Excerpts and commentary on “Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes” Part 1

I hope to make this a long series on at least a dozen examples of the hermeneutical brilliance of this book by Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brian. “Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes” is essentially a book that wishes to correct a major error in modern evangelical hermeneutics. That being, Christians today believe that the Bible was written to us and that we should read it as if it was written in   21st century American society. In reality the culture the Bible was written in had a completely different perspective than we do today, and when we read scripture, we must do so while keeping this perspective in mind. We do the same with language, we don’t read a verse in isolation, nor do we pretend the Bible was written in english. It is actually a really curious thing why so many scholars and theologians put such a heavy emphasis on linguistic analysis of the text today, I may even write a book on it one day.

That aside, I would like to give an example from the book that demonstrates how important an in depth study of ancient cultures is to reading the Bible.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15-16)

This was spoken by Christ to the church at Laodicea and those who are even somewhat familiar with the Bible will know how it has been interpreted. In our western eyes we see this “either/or” statement as a dichotomy between hot, or positive, and cold, or negative. Thus to be hot is to be “on fire” for Christ and to be cold is to clearly reject Christ. Lukewarm, on the other hand, is sitting on the fence. Its interesting to note also how our society seems to condemn indecision as well. This, however, is significantly different from how Laodiceans would have interpreted this passage.

As Dr. Richards points out, two cities near Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossae were famous for there fresh water springs. Hierapolis had astonishing geological formations produced by hot water springs. Such springs, have formed white calcium deposits which appear to flow down the mountains on which the springs reside. You can see pictures of these springs here; http://www.marmaris.org/things-to-do/pamukkale/. Colossae, by contrast, had cold water springs, which were equally remarkable. Laodicea, however, had no springs, and had to import water from these two cities. But, by the time the water got there, it had lost its remarkable qualities, leaving the citizens of Laodicea with all the lukewarm water they could drink. With this in mind, Christ’s exhortation of the Laodiceans becomes clear. Their discipleship was unremarkable, it was neither hot nor cold, just lukewarm. Thus the lessons which should be taught about this passage, it seems to me, is that we need to be careful not to just be average run of the mill Christians but outstanding in our discipleship. We should not be teaching that this passage means to tell us that God would rather us reject Him, than be a lukewarm Christian. That’s not what the text is saying.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean that the Bible elsewhere doesn’t teach what modern interpreters generally think Revelations 3:15-16 teaches, which leads me to ask the question; do you the reader believe that being an undevoted Christian is worse than not being Christian at all? Why or why not?

God and Free Will

Is it possible to have free will and yet to choose the same thing in every possible world? It would seem that if an entity were to make the same choice freely, in every possible world, such a choice would be necessary. And yet, one of the apparent requirements of free will is that it be possible for the agent in question to choose otherwise. This is quite a quandery.

Fundamental Assumptions of Liberal Ideology

At least some of  the assumptions of Liberal and Postmodern ideology have to do with the issue of tolerance. Those of a liberal and/or postmodern persuasion appear to believe, in many cases at least, that believing a behavior is immoral without proper justification. Such justification must consist of showing some way in which the behavior harms other people. So, for example, murder is wrong because it does harm to an individual and his/her family. Harm therefore, can be defined as any detrimental effect on a persons physical and/or psychological well-being. When an action is defined as immoral that doesn't cause harm in this way, a red flag is raised in the eyes of the socially liberal. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, where homosexual acts tend to be seen as a reflection of a persons very identity. It is concluded from this, that homosexuals have a right to openly practice homosexual behavior. So two assumptions can be established so far; harm is the basic qualifier for immoral behavior, and people have a fundamental right to express themselves, especially in regards to what gives them their identity.

A third assumption seems to exist in the Postmodern conception of tolerance as well, however. Tolerance seems to be viewed as not only reluctantly coexisting with people of differing philosophies, ethnicities, theologies etc., but also gleefully accepting those differences as within the confines of what one considered good, moral, beautiful etc. If taken to its logical conclusion, this principle would seem to imply that to believe that a different lifestyle, belief system, ethnicity etc. is not good or less good than yours is to commit a cardinal sin. To counteract this illogical conclusion, the first two assumptions are employed, implying that tolerance must be employed to those behaviors, viewpoints and backgrounds which do not cause harm to others and/or reflect a persons right to be who they are. 

This maneuver however, still leaves problems. For one thing, the principle of tolerating others as postmodern's define it appears to be self-defeating as it seems to require believing that anyone who disagrees with the principle of tolerance is immoral, even though such disagreements don't cause harm, and may even violate someone's rights to express themselves in regards to what gives them their identity. Another problem it leaves is that the postmodern system of thought doesn't adequately address the central dilemma of tolerance, that being how do we disagree with one another without hating one another? Postmodernism simply says that we should believe that all positions are good, at least those that do not lead to harming individuals. But this seems to dilute a persons position considerably, what use is believing that another person is wrong on an issue if you are forced to believe that their position is just as good as yours? Isn't the whole reason you hold a particular view is that your's is the best? There would seem little use, then, in having diversity as the only thing which really divides people is personal preference.

Christianity, I think gives a better answer to the dilemma of tolerance. While it is true that other viewpoints contrary to Christian teaching are wrong and therefore in some sense evil, it is the Christian's duty to respect and care for those who hold those positions. It is the Christians duty for a number of reasons. First of all, Christians hold to the idea that all of us humans are in the same boat in terms of righteousness, as such, we are in no position to condemn, judge or punish other people for their immoral behavior and lifestyles. Additionally, Christians do not generally hold that they are somehow better because they have figured out the truth whereas others have not. Christian theology and Biblical teaching are pretty clear that our knowledge of God and His salvation is not something which can be credited to our discovery, but God’s self-revelation. Another major reason Christians have a duty to care for others is the intrinsic value we all have being created in God’s image. We have been given unparalleled worth in all of creation and we should treat each other appropriately. Finally, Christians are commanded by God to love others. Mark 12:31 records that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. So Christians have no excuse, they have an obligation to tolerate others.

It should be important to note here, however, that this tolerance is not as those of a moderately postmodern persuasion define it. It is not accepting others positions as good, it is accepting other people despite their wickedness and despite their flaws.

Additional note; I am only referring to a more moderate version of postmodernism, particularly how it is portrayed in popular culture such as on tv shows like “The View”. Thus, this basic critique may not hold up against more sophisticated versions of postmodern thought, though, from what I’ve seen, I doubt it won’t.