How Does Our Culture Differ From Those of The Bible?
Bridging the Gap to Understand Scripture Better
One of my favorite topics to teach about is the differences between our culture (by that I mean, North Americans—and Americans, in particular) and the cultures of the Bible. Understanding the differences, not only in how the cultures of the Bible lived, but in how they thought—about each other, family, time, and more—is a foundational component to understanding Scripture as it was meant to be understood.
I wanted, therefore, to share some of the highlights that I have often used in various settings that people have found most illuminating. Before I do, however, I would be remiss if I did not recommend the following books for further, more in-depth study:
Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes by Brandon O’Brien and Randolph Richards
Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes by Randolph Richards and Richard James
The 3D Gospel by Jayson Georges
Ministry in Honor-Shame Cultures and Ministry in Patronage Cultures by Jayson Georges
It’s also worth noting at the onset that one of the big differences between our culture and the cultures of the Bible is that we, as Westerners, prefer things to fit in neatly-fit categories whereas the ancients didn’t as much. Categories were more fuzzy and fluid, and that is, truthfully, a better way to look at descriptions of cultures. Within the pages of the Bible are represented hundreds of cultures, spanning thousands of years. Cultural differences exist even between Jewish culture under the united monarchy and the Jewish culture of the New Testament. So I’m painting with an extremely broad brush, and recognize that. But this is a basic framework to help you think about things. So here we go…
Their Culture: High Context; Our Culture: Low Context
In our culture, we value things being plainly spoken. We naturally enter a conversation assuming the other person doesn’t know what’s going on, until we’re proven otherwise. To get on in conversation in our culture, you need a relatively low familiarity with the context of what’s being said.
The cultures of the Bible tended to assume readers/hearers could “read between the lines” and were read into a lot of what wasn’t being said. To get on in conversation in their cultures, you would have needed a relatively high familiarity with the context of what’s being said.
Therefore, when we approach reading Scripture, we should be looking for what is happening between the lines inasmuch as what’s happening in the lines themselves.
Their Culture: Collectivist; Our Culture: Individualist
In our culture, we tend to view ourselves in contrast to the greater whole, whether our relationships or society in general. Our identity is determined by us, and that self-determination is reinforced by our culture’s storytelling (e.g. movies and music).
In their cultures, one’s identity was in large part determined by their kin group. People view themselves in connection to the greater whole, whether their network of relationships or society in general.
Therefore, when we read the Bible, we would do well to check our individualism. It’s fine to see individual benefit to the stories of Scripture, but these are usually secondary to what God is wanting to say to his people. God has a people, not simply a collection of persons.
Their Culture: Group Think; Our Culture: Individual Think
When approaching a task, we naturally tend to assume, “why involve someone else when I can just do it myself?”
Their cultures, instead, tended to assume, “why do something alone when I can bring someone along with me?”
This is important when reading the Bible because any time it appears someone is doing something alone, there’s a high probability they’re not. Even the writing of Scripture itself was more than likely a collaborative effort between the principal author (e.g. Paul) and the author’s apprentices and companions.
Their Culture: Relational Time; Our Culture Mechanical Time
In our culture, an event starts when it is scheduled to start. And we tend to start the event, even when all the attendees may not have arrived, in order to adhere to the schedule and honor everyone’s time.
In the cultures of the Bible (and in many other cultures still today), an event starts when everyone has arrived. The event waits until all of the stakeholders have arrived in order to honor the individuals attending.
Their Culture: Honor/Shame; Our Culture: Justice/Guilt
In our culture behavior is regulated, generally speaking, by the potential for punishment/reprisal. Community stability is maintained through adherence to the rule of law: “I don’t steal because I don’t want to go to jail.”
In the cultures of the Bible, behavior is regulated by the impact it has on the whole, whether enhancing honor (to one’s family, village, etc.), or to bring shame: “I don’t steal because I don’t want to bring shame upon my family.”
