When Culture Is The Wrong Context

Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22 NASB)

There are strange inconsistencies in Paul that make reading and understanding him difficult at times.  Sometimes he's clear and point directly at my heart.  Other times, I seriously wonder if I get what he's saying at all.  Here I think I get it, but I have a problem with his application.  For instance, this is where some are eating a 'separate' or 'personal' meal of 'good food' or something like that, while others without such resources don't get such a meal.  So the wealthy have a better meal, like first class on an airline.  It's something that's just a pat of the socioeconomic climate; it still persists somewhat today.

The problem that Paul points out is that this completely invalidates the meaning of the Lord's Supper or Communion in which this is happening.  Okay, so the cultural norm or expectation is unacceptable at the Lord's Table.  Got it.  Let's make that a rule...oh wait, the previous section has a cultural norm as the rule for women participating in worship.  So which is it?  Do we use the culture in which we live or not?  How much is allowed into the church, and where?

These are not easy questions.  They are the source of debate for centuries, actually two millennia.  Missionaries face it constantly, often in obvious ways.  We, in this country tend to ignore the problem, but to our own peril.  The 'American' culture is assumed to be favorable to Christianity, Scripture, and church practice.  And it is, compared to the polytheistic culture of the Roman Empire that deified living emperors.  But our modern American culture is not, actually, favorable to Jesus as the Christ, Savior, and Lord of Lord's.  Don't get upset, no human culture is.

So, the problem of navigating practice, meaning, and teaching of the things of the Creator of all things within congregations of Bible-believing followers of Jesus is tough.  It's not optional though.  Pastors, teachers, leaders of all sorts within these congregations have this as their primary responsibility.  Whatever they are called, their role is to lead the people along behind the Spirit of God as He guides us.  This will correspond with Scripture at every point; but how that Scripture is applied will take sensitivity to the Spirit who inspired it, time spent in study, and a dogged determination to be obedient over popular.  I tend to follow people who have this view, and avoid and criticize those who don't.

So, Paul's practice doesn't make understanding him easy, but he lays out the right path, the one we must follow in our congregations.  Some things are acceptable within the congregation and others are definitely not.  Culture cannot be allowed to dictate practice within the body of Christ.  Sensitivity and recognition of the culture must be considered along with practice, as the church must connect to people in order to influence the culture for Christ Jesus.  But the 'filter' must be Scripture, the Spirit of God, and diligent perseverance to be obedient over popular.

So, my application goes like this:  1) as a church leader, I need to have this filter firmly in place as I teach and lead.  2) I need to follow leaders who have this same filter (not those with the same views, but those with views derived from this filter).  3) This needs to be part of my teaching.  And since I'm writing this blog entry...I suppose number 3 is a 'gimme'.

Cultural Barriers to Jesus

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.  But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.  A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"  But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."  Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."  This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. (Acts 10:9-16 NASB)

 An important characteristic of Jesus that gets mentioned, but not understood, is that Jesus entered the world as a Jewish man.  Modern Christians will agree, but modern Judaism obscures what that really means.  First Century, Second Temple, Judean Judaism is not what we see today.  I haven't asked a rabbi, but I'm pretty sure they would agree.  There are tremendous cultural differences between the various Jewish groups  today; and even more differences between those of the region and time of Jesus and now.  So trying to understand Jesus as Jewish man is difficult when the understanding is attempted through modern Judaism.

In a sense through, one aspect that remains the same is a "survivor" mentality that doggedly holds Jewish groups together and attempts to rigorously maintain their distinctness from other cultures among which they may live.  In First Century Judea, the fairly recent history had seen the end of oppression of the Jews by Seleucid Greeks who attempted to force them to adopt Greek culture.  It had witnessed the inability of the Jewish religious leadership to also govern the people well.  It had recorded how the Romans were invited into the country to stabilize the region.  And, in the days of, and just beyond, Jesus' earthly ministry, the attempted rebellion of the Jews against the Roman presence in the land.

Part of the consistent thread that held these people together is their persistence in being distinct from those they lived among.  The end of the First Temple Era eradicated syncretistism (mixed religious practice) which included idols from their culture.  That was never a problem again.  In the first century, the main focus of the Jews was survival of their race and traditions.  In that focus, they made some mistakes.  In these mistakes, they lost sight of their true King.  By the time He showed up in person, they were not ready.  It wasn't until after He left that many seemed to understand or at least accept Jesus as the true Anointed One of God.

One of the biggest struggles Jesus faced was the continued pressure from the religious leaders to conform to their traditions.  He consistently refused in many respects.  In other respects, he conformed already.  I suspect that in what He ate, He conformed.  But He also taught His disciples that "unclean" was really a characteristic coming from within a person, not from outside (Mark 7:14-23).  There the issue was "hand washing" rather than specific food, but the writer notes that Jesus declared all foods "clean".

