Not long ago I was in Paris.  There,  a frequent sight  was that of a man or  woman, on their way home,  carrying a long thin loaf of  uncut  and unwrapped bread.   Parisians, I found,  insist on the very freshest of bread.  The sight I describe would be an unusual event in America.  As a result, I couldn't help but conclude  that the phrase "daily bread" meant something far  different for the French than for Americans.  The phrase, used by Jesus in the Lord's prayer, carried more than just a subtle difference in meaning.  That's just a simple example of how difference in culture can lead to difference in understanding.  I wonder how often readers, coming to the Scriptures, use their own cultural filter to bring meaning to passages.

My thesis is that much of the misunderstanding that leads to ridicule  and misinterpretation of scripture comes from the simple fact that those scrutinizing the Bible are applying a 21st century view of things to a first century situation.  As a professor of Sociology, the first issue I try to clarify to freshman college students is the need to always account for the difference in cultures.  We come to any situation assuming, unless we consciously suspend judgement, that our interpretation of that situation,   based on our experience and our reality, will be accurate.   Our culture, our world of familiarity,  provides our norms, values, and basis for behavior.  However, in a global economy ,   communication often fails when not taking into account the culture of the speaker, 'encoder,' and the culture of the listener, 'decoder'.  Furthermore, In Biblical communication,  misunderstanding  occurs due to cultural differences not accounted for (an agrarian verses a post-industrial society) let alone the two thousand year gap in history and information left out of the equation.

I often use the illustration of cultural views of animals as an example.  When someone in Western culture see a kitten or puppy, he or she sees a playful  companion for a child or an adult.  A person from a Far Eastern culture seeing the same puppy or kitten will see his or her next meal.  Chinese culture uses these "pets" in their cuisine as we do chicken or turkey.  Can we in the West insist that such practices be abolished in deference to our sensibility?  Of course not,  any more than we'd consider any importuning from India to insist we abandon cattle ranching in deference to their view that cows are sacred.  Any argument in these areas is really  attributable to cultural issues and not necessarily ethical issues.  To argue on an ethical level without first considering the cultural chasm would be ludicrous and unproductive.

However, that is exactly what Bible scholars and opponents of the Bible have often done.  A classic example of this is the venomous comments critics (often bibliophobics) assert about what they suppose to be the  original Christian view toward women's rights.  A verse at Ephesians 5:24, "wives should submit to their husbands in everything," taken out of Biblical  context and out of cultural context at the same time,  gives the appearance that women are second-class citizens in the Christian scheme.  Such a view could only be suggested by someone who hasn't come to know the Christian God and our Lord, Jesus Christ.  Indeed, for centuries, the winsome words of the gospel included coming to know our Father to be  completely egalitarian.  The point I always stress in my personal Biblical testimony is the  practical advice for daily living that assists us to live in the present world and at the same time prepares for a future life.  A Christian realizes Paul's purpose  in this passage was to give orderly advice on how to live, based on the circumstances and age Christians found themselves in.  His goal, and ours,  is to “let our lights shine" and provide a living testimony of our faith (Matthew 5:11).  Christianity was and is to be primarily known for the free gift of  salvation and meaning life Christ provides.  Spiritual Christianity would never have flourished if it was  known primarily as the religion that purported to change the organizational culture of the times.  The society assigned men the role of preeminence.  This tradition  emanated from an agrarian culture.  In such a society, where manual labor and physical strength were the basis of power,.  It would be natural that man, having superior physical strength, would dominate over the physically less powerful gender.  Living in that society,  Paul was merely showing Christians they were to live in accordance with the culture, but he went further.  He advocated that Christian men, knowing this example of Christ, would go beyond the callous culture of the times and treat their wives as Christ would have them.  Ephesians 5:25-8 shows this additional step a Christian husband would take.  As Scripture avers, Christ gave up himself for his congregation, husbands should be willing to do likewise for their wives.  In fact,  a husband is to love his wife as he does himself.  Any Christian realizes you can't take one injunction without the other and have a  balanced picture.  A Christian husband will take his responsibility as head, dictated by the culture of the times and the traditions of the ancient world, a tradition that goes back to our original heritage, but will go beyond this and do what culture of the times did not dictate - to show true love.  That's what Jesus came for - to model a practical example of love.  He did it in his personal  treatment of women.  Women were treated no differently than men.  Salvation was for all  as Jesus demonstrated by his many discourses directed to women (Luke 13:12).

