FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: By JP Holding

[Trout]

Self-Center: Thoughts on the Self-Esteem Phenomenon

-- James Patrick Holding --
(Tekton Apologetics Ministries (http://www.tektonics.org))


The impetus for this essay was a book that a reader asked us to check out, titled Christ Esteem by Don Matzat. The book is out of print, and so not reviewable here, but as I read it (and to answer the reader's question, as a whole, I find it quite useful) I find something surprising. Matzat takes us on a Biblical journey in which he refutes the modern desire for "self-esteem" and replaces it with "Christ esteem." What is surprising is how much of what Matzat recommends, corresponds to essentially this advice: Become less like a modern Westerner, and more like an ancient person of the sort that lived in Bible times.

The irony of course is that Matzat, for all his erudition, likely is unaware of the work of the Context Group or other contextual scholars who highlight the vast differences between ancient and modern personality. Not that this is to his discredit, especially since he wrote some years ago (1990) when little of this information was readily available. But we would like to note some of his comments, and in turn indicate how these correspond with the markers of ancient personality, courtesy of Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul. What we will find is that our modern "problems" lie much in our personal psychology (as we noted as well where discipling (http://www.tektonics.org/af/discipoops.html) was concerned).

Matzat observes that as little as 40 years ago, one never heard the self-identity question so common today: "Who am I?" "How can I develop a positive self-identity?" Matzat replies [28]:

The personal identity of the apostle Paul was completely immersed in the person of Jesus Christ...Should not such glorious identity and victorious life meet the needs of this generation?

Compare Matzat's determination of Paul -- correct in essence, if written in modern terms -- to what is offered by Malina and Neyrey about the concept of "embeddedness" [158]:

...[A]ncient Mediterranean people identified and defined themselves as situated and embedded in various other persons with whom they formed a unity of sorts...the individual person shares a virtual identity with the group as a whole and with other members.

Though he almost certainly did not realize it, Matzat has hit the nail on the head. What we as individuals must be TOLD to do, ancient persons did naturally -- seeking an identity in others; in the case at hand, in Christ! In this light Matzat's many admonitions to give up self and identify with Jesus are a return to original Christian social orientation. It seems ironic that Matzat has unerringly directed us to a solution that, for the first Christians (and the majority of those living today, in collectivist societies) was simply the natural thing to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now we have a look at what the "other side" has to say about the "self-esteem" issue, and how the social science input from Malina and Neyrey affects it. The Secular Web recently posted an item titled "Self-Esteem and Christian Belief" by one Merle Hertzler. Hertzler does not seem to be aware that concern for "self-esteem" is a thoroughly modern, individualist phenomenon; much is also offered in terms of how humanists "achieve" theirs -- by being proud of being at the end of a long evolutionary struggle, apparently. While one might take issue with some of Hertzler's generalizations about the goodness of human nature and the spin placed on human value from a humanist perspective, our purpose will here merely be to relate what Hertzler offers to what the social science data has to say.

Indeed on that count, Hertzler is doing what indeed the ancients did: Turning to an outside source for information about identity, and using that to assign value to humans. In this case, however, it is the natural order in which Hertzler "embeds" himself. On the other hand, quoting Biblical passages that give a lesser value to the individual, as Hertzler does, is itself badly misplaced, for a couple of reasons:

Statements like Job's ("Wherefore I abhor myself,") could thus by no means reflect any sort of anti-"self-esteem" message. The concept would have been unknown and indeed would have been considered abhorrent by any ancient collectivist. (This is also aside from the literary usages of the period, which means that Job did not so much "abhor" himself as he was expressing what we might call disgust with his personal situation. Hopefully not even Hertzler would exclude realistic assessments of one's situation as "damaging" to "self-esteem"; there is a difference between doing damage and engaging delusion!)
Statements like Jesus' ("So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.'") likewise are hardly of any relevance here and it is foolish to ask, "That doesn't do much for our self esteem, does it?" Jesus' words reflect the ancient mindset in which every person knew and recognized their place in a hierarchy. Such custom was what kept the ancient world from descending into anarchy. Concerns for "self-esteem" and self-fulfillment would have broken the ancient world apart had they been upon everyone's mind. ("I can't bring the crops in, Father. I'm finding myself!") Nor would anyone have ever thought to little of themselves, to answer Hertzler's questions as to why the Bible contains no warnings against low self-esteem. The interaction of envy, collectivism, and limited good meant that the only danger, ever, was thinking of one's self too much -- not too little. Moreover as Malina notes in The New Testament World [92-3], persons of honor among people in such a society do everything they can to avoid the appearance of presuming on others, lest such be interpreted as trying to get what the other person has; self-deprecation such as the above is in fact the proper way to receive benefaction in an honor and shame setting.
Hertzler asks, "Do we really need a book to make us feel guilty?" More -- we needed years of introspective development and free time afforded by the Industrial Revolution. Let it be kept in mind that "guilt" and conscience as we know it did not exist in the Biblical world -- and that even today in honor-shame societies, persons who do wrong, and do not get caught at it, will not be subject to remorse. (See comments here (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-5.html).) It is not modern psychology that brought us our concept of self. It is thus foolish to ask, as Hertzler does, why God let us go "centuries" without this message: Even if it were correct in the first place, it has only been "relevant" to any real extent for a century or two, and only in a very small part of the world. Why should God have catered to our unique neurosis?
On the other hand, the alleged Christian hubris Hertzler sees -- which he attributes to Christian belief that Christ is in them and can do all things -- is itself a modern manifestation that arose from individualism. It could not have emerged in a hierarchical and collectivist society. It is this modernist value -- and the overliteralism of Western fundamentalism -- which created the health and wealth "gospels" which take "all things are yours" to be a blank check -- rather than the comforting assurances laid down in the context of one humbly obedient to God's will that the ancient Judean (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/prayfor.html) would have understood.
And needless to say, Hertzler has an erroneous view of Romans 7 (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rom7.html).
Hertzler makes good hay of the practice of Christian psychologists like James Dobson who are on about low self-esteem. By the data above, self-esteem as a concept has only existed for a very few years and would never have been conceived of by 99.9% of people who have ever lived. A better question than any Hertzler asks is, "Is this really such an essential thing to have, since 99.9% of all people in history lived without it?" Is it better to ask whether self-esteem in just a myth and an individualist neurosis -- a "need" created by demand, after the manner of advertising in its beginnings? "Wouldn't it be better simply to change your church doctrine?", Hertzler asks. No -- it would be better to change our mindset. For all of us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for a third aspect to this essay. A reader alerted us to some quotes from a book titled "The Culture of Narcissism" by one Christopher Lasch. I do not have this book, but from what I have found, getting it might prove most profitable. What I do have are some selected quotes from the book, used in another context by another site in a matter of no specific relevance to this essay. In this book Lasch apparently decried the mutation of America into a culture of narcissists -- caused by the overhauling of the socialization process as Americans pursued individual fulfillment. Rather than being reared by family, for example, children were being reared by more impersonal institutions: schools, the media. He is quoted as saying:

The nature of work takes the father (and today the mother) out of much of childrearing, which falls to schools and day care. (One way narcissism is created is via an upbringing rich in material goods and instant gratification, but with little emotional attachment given by the parents.)

The "reign of childrearing experts" renders the care the parents do give rather neurotic and timid, and deprives it of control and discipline. Parents become terrified that any failure to give in to the child, any reason for the child to be frustrated with them, will somehow ruin the child -- when in fact such frustration is a vital part of maturation and socialization, of learning that the world doesn't owe you, that life is more than making demands, that sometimes we all fail, yet life goes on. Their fear of ruining the child thus ruins the child.

Lasch finds his own solution, apparently, in anti-capitalism; in light of what we have seen, however, capitalism and the rise of the Industrial Revolution was but a piece of ground upon which individualism planted and took root -- the real culprit lies in how the plant has been tended since then.

A couple more comments of relevance here:

On the "cult of the celebrity": "The media ... intensify narcissistic dreams of fame and glory, encouraging the common man to identify himself with the stars and to hate the 'herd,' and make it more and more difficult for him to accept the comparative banality of everyday existence." Ironically the media would here be encouraging us to trade in collectivist thinking for connection with a remote celebrity whose "ingroup" we can never be a part of.
"The collapse of personal life originates, not in the spiritual torments of affluence, but in the war of all against all, which is now spreading from the lower class, where it has raged without interruption, to the rest of society." Note how this varies from the ancient perception of each person as having a proper place within a stratified society. On the one hand, we have destroyed the idea that we each have a place and that social mobility is rare if it happens at all; but this has become an extreme caricature of the dream of social equity.
Once again, the irony emerges that certain of modern neuroses appear to be a result of "what's missing" that persons of the Biblical culture would never have had a problem with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A reader has recently provided us with some relevant insight gleaned from a book newly out by Nancy Pearcey, titled Total Truth, which we are told is about the need for apologetics and developing a Christian worldview, especially in light of post-modern refusal to deal with facts in a consistent way and recognize objective truth. Our reader tells us that Chapter 10, "When America Met Christianity, Guess Who Won?", explains the American individualism which I have in many articles contrasted with biblical and Japanese culture, and traces it back to Jeffersonian as opposed to biblical roots. More shockingly for Christians, Pearcey relates the origins of the "celebrity model" not to Hollywoord (which merely perpetuates what originated elsewhere) but to American revival leaders. As Pearcey says:

Most of all, evangelicalism still produced a celebrity model of leadership —- men who are entrepreneurial and pragmatic, who deliberately manipulate their listerners' emotions, who subtly enhance their own image through self-serving personal anecdotes, whose leadership style within their own congregation or parachurch ministry tends to be imperious and domineering, who calculate success in terms of results, and who are willing to employ the latest secular techniques to boost numbers. ...

Only by recognizing the source of various trends can we craft the tools to correct them. We need to diagnose the way historical patterns continue to shape the way we operate our churches and ministries. History holds up a mirror to the way we think and act today.

In light if this it is little wonder that super-individualized programs like Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life are today's church staples, while programs for the corporate good as unknown. Our reader, who is involved in an overseas ministry, notes differences in approach that bear out these observations: American ministries prefer large seminars as opposed to "church-by-church" approaches popular elsewhere.

[jwarrend]

This essay renews several questions for me that I've had for some time but haven't yet had occasion to ask, so now seems as good a time as any. Happily, I believe JP has me on ignore, but I'd be very happy if someone more familiar with the work of the Context Group than I could offer their perspective, if time and inclination permit.

I think it would be hard to argue that the Context Group is doing anything other than performing a very valuable service to those who would seek to understand the Biblical text. Certainly, it can only be helpful to have insights into the cultural backdrop in which the NT is set, as knowing what a classical era-audience would have made of it can inform what we ought to make it. However, JP appears, to me, to make two additional inferences that don't seem to me to be motivated.

The first is this. It seems to me that there is a distinction between "what a Classical Era audience would have made of the text" and "what the true meaning of the text is". However, by the view JP articulates, it seems that it should be impossible to divorce the broader theological point being made by the text from the cultural context in which the text was written.

My concerns with this are twofold. The first is that it has the result of rendering the text imperspicuous. Yet, the perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that its message can be plainly understood) is foundational to Protestantism. To illustrate, consider Psalm 103:13, "As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him". Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.

The second concern is that it appears to run the risk of oversimplifying the richness of God and His dealings with us. As an example, perhaps it was reasonable in Paul's day to express the relationship between God and man in terms of the client-patron relationship, since that would provide an easy and convenient model for believers at that time to grasp. But why would that necessitate that such a model exhaustively describe the nature of God's relationship to us, and that there couldn't be more to it?

Put it a different way; everyone knows that contemporary Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on a "personal relationship" with Jesus. The astute reader of the Context Group's writings would presumably point out that a client in the Greco-Roman world would not be on such familiar terms with his patron. Well and good, but how does that imply that such an understanding is erroneous? What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.

