Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World

Excellent! It makes a big difference knowing the original context, which was written to collectivist societies. If we place our individualist view over the text, it is possible to miss key themes that the original readers would have taken for granted and miss out on comfort and deeper encouragement. I commend the authors for not elevating one culture over another but raising awareness about these specific contextual themes. I also highly recommend this book because it made me want to dive into the Word.

This was a helpful book for understanding the context surrounding a lot of the narratives in both Ancient Near East (OT) and Second Temple Judaic (NT) cultures. <br /><br />The social structures - part 1 of the book - was a good refresher on how my Western cultural values differ from those held by the people throughout the biblical narrative. <br /><br />Part 2 of the book evaluating the social tools was really helpful for seeing how the concepts of Honor, Shame, and Boundaries really defined the different people groups and how they would interact with each and within themselves. The passages used as examples really helped to solidify the concepts in practice in the biblical world. And although on a few occasions the authors might have gone a bit far to explain the text through the collectivistic cultural lens (e.g., explaining the concept of gift giving as it relates to grace which was really a fundamental shift away from the idea of reciprocal giving, at least according to John Barclay), it is very clear how collectivism as a whole influenced the writers of the Bible in a way that is often lost in the Western cultural context which is the emphasis of part 3. <br /><br />All that to say, it’s a very good and helpful book. Give it a read if you want to go deeper in your understanding of cultural lenses and the Bible.

<i>Summary: Shows how we may misread scripture if we do not reckon with the collectivist context in which it is written, and in which many cultures still live.</i><br /><br />It was an eyeopener for me when I discovered that the “you” in many of the New Testament letters is often a plural you–“you all” or “y’all” if you are from the American South. It turns out that this was just the tip of the iceberg. So many of the narratives in scripture are understood very differently when understood in collectivist rather than individualist frameworks.<br /><br />E. Randolph Richards and Richard James have lived in such cultures, and while each culture, including those of scripture, have their own nuances, the authors draw upon these experiences to help us read scripture through a new lens, a collectivist lens. They consider the social structures of kinship, patronage, and brokerage, and the social tools of honor, shame, and boundaries. Finally, they draw conclusions about why it matters, even in an individualist context.<br /><br />In collective structures, our kinship group tells us who we are–and who we marry. Remember Jacob and Laban? He wants Rachel, but he is given Leah first. That’s the way it is done in family. Then there is patronage. When Paul speaks of being saved by grace through faith, he describes a good patronage situation. God extends grace through Christ, literally charis or gift, and we both trust and are loyal to our patron, God. Finally, there is brokerage, where a third party mediates between two others. What else is Jesus but a broker or mediator between God and humans?<br /><br />Then there are the social tools that enforce values in collective cultures. One’s honor is one’s greatest asset. Many of the challenges to Jesus are challenges to his honor, and thus his authority to teach. David gained honor in the conflict with Saul, not merely for being a good shot, but for trusting God in the conflict. In the West we consider one who sins guilty. In other cultures, the issue is shame. We have come to think that shame is always bad, but in collectivist societies shame comes with a path to remove it. Confronting a person with whom you have a grievance minimizes shame–allowing the person to remove shame without others knowing about it. Then there are boundaries, ones that define groups, ones that define how men and women relate, or don’t. When we choose a group, we accept their boundaries.<br /><br />The authors show how each of these collectivist elements function at their best and worst, and explore how they may be engaged redemptively. While there are important insights individualists see in scripture, there is much we learn when we read with collectivist eyes. More than that, we discover dimensions of our collective life in Christ. Our salvation isn’t just about me but we. We are part of a people, a family, with new boundaries and new values. Sometimes our individualist outlook not only leads us to misread the Bible, but also misleads us in our participation in Christian community. At very least, we misunderstand Christians in other cultures. At most, we miss out on dimensions of life in Christ and others miss out on what we bring to the family.<br /><br />____________________________<br /><br />Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