So why, having had that lesson, does Peter hang so tightly to the isolationist practices of his people?  I'm not sure, but I suspect there at least two reasons.  The first is that those traditions were what he knew and was familiar with.  There seemed no good reason to leave them when they were Scriptural (i.e. in the law).  In some sense, if it's not broken, why fix it?"  What he was about to learn is that it was broken in one way.

I suspect that another, possibly unconscious, reason is that Judaism was legal in Roman society where the belief in Jesus as Messiah was not.  Romans permitted other beliefs as long as their requirement of venerating the emperor was also practiced along with what ever belief was held.  Followers of Jesus could not do that.  Their only protection from the requirement was their attachment to Judaism which was exempt from the practice.  This is never given as a reason in Scripture, it would need to be derived from an examination of the culture in which Christianity was born and grew.  It may have been more in the mind of Paul in Europe than in Peter in Joppa. 

This chapter does make one thing very clear though.  The lesson of the animals in the sheet was not about eating, it was about cultural barriers to salvation.  That wasn't obvious to Peter at first because he didn't have the context in which to understand it.  He needed Cornelius' story to point out to Him that God had already accepted this Gentile soldier occupying Judea.  Once he had that, he was able to connect the dots, and saw a new characteristic of God, that He accepts people outside of Jews.  Judaism itself became understood as an unnecessary barrier to a relationship with the Maker of galaxies and atoms; a dangerous proposition in that day.

So where's the lesson for me?  I set up my own barriers to others by my cultural practices.  I chose who I associate with based on social position, economic status, and my perception of safe and prudent practices.  That is not the path on which I see my Master taking and leading His people.  Instead, my Master crosses those boundaries of economics and society.  He reaches into the lives of those left behind and marginalized by their culture.  This is a difficult, very uncomfortable, lesson for me.  I don't enjoy hugging someone who smells.  But don't I smell?  Am I more acceptable to my Master than those with whom I am uncomfortable associating?  I don't think so, and yet I do believe so.  I behave that way.  And I do so to my own disgrace.

I suspect the only way out of this is by practicing crossing those boundaries.  I need to.  I have a lesson to learn through practice.  I don't like those, those character-building-lessons my Master seems to like so much.  Well, I guess I need to go.  It seems I have "homework" to do.

Paradigm Shifting on the Fly

Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; (Acts 10:17 NASB)

Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (Acts 10:45 NASB)

Another of the ironies in Acts 10 is the inability of Peter and those with him to conceive of Gentiles being acceptable to God.  The clues are all through all 4 Gospels, and one of my favorites is when Jesus is being interviewed by Nicodemus, the Pharisee.  In that conversation, Jesus cuts right to the point for the Pharisee when He says, "To enter the Kingdom of God, you must be born again."  We use that phrase in these days to mean something very different from what Jesus was getting at in this conversation.

For Nicodemus the Pharisee, his birth is what set him apart from all the other people on the earth; he was  born different, superior.  Being born a Jew meant that he was automatically tied to God by His sovereign choice.  What could be better than that; to be born into immediate acceptability before God?  So Jesus' words rocked Nicodemus, and I think that is why he struggle so much with what Jesus meant by that.

If human birth no longer is what determines acceptability before God, then Gentiles have as much opportunity as anyone else.  This point seems to be missed by the disciples.  I suppose the Ethiopian on his way home was at least a proselyte or something because Philip didn't seem to have a problem with him receiving the Holy Spirit. On the other hand it doesn't specifically say he ever did (but it also doesn't say whether he was a Jew, or a proselyte, or a native of Ethiopia at all).

The word translated "perplexed" is a Greek compound word made up of two prepositions and a verb.  It means "through not carrying over", as in "because of not making the connection" (carrying over referring to being carried across something, like the River Styx for a Greek).  So I think of it as "because of not being able to shift the paradigm" which is obviously a modern read on an ancient problem.  After the vision of the unclean animals in the linen vessel, Peter is struggling shifting his paradigm to include what he has seen and heard.  It isn't until he reaches Cornelius' house and hears his story that he finally makes the connection.

But Peter's companions from Joppa didn't get the vision, they hadn't heard the voice, and so they were completely unprepared for God receiving Gentiles in such a way.  They may even have been skeptical of Cornelius' story.  This catches them completely by surprise.  But why?  Weren't the clues around them?  What did Jesus tell them? "You will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and all the earth."  What did they think that meant anyway?