In a sense, then, my first question is an epistemic one; how do we get from "such was the culture of the NT era" to "the truths of God are adequately describable and comprehensible by reference to analogues from the NT era culture"?

The second point flows out of similar considerations. It appears that JP consistently expresses disapproval of modern culture in contrast to the ancient societal model. To be sure, there are no doubt negative consequences of the modern individualistic mindset but it is far from clear to me that this renders our cultural system "worse than" another or indeed, that it's even possible for one system to be worse than another. I don't see how, given that the Bible was written during the Greco-Roman era, that therefore we are to conclude that this represents the ideal societal model and that we should seek to return to those good old days.

It certainly couldn't be argued that God Himself was the author of Greco-Roman social dynamics. If we wanted to claim that there was such a system that God had authored, presumably the closest we could come would be to look to the societal dynamics in the Hebrew society in the years following the Exodus. I know of no one who advocates reverting to that societal model, although of course there are some who attempt to follow the Mosaic law, though applying its directives to the cultural practices of our contemporary society.

I don't dispute that there may be some negative cultural practices to which a given set of mores may be particularly prone, nor do I dispute the possibility that fixation on self-esteem may indeed be negative as the article assumes. However, that doesn't, as far as I can tell, warrant the conclusion that therefore, individualism is negative as compared to collectivism. And at any rate, it certainly doesn't seem possible for Scripture to authorize such a pronouncement, since, if we are to accept the premise of the article, collectivism is a given and individualism was an unknown quantity. We could hardly, then, expect Scripture to pass judgement on the individualist societal model, any more than we could expect a 16th century German author to weigh in on whether 'tis more blessed to be German or American.

Modern industrial society and the individualism that JP contends is attendant is certainly not without its faults, but it is not yet apparent that it is by any means bad-in-itself. It would hardly require terribly much effort at all to enumerate the many ways in which modern Western society has been a boon to the world, not the least in giving us scientific methodology, by which the Context Group's work is made possible in the first place!

Please note that this isn't meant to be an argument or a criticism of the OP so much as the thoughts and reflections that the article and others like it arise for me. Anyone who has grappled with similar questions or is willing and able to do so would be most welcome in response!

-Jeff

[JimboJSR]

I'm not trying to answer for JP, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, if that's ok? :smile:

I think it would be hard to argue that the Context Group is doing anything other than performing a very valuable service to those who would seek to understand the Biblical text. Certainly, it can only be helpful to have insights into the cultural backdrop in which the NT is set, as knowing what a classical era-audience would have made of it can inform what we ought to make it.
Absolutely. Having said this, though, I don't understand where your objections below come from...
It seems to me that there is a distinction between "what a Classical Era audience would have made of the text" and "what the true meaning of the text is". However, by the view JP articulates, it seems that it should be impossible to divorce the broader theological point being made by the text from the cultural context in which the text was written.
By understanding "what an Ancient would have made of the text", one is able to find out what an Ancient patient would have meant by saying such a thing. Study of ancient mindsets and the cultural context of the Bible helps enourmously with this.

Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.
Firstly, this is a non-issue for the majority of people in the world today; living as they are in an group-orientated mentality, they require a great deal less "education" when trying to understand many of the concepts portrayed in the Bible (if missionaries to places like Africa and South America are to be believed).

Secondly, God requires disciples - not folk who want their answers dispensed in a McDonald's fashion. If you're not prepared to do at least a little work, one has to ask how much you truly want it!

Thirdly, you get out what you put in. The basic gospel message is easy to understand - but deeper investigation / study / chewing over will lead to a deeper understanding and rgeater appreciation, just like everything else in the world! I don't see this as being prohibitive to salvation - rather, the one who puts more effort in is rewarded by greater knowledge.

What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.... It certainly couldn't be argued that God Himself was the author of Greco-Roman social dynamics. If we wanted to claim that there was such a system that God had authored, presumably the closest we could come would be to look to the societal dynamics in the Hebrew society in the years following the Exodus. I know of no one who advocates reverting to that societal model, although of course there are some who attempt to follow the Mosaic law, though applying its directives to the cultural practices of our contemporary society.
Well, one can have a group-orientated society without the toilet habits and poverty of the people of the Exodus!!! :wink: I wouldn't say that God authored such social dynamics; rather, that God constructed a framework for salvation which "fitted" with the way that the vast majority of the world's past and future population would be familiar with (and with which ALL off humanity would be at least able to partake in). Bear in mind that group-orientated societies aren't something "weird" and "out there", or even "outdated" - what you're saying sounds a little too much like social snobbery for my liking. (I'm not implying that you think Westerners are better than Hebrews - I'm sure you're a delightful chap :smile: - but our way of thinking is not necessarily the "default" for God to use!)

Modern industrial society and the individualism that JP contends is attendant is certainly not without its faults, but it is not yet apparent that it is by any means bad-in-itself. It would hardly require terribly much effort at all to enumerate the many ways in which modern Western society has been a boon to the world, not the least in giving us scientific methodology, by which the Context Group's work is made possible in the first place!
I don't think this is what JP is saying - rather, he is saying that God's grace is delivered in a way which seems unfamiliar to us, and as such, the Church is being damaged by its adherance to a system that simply doesn't exist, and that we are missing a lot of what the Bible has to say to us because we view it through individualist lenses.

Good thoughts - feel free to agree or criticise! :tongue:

Jsr

[jwarrend]

I'm not trying to answer for JP, but I'll throw in my 2 cents, if that's ok? :smile:

Absolutely; I'm glad you did!



By understanding "what an Ancient would have made of the text", one is able to find out what an Ancient patient would have meant by saying such a thing. Study of ancient mindsets and the cultural context of the Bible helps enourmously with this.

I guess the question for me is whether the meaning of the text is exhaustively contained in the author's intent or whether the text, being God-breathed, has a life of its own that exists in some sense independently of the context in which it was written. And whether, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are able to apprehend that meaning.

Sticking with my example of Psalm 103, when I read the verse I quoted, I can apprehend the "meaning" of the passage by referring to my own experience as a father, and as such, the passage resonates with me -- I feel that I can understand the analogy that the Psalmist is creating. However, is that a valid way to interpret Scripture, or must we assume that our own experience, being so far removed from the cultural context in which the passage was written, is of no assistance in interpreting the passage? (I will note that I suspect the answer to the question may vary depending on what passage is being considered)

The astute reader will note that there are several questions all bundled together in that one thought, and they include:

-- Is Scripture perspicuous? Can its meaning be plainly apprehended by the reader?

-- Can we rely on the Holy Spirit help us to understand what a passage of Scripture means?

-- To what degree is the human experience universal across cultures and time, and are there particular areas in which this is more likely to be the case?

-- Is it prudent to pin our interpretation of Scripture on the disseminations of the scholarly community, given the inherent dynamism to scholarly findings and the lack of an implied Christian commitment on the part of the members of that community? (yes, I recognize that's a bit of a loaded question)

My view, I suppose, would be to say that yes, digging into the sociology can expand our appreciation for Scripture, can reveal nuances and depths that we would otherwise have missed, and can correct misunderstandings or misreadings. But I'd be concerned with relying more on the scholarly community than on the Holy Spirit as our source for interpretation, given the dramatic difference in reliability we attribute to each!

And pressing the question I asked again, the question for me is how we go from, for example "the relationship between God and man is described in the text as having the characteristics of the client-patron relationship, which was a common social relationship for people in that day" to "ontologically, the relationship between God and man is exhaustively synonomous with the client-patron relationship". Not that anyone even necessarily says something like the latter; it's just a placeholder for the hermeneutic question I'm raising. I hope it makes sense.


Firstly, this is a non-issue for the majority of people in the world today; living as they are in an group-orientated mentality, they require a great deal less "education" when trying to understand many of the concepts portrayed in the Bible (if missionaries to places like Africa and South America are to be believed).

I'm skeptical of this; it's hard for me to imagine that, if we are to accept the contention that Biblical society is so dramatically different from our own that we can barely understand the Scripture without scholarly aid, that nevertheless every collectivist society in history is sufficiently monolithic in mindset that we are the only ones to whom such a concern could be applicable.


Secondly, God requires disciples - not folk who want their answers dispensed in a McDonald's fashion. If you're not prepared to do at least a little work, one has to ask how much you truly want it!

I don't disagree.


Thirdly, you get out what you put in. The basic gospel message is easy to understand - but deeper investigation / study / chewing over will lead to a deeper understanding and rgeater appreciation, just like everything else in the world! I don't see this as being prohibitive to salvation - rather, the one who puts more effort in is rewarded by greater knowledge.


I quite agree. I guess my questions with respect to the piece in question relate more to what is the right kind of study to put in and whether such study can really warrant value judgements about societal dynamics as a whole.


Well, one can have a group-orientated society without the toilet habits and poverty of the people of the Exodus!!! :wink: I wouldn't say that God authored such social dynamics; rather, that God constructed a framework for salvation which "fitted" with the way that the vast majority of the world's past and future population would be familiar with (and with which ALL off humanity would be at least able to partake in). Bear in mind that group-orientated societies aren't something "weird" and "out there", or even "outdated" - what you're saying sounds a little too much like social snobbery for my liking. (I'm not implying that you think Westerners are better than Hebrews - I'm sure you're a delightful chap :smile: - but our way of thinking is not necessarily the "default" for God to use!)

I'm definitely not saying that "we" are doing things the right way and that "they" are doing things the wrong way; quite the opposite, I'm saying that it's not clear to me that there is a right and wrong with respect to this issue, and that it's not clear that scholarship could require us to conclude that there was. And again, I am skeptical of the degree to which the interpretation of Scripture can be settled simply by reference to group-oriented cultures. I doubt very much that, for example, Israel in the Davidic era and 18th century Japanese culture had terribly much in common. But this is just incredulity on my part, not an actual argument.


I don't think this is what JP is saying - rather, he is saying that God's grace is delivered in a way which seems unfamiliar to us, and as such, the Church is being damaged by its adherance to a system that simply doesn't exist, and that we are missing a lot of what the Bible has to say to us because we view it through individualist lenses.


And I think that's fine, as far as it goes. The points at which I would disagree, however, would be to go father than this and say either "Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses" or "We need to get rid of these individualist lenses and return, societally, to a collectivist outlook".

-Jeff

[damienl]

"Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses"


The gist of Malina's argument is that interpreting scripture with an individualistic mindset will result in misunderstandings. I certainly sympathize with this. However, I am not entirely convinced that all of Malina's insights are equally valid. For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced. I often get the impression that he asks me to swallow uncritically what he says. I would rather like him to quote Anthropologist X or Y in support of some of his claims.

A second `problem' is that it is often used in too absolute a fashion. Thus, collectivists did not `feel' guilt, because Malina/Rorbaugh said they did not. At one point, however, it turns into a form of circular reasoning in which disconfirmatory evidence is rejected out-of-hand. Case in point is JP's treatment of Psalms 51 (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby2.html). Sure, it doesn't say that David *felt* guilty, but JP is willing to admit that he `knew he was guilty', and we can see from the text that he expresses a desire to be cleansed. This is where the analogy with prison inmates break: they *knew* they had done something `wrong' (by society's standards) but didn't care about it. David knows it *and* is repentant.
On the same page, we see that there is another problem with JP's answer to Till:

and as for Ausberger, little Stevie apparently doesn't notice that Augsberger wrote a book about the modern world to assist modern pastors in their counseling efforts in different cultures today. He wasn't saying zip about ancient cultures in this context.