For an excellent explanation on how to explain the gospel in honor-shame cultures click here.
Their Culture: Relationships > Rules; Our Culture: Rules > Relationships
In our culture, rules are to relationships what flower boxes are to flowers. Rules give shape to relationships, protect them, and determine their limitations and boundaries. Giving exception to the rules is hypocrisy.
In biblical cultures, rules are to relationships what a trellis is to a grapevine or tomato plant. The rules serve to give support to the flourishing of a relationship, but they are good only insofar as they support that purpose. Exceptions may be given to rules when they don’t support the best interests of the situation or the stability of the relationship.
Their Culture: Externalized Conscience; Our Culture: Internalized Conscience
In our culture, a sense of right and wrong is determined by the self—through an internal negotiation of what is best (often called our conscience).
In the cultures of the Bible, a sense of right and wrong was largely determined by the awareness of and input from the whole, and whether the action caused people to lose face.
Their Culture: Patron/Client Economy; Our Culture: Capitalist Economy
In our culture, the free market is regulated by government regulations. Wealth is perceived as an infinite resource (if you have more, I can have more too, so long as I work hard enough).
In the cultures of the Bible, wealthy benefactors (patrons) provided for and connected tradespeople (clients) in exchange for the client’s loyalty and service. Middlemen, called “mediators,” often functioned as connectors between patrons and clients. Wealth was viewed as a limited resource (if you have more, I have less).
The more we understand the dynamics at play among honor-shame cultures and the patron-client economy of the ancient world, the more it dramatically alters our reading of the Bible. Honor, shame, and patronage are fundamental to how we understand other components of our faith such as grace and faith—as these were socio-economic concepts in antiquity long before they were religious concepts in Christianity.
Their Culture: Write for Purpose; Our Culture; Write for Precision
In our culture, when we retell a story, we often concern ourselves with carefully recounting the facts of a narrative as faithfully as possible to how things actually transpired. “Accuracy” is a faithful communication of the facts, like taking the witness stand in a courtroom.
The ancients would adjust facts, timelines, and other data in a narrative to highlight certain features of then story or to communicate a broader purpose. “Accuracy” was the faithful communication of the purpose or lesson for which the other set out to write.
This is perhaps most crucial in our reading of Scripture, as it reconciles many of the alleged factual discrepancies we see in Scripture. Accurate facts were not as important to the ancients as telling the story to communicate a broader truth. So whether creation was formed in six literal days was likely of little importance to the writer of the creation narrative—what was more important was the timeless truth of why God formed creation and for what purpose.
One final thought
Last but not least, a word of caution is in order here. Often, when people discover how differently the cultures of the Bible think and saw the world, they’re tempted to see everything about that as fundamentally good and every way in which our native worldview sees the world as fundamentally bad. That’s not necessarily true.
In every culture there are aspects that:
God affirms
God rebukes
God redeems
The First Testament is filled with examples where God corrects thinking and perspectives, where he insists upon individual responsibility where collective thought excused sin, and more. Jesus’ ministry continues on this in the Second Testament, seeking to note God’s concern for the internal motivations of the heart, even when those motivations don’t produce outward action (I wrote on this on the subject of lust last week).
Our response to when we are confronted with the way other cultures think is to assess how their thinking can better inform and transform our desire to live more like Christ. The perspective of collectivist cultures on time—being more relationally-oriented than mechanically-oriented—has been one such challenge for me.
Whereas I tend to be very legalistic about punctuality, my majority world friends and reading insights from the Bible have helped soften this rigidity within me to see a greater value in being more relationally focused in how I spend my time.
In other areas, other cultures’ perspectives may indeed directly challenge our own—such as our American individualism, which is ranked the most extreme out of any national society in the world. Our individualism is so extreme that the average American Christian can serve to lean heavily into insights and thinking from collectivist cultures and only wind up chipping away at our own individualistic excesses—we’re in no real danger of overcorrecting any time soon!