us better at forgiving?

I just finished Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes this morning which is a very good and very readable book chronicling some of the ways that a western worldview affects our preunderstandings about scripture.

In the conclusion of the book, the authors made an observation that surprised me. American Christians are often impressed by the genuine community enjoyed by Asian Christians in places like South Korea. While Korean Christians "applaud American Christians for generosity and forgiveness.." I guess according to certain metrics Americans could be classified as generous. We have a long way to go if we are going to model biblical generosity, but Americans and American Christians specifically are a giving bunch. You may disagree, which is fine. But this post isn't really about American generosity.

This post is about the second part of that observation. Are we really a forgiving culture? Because so many of us are inclined to think the worst about our culture, our knee-jerk answer would be to answer negatively. Of course we aren't a forgiving culture! (These people would probably also be the first to protest that we are not a generous culture either.) As I think about it, however, it strikes me that we are a forgiving culture in general. As with generosity, we have a long way to go to model biblical forgiveness. We are far too often arrogant and patronizing or impulsive and violent. But I think that we are (relatively speaking of course) a forgiving bunch of people.

If you are tempted to disagree with me, I would point out that yesterday was December 7. A day that continues to live in infamy but not a day that lives in hatred or animosity. You read and saw a lot of remembrances of the awful events of Pearl Harbor. But what you didn't see were angry rallies against the Japanese people or mobs burning Japanese flags. I don't want to trivialize the complicated history that has happened since 1941, but for the most part, we have forgiven Japan and the Japanese for Pearl Harbor.

The authors of the book argue that the individualism that is characteristic of American culture actually has helped us to be a more forgiving people. It's an interesting thought. We are undoubtedly individualists - in our politics, in our economics, in our careers, in our families, and in our religion. We think of guilt as being personal, not collective. Therefore, we have come to see issues of salvation and forgiveness as also being personal. When Jesus says that God loved the world so much that he sent his son, we may hear "world" but we think "me." We talk of having a relationship with God through Christ, but we understand that relationship in purely individualistic terms. Jesus loves us all, but he loves us as individuals. This is a reason why so many western Christians struggle with the household conversion texts of Acts and the generational sin texts of Deuteronomy. We are each responsible for our own sin and salvation, aren't we? And our ecclesiology struggles under the weight of our individualism. The church exists for me, and for you, but most importantly, for me. I find myself typically struggling against this tendency in myself (and often failing!) and preaching against it in others. And for good reason. I don't think our individualism is biblical. Not only that, it isn't even "normal." Individualism has certainly been a minority position through history and still is in the world today.

But still...Might this individualism help us to forgive? Because we view sin and salvation as personal, we are not inclined to hold others responsible for something that they did not directly do. We are much less likely to feel lasting anger for a sin committed against someone not directly connected to us (usually in America that means only your immediate family). We find it highly unusual when someone apologizes for something that they didn't do. Added to this, we are not an honor/shame culture either. We get angry when someone hurts us, dismisses us, or treads on our freedom. We are not nearly as concerned about public honor and shame as most people around the world.

Most Americans today do not feel a direct impact by the events of Pearl Harbor. We don't feel the sting of shame or injustice. Our experience with the Japanese is completely different than our grandparents. We've moved on. We've bought their cars and their electronics. Americans also recognize that most Japanese today weren't alive during World War II. Why would we hold them accountable for their grandparents' sins? Pearl Harbor was treacherous. But it was a treachery committed by people two generations ago against our grandparents or great-grandparents. When our grandparents do say something awful against the "Japs" it shocks us. They were directly impacted. We were not. It is not in our culture to hold generational grudges against a people.

Some might bring up the events of September 11 as a counter-argument. It sure seems as if Americans are holding an entire group of people (Muslims) guilty for this act of treachery. But this actually helps to prove my point. Are there pockets of anti-Muslim sentiment in our nation? Of course! But we have heard almost from the day of the attacks the constant refrain that this was attack was perpetrated by individuals NOT by a people. I would argue that Americans as a whole have gone out of their way since September 11 to show their love for Muslim people.