But Malina specifically states in his book (p. xiv) that
The models presented in this book derive for the most part from contemporary Mediterranean anthropologists. Is there any continuity between the Mediterranean world of today and that of the first-century A.D.? [The answer is `yes']

There are also some inconsistencies. Malina ( The New Testament World, p. 60) lists among those who saw in Paul an individualist Augustine and Martin Luther. Both writers lived before the Industrial Revolution, and Augustine is arguably an Ancient Mediterranean person (or at the very least, someone who lived in an agrarian society). Why can he be an individualist, but not Paul?

The last concern I have about some of Malina's writings is the procedure that he sets out: put on collectivist lenses and see if it works (p. 52)... Well, I can put on individualist lenses and, in a way, it `works' too.

As usual, I think we have to be careful before embracing a theory and see a) if the data supports it b) if it is not too absolute, if it doesn't replace one set of blinders by another. Rohrbaugh for instance recognizes that "Both guilt and shame exist in most societies though one response or the other usually dominates", but still feels confident to assert that "reading it [guilt] into ANY biblical text is a serious mistake". Is it not a little inconsistent? Why couldn't we find guilt in a biblical text if it "exist in most societies"? c) how it is accepted by scholars in the field.
I'd be interested in more information regarding a) and c) if some who have done more reading on this topic can point me to some books or articles. I'm particularly looking for a book in which a member of the Context Group shows clearly what their theory is based on (not simply `anthropologists say', `here are the different kinds of culture').

[JimboJSR]

Hey ho, thanks for the thoughtful reply!
guess the question for me is whether the meaning of the text is exhaustively contained in the author's intent or whether the text, being God-breathed, has a life of its own that exists in some sense independently of the context in which it was written. And whether, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, we are able to apprehend that meaning.
Surely both? For apologetic purposes it is always wise to treat the Bible the same as any other document of its time. Whilst it's always a good idea to pray before reading (and ask the Spirit to make the passage "like a two-edged sword"!), God has also given us a very elaborate set of neurons with which we are able to reason. As to an "independent" meaning to the text... I doubt it, as I see no reason to believe it. If God uses humans as his (albeit inerrant) vehicles of his message, one must take the message on the terms of the messenger.
-- Is Scripture perspicuous? Can its meaning be plainly apprehended by the reader?
Yes - when supported by the appropriate supporting structure of knowledge and context. To argue otherwise is to do a "Brooks Trubee" and insist that the text goes into inane detail for the benefit of every single human on earth who would ever need it (and thus the book becomes a library as big as a small town!!!) Then again, even within Scripture, some passages go out their way to provide background information and context (eg. Matthew vs Luke)
-- Can we rely on the Holy Spirit help us to understand what a passage of Scripture means?
Well, different people all say the Spirit guides them, yet they carry different messages :wink: But as I said - aren't our own faculties God-given? (when used in an open, honest way of course!)
-- To what degree is the human experience universal across cultures and time, and are there particular areas in which this is more likely to be the case?
Again, from what I've seen, I suspect the majority of societies don't need to re-adgust their lenses the same way we do - but I guess Malina et al know more about that than I do...
-- Is it prudent to pin our interpretation of Scripture on the disseminations of the scholarly community, given the inherent dynamism to scholarly findings and the lack of an implied Christian commitment on the part of the members of that community? (yes, I recognize that's a bit of a loaded question)
Fair point - though I'd say that we're pinning it on evidence rather than scholarship per se. I do appreciate your point - but the advice of the Holy Spirit (or rather, the advice mothed by those who claim to be informed by the Spirit) also varies greatly!
And pressing the question I asked again, the question for me is how we go from, for example "the relationship between God and man is described in the text as having the characteristics of the client-patron relationship, which was a common social relationship for people in that day" to "ontologically, the relationship between God and man is exhaustively synonomous with the client-patron relationship".
I think we're all agreed that the relationship is much, much closer to that of client-patron than "fluffy personal friend". Exhaustive? I don't see any real reason not to think so apart from the fact that it seems unusual to us in 2008!
I'm skeptical of this; it's hard for me to imagine that, if we are to accept the contention that Biblical society is so dramatically different from our own that we can barely understand the Scripture without scholarly aid, that nevertheless every collectivist society in history is sufficiently monolithic in mindset that we are the only ones to whom such a concern could be applicable.
I see what you're saying. Then again, if those "in the know" say that that was the case, there is a alrge burden of proof on the one who says otherwise.

I doubt very much that, for example, Israel in the Davidic era and 18th century Japanese culture had terribly much in common. But this is just incredulity on my part, not an actual argument.
Lol - again, JP has an article which lays out some similarities. There are many differences, to be sure - not least because Japan has had a huge interaction with western culture over the years - but we can still learn some key points.
The points at which I would disagree, however, would be to go father than this and say either "Scripture cannot be viewed through individualist lenses" or "We need to get rid of these individualist lenses and return, societally, to a collectivist outlook".
To be honest, I'm not sure you've provided any reason to disagree with statement 1) above other than your own incredulity, as you put it. If there are inconsistensies in Malina's position, or evidence which contradicts him, then grand - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm not sold. As for statement 2), I don't think anyone is quite claiming that! I do appreciate the points you're making though - I just don't think they are the problem you make them out to be.

Jsr

[jwarrend]

Surely both? For apologetic purposes it is always wise to treat the Bible the same as any other document of its time. Whilst it's always a good idea to pray before reading (and ask the Spirit to make the passage "like a two-edged sword"!), God has also given us a very elaborate set of neurons with which we are able to reason. As to an "independent" meaning to the text... I doubt it, as I see no reason to believe it. If God uses humans as his (albeit inerrant) vehicles of his message, one must take the message on the terms of the messenger.

I agree that God gave us a mind and that we should use it, but to what degree should we trust it? That's the question I'm delving into here. Let me give a simple example to illustrate the phenomenon I'm alleging as possible. Do you think that David, when composing some of the Psalms that we now recognize as Messianic, was necessarily aware of their Messianic implications? Take Psalm 22, for instance. Certainly, we can't retroactively mind-read David and know for certain what was going through his mind; we are forced to draw conclusions only from what he wrote. But to me, it seems at least plausible to say that David was writing a cry of pain out of the depth of agony he was experiencing as a result of his situation, with no thought in mind of the suffering that the Messiah would one day experience, but that because his psalm was inspired by God, the broader implication of the psalm reveals that he was "really" writing about what Christ would experience on the cross. If that were the case (and I grant that it's by no means cut-and-dried), then the actual meaning of the text transcends the author's intent and understanding.


Well, different people all say the Spirit guides them, yet they carry different messages :wink: But as I said - aren't our own faculties God-given? (when used in an open, honest way of course!)


I think you're knee-jerking to the defense that intellectuals automatically knee-jerk to; "the Spirit tells people different things, so therefore the Spirit must not be telling anyone anything!" Do you even have actual examples in mind where what you describe above took place, or are you just making a generalization? Listen, I sympathize with this; I am much more of an intellect-driven sort than an emotional, "spiritual" sort. At the same time, I am very reluctant to "debunk" the experiences of fellow believers. If someone says "the Spirit says thus", I'm going to listen to what they say and measure it against Scripture. I'm not going to automatically assume they're fabricating.

Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit's role is to guide us into the truth. Why wouldn't we expect the possibility of divine assistance in understanding Scripture?

I wonder if the real issue isn't something more like this. The conclusions drawn by scholarship have the advantage of being out "in the open"; we can examine the evidence, we can weigh the assumptions that went into the conclusion, we can investigate the sources, and we can make our best guess based on which way we feel the preponderence of evidence points. (I don't necessarily believe that evidence of the sort available to scholarly study ever warrants certitude, but perhaps that's a separate matter) In contrast, there's something "fuzzy" and imprecise about relying on the Spirit to grant us wisdom and insight to understand a passage. It's not clear how its supposed to "work", and it's uncomfortable for those who want to rely on our intellect.

I suppose that from my point of view, the best approach is, as you suggested above, to use both our ability to reason and the illumination of the Spirit. To that end, please note that my response to this point:

Fair point - though I'd say that we're pinning it on evidence rather than scholarship per se. I do appreciate your point - but the advice of the Holy Spirit (or rather, the advice mothed by those who claim to be informed by the Spirit) also varies greatly!


is to observe that I am not talking about uncritically accepting the say-so of someone who claims to be speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (although I fully grant that this can happen and that when it does it should be followed!), but rather, I'm talking about a case where you believe the Spirit is revealing something to you. What if, for the sake of argument, it disagrees with what sociology scholars say; who is to be believed? I'm not expecting a simple answer, and in a way that's sort of my point; that the JPH view appears, to me, to over-simplify the situation by siding exclusively and inevitably with the scholarly view, whatever it may be, as though there's no possibility of such a conflict arising or presenting any difficulty. I think that perhaps gives the Spirit too little credit.


I think we're all agreed that the relationship is much, much closer to that of client-patron than "fluffy personal friend". Exhaustive? I don't see any real reason not to think so apart from the fact that it seems unusual to us in 2008!

I agree with the former to an extent although I'd dispute that those are the only two options. I would contend that it has aspects of that relationship but that it also has aspects of the father-son relationship, and perhaps a few others besides; in other words, that it's richer than "just" the client-patron relationship. But again, keep in mind that the client-patron relationship is simply a placeholder in my argument. But with that in mind, the point I'm trying to question is whether, given that we could say that (a) "in the NT era, X, Y and Z were aspects of the client-patron relationship and A, B and C were not aspects of the client patron relationship", and (b) "Scripture uses descriptive language that draws an analogy between the client-patron relationship and the relationship between God and man", that therefore, we could conclude that (c) "X, Y and Z are aspects of the relationship between God and man and A, B, and C are not aspects of the relationship between God and man".

Does my question make sense? What I'm asking, I think, is how we recognize how tightly a given analogy holds; how we know whether (a) and (b) lead inescapably to (c). I think this becomes important insofar as it informs the way we will read other passages of Scripture. If, for example, we believed that elsewhere, Scripture does appear to teach that "B is an aspect of the relationship between God and man", would we be justified in saying "but that reading must be wrong, because we know based on (a) that B wasn't an aspect of the client-patron relationship in Greco-Roman society"?


To be honest, I'm not sure you've provided any reason to disagree with statement 1) above other than your own incredulity, as you put it. If there are inconsistensies in Malina's position, or evidence which contradicts him, then grand - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm not sold.

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not advancing the view that statement 1 is false, I'm asking for the argument that motivates accepting it as true. I respect Malina's credentials but "scholars say" is rarely sufficient justification for me to accept something as settled truth.


As for statement 2), I don't think anyone is quite claiming that!


Well, I'm not sure I agree with you; I think that there's more than a subtle undercurrent of such a sentiment that pervades JP's work. But if it's not a view that you espouse, I certainly wouldn't ask you to defend it.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply!

Best,
-Jeff

[jpholding]

I see from the quotes that jwarrend is up to his usual postmodern gyrations.

For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced

Which ones? They seem fine to me depending on their target audiences.

A second `problem' is that it is often used in too absolute a fashion. Thus, collectivists did not `feel' guilt, because Malina/Rorbaugh said they did not. At one point, however, it turns into a form of circular reasoning in which disconfirmatory evidence is rejected out-of-hand. Case in point is JP's treatment of Psalms 51 (http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby2.html). Sure, it doesn't say that David *felt* guilty, but JP is willing to admit that he `knew he was guilty', and we can see from the text that he expresses a desire to be cleansed.

You're confusing recognition of legal guilt with the feeling of guilt. David would of course want to be cleansed of legal guiilt.


On the same page, we see that there is another problem with JP's answer to Till:

But Malina specifically states in his book (p. xiv) that

What exactly is the problem here?


The New Testament World[/i], p. 60) lists among those who saw in Paul an individualist Augustine and Martin Luther.