And there were other clues in the Hebrew Scriptures and so on.  Clearly the problem was how entrenched in their own Jewish culture they were.  Their paradigm wasn't constructed only from the Hebrew Scriptures or only from that and Jesus' teaching.  There was a huge element of their culture still embedded in their paradigm of which they may not have even been aware.  And even so, they had made huge strides in adjusting their world view already to accommodate what the Holy Spirit had done so far.  Perhaps they figured they'd "shifted" enough.

Now, what I've done here is constructed a framework with which I can support my own analysis of my cultural enmeshment.  How different am I in this problem?  I have a culture which has influenced me my whole life.  How many perceptions of what I read in Scripture do I filter through this cultural perspective?  In once sense it enables me to apply what I read, but on the other hand it obscures the message of my Master when what He commands strikes a stark contrast with my cultural assumptions.  There are just some things you don't do, or are considered foolish to do in our culture.  Sometimes I too quickly put a command or perspective of my Master into the basket of that time period rather than my own, "Surely He didn't mean that for today?"

There are somethings I'm not likely to do, like wearing clothes of only one type of cloth, or walking a second mile with a Roman soldier's pack on my back.  I freely confess that I'm not likely to do these, but what about loving my neighbor as myself?  What about when Jesus said we are to have that perspective in the Sermon on the Mount where we bless our persecutors, consider being reviled for His names sake as being happy beyond belief?  Do I accept these in my culture?  In the day of Paul, when he wrote that husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church selflessly, that was radically out of the cultural paradigm for both Jews and Gentiles.  It's radical for me, but I still don't do it, not like I should (like, I try, then resent having to - I'm a mess).

What I'm saying is that I need my paradigm, my world view, my mental framework through which I interpret and make sense of my world; I need that destroyed and reconstructed by my Master.  It makes me shiver just to write that.  How much would remain of what I have now?  It's uncomfortable to consider, in fact, it's probably so overwhelmingly huge, it becomes easy to ignore.  It's like how-big-is-our-sun huge, I can't mentally grasp it, so I don't think about it.  Too often I think the glory and majesty of my Master fits into that same category for me.  Yet, perhaps if I dwell for awhile on that, deconstructing my paradigm might be more imaginable.  So, I guess, once again, I shall start with praise for my Master.  Worship, why does it seem to always boil down to worship?  Probably because I'm such a slow learner.  Well, I seem to have some worship and "demolition" to do.

Who's Wife Is It Anyway?

After Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Abram's wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife. (Genesis 16:3 NASB)

One of the most difficult things to factor into interpretation of the Bible is ancient near eastern culture.  In this verse there at least three, and an argument can be made to include more.  Abram and Sarai are from southern Mesopotamia, live in Canaan, and Sarai has an Egyptian maid.  If the variety of cultures represented in Canaan are included, the number increases by at least double.

I bring this up because this verse says that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as his wife.  From the context, it doesn't seem that this meant that Hagar had the status that Sarai had with Abram, as understood by either Mesopotamian; unless this is the reason Sarai complains to Abram rather than just runs Hagar off.  On the other hand, Hagar the Egyptian seems to think her status equals or exceeds Sarai.  When God weighs in on the subject, He comes down on the side of Abram and Sarai.  We're never told what the Canaanites thought. 

What if Sarai wasn't quite sure what to think of Hagar's status nor hers before Abram?  Abram's response to her demonstrates that he still sees Hagar as his wife's maid, not another wife of the same status as Sarai.  What if Abram's not sure either which might be why he didn't step in earlier on Sarai's side.  On the other hand what male would do that?  That's just asking for trouble, because we never really know if we truly understand the problem, ever.

I pose this conundrum because I often run the risk of two dangers, both of which are deadly to understanding the inspired Scriptures and my Master who inspired them.  The first danger is interpreting too quickly without asking about the cultural influences, and trying to minimize my own.  This makes Abram and Sarai living and acting in America of the Twenty-first Century, which is obviously ridiculous.

The second is falling in love with my interpretation once I reach one.  When such cultural influences from several millennia cloud my understanding (and anyone else's) I have to accept the possible variety of understandings.  What I risk by loving my own is missing the view of my Master gained from the perspective of others.  He is far too magnificent to fit into a single mind, especially one clouded by self-love.  It's early, and my head is already fuzzy; the coffee is gone, and another is needed.  What I need to do is let those be the only clouds of my mind.  So, I suppose I need more practice.

From Faith to Fear: Do I Really Trust God?