Forgiveness is always difficult. But it is even more difficult in a collective, honor/shame culture. You must learn to forgive not just those who have shamed you but also those who have shamed your people. And not just those who happen to be alive today, but those going back generations. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, most of us think of an individual - my enemy. Jesus' original audience did not. They thought of "our enemies." So perhaps we have found at least one area where our individualism might help us. 

What do you think? Do you think that we are a forgiving culture? If so, is this related at all to our individualism?

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 7)

This the final part of the series. The purpose of this series was to help myself and my students and whoever might also read this blog to think about how we talk and debate about difficult issues in the church. This is not something that we always do very well. Some would rather not talk about difficult issues at all. Others enjoy arguing about difficult issues a little too much. I just think that we have to do a better job in this area. There are so many difficult issues that need some sort of principled position from the follower of Jesus. But how do we approach these issues in ways that honor the message of the Gospel? This series has been a small attempt to try and answer this question.

You can read the other posts here.

Part 1: Have I loved the person on the other side ofthis issue?
Part 2: Have I done my exegetical homework?
Part 3: Have I studied the opinions of the church bothpast and present?
Part 4: Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?
Part 5: Have I employed sound critical reasoning skills?
Part 6: Have I taken the time to understand the otherside of this issue?

Part 7: Have I humbled myself (and my tradition) enough to listen?

One of my mentors in ministry was Dr. Robert Lowery at Lincoln Christian Seminary. I had several classes in New Testament studies with Dr. Lowery, and in virtually every class he would drill into his students that the most important principle for biblical interpretation is humility. I teach in a place where it has been standard to say that “context is king.” While I understand the sentiment, context is certainly very important in biblical interpretation, I strongly disagree. Biblical study of any kind must begin with a basic choice. Will I listen to the Word or will I dictate to the Word? Will I submit or won’t I? This is part of what James was getting at in James 1 when he said that we should humbly accept the word planted in us which can save us. Such a humble approach leads us to be doers of the word rather than just hearers.

I can be an expert in the Greek and Hebrew languages, I can study the history and culture of first century Palestine and the Roman world, I can take note of the smallest point of syntax and grammar, I can be sensitive to the distinctiveness in genres and figures of speech, and indeed I can be a master at recognizing the importance of literary context both immediate and canonical – but if I don’t have humility I will continue to see only what I want to see and hear only what I want to hear in the text. Context doesn’t heal the human heart and fix our pride. Lest we become too mechanical and scientific, we should remember Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 2 that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. This doesn’t happen until we have humbled ourselves and have resolved to listen to the word of God in the text.

Sometimes my students roll their eyes because they hear it so much, but I still carry on Dr. Lowery’s legacy in my classes. The most important and first principle in interpretation is humility. Never is this more important than when it comes time to take a stand on a difficult issue. Too many times Christians will debate from an ideological position rather than a sound exegetical position. There is not an honest attempt to understand or explain an issue. There is only the attempt to win an argument and score points with our constituency. We are sometimes bad about constructing “shibboleth” type tests (Judges 12:5-6) to decide who’s in and who’s out rather than humbly and honestly engaging an issue. “What is your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2?” “What is your position on inerrancy?” “What do you believe about baptism or the Millennium or glossolalia?” “Do you interpret Revelation literally?” Questions like these are too often not an invitation to a discussion or even a debate. Instead they are traps designed to see if you are safe or orthodox or “one of us.” It’s not really helpful or honest.

When discussing a difficult issue, we must learn to navigate the difficult terrain between rigid dogmatism and non-committal openness. We must choose to stand somewhere on difficult issues. (And some issues are of such importance that we must take a clear and public stand.) We should not be so afraid of being wrong or corrected that we never say anything at all. This is false humility. But at the same time, we should be humble enough to be willing to change or nuance our position over time. A person who has every issue resolved in their own mind either has a very closed and arrogant mind or hasn’t thought enough about the issue.