I don't see that from this quote on page 60. Can you explain? It looks to me like he's saying they caught hints of conscience as we know it, not individualism. That wouldn't be a surprise in Augustine since he would have had the time to do introspection. Luther, the same. It is in the people who had time for introspection that we see the first hints of conscience -- even the the ancient world.


The last concern I have about some of Malina's writings is the procedure that he sets out: put on collectivist lenses and see if it works (p. 52)... Well, I can put on individualist lenses and, in a way, it `works' too.

That is far from all there is to it. He tells people to read the book, not merely "put on collectivist lenses."

And as to that, what of that persons from those sorts of socieities have written to me to affirm what Malina and the others say?

Rohrbaugh for instance recognizes that "Both guilt and shame exist in most societies though one response or the other usually dominates", but still feels confident to assert that "reading it [guilt] into ANY biblical text is a serious mistake". Is it not a little inconsistent?

No, because 1) he said "most," not all; 2) his point would still be that if shame was dominant, you have to explain any deviant reading of guilt into a text.


I'd be interested in more information regarding a) and c) if some who have done more reading on this topic can point me to some books or articles. I'm particularly looking for a book in which a member of the Context Group shows clearly what their theory is based on (not simply `anthropologists say', `here are the different kinds of culture').

I have done more reading. And if "anthropologists say" and examples are out, what's left to show what a theory is based on, exactly?

[jwarrend]

I see from the quotes that jwarrend is up to his usual postmodern gyrations.

The eloquence of expression and depth of insight wrapped up in this observation leave me unable to do other than provide pearls to the font of wisdom from which such an apt and helpful comment originated!

-Jeff

[historic salve]

The gist of Malina's argument is that interpreting scripture with an individualistic mindset will result in misunderstandings. I certainly sympathize with this. However, I am not entirely convinced that all of Malina's insights are equally valid. For instance, I find that his books might be better sourced. I often get the impression that he asks me to swallow uncritically what he says. I would rather like him to quote Anthropologist X or Y in support of some of his claims.
This is the only thing in your post I could say I agreed with. On the whole, Malina's research (and that of the rest of the Context Group) is invaluable. However (at least from the one book Malina has coauthored that I've read), Malina seems to lack proper citation when he ventures outside of his specialization. For instance, in Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, he assumes a level of ethnocentrism on Paul's part (and even more pronounced on the part of the other Apostles) that meant Paul was "unconcerned" with the salvation of non-Israelites. He rightly perceives that God will not use the Jews in the end times, but assumes that "Zionism" is the problem for this misreading and that modern-day "Jews" are not genetically linked to first-century Judeans (8-9). He dismisses "all nations" in Matt 28:16 as "meaning, of course, 'of Israelites living among the nations'" with no further explanation (17). He seems to assume that Paul takes the term kingdom of God too literally. That is to say, he seems to think that Paul thinks it's a theocracy (32-33). He merely assumes that Paul's vision of Jesus was a trance, in the same order as Peter's vision of God declaring all food clean (332).

On a side note, his book is also lacking an index, which is frustrating for me when I want to go back and find information.

[OldManZangetsu]

I'll just make a quick comment (relatively speaking) about a few things.

My concerns with this are twofold. The first is that it has the result of rendering the text imperspicuous. Yet, the perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that its message can be plainly understood) is foundational to Protestantism.

Could you quote something? I have a feeling there is more to it than that.

To illustrate, consider Psalm 103:13, "As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him". Taken to an extreme, JP's view seems to require that we could not possibly understand this verse unless we dug into the ANE sociology literature to apprehend what exactly the father-child dynamic was in 1000 BC. I do not imagine JP would go to this extreme, but I'd be curious in how we could go about recognizing which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help.

I think it would help to render everything you're saying under a paradigm and compare it to the paradigm of the student-teacher (and this paradigm makes more sense if you understand developmental psychology as it pertains to learning). Quite clearly the scholarly crowd are the teachers, and the less informed are the students. As a child grows, they encounter new topics that at first are difficult to grasp, but once they master the basics, future topics that are similar or more complex are easier to learn. For example: expecting a child to solve an algebraic problem is ridiculous unless that child has already mastered basic math (addition, multiplication, etc.) AND understands the notion of BALANCE (which I think might be related to science, and not necessarily math); i.e. 1+X=2, what is X? Well, subtract one from both sides (balance) and you get X=1.

So as it relates to your question of "which passages of Scripture we are capable of apprehending unaided and which require expert help," I respond by saying: depends on the ground work. If the ground work isn't "an upbringing in a society that shares similar or same viewpoints," then one undoubtedly needs to study that culture and the language in order to properly understand what they are saying. The scholars are nothing more than teachers who help us see the (theological) world around us, just as regular teachers help students learn the basics of what is required to be a properly functioning member of an industrialized society. We COULD learn these things ourselves, but it is much more difficult without the "corrective lenses" of teachers/scholars. More often than not people will learn things incorrectly if not given instruction, which I have personally encountered in dealing with young violin students.

The second concern is that it appears to run the risk of oversimplifying the richness of God and His dealings with us. As an example, perhaps it was reasonable in Paul's day to express the relationship between God and man in terms of the client-patron relationship, since that would provide an easy and convenient model for believers at that time to grasp. But why would that necessitate that such a model exhaustively describe the nature of God's relationship to us, and that there couldn't be more to it?

Put it a different way; everyone knows that contemporary Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on a "personal relationship" with Jesus. The astute reader of the Context Group's writings would presumably point out that a client in the Greco-Roman world would not be on such familiar terms with his patron. Well and good, but how does that imply that such an understanding is erroneous? What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God? Would their inability, in and of itself, render such a dynamic impossible? I don't see the warrant for such a conclusion.

Given what I wrote above, I think it is possible to come to these conclusions without help, (after all, how did the scholars do it?) but again, it is more difficult. I would argue that no where in the Bible is anyone ever really "chums" with God. The closest we might have is Moses, but he is always displaying a very reverent attitude. Even in prayers we see that usually the first thing to pop up before anything else is a recognition of who God is, which would normally be (in the prayers) just, holy, etc. Very praising, not something we would normally do for/to a personal friend.

So here, as it regards the student-teacher paradigm, I didn't notice this until I started encountering "scholarly works" because I was never taught (or perhaps I just never bothered to apply this notion to reading the Bible, because I was taught a sort of hyper-spiritualized method of reading the Bible, i.e. pick out a verse here and there) how to gather multiple instances of something and compare them all to find patterns. So my "ground work" here would have been this comparison strategy, but my ground work wasn't set or set very well. At the point of discovering a conflict between the modern reading of certain verses and what I have discovered through these comparisons, I know that something is up and I need to find someone else who has "tread through the muck" before me (that is, if I am unable to draw a final conclusion that is satisfactory to myself).

Also, I don't think you meant any of this in an Obsessive Compulsive Panic manner, but there seems to be the implication that without the help of scholarly reference things are misunderstood to the point of being heresy. I don't think this is always the case. With the example of our relationship to God, the view of God as a buddy and we being in a personal relationship with him isn't necessarily as heretical as viewing God as a pagan idol (gumball machine, as JP might put it), because even within this ideology there is the understanding that God is ultimately in charge and has the final say so. I believe, given the Corinthian passage about meat, there is an allowance for people not "ready to step out onto the sheet of thick ice they think is really thin ice," but that we should also have the understanding that not only is their sanctification needed to be happening in our spiritual walk, but also in our mental walk (which has a direct influence on our spiritual walk as well). Correct me if I'm mistaken.

If any of that makes sense... not sure how to organize my thoughts there, sorry.

I'm definitely not saying that "we" are doing things the right way and that "they" are doing things the wrong way; quite the opposite, I'm saying that it's not clear to me that there is a right and wrong with respect to this issue, and that it's not clear that scholarship could require us to conclude that there was. And again, I am skeptical of the degree to which the interpretation of Scripture can be settled simply by reference to group-oriented cultures.

Lastly I'll just note that: they wrote it, so we should adopt their understanding of it, since their words (and also their way of thinking, implicitly) are what got the "Final Source of Authority" stamp on it. While the lines may not be as black and white as, "this ideology is heretical" in all instances, it certainly helps to view things from the right lenses.

[jwarrend]

Good points, OMZ. I'll reply to a couple of the points you raised.


Could you quote something? I have a feeling there is more to it than that.

Do you mean more to the doctrine of perspicuity? Yes, of course; I was deliberately over-simplifying for the sake of brevity. A google search will reveal a lot of hits, but here's one link to a brief article at "Theopedia.com": http://www.theopedia.com/Perspicuity

Briefly, the notion of Scripture being perspicuous doesn't mean that everything is transparent even upon cursory inspection, or that careful study isn't warranted or required. Rather, the implication is that there is no need for an infallible interpreter; that Scripture can and should be read and apprehended by all believers. Obviously, this doctrine stood in contrast to the view of the Church, which took the view that only the Church could be entrusted to handle sacred Scripture. Obviously, this too is a bit of an oversimplification; it's easy to access more information about this if it's something that interests you.


Quite clearly the scholarly crowd are the teachers, and the less informed are the students.


Ah, but here's the point that I, to some extent, dispute. Yes, clearly, scholars of classical era sociology are teachers and their insights can assist us in our own understanding, and therefore we should avail ourselves of their instruction and erudition. I have absolutely no dispute there. However, are they the only teachers we should be listening to, or the best? I would suggest that we have other potential teachers -- the Holy Spirit, church tradition, the leadership in our local churches, our families, and common sense, to name a few. We don't assign the same level of reliability to all of these and should therefore presumably not give them all equal weight, but neither would it seem to me to be prudent to allow sociology scholars to carry the full burden of blessing our beliefs as legitimate or not. Neither is it clear that, should a conflict arise between the disseminations of sociologists and of one of these other teachers, that the scholars are the ones that we should automatically side with.

I would argue that no where in the Bible is anyone ever really "chums" with God. The closest we might have is Moses, but he is always displaying a very reverent attitude. Even in prayers we see that usually the first thing to pop up before anything else is a recognition of who God is, which would normally be (in the prayers) just, holy, etc. Very praising, not something we would normally do for/to a personal friend.

I must start my restating two caveats; the first and most important is that the issue of a "personal relationship/ client-patron relationship" is something I'm using merely as a placeholder to raise a broader question about how we draw conclusions about Scripture from sociologists. The second is that I am emphatically not saying that the Bible teaches that we should be "buddy-buddy" with Jesus or anything like that.

With respect to the former point, I said to JimboJSR:

"...the point I'm trying to question is whether, given that we could say that (a) "in the NT era, X, Y and Z were aspects of the client-patron relationship and A, B and C were not aspects of the client patron relationship", and (b) "Scripture uses descriptive language that draws an analogy between the client-patron relationship and the relationship between God and man", that therefore, we could conclude that (c) "X, Y and Z are aspects of the relationship between God and man and A, B, and C are not aspects of the relationship between God and man".

Does my question make sense? What I'm asking, I think, is how we recognize how tightly a given analogy holds; how we know whether (a) and (b) lead inescapably to (c). I think this becomes important insofar as it informs the way we will read other passages of Scripture. If, for example, we believed that elsewhere, Scripture does appear to teach that "B is an aspect of the relationship between God and man", would we be justified in saying "but that reading must be wrong, because we know based on (a) that B wasn't an aspect of the client-patron relationship in Greco-Roman society"? "

He didn't respond but you're welcome to do soif you find the question interesting.

At the point of discovering a conflict between the modern reading of certain verses and what I have discovered through these comparisons, I know that something is up and I need to find someone else who has "tread through the muck" before me (that is, if I am unable to draw a final conclusion that is satisfactory to myself).

Sure thing; of course it's prudent to seek guidance from those more knowledgable than ourselves. I don't think anyone is advocating that we should be acting as lone rangers.


Also, I don't think you meant any of this in an Obsessive Compulsive Panic manner, but there seems to be the implication that without the help of scholarly reference things are misunderstood to the point of being heresy.