I stress again, Christ came foremost to change lives, not culture.  I, as a Christian who happens to be a  sociologist, would assert that when we are confronted by questions on the issue of rights, we must not be persuaded to counter with a barrage of scripture to someone who does not accept Biblical authority, when we can simply say, "Please don't apply our present cultural view to that verse."

I Timothy I:15 says simply that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.  That simple Christian maxim makes it clear that Jesus came to "save" and transform people first and not culture.  Cultural transformation will be evident once people change.  Jesus did not want to confuse his mission so he persisted in appealing to individuals and refused to make culture the issue - whether political or economical (He said, "Give Caesar's things to Caesar," for example).

The beauty of Christianity is that it works under all circumstances and in all cultures.  A Christian living in harmony with the culture of the times emulates in his or her life the principles Christ lived and Paul expounded on - grace, love, unselfish caring for others.  A Christian husband in the first century would not be noted for his revolution against the cultural norm of male headship, whether or not divinely mandated,  but for his love for his spouse, family and others.  That's the meaning Jesus wanted him to get across, namely, love for others that mimics the love of God toward us.  Again, Christianity's goal is to change first and foremost lives, not culture.  As any sociologist can attest, as individual lives improve, cultures also improve.  But the primary focus is on lives, individual lives.  The beauty of the Christian philosophy is that adherents need not wait indefinitely for the culture to change to improve their lot but immediately they individually can feel a miraculous change in their minds, emotions and perceptions toward circumstances.

As a Christian sociologist, I would hope no Christian would fall into the trap of trying to justify queries into a Biblical standard that appears out of step with the times by using Bible principles completely beyond the fathoming of someone whose motive is only to discredit the Bible when such an attack can be so easily deflated by simply pointing to the culture of the times and repeating (many times, if necessary), "Christ came to change first individual lives, not culture".   Many passages in scripture state, in harmony with Ephesians 4:7, "But to each ONE of us grace has been given, as Christ apportioned it".  Christianity's goal is to spread the gospel, the good news of God; love and salvation, one life at a time and not to change cultures primarily.  Jesus, when given the opportunity to participate in cultural change,  reassured us of his primary focus when he said, “My kingdom is no part of this world.  If it were, my servant would fight to prevent my arrest..." (John 18:36).  Let's not forget this salient point - lives are what count.

NonChristians are not the only ones needing to heed the lesson that the discipline of sociology offers to would-be interpreters of scripture.  Often Christians with a pure and honest motive will contrive intricate explanations to justify Biblical messages .  I think now of statements by Christian leaders claiming that God used slavery to Christianize the nonChristian  African world.  Rather than resort to such an hypothesis to explain why Christians were slaveholders we need only appeal to the economic culture of the time.  The instance of Paul's admonition to Onesimus, a runaway slave, comes to mind.  Paul directed Onesimus to return to his master.  Paul made it clear (Philemon 1:14) that he did not want to presume to tell the master (Philemon) how to treat the slave, saying, “I do not want to do anything without your consent".  Paul recognized the culture and protocol of the times.  Paul then appealed to Philemon to take back his slave no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.  Some in their zeal for Christianity will contrive explanations when critics denegrate the simple Christian view toward slavery.  They merely have to remind  critics this was not the Christian view of slavery, it was the cultural view of slavery being discussed.  Christianity neither invented nor condoned slavery.  Slavery was a cultural reality of the times.  Christians then had a mission to preach the gospel to individuals, to transform individuals one by one and not to revolt against the customs that were economic realities.  Spiritual realities were of primary importance, economics and political freedom were secondary to spiritual freedom.  Spiritual, emotional, mental freedom can be attained immediately and miraculously at any time  a person accepts the aid of God's spirit.  This has been the case throughout history.