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 6)

Have I taken the time to understand the other side of this issue?

You are not ready to debate any issue until you have honestly studied the arguments to be made on the other side of the issue. For instance, if you firmly believe that women should indeed be preaching ministers in local congregations, have you studied and learned the arguments that are made by those who disagree? If you passionately feel that pacifists have missed the point of the gospel and are distorting New Testament ethics, have you taken the time to listen to the arguments to be made in favor of pacifism? Learning the other side of any issue will help in several ways: 1) You will make more intelligent arguments because you have learned to spot the flaws in your own argumentation. Some arguments only sound good from one side. The best arguments resonate with both sides. 2) You will avoid various common fallacies – especially the straw man – because you have allowed people on the other side of the issue to speak for themselves. 3) You will learn the various nuances in the issue. A non-researched point of view will tend to see everything in very stark, black or white terms.  4) You will be a more compassionate debater.

Let me also make a few specific suggestions in this area:

a.       Am I seeing this issue from the same perspective as the person on the other side?

Transactional Analysis is used by some in the field of psychology to describe the interactions between people in different ego-states. Transactional analysis is based upon the idea that there are three different ego states within the mind of every person.  Those ego states are called, parent, adult, and child.  Smooth communication continues between two people as long as they have complimentary transactions.  A complimentary transaction is any transaction where the communication is parallel, i.e. agreement on the ego states that are doing the communicating.  Any time there is a crossed transaction, then communication stops and problems begin.  This is because there is no agreement on the ego states of the sender and receiver.

What this means for biblical interpretation is that some people will interact with an issue in a relational way. Some will interact in a practical way. While others will come at the issue in a principled way. This causes considerable difficulty in our discussions on various issues. This chart illustrates the idea with the issue of divorce, but in the future we will see this play a large role in how we talk about the issue of homosexuality. Younger people are making decisions on the issue on the basis of relationship. Older people who grew up in a very different culture are making decisions based on scriptural principle. Pastors, on the other hand, have to think more practically. What are we going to do about homosexuality in our community and our church? What I am advocating is that before we enter into a debate on any issue, we should take some time to reflect on how the other person is seeing this issue. They may in fact agree with us in principle, but they aren’t necessarily concerned about principle as much as they are concerned about relationships. That will change the way that I go about talking about the issue.

 

Theological	Ecclesiastical	Personal
Parent	Adult	Child
Values/Principles/Idealistic	Responsibilities/Laws/Practical	Relational/Realistic
Divorce:  God intended for one man and one woman to be married for life (Gen. 2:24; Mark 10:6-9).  The Christian must always seek to uphold and live by God’s standard and not man’s or the world’s.  Regardless of personal feelings or experience, the Word of God must prevail and decide on all ethical issues, and especially that of marriage and divorce (Deut. 12:32; Ps. 19:7-11; 119:9-11; Is. 55:8-9; Jer. 23:25-29)	Divorce: The Church must uphold God’s standards in all areas, especially in the area of marriage and divorce.  It needs to teach it and practice it.  The church needs to protect and build strong marriages and families (Eph. 5:22-6:4; Col. 3:18-21)	Divorce: Repent of any sin pertaining to a divorce and to receive the forgiveness of God.  The divorced need compassion, love, understanding and acceptance from the church.

 

b.      Is the person on the other side of this issue from inside the camp or outside the camp?

Paul didn’t talk to people within his community in the same ways that he talked to people from outside (compare his speeches at Lystra and Athens to his speeches to Pisidian Antioch and the Ephesian elders in Acts). Jesus didn’t talk to people within his community in the same ways that he talked to people who were on the margins or who were outside the community (compare what he said to the religious leaders to what he said to the tax collectors and sinners). There are certain arguments that I would make with another Christian that I would never make with a non-Christian person. This is especially true about the way I use scripture. For instance, I shouldn’t expect a non-Christian person to care about or submit to what scripture says (unless they are trying to distort scripture for their argument). On the other hand, I probably should expect a person who calls himself a Christian to in some way submit to the message of scripture. A debate with a Christian is much more likely to deal with exegesis. A debate with a non-Christian is much more likely to deal with issues of worldview.

c.       Have I studied the non-biblical side of this issue?