Not sure I follow; are you saying that I am claiming that this is the case, or that I am attributing such a view to proponents of the view expressed by the OP?

I believe, given the Corinthian passage about meat, there is an allowance for people not "ready to step out onto the sheet of thick ice they think is really thin ice," but that we should also have the understanding that not only is their sanctification needed to be happening in our spiritual walk, but also in our mental walk (which has a direct influence on our spiritual walk as well). Correct me if I'm mistaken.

No, I think you're right, there's absolutely the expectation that part of our spiritual growth should include intellectual growth, and that this is something we should pursue. But the question is, what is the right way to go about doing that? Amusingly, the same argument that would claim that the Bible can't be read correctly by an individualistic society could at some level be leveraged to reject appeals to scholarly findings, insofar as the scientific method is a modern innovation! Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration -- there are presumably analogies that one can apply, but I would instead suggest that we consider the question, what is the method that Scripture prescribes for acquiring wisdom? David, for example, speaks repeatedly in the Psalms about meditating on God's law and imploring God to teach him or provide wisdom to him.

Yes, I know, I know. "David was embedded in a collectivist society and wouldn't have required the re-orientation that we individualists need to understand God's word". I don't think this invalidates the broader point, though.


Lastly I'll just note that: they wrote it, so we should adopt their understanding of it, since their words (and also their way of thinking, implicitly) are what got the "Final Source of Authority" stamp on it. While the lines may not be as black and white as, "this ideology is heretical" in all instances, it certainly helps to view things from the right lenses.

I have to nitpick this a bit. Presumably, we can agree that we should adopt God's understand of the text. So, for what you say above to be true, we have to be certain that the authors were fully cognizant of the meaning of the texts that they were writing. Yet, as I argued in an earlier post with respect to Psalm 22, it's plausible that this might not always necessarily have been the case -- can we be sure that David "knew" his words prefigured Christ's suffering on the cross? I would speculate that there's probably a continuum and it probably varies by genre; I would suspect it's more likely that a writer of one of the more historical works, such as the Gospels or the OT histories, probably understood what he was writing than, for example, one of the prophets or John in writing Revelation, who may not have understood the "actual" meaning of their words.

So I think that's something we'd have to worry about a bit, and of course people have done just that. And so the second issue with what you say is whether we can access the author's understanding of their text. And of course, it all comes back to what the best method for doing that is. Certainly, understanding their society has to be very helpful, but knowing "what the author meant" is, I claim, something separate, just as a modern literary critic, though embedded in the same societal framework as me, won't automatically draw correct conclusions about my writing simply by virtue of our cultural overlap. (There's a great chapter by CS Lewis in NETDV that addresses this very point).

I appreciate the discussion. I hope I've clarified my questions and concerns somewhat.

Best,

Jeff

[Mountain Man]

What if it were the case that the relationship we enjoy with God really is of the "personal relationship" sort; how would the NT writers, lacking the appropriate cultural referrents to grasp such a dynamic, have been able to successfully express this aspect of our interaction with God?
You really think the ancients knew nothing of personal relationships? :doh:

[jwarrend]

Come on, MM, that's a cop out. You know that we are perfectly capable of having a polite and reasoned conversation. Why wheel out the scorn machine?

-Jeff

[Mountain Man]

Drop the victim mentality and answer the question: Do you really think the ancients were incapable of describing or understanding the nuances of a personal relationship?

[jwarrend]

The question I asked was a hypothetical and largely rhetorical one that I very clearly said was a placeholder for a broader and more important question. If you want to engage my question and the balance of my post in that context, I'll be more than happy to answer your question.

-Jeff

[OldManZangetsu]

Briefly, the notion of Scripture being perspicuous doesn't mean that everything is transparent even upon cursory inspection, or that careful study isn't warranted or required. Rather, the implication is that there is no need for an infallible interpreter; that Scripture can and should be read and apprehended by all believers. Obviously, this doctrine stood in contrast to the view of the Church, which took the view that only the Church could be entrusted to handle sacred Scripture. Obviously, this too is a bit of an oversimplification; it's easy to access more information about this if it's something that interests you.

That helped. Not sure what JP's words on this would be (since there is an on going disagreement between you two as it relates here), but I'll just note that if I were to discuss this with others I would comment on the modern notion that we can just pick up a translated Bible (BY ITSELF), start from the beginning, read all the way through, and be a competent Christian. Not that people can't come to a fuller understanding on their own, but that most DON'T KNOW HOW TO (that is, don't know the process of gathering information, making comparisons, testing conclusions, and coming to final, but perhaps not FINAL final, conclusions). Thus, said scholars are the way to go for correction, because they DO know how to.

However, are they the only teachers we should be listening to, or the best?

You're taking my analogy a bit too far, I only had the scholars in mind here. But I would generally agree with your sentiments here. I would just add that it depends on what we're being taught when we make the decision for who to listen to.

that the scholars are the ones that we should automatically side with.

Depends on the other sides' familiarity with the topic at hand. Also, I would say never "automatically side" with anyone; further research (or perhaps just a re-reading of the discussion to see where someone went wrong) should always be the first option.

What I'm asking, I think, is how we recognize how tightly a given analogy holds; how we know whether (a) and (b) lead inescapably to (c)... If, for example, we believed that elsewhere, Scripture does appear to teach that "B is an aspect of the relationship between God and man", would we be justified in saying "but that reading must be wrong, because we know based on (a) that B wasn't an aspect of the client-patron relationship in Greco-Roman society"? "

Not to sound rude, but the answer here should be obvious: study and deliberation.

Not sure I follow; are you saying that I am claiming that this is the case, or that I am attributing such a view to proponents of the view expressed by the OP?

Only that it seemed to be an implication that it was a possibility. Though, I should have stated it this way: "can be misunderstood" rather than "are misunderstood." The former is what I was thinking, but for some reason I typed it out as the latter.

Amusingly, the same argument that would claim that the Bible can't be read correctly by an individualistic society could at some level be leveraged to reject appeals to scholarly findings, insofar as the scientific method is a modern innovation!

Only if the logic/process or conclusions can be proven false.

Of course, this is a bit of an exaggeration -- there are presumably analogies that one can apply, but I would instead suggest that we consider the question, what is the method that Scripture prescribes for acquiring wisdom? David, for example, speaks repeatedly in the Psalms about meditating on God's law and imploring God to teach him or provide wisdom to him.

I can see God responding to our prayers today, "Why should I repeat what someone else has already laid out? Open up a book."

The rest falls under the same response that I gave above, study and deliberation. Read all the viewpoints (or as much as time allots), study their method and see if their conclusions match up, then compare it with other findings and viewpoints.

[jwarrend]

Good reply, OMZ. I agree with very much of what you said, so I'll be very brief in reply:

I would comment on the modern notion that we can just pick up a translated Bible (BY ITSELF), start from the beginning, read all the way through, and be a competent Christian.

Well, ok, but I don't know anyone who actually thinks this -- if people really thought this, why would they bother going to church and listening to the sermon! -- but at any rate, I certainly don't and it's not a position I'd defend or argue for.


I can see God responding to our prayers today, "Why should I repeat what someone else has already laid out? Open up a book."

I disagree, I absolutely cannot see God saying this. Scholarship is by its very nature constantly shifting, and there's little doubt that today's cutting edge scholarship will be supplanted in 10 years by new findings and conclusions. That doesn't invalidate the importance of study, of course, but it does suggest that we have not and never will "outgrow" our need for divine assistance in understanding God's truth. John 14 is, to me, quite clearly a promise to all believers.

Best,
-Jeff

[Mountain Man]

The question I asked was a hypothetical and largely rhetorical one that I very clearly said was a placeholder for a broader and more important question. If you want to engage my question and the balance of my post in that context, I'll be more than happy to answer your question.
Nice cop out.

Here's the problem I have with the portion of your argument that I've chosen to focus on: you're effectively saying that the Bible inaccurately describes our relationship with God. It's also a point that if the Bible writers wished to describe our relationship differently then they were perfectly capable of doing so, meaning that if your assertion is correct then the Bible writers made a deliberate choice to be inaccurate when they had the means and the motive to be accurate. This I can not accept for reasons that should be obvious.

[jwarrend]

Nice cop out.

I'm sorry that you see it that way. I think I made it clear enough that I was willing to address your question if you're willing to engage the overall question I was raising. I don't mind if that's not of interest to you, but I simply don't have any patience left for people who want to cherry-pick one sentence out of a long and carefully-thought-through (though of course not necessarily flawless!) post and point to it and direct ridicule at it without being bothered to show why it's ridiculous.


Here's the problem I have with the portion of your argument that I've chosen to focus on: you're effectively saying that the Bible inaccurately describes our relationship with God. It's also a point that if the Bible writers wished to describe our relationship differently then they were perfectly capable of doing so, meaning that if your assertion is correct then the Bible writers made a deliberate choice to be inaccurate when they had the means and the motive to be accurate. This I can not accept for reasons that should be obvious.

My response is simply to point out that (a) I was raising a question for thought, not advancing an argument or making an assertion, and (b) the question you're referencing was meant to be a possible way of getting at the essence of the broader question I was asking by way of approaching it through one possible example. If it's not useful for that purpose, we can and should drop it, but again, it's just a placeholder for the bigger question.

But I will say, in response to your remarks above, that I absolutely do not claim that the Bible inaccurately describes our relationship with God, but that it would be no surprise to me if its description were incomplete. I think that anytime we speak of "how God operates", our own limitations are going to impede our ability to fully apprehend the subject, and that while we can get some sort of a handle on these matters by reference to analogies, that it's not a foregone conclusion that our analogies won't prove to be inadequate or incomplete at some level. In that sense, what I think I was asking was something along the lines of whether it would be justified to claim that, given, for the sake of argument, we conclude that "Scripture teaches that our relationship with God is analogous to that of a client/patron relationship", that we could append "and nothing more or less than that". Not that anyone even says that, necessarily.

Hope that makes sense.

-Jeff

[Mountain Man]

But I will say, in response to your remarks above, that I absolutely do not claim that the Bible inaccurately describes our relationship with God, but that it would be no surprise to me if its description were incomplete.
That doesn't fly, either, because there was no need for such an important topic to be left incomplete. If the ancients wished to describe our relationship with God using interpersonal terms then they were perfectly capable of doing so, and their readers would have been perfectly capable of understanding it.

Not to mention if the Bible is "incomplete" then who are we to try and "complete" it? Where does that knowledge come from?
In that sense, what I think I was asking was something along the lines of whether it would be justified to claim that, given, for the sake of argument, we conclude that "Scripture teaches that our relationship with God is analogous to that of a client/patron relationship", that we could append "and nothing more or less than that".
Rather, there's no need to start piling on understandings that aren't supported by the text just because it makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside.

In other words, read what the Bible actually says, don't try and add stuff to make it "complete".

[jwarrend]

That doesn't fly, either, because there was no need for such an important topic to be left incomplete.

No, I meant, in this post, "incomplete" in the sense of "incomprehensible"; that God fundamentally transcends our finite human ability to understand Him, and therefore our relationship with Him must at some level transcend our capacity for understanding, as well.


Rather, there's no need to start piling on understandings that aren't supported by the text just because it makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I suppose it's a good thing that I don't advocate doing this, then.


In other words, read what the Bible actually says, don't try and add stuff to make it "complete".

This is just what I do. Who said anything about "adding stuff" to anything? You're jumping to conclusions.

-Jeff

[Mountain Man]

No, I meant, in this post, "incomplete" in the sense of "incomprehensible"; that God fundamentally transcends our finite human ability to understand Him, and therefore our relationship with Him must at some level transcend our capacity for understanding, as well.
If that is true then we should strive to understand our relationship with him in the way he has seen fit to present it to us.