Was it God's desire that families be sold as slaves in the first century?  Of course not.  Was it the Christian God of the Bible who was desirous of slavery in more modern times?  Of course not.  No more than it was God's desire that thousands were killed by bloodletting in the 18th and 19th centuries, which was the cultural medical practice of the times.  The Lord's primary concern was for the gospel to reach all, individual by individual.  As individual lives are transformed by God's spirit and individuals personally feel God's love and power in their lives, they can endure anything and do so with joy as Paul demonstrated when tortured and in prison.  James also admonished, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, when you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance" (James 1:2,3).  Then when enough individuals see a vision for a changed material world and the time is ripe,  powerful things can happen, including a revision of the culture.

I'm proud to know that it was Christians who first, not only caught the vision of economical and political freedom for all humans and acted on it with faith,  confident the Lord would give them necessary power to effect change.   The faith and reliance in  God's spirit and power motivated  Christians to come to this country seeking to build a model of political and economic freedom for others.  It was Christians in Europe and America in the 19th century, the Abolitionists among them, who had faith in God's power to end slavery then and it was Christians primarily who caught the vision and prayed for God's power to change the culture of slavery in the 20th century.  This, long before the non-Christian world followed suit.

I would submit, though, unless individual lives had been transformed by the power of the spirit, giving them the self-esteem knowing they were set free emotionally, mentally and spiritually, they would not have had the vision to insist on  physical freedom.

One final caveat regarding  the cultural background of the verse may be helpful.   Cultural background  will often illuminate the scriptural message when allowed to make a contribution.  At other times, the cultural relevance will prevent us from being too sweeping in our modern application.  The steps are then to first discern the cultural context, compare that context to our current cultural milieu, discern whether the cultural perspective enhances or obscures our understanding of the actual words used, and perhaps imagine how that scripture might be worded using the cultural terms of our age.  Then, and only then, make application.  I am not a Biblical scholar but what I suggest is a simple guideline that I believe has been followed in most cases, I only suggest,  in our zeal to discover new understanding,  not to  go beyond what is warranted.

Let me take a simple, innocuous example of what I mean.  The scripture exhorts, "Take up the full armor of God," (Ephesians 6:15)  Christian armies have used similar words from scripture  to embolden their troops in battle.  Following the guidelines I suggest above, recognize first the culture of the times.  Most generations through history have lived within  a culture of warfare.  Such  exhortations, in the context of many culture, are a fitting analogy.  Now, however, we have several generations in our presence who have not personally been acquainted with warfare.  A biblical interpreter who recognizes the cultural shift would strive to word these exhortations  in the culture of the present day.    Mentioning in passing why such a phrase was used,  as an analogy to those living at a time who would comprehend both intellectually but more importantly, emotionally, would be helpful.  Those words on spiritual warfare may not convey the emotional impact to anyone living in a time of relative peace as it would to most past generations personally feeling  the terror of warfare.  Supplement those Biblical words using  analogies that appeal to the emotions of our present cultural generation.    My suggestion again,  merely remember, when reading scripture, to account for the culture of the time, take note of any differences to our cultural views,  then think of an analogy our present society might appreciate.

So going back to the opening questions, "Which came first the person or the culture?" the answer is elementary.  While some sociologists may have  differing opinions,  the answer from an all important Christian viewpoint is clear.,  The person,  the individual comes first to the Lord.   Never lose sight of the Christian truth - God  first works on individual lives, that counts most and that's the greatest miracle of Christianity.  The concomitant cultural changes are laudable and awe-inspiring, too, but never  overshadow the primary thrust of God's word.  My goal, as a Christian who happens to be a sociologist, has been  to provide these suggestions..  Take culture into account when interpreting scripture and take culture into account when  desiring  change in social structures.  The culture of a society may have taken years to establish itself and may take considerable years (but not necessarily)  to change,  but lives can be transformed instantaneously!
 

Paul Serwinek, Ph.D.

2385 Leamonth

Milford, MI  48381

248-685-1299