Should a Christian support or oppose embryonic stem cell research? It is a good question worthy of discussion. However, if a Christian is to discuss or debate this issue, it is important that we have at least a foundational knowledge of the science behind the issue. If we are debating homosexuality, we should be familiar with the various non-biblical arguments (from genetics, psychology, etc.) that are made supporting homosexuality. This doesn’t mean that we have to be an expert before weighing in on any issue. This seems to commit another fallacy which I call the expert fallacy – you must never talk about an issue until you have mastered it and all the supporting research. If this were the case we would never be able to talk about any issue. What I am arguing for however is that we do take the time to listen to and explore the non-biblical sides of these issues. It is not enough just to know the Bible.

Logical Fallacies

This was passed along to me by a friend. A pretty good summary of logical fallacies. Christians, if they are to debate and debate well, need to take these warnings to heart.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf

Investing Money Bible Code (aka How to use the Bible to support your idolatry)

And Jesus said, "He who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who invested heavily in gold and avoided European stocks like a plague. Also, Merica."

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 5)

It's been a while, but here is the fifth question to ask when taking a principled stand on a difficult issue of interpretation.

Have I employed sound critical reasoning skills?

Difficult issues don’t just require diligent study of texts; they also require sound, critical reasoning skills. Too often, in our haste to settle a dispute or a debate on a difficult issue we employ lazy and inflammatory rhetoric. Christians are often guilty of loving rhetoric too much and reasoning too little. Such rhetoric is not only unfair to the person on the other side of the issue. It is also unfair to the issue itself and hinders our ability to make principled and informed stands on the issue. Here are some of the most common fallacies in critical thinking that are made when debating difficult issues. I will illustrate with the issue of pacifism:

a.       Making hasty or unwarranted generalizations: Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Therefore he is calling all of his followers to pacifism.

b.      Begging the Question: Jesus was obviously a pacifist.

c.       Either/or Fallacy: Either you are a pacifist or you are militant.

d.      Ad hominem: Pacifists are just cowards.

e.      Straw man argument: Pacifists are simply passive about injustices which are being committed.

f.        Ad populum: Most people in the church are not pacifists, therefore pacifism is probably wrong.

There are likely other fallacies that could be added to the list, but hopefully the point has been made. When Christians debate issues of difficulty – whether it’s pacifism or some other hot button issue – we do not argue the way that the talking heads on CNN or Fox News argue. Instead, we use sound critical reasoning skills in order to faithfully represent the issue at hand and those who are involved in the debate. I have committed too many of these fallacies myself, and I have learned the hard way that even though it might make you feel good in the moment to rattle off some grand, clinching statement any debate won with faulty logic will inevitably be a shallow victory. It is the Golden Rule of debating. Debate with others in ways that you would have them debate with you.

If you'd like some more information on logical fallacies in theological arguments, see the instructional video below.

Intelligent people drink pop

Semantics has always been an important part of the discipline of hermeneutics. In short, what did words mean as used by their authors/speakers in their original context? Our tendency is to see words as empty vessels which we feel free to fill up with our own meaning. Many anachronistic interpretations make this exact mistake. We see a biblical author use words like "love" or "hate" or "servant" and our inclination is to understand those words through a contemporary lens.

Good interpretation must acknowledge the fluidity of language. Word meanings are always changing. And word meanings are always deeply contextual - both literary and cultural. This slipperiness of language is well illustrated by the maps in the link below. Americans can't even agree what to call certain things or how to pronounce certain words and we all supposedly speak the same language. Our difficulties are compounded then when we are reading an ancient text originally written in a language and a culture very different than our own. This is one reason why the study of original languages (or at least the listening to those who have studied the original languages) is such an important part to Bible study.

22 Maps That Show The Deepest Linguistic Conflicts In America - Business Insider