[jwarrend]

If that is true then we should strive to understand our relationship with him in the way he has seen fit to present it to us.


It almost certainly is true, and I agree with you completely.

-Jeff

[jpholding]

T
The rest falls under the same response that I gave above, study and deliberation. Read all the viewpoints (or as much as time allots), study their method and see if their conclusions match up, then compare it with other findings and viewpoints.

But.....but....but that means he'd have to READ something! :bawl: :lolo:

What he doesn't get, and will never get, is that Scripture always presumes a certain level of knowledge. That we've gotten dumber as a whole about its meaning since it was penned is our fault.

But he wants to just be able to understand it without getting boo boos on his fingers from turning pages and callouses from walking around in libraries.. :bawl: Besides, that's time he could use getting all gooshy inside at some 32-hour praise chorus performance. How dare you suggest he should miss any of that.

[jwarrend]

But he wants to just be able to understand it without getting boo boos on his fingers from turning pages and callouses from walking around in libraries.. :bawl: Besides, that's time he could use getting all gooshy inside at some 32-hour praise chorus performance. How dare you suggest he should miss any of that.

Well, this is amusing enough, but it does raise an interesting question -- will heaven more closely resemble a praise concert or a library filled with books on textual criticism? (or maybe something else entirely)? I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'd be content either way. How about you, JP?

-Jeff

[OldManZangetsu]

I disagree, I absolutely cannot see God saying this. Scholarship is by its very nature constantly shifting, and there's little doubt that today's cutting edge scholarship will be supplanted in 10 years by new findings and conclusions. That doesn't invalidate the importance of study, of course, but it does suggest that we have not and never will "outgrow" our need for divine assistance in understanding God's truth. John 14 is, to me, quite clearly a promise to all believers.

Supplanted, or improved? We can't really continue this conversation without an in depth look into ALL scholarship and seeing areas with potential for "supplantation" or "improvement." Such is beyond the permittance of our schedules, so I bow out here.

[jwarrend]

Supplanted, or improved?

Maybe both? As you say, maybe it depends on the field in question. I don't think this really necessitates all that much in depth investigation into the state of all scholarly disciplines, though. Are Christ's words in John 14, eg, for all believers or solely for His immediate audience? If the former, then it's reasonable to suppose that we can count on divine aid in understanding Scripture. And more importantly, as I said, scholarship is of course important but it must be inaccurate to suppose that we will "outgrow" our need for God's aid. After all, as the OP notes, scholarship only brings us back to an even footing with the original audience, since we are "dumber" than they were based on cultural changes!

-Jeff

[jpholding]

Supplanted, or improved? We can't really continue this conversation without an in depth look into ALL scholarship and seeing areas with potential for "supplantation" or "improvement." Such is beyond the permittance of our schedules, so I bow out here.

His statement about scholarship displays a remarkable depth of ignorance. Change simply isn't that radical, and what little change there is amounts to rediscovery of what would have been known in the first century.

His is the voice of ignorance and fear.

[lifesharer]

I recently reread Dave Hunt's Book : Beyond Seduction; This book deals directly with this subject laying out this distinctions between the value systems of this worlds age and the truth of our value only seen in the light of Christ in you , the hope of glory. This truth is part of the deeper mystery of the christian faith where the ways of man are turned on its head and the thoughts of man shown to be a lie. "He has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise..."
I am also dealing with a person who is being suckered into the "self esteem" movement through a book by Joel Olsteen which i shall not name. This is indeed the cornerstone of the great deception ("ye are gods") and the key of the antichrist movement..
Gal. 2: 20 says it all when we seek to grasp the way God would show us of His soveriegnty over all things. As long as we seek our own soveriegnty then we deny Him; HIS. '...Those who seek to save thier lives will lose them , Take up you cross and deny your self , i must decrease that he might increase...', and many more verses show that its not about us; but Christ, that he might be all in all.
Those who claimed they did "many mighty works in his name" simply sought to do his will by thier fleshly strengths, they sought to save thier flesh by works of righteousness and THATS why they were cast out, and the Lord never "knew" them... they were not his disciples nor of the BODY!
Can the Body have two heads? Can we be lords of our lives and yet have Christ OUR Lord? Why does the Lord love the martyers so? Because they loved NOT thier lives...even unto death! WE do not have to be physicaly martyered to be crucified with Christ in this life. BUT we MUST all die to self rather than seek to inflate it back to life. The greatest in my KINGDOM will be SERVANTS of all, washing one another feet, which was the duty of the lowest servants in this worlds age. The greatest persons in the Lords Kingdom will NOT be the Joel Olsteens or Billy Grahams, or the POPE ( they have thier rewards, good or bad) but the man who faithfully served the Lord for those many years in a soup Kitchen, the woman who gave her life to reach a tribe of lost souls, the person who gave thier life away in a glorious sacrifice, a flaming brand meant to be consumed (not saved) to seek with all thier hearts to serve God and do HIS WILL!
OUR worth , our value, our glorying; is not in our fleshly carnal minded life but in Christ.

May God grant you all the wisdom to see this eternal truth,
Lifesharer

[4thdensity]

In reading your assessment of the "self-esteem" issue. I think the question has more to do with identity and purpose and our difficulty in relating with that aspect of our lives.
We are inundated with choices in how to manage lives; which in reality is a good thing, although some get lost and paralyzed in the forest of choices.
The ancients felt more of a sense of community and their place in the community than we do now.
But today we have more opportunity to express our god-given talents and insights than any other time in history.
Conversely we listen to a mass-media that dictates to us what success looks like and almost imposes into our consciousness how we should feel about ourselves.
I believe when we begin to detach from being dictated to by the media and start expressing our native intelligences and unique expressions then we as a society will feel better about ourselves and each other.

The self esteem movement is real and neccessary. It's about self empowerment and regaining our abilties to think on our own and lead our lives as expressions of God.
Immersing our identites in others is co-dependent and mentally unhealthy, it's self-subjagation. We can identify with our family, friends and others without suppressing who we are individually.
When one can accomplish that then one can truly know who one is...
Self-esteem=identity

[jpholding]

You win a Platinum Screwballl nomination for that self-centered, egomaniacal, provincialist diatribe which didn't address a word I said. :thumbd:

But this is what really wins it for you:



Immersing our identites in others is co-dependent and mentally unhealthy, it's self-subjagation

Great. So collectivist societies (eg, 99.99999% of people who have ever lived) are mentally unhealthy. Wonderful.

Got any more bigoted commentary to offer, or are you ready for your white sheet now? :lmbo:

Come see me in my section here on TWeb so we can all get a good long laugh out of you. :hehe:

[4thdensity]

JPHolding ...
Your response to my reply was juvenile to say the least.
How old are you anyway ?
Is that why you post here so you can childishly attempt to ridicule others opinions....
That says a lot about you, you seem insecure in your beliefs...you seem bombastic and pompous.

Read my reply again and try and keep what I said in context...
Seems odd you ignored this point of mine:
" We can identify with our family, friends and others without suppressing who we are individually."

Your reply wasn't christian or rational...
It figures though...A christian apologist is against self-esteem...that's too funny.

Wouldn't your "collective" of people with low self-esteem and no sense of their individuality be depressing and easily conquered ?
Or do you worship the Borg collective ?
Hey I'm just asking....


4thdensity

[4thdensity]

By the way...JPHolding you offered....
"Got any more bigoted commentary to offer, or are you ready for your white sheet now? :lmbo:

"Come see me in my section here on TWeb so we can all get a good long laugh out of you". :hehe:[/QUOTE]

Please direct me there...I'll gladly school ya'...

4thdensity

[jpholding]

JPHolding ...
Your response to my reply was juvenile to say the least.

I figure I had to adjust to my respondent. :lol: Your views are that of a child, after all. That was sociology by a three year old you offered.

That says a lot about you, you seem insecure in your beliefs...you seem bombastic and pompous.

It says a lot about you that you use that as an excuse. :thumb: You must be insecure and have an ego complex.

Read my reply again and try and keep what I said in context...

"Context" is an all-purpose excuse for being caught in what you plainly said and being found wrong/

Seems odd you ignored this point of mine:

It wasn't worth two cents and didn't have a thing to do with anything I said. Too bad your ego can't stand being ignored. :lol:

Your reply wasn't christian or rational...

It was both -- very readily. Sorry about your persecution complex and your poor scholarship. :ahem:

It figures though...A christian apologist is against self-esteem...that's too funny.

Someone like you is for egomania....that's all too appropos.

Wouldn't your "collective" of people with low self-esteem and no sense of their individuality be depressing and easily conquered ?

:lmbo: That wins you another Screwball Award!

Hey I'm just asking....

Nah...you're just stupid. Try some readings in cross-cultural anthropology for a change....it may open your mind some....you know, get you out of that Grand Dragon mentality. Hurry up, you can burn that cross later....


Please direct me there...I'll gladly school ya'...

If U R 2 dumb to find it.....

...U R 2 dumb to come play with us. :hehe:

[4thdensity]

YAWN!
JP you're just a another blowhard that can't stand to have his views challenged.
All you offer is childish mendacious replies to any differing viewpoints. You're a wannabe that never was.

You're flailing around here trying to distract from the fact that you have no basis for your disdain of the "self-esteem" movement; other than you just don't understand it.
And we all know that people like you despise what they don't understand.

So have at it here with your mentally masturbatory self-aggrandizing nonsense.
You write like a buffoon and think like a lemming.

Peace...call us when you wake-up...

[jpholding]

YAWN!
JP you're just a another blowhard that can't stand to have his views challenged.

YAWN....you're just another loudmouth with no relevant answers who hides under the security blanket of diversity when you get called down for your errors....

You're flailing around here trying to distract from the fact that you have no basis for your disdain of the "self-esteem" movement; other than you just don't understand it.

"You don't understand" is another excuse of those caught in error....YAWN....it's not hard to understand, and not hard to find reasons for disdain....you're another one. :hehe: The "self-esteem" movement has produced a generation of egomaniacs who think they're special and that everyone should bow down to their slightest whim. It has produced dimwits who think they're instant experts on any subject of interest and that by mere virtue of having an opinion, they deserve to be heard and given credence with those who earn their way with a serious education. "Self-esteem" has produced self-centered monsters who regard marriage and children as disposable upon the slightest stubbing of the toe.


You write like a buffoon and think like a lemming..

You're a red herring and you smell of elderberries. :lolo: YAWN. YAWN. C'mon, do come over and entertain us in the Tektonics section. We haven't broken -- er, played with -- a good toy in a few weeks now... :hehe:

[4thdensity]

[QUOTE=jpholding;2368661]"YAWN....you're just another loudmouth with no relevant answers who hides under the security blanket of diversity when you get called down for your errors...."

That reply there says volumes about you.
"security blanket of diversity"? what da'!...and "get called down for my 'errors"?

So what you're saying here is that my disagreement with you is my error ?
Your opinion is always right and anyone with a differing opinion is wrong to you ?
You sound like some kind of God on high...you proclaim something and everyone must concede or risk being pestered with your childish nonsense.

And please explain where did the "diversity" crack or my using diversity as a "security blanket" came from.
Or is that something you made up to distract from the fact that you feel attacked and threatened when someone opposes what you think ? That's just weak

You hide your ignorance with meaningless verbiage.
You're a bait and switch con artist that hasn't had an original thought since you soiled a diaper.

Your insecurites are showing.

[historic salve]

Don't you realize, 4thdensity, that JP's article has nothing to do with "mentally unhealthy" behavior? " every person was understood to be embedded in others and had his or her identity only in relation to these others who formed this fundamental group. For most people, this was the family, and it meant that individuals neither acted nor thought of themselves as persons independent of the family group" ([I]Social-Science Commentary on the Gospels 343). Of course, this does NOT mean that they shared some kind of "hive mind," or Borg consciousness, as you were so pleased to put it. It only means that individual-ism did not exist in the Mediterranean in Jesus' time or culture.