Now there was a famine in the land; so Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land.  It came about when he came near to Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "See now, I know that you are a beautiful woman; and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife'; and they will kill me, but they will let you live.  Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may live on account of you."  It came about when Abram came into Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful.  Pharaoh's officials saw her and praised her to Pharaoh; and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.  Therefore he treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels.  But the LORD struck Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.  Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?  "Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and go."  Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they escorted him away, with his wife and all that belonged to him. (Genesis 12:10-20 NASB)

Having walked the length of the land promised to him, Abram finds it necessary to go to Egypt for food (hmm, this sounds familiar for some reason).  He has been told that his Master will curse anyone just dishonoring him, he has been told he will be a blessing on every family, he has been told that his Master will be with him to guide him all along the way.  These have been "carrots" for his faith.  It seems that these carrots are fine motivators to travel, but this motivation hasn't yet been "faith".

On their way into the land, Abram tells Sarai to pretend to be his sister.  Abram says this for a few reasons.  First, so that it may go well with him; and second, so that he might live.  It would seem that Abram doesn't want to be bothered or that it might not go well for him.  As he left Haran, the promise was that whoever "dishonored" him, God would curse.  What did he really have to fear, even from annoying people?  What I don't get is why God seems to work with this method.

So, they enter the land of Egypt.  It turns out that Abram is right, and the Egyptians are very taken with Sarai.  In fact, they are so taken, the princes of Egypt hear of her and tell the Pharaoh how amazing she is.  Pharaoh is so taken that he takes her as his wife.  It really is an astonishing turn of events.  I don't know if Abram expected such a dramatic reaction, but there is no protest recorded.  What can he say after he has said she's his sister?  And Pharaoh gives him stuff, the equivalent of a year's groceries, new cars, extra hands around the mobile-ranch.  How can he change his story now?  And yet his wife is in the house of another, and it's his fault.

It's possible that Abram was surprised at the turn of events, but I have to ask myself, "What did he expect, if not that someone would try to take her as their wife?"  Seriously, if she's beautiful and "unattached" what would have been the alternative outcome?  Had he refused to let her marry, he would be in danger of the same fate he was trying to prevent, his death.  All of a sudden, I'm not so enamoured with Abram's devotion to his wife, the devotion that kept him from getting a newer child-bearing wife in Haran.  This is actually sort of creepy.  But there might be an alternative interpretation.

I leave Abram, and I think of Sarai; what does she think of all this?  Her husband, her master and lord, essentially sells her as a wife to another.  This is a completely different culture, so I can't judge it by what my wife would think or feel if I tried this; after all, Abram survives his wife, I'm not sure I would.  Taking into account the way she treats him after this, I would say that she is clearly aware of what's developing, and is at least acquiescent.  That baffles me.  Is it her devotion to Abram that leads her to respond this way?  Is it somehow that she trusts his faith; that it will be alright and she doesn't have to worry about these developments?  You may ask at this point, "what faith?"

At this point, I have to hold on to a couple of things to reach this next conclusion.  The setting of these two things has to do with the culture; the culture is not what I live in now.  These guys were traders, and everyone "haggles" seeking the "best deal".  Nomads have always been known for this, it was a survival technique with them.  So, it is reasonable to assume that Abram was too.  The readers aren't told, it's assumed, everyone knows that.

So what are the two things?  First, I asked some "rhetorical questions" a few paragraphs before.  "What did Abram expect, if not that someone would try to take Sarai as their wife?"  So, knowing this, why would he willingly enter into this charade?  Well, I believe the second is that he also knew that whoever dishonored him, like taking his wife for their own, would be cursed by God.  What?  Think about it.  Sure it's a famine, and he needs food, but "selling" his wife?  Not likely, even if she was barren, it's doubtful he would sell her just to get relief from a famine.  Don't forget, God seems to go along with this plan.  I believe that it's possible that Abram sought the best deal for himself at the expense of the Egyptians, knowing he had God as his "muscle".

If this is true, it doesn't necessarily put Abram in a better light, but it does explain a few things.  For instance, why does he do it again (Genesis 20)?  I have always wondered how God could go along with something like this.  Where was a prophet like Nathan to call Abram to task for selling his wife?  But God doesn't, in fact in Genesis 20 God warns the poor king duped by this charade so he doesn't defile Sarah (at that point she's Sarah).  And again Abraham (at that point his name is changed too) is blessed by the king, and even allowed to stay in the country.  I think it's possible what is typically thought of as a failure of faith is actually a manipulation of his position before God.  And before we castigate Abram for this, if it's true, I recommend a thorough reading of Luke 16.  The parable that begins doesn't describe this situation, but rather an attitude of God toward what we might think of as "double-dealing".  I think it might be a cultural thing.  But really, I can't even be sure of that.

I'm left once again, not really understanding my Master.  Do I manipulate my position before my Master?  Should I?  Is my faith strong enough that I would risk all that is precious because I know my Master has my back?  I suppose that is the real question.  Is my faith that strong?  I hope that after nearly 40 years of walking with Jesus it would be, but I don't think it is even now.  I have more growing to do...still.