So this view of individuals being embedded in others has nothing to do with a mental illness. Don't you realize how insulting and ignorant it is to say that? How is JP supposed to take you seriously when you can't even read his article properly?

[4thdensity]

Historic salve,
I responded (reply #30) to this assesment by Matzat which JP slobbered all over...
"The personal identity of the apostle Paul was completely immersed in the person of Jesus Christ...Should not such glorious identity and victorious life meet the needs of this generation? "

My reply to which can be read in reply #30 stated that TODAY we lack the sense of community that inspired "immersing our personalites" in others"; today we're not as reliant on each other as we were in ancient times.

There are many that question the purpose of their existence.
Today it would be mentally co-dependent to immerse ourselves in another's persona or the collective's.
The self-esteem discipline seeks to find one's own self-worth so that worth can then be shared with others.
This isn't the ancient Mediterrean world...it's the 21st century global village
We can't find our Christ presence while immersing ourselves in others.
We can serve others, we can admire another's presence in our lives and hear another's truth...
but we must maintain our individuality while doing so.

In essense it's what Christ spoke about when he said
" know ye' not that ye' are gods"

The greatest spiritual work to be done is inside our own minds, to find our worth and purpose from the inside out...not to be told by another what we should feel or think or how to go about living.

When we become independently self-sufficient only then can one freely worship the Divine.
We'll do so of our own volition...not out of fear or the dominance of another person.

So to conclude...comparing living in today's world to living in the ancient world is a meaningless pastime. Nostalgic maybe...but intellectually corrupt.

4thdensity

[historic salve]

There are many that question the purpose of their existence.
Today it would be mentally co-dependent to immerse ourselves in another's persona or the collective's.
Your whole post is nonsense. As long as we're making up psychology, I declare that anyone who accuses other people of being mentally ill (esp. out of ignorance) is himself mentally ill.

This isn't the ancient Mediterrean world...it's the 21st century global village
Gosh, I didn't know that.

We can't find our Christ presence while immersing ourselves in others.
We don't have a "Christ presence." Keep your heresy out of this.

In essense it's what Christ spoke about when he said
" know ye' not that ye' are gods"
You're not interpreting that according to original intent.

When we become independently self-sufficient only then can one freely worship the Divine.
Tell that to the Apostles, none of whom bought your wishy-washy species of individualism.

So to conclude...comparing living in today's world to living in the ancient world is a meaningless pastime. Nostalgic maybe...but intellectually corrupt.
JP isn't saying we should return to having a collectivist personality. :twitch: You need to bone up on your basic reading comprehension.

[jpholding]

YAWN...YAWN...YAWN....

That reply there says volumes about you.
"security blanket of diversity"? what da'!...and "get called down for my 'errors"?

That was about YOU, not me. It says volumes about YOU. :lolo:

Can you actually argue facts instead of constantly retreating into wah wahs like these?

So what you're saying here is that my disagreement with you is my error ?
Your opinion is always right and anyone with a differing opinion is wrong to you ?

Blah blah blah blah....please. :ahem: None of this is fixing your mistakes, or advancing any claim of fact. It's just you whining.


And please explain where did the "diversity" crack or my using diversity as a "security blanket" came from.

The words came from the English language. The description came from your behavior. Next dumb question?

Or is that something you made up to distract from the fact that you feel attacked and threatened when someone opposes what you think ?

Too late....that high ground of "you feel attacked or threatened" has already been ripped out from under you. :rasberry: As stupid as you are, you don't see that that particular manure-encrusted fan is easily and manually reversible. Watch:


You hide your ignorance with meaningless verbiage.

You're a bait and switch con artist that hasn't had an original thought since you soiled a diaper.

Your insecurites are showing.

See? I provided just as substantive an answer as you did! :hehe:

HS is right -- you're too stupid to grasp what the article was about. But more on this racist pig commentary anyway:

My reply to which can be read in reply #30 stated that TODAY we lack the sense of community that inspired "immersing our personalites" in others"; today we're not as reliant on each other as we were in ancient times.

REALLY! No short, Sheerlock! You don't say! Some reply -- it corresponds to exactly what *I* said! :lmbo:

Today it would be mentally co-dependent to immerse ourselves in another's persona or the collective's.

1) Bigoted commentary, indocates that collecticist persons were "mentally co-dependent".
2) Corresponding to 1), fails to distinguish between an extreme form of dependency and natural collectivist thought.
3) "Collectives" is not a possessive. Now you need to learn sociology AND correct punctuation.
:lol:


The self-esteem discipline seeks to find one's own self-worth so that worth can then be shared with others.

YAWN....that's an excuse the "self-esteem discipline" makes up for why it produces egomaniacs...."I'm just doing it to help others realize how wonderful I am so they can be helped by my awesomeness." :hehe: Please. This is the kind of self-centeredness that needs a trip to the woodshed with switch in hand.

This isn't the ancient Mediterrean world...it's the 21st century global village

That must mean you're the village idiot! :hehe:

We can't find our Christ presence while immersing ourselves in others.

Pffftt..."Christ presence"...another fantasy of the modern egotist....

We can serve others, we can admire another's presence in our lives and hear another's truth...but we must maintain our individuality while doing so.

Whatever the heck THAT was supposed to mean. :lolo: Do you mind sharing some of that stuff you're smoking? Either way this has nothing to do with anything I wrote. And it also isn't what the "self-esteem discipline" (pffft) is actually producing anywhere. It's closer to collectivism.

In essense it's what Christ spoke about when he said
" know ye' not that ye' are gods"

BOGUS QUOTE ALERT! :lol: Try to get it right. It's in John 10, and it alludes back to Ps. 82:

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

Ps 82 said:

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

Forget those parts? :lol: The point in both cases is that Jesus alone has divine identity and deserves to be called by divine titles -- and Jesus' reply is a "gotcha" to his opponents who say he didn't. The point: If these wicked people were called "gods" then how much more does the REAL deal deserve the description?

The Mormons tried that crap too. Think you can come up with something a little better?

The greatest spiritual work to be done is inside our own minds, to find our worth and purpose from the inside out...not to be told by another what we should feel or think or how to go about living.

Ah, the Gospel of Hypocritical Egomania. :hehe: Hey, goofy -- you're telling US what to think and how to live when you correct us! DUH! :doh:

When we become independently self-sufficient only then can one freely worship the Divine.
We'll do so of our own volition...not out of fear or the dominance of another person.

Oh great! Now collectivism = fear and domination! Keep up the good work, there, Bull Connor!

So to conclude...comparing living in today's world to living in the ancient world is a meaningless pastime. Nostalgic maybe...but intellectually corrupt.[

Guess what, Grand Dragon? 70% of the modern world today is STILL collectivist in orientation...so sorry to weake you up, Uncle Whitey McSam, but you're not the apex of civilization...heck, you may be the Manure Shovel of Civillization, but that's about it....

What a dip. He's been inhaling too many paint fumes. :lolo:

[4thdensity]

Historic Salve,
Speaking of being "immersed" in another's personality. You write eerily like JPHolding.

You say the same things in the same way.

Dismissing others thoughts and beliefs as "heresy" or "misinterpretations" according to your beliefs is small minded.

So you think that only your interpretation of the words of Christ are valid; you think only you have studied or meditated on them.
You think only you have the truth and anyone that sees things another way is wrong, in error or a heretic.

How fascist of you.
It's amazing that you have an issue with learning to love oneself and approaching the Divine with that appreciation.
We were formed in the image and likeness of God you know.
To love oneself is to love God...

But that doesn't fit your narrowminded fear based fake intellectual beliefs does it ?
But hey fascist is what fascist believes.

[historic salve]

Historic Salve,
Speaking of being "immersed" in another's personality. You write eerily like JPHolding.

You say the same things in the same way.

Dismissing others thoughts and beliefs as "heresy" or "misinterpretations" according to your beliefs is small minded.

So you think that only your interpretation of the words of Christ are valid; you think only you have studied or meditated on them.
You think only you have the truth and anyone that sees things another way is wrong, in error or a heretic.

How fascist of you.
It's amazing that you have an issue with learning to love oneself and approaching the Divine with that appreciation.
We were formed in the image and likeness of God you know.
To love oneself is to love God...

But that doesn't fit your narrowminded fear based fake intellectual beliefs does it ?
But hey fascist is what fascist believes.
It's obvious to me and (I think) the other readers of this discussion that you dropped the point about collectivist personality because you couldn't answer it. For all your complaints about the attitude we have here, you seem to like throwing out red herrings and ad hominem arguments.

[jpholding]

Historic Salve,
Speaking of being "immersed" in another's personality. You write eerily like JPHolding.

That's because we share two important traits:

1) We do our homework.
2) We don't put up with bovine excrement of the sort you perpetually produce. :hehe:

Dismissing others thoughts and beliefs as "heresy" or "misinterpretations" according to your beliefs is small minded.

Whereas, it is much more appropos to resort to cliched responses like that one, right? :lmbo:

So you think that only your interpretation of the words of Christ are valid; you think only you have studied or meditated on them.
You think only you have the truth and anyone that sees things another way is wrong, in error or a heretic.

Instead of whining like this all the time, here's an idea:

1) Do some serious contextual study.
2) Show why we're wrong.

Oops...sorry. Didn't mean to strain your brain there. :hehe:



We were formed in the image and likeness of God you know.

Wow, yet another Mormon misinterpretation! News flash: "Image and likeness" does not establish any sort of identity with God, but refers to the authority God delegated to humanity on earth. Try checking on the parallel uses of the words in other texts.

To love oneself is to love God...But that doesn't fit your narrowminded fear based fake intellectual beliefs does it ?

You bet. We're so narrow that we can't see that you're God. :twitch:

It's not hard to smell the bad fruit that reckless "self-esteem" produces. :lmbo:

[Frogwarrior]

I don't see what's the big problem with codependence, anyway. Codependence rules.

Unless you think you can be completely self-sufficient in this world, in which case you're an idiot.

[Little Shepherd]

The topics of JP Holding's dishonesty and legal name, as brought up by 4thdensity, are no longer to be discussed in this thread. All posts pertaining to those topics, regardless of who they belonged to, have been moved to a Psychotherapy Room thread(aka what used to be the boiler room, and what is still the proper place to air grievances of this sort) that you can get to by clicking here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=114932) Anyone wishing to continue that particular discussion, take it to that thread and quit taking this one off-topic. Thank you.

[Little Shepherd]

Hey, Froggy! Just thought I'd weigh in here with something that's actually on-topic. :wink:

Collectivist interdependence and codependence are two very different things. Collectivism has much to do with group identity -- people in such societies do have a sense of self, but it's considered secondary to their having great concern for, and doing what's best for, the various groups they belong to such as family and work groups. Being useful and valued in such a society is the greatest source of esteem for a person, and collectivism alone isn't responsible for any negative things such as feelings of worthlessness, depression, suicide, etc. Though much like in individualist societies, other factors may contribute to greater or lesser amounts of all 3.

Codependency, on the other hand, is an unhealthy level of psychological dependence on other people who have extremely unhealthy behavior patterns of their own(such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, among other harmful behaviors). The most common symptoms of codependence are ongoing tolerance of -- even to the point of covering up and lying about -- destructive behaviors. Codependence is ultimately harmful to the individual, and harmful to the group, regardless of whether it occurs in an individualist or collectivist society. So it's a very bad thing in any society.

[Adrift]

Hey, Froggy! Just thought I'd weigh in here with something that's actually on-topic. :wink:

Collectivist interdependence and codependence are two very different things. Collectivism has much to do with group identity -- people in such societies do have a sense of self, but it's considered secondary to their having great concern for, and doing what's best for, the various groups they belong to such as family and work groups. Being useful and valued in such a society is the greatest source of esteem for a person, and collectivism alone isn't responsible for any negative things such as feelings of worthlessness, depression, suicide, etc. Though much like in individualist societies, other factors may contribute to greater or lesser amounts of all 3.

Codependency, on the other hand, is an unhealthy level of psychological dependence on other people who have extremely unhealthy behavior patterns of their own(such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, among other harmful behaviors). The most common symptoms of codependence are ongoing tolerance of -- even to the point of covering up and lying about -- destructive behaviors. Codependence is ultimately harmful to the individual, and harmful to the group, regardless of whether it occurs in an individualist or collectivist society. So it's a very bad thing in any society.

Interesting and refreshing take on the subject Little Shephard. :thumb:

[Raphael]

So on Wednesday and Thursday, I was down in Wellington (NZ) for a meeting, and we we're having a random discussion in the evening at a nearby pub while eating pizza, and one of the chaps there is from India, and he and his wife had a daughter a few months younger than mine. He made several comments. (we didn't bring you any mention of this, religion was not the topic of discussion)
Anglo-saxon based cultures get married later on in life.
In his culture the whole village raises a child and he doesn't see how people cope with just the parents involved and is at a total loss to see how single parent families cope.
One thing he battles with, living in NZ is the loss of community. His brother came to visit and was shocked at how little real sense of community there was..
He has rented out his house and they've moved back in with his mother in order to try and increase the community that is bringing up his daughter.

[Adrift]

So on Wednesday and Thursday, I was down in Wellington (NZ) for a meeting, and we we're having a random discussion in the evening at a nearby pub while eating pizza, and one of the chaps there is from India, and he and his wife had a daughter a few months younger than mine. He made several comments. (we didn't bring you any mention of this, religion was not the topic of discussion)
Anglo-saxon based cultures get married later on in life.
In his culture the whole village raises a child and he doesn't see how people cope with just the parents involved and is at a total loss to see how single parent families cope.
One thing he battles with, living in NZ is the loss of community. His brother came to visit and was shocked at how little real sense of community there was..
He has rented out his house and they've moved back in with his mother in order to try and increase the community that is bringing up his daughter.

I've noticed this even in cultures here in America, my latino and asian friends, for example, are often far closer to one another communally than my "traditional american household" (whatever that is) friends. Is it maybe a bit ironic that so many of us who are somewhat (or completely) introverted argue strongly for the idealism found in collectivism? Is this, sometimes, simply a matter of the outsiders looking in? A longing for that which has passed? Is collectivism better than Western concerns for self? Is there maybe a middle road? Am I completely off topic :teeth:

[4thdensity]

Little Shepard,

Regarding your post about co-dependence; I have to disagree. you said in post 48:

"Codependency, on the other hand, is an unhealthy level of psychological dependence on other people who have extremely unhealthy behavior patterns of their own(such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, among other harmful behaviors). The most common symptoms of codependence are ongoing tolerance of -- even to the point of covering up and lying about -- destructive behaviors. Codependence is ultimately harmful to the individual, and harmful to the group, regardless of whether it occurs in an individualist or collectivist society. So it's a very bad thing in any society."


Although we're in the same ballpark regarding this point, I disagree with your assesment
"Codependency, on the other hand, is an unhealthy level of psychological dependence on other people who have extremely unhealthy behavior patterns of their own(such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, among other harmful behaviors)."

My statement is that co-dependence is unhealthy for the individual that is reliant on another for their behaviorial or personality cues. That reliant individual lacks a sense of their own being and has subjagated themselves in the being of another. This is irregardless of the others unhealthy patterns or lack thereof. To supress our own personaliies in an effort to emulate another's or seek their approval is classic denial of one's individual self.


Codependence: Painful Adult
Behaviors Learned in Childhood
H. Dan Smith, EdD, MFT

http://smith.soehd.csufresno.edu/codependence.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

co.de.pen.dence (co.di.pen´.dens) n. [root ME. dependaunce < OFr. dependance or ML. dependentia < L. dependens]. Also written co-dependence. The condition or fact of being codependent; specifically, a) tendency to place the needs and wants of others first and to the exclusion of acknowledging one's own, b) continued investment of self-esteem in the ability to control both oneself and others, c) anxiety and boundary distortions relating to intimacy and separation, d) difficulty expressing feelings, e) excessive worry how others may respond to one's feelings, f) undue fear of being hurt and/or rejected by others, g) self-esteem dependent on approval by others, h) tendency to ignore own values and attempt to adhere to the values of others.

Dr. Smith goes on to say...
"Is codependence a mental disorder? "Yes" and "no." Many mental health professionals advocate for "yes," because codependence carries with it all the trauma of a mental disorder--codependence seriously limits one's ability to live a satisfying and productive life. While there are various national committees working diligently for inclusion of "codependent disorder" as a bona fide mental condition, thus qualifying for treatment supported by health care insurance, it presently is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Since "codependent disorder" is presently not a recognized diagnosis, persons seeking treatment from the effects of codependence are often diagnosed with one of a number of associated conditions, including depression, anxiety, or dependent personality, among others."

Personally I think co-dependence is unhealthy whether the object of one's reliance has healthy traits or not. It hinders ones own development and sense of independence.

Now how does this relate back to the original point ?
I took issue with the quote " we should immerse personalites into the being of another "(paraphrased) . I'm not of the opinion that Christ wanted us to immerse ourselves in another being, not even him. I believe (emphasis on BELIEVE) Christ wants us to develop our own personas and relationships in our own individually unique God-given beings. Immersing ourselves in another says we don't feel "good enough or strong enough" in ourselves to express our own being.
Christ was about empowerment not suppression. Self Love is the bedrock of that doctrine. One can't love another or God without first being able to fully love and express him-herself.

Respectfully 4thdensity

[4thdensity]

Little Shepard...RE: 50

Your question is an interesting one " A longing for that which has passed? Is collectivism better than Western concerns for self? Is there maybe a middle road? Am I completely off topic "

I sense some here are confusing collectivism for "immersing ourselves into others" Now that person may be myself, but from the replies I recieved earlier I think that the former may be the case.

Collectism isn't neccessarily co-dependent. I believe the whole is better served by strong INDIVIDUALS than those who may have suppresed themselves into the whole.
I'm remind of my service in the U.S. Army a true collective, but we were trained that if our higher ranking officer was incapacitated then the next ranking was fully able to assume command. That wasn't true in other armies, we were told that the Soviets and Nazis were paralayzed if their leaders were incapacitated. Those militaries didn't instill a confidence in it's individuals that they too could lead if neccessary. They were simply trained to suppress themselves and take orders.
A collective that contains strong individuals who are fully capable to think and act on their own is always better than a collective reliant on the personality or strength of the few.

But to answer your question regarding western individualism or the collective societies of the east. I think a common ground in the middle serves best.
We here in the west have relinquished to a great extent our individuality for a mass-media driven culture that simply wants to sell us all the same stuff.
The west isn't as individually fixated as one may think. We're simply conditioned to believe our self-worth is dependent on certain factors as in status symbols of material wealth or celebrity.

But in short I see what you're saying. Hope it made sense.
4thdensity

[Adrift]

Little Shepard...RE: 50

Your question is an interesting one " A longing for that which has passed? Is collectivism better than Western concerns for self? Is there maybe a middle road? Am I completely off topic "

I sense some here are confusing collectivism for "immersing ourselves into others" Now that person may be myself, but from the replies I recieved earlier I think that the former may be the case.

Collectism isn't neccessarily co-dependent. I believe the whole is better served by strong INDIVIDUALS than those who may have suppresed themselves into the whole.
I'm remind of my service in the U.S. Army a true collective, but we were trained that if our higher ranking officer was incapacitated then the next ranking was fully able to assume command. That wasn't true in other armies, we were told that the Soviets and Nazis were paralayzed if their leaders were incapacitated. Those militaries didn't instill a confidence in it's individuals that they too could lead if neccessary. They were simply trained to suppress themselves and take orders.
A collective that contains strong individuals who are fully capable to think and act on their own is always better than a collective reliant on the personality or strength of the few.

But to answer your question regarding western individualism or the collective societies of the east. I think a common ground in the middle serves best.
We here in the west have relinquished to a great extent our individuality for a mass-media driven culture that simply wants to sell us all the same stuff.
The west isn't as individually fixated as one may think. We're simply conditioned to believe our self-worth is dependent on certain factors as in status symbols of material wealth or celebrity.

But in short I see what you're saying. Hope it made sense.
4thdensity

Yep, it does. :thumb:

[Frogwarrior]

Hey, Froggy! Just thought I'd weigh in here with something that's actually on-topic. :wink:

Collectivist interdependence and codependence are two very different things. Collectivism has much to do with group identity -- people in such societies do have a sense of self, but it's considered secondary to their having great concern for, and doing what's best for, the various groups they belong to such as family and work groups. Being useful and valued in such a society is the greatest source of esteem for a person, and collectivism alone isn't responsible for any negative things such as feelings of worthlessness, depression, suicide, etc. Though much like in individualist societies, other factors may contribute to greater or lesser amounts of all 3.

Codependency, on the other hand, is an unhealthy level of psychological dependence on other people who have extremely unhealthy behavior patterns of their own(such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, among other harmful behaviors). The most common symptoms of codependence are ongoing tolerance of -- even to the point of covering up and lying about -- destructive behaviors. Codependence is ultimately harmful to the individual, and harmful to the group, regardless of whether it occurs in an individualist or collectivist society. So it's a very bad thing in any society.

That's kinda what I meant, as it seemed that collectivism was wrongfully being decried as codependence. I seem to see that a lot.

[will33har]

It's too bad this book is out of print, I would like to read it, I'm sick and tired of the constant bombardment of the "self help/ prosperity gospel that has weasled it's way into the modern (specificaly american/westerized) church. His book seems to be much along the lines of the preaching and teachings of Paul Washer (you can find some video clips of his sermons on Godtube [and maybe youtube]) as well as Paul the apostle, which I will, standing on the Word of God, say is the true gospel. Unaduterated by the unholy trinity of me, myself, and I, self-help/self-esteem/prosperity gospel.

God called us to be in the world, and not of the world, reguardless of culture. Furthermore, what did God, what did Jesus come to earth to save us from? Why did He take on human flesh and suffer the wrath of God in our place? To save us from a mediocre life? To give us nice cars to drive, cloths to wear, houses to live in, and food to eat? To increase our self-esteem? Did He suffer and die on that cross to give you your best life now? No! As Paul would put it, I esteem myself as nothing, and everything this world has to offer (to use the greek) as dung compared to Christ and to following His comands. As for the old me I have nailed him to the cross, I have slain him that Christ might live through me. (not scripturaly acurate but it covers the basic points) Specificaly Paul was saying it's not about me, it's all about Christ. As the older preachers (giving a hypothetical leason) often said you should believe in Jesus Christ, you should repent, and you should serve Him, even if He sends you to hell, because He is worthy of repentance, He is worthy of faith, He is worthy of worship, and He is worthy of service though you get nothing from it.

Christianity, is not about us, the gospel is not about us, the universe and everything in it was made by and for Jesus Christ, and this is how we should live, serving Him simply because He is worthy, believing in Him simply because he is worthy, worshiping Him simply because He is worthy, even if we get nothing from doing so. We must decrease, and He must increase. I don't know about you, but I wan't my best life to be an eternal one, not a temporary one, full of dung (to use use Pauls vernacular) no matter what this world has to offer, it's temporary, it's not going to last forever, one day it will burn and that will be the end of it and everything it has to offer. As for the self-esteem/etc. gospel, here is wisdom it 'is the number of man' , Christ and salvation are not in it.