<strong>Summary: An exploration of individualist culture (like the modern US) and collectivist cultures (like the biblical era) and how that leads us to misread scripture and misunderstand biblical concepts.</strong><br /><p>There is no way for me to adequately capture Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes in a simple review. There is no question it is among the best books I have read this year. I looked back at the pre-release PDF copy that I read, and I made notes or highlights on over 100 pages of a 300-page book. I also have recommended the book dozens of times since I started it.</p><br /><p>Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes is a follow-up book to <a href="http://bookwi.se/misreading-scripture-with-western-eyes-removing-cultural-blinders-to-better-understand-the-bible-by-randoph-richards-and-brandon-obrien/" rel="nofollow noopener">Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes</a>, which I also recommend, and have read twice. Both books are pointing out how our presuppositions and the (often unwritten) assumptions of the authors and original readers impact how we understand scripture. While the Western Eyes book looked at 9 areas briefly, Individualist Eyes spends more time focusing just on three inter-related concepts, Individualist vs. Collectivist cultures, honor/shame vs guilt/innocence, and patronage.</p><br /><p>One of the problems of reading scripture is how we have been shaped to understand the culture of the  Ancient Near East by modern authors. It is <a href="http://bookwi.se/the-triumph-of-christianity/" rel="nofollow noopener">common to hear</a> that the Greek and Roman world did not value life or participate in charity. But Individualist Eyes complicates that picture because patronage, which is a type of community care, and charity, was common. Collectivist cultures do care for their community, but patronage systems thrive when there is a large wealth disparity and a low level of governance. The wealthy use their wealth for others to illustrate virtue. Those who are helped give gratitude, loyalty, and service to the patron. The Father and Jesus are both compared to patrons. Jesus' comment, 'if you love me you will follow my commands' was a reference to a requirement for his patronage. Jesus feeding people was likened to patronage in the benefits it gave the people.</p><br /><p>Where Jesus and Paul and other early Christians were radical was not in care for the poor and disenfranchised, it was in removing the boundaries between who you cared for. Patrons would care for the poor and desperate of their own family, social group, or ethnic or religious community. But the early Christians put social obligations to care for others as a family across those boundaries. <a href="http://bookwi.se/paul/" rel="nofollow noopener">NT Wright's biography of Paul</a> talks well about how the early church crossed boundaries. In addition, our modern sensibilities emphasize the importance of 'no-strings' gifts or charity. But communal cultures view the strings as part of the reason for gifts or charity. Those strings bind people together in relationships. There can be a misuse of that binding, and so Proverbs and other places give warnings at times, but part of covenant thinking, expressed clearly in the Old Testament and the New is that there is an 'if...then...' thinking in how our relationship with God works, a patronage relationship.</p><br /><p>At the same time, Jesus (and later the early Christians) redefined the reciprocity of relationships. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&amp;version=NIV" rel="nofollow noopener">Matt 5</a> when Jesus if someone wants to sue you for your shirt, give them your coat as well. I have heard that explained as a form of shame, which could be true, but it was more likely to be about trying to turn an "adversary into a friend." (p 82)</p><br /><p>Our cultural toolbox has limitations. In Western Christianity, there is an emphasis on sin and guilt. The Holy Spirit does use guilt to produce repentance, which should produce change. But many modern "Asian cultures don't even have a word for guilt." (p130) Instead, collectivist cultures tend to use shame as a boundary for appropriate behavior in order to draw people into the right relationship with the group. On the other side, honor functions as one of the tools to reinforce a group's values and identity, also creating inclusionary boundaries.</p><br /><p>One of the strengths of Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes is that it not just illustrates the concepts, but then uses those concepts in scriptural interpretation, highlighting areas where we modern individualists misread scripture. It is common that we 'honor' David for being a good shot in killing Goliath. But ancients would have honored David for trust God to fight for him. "We are not supposed to say 'David killed Goliath.' We are supposed to say 'God killed Goliath.'" (p 149). Or in 1 Cor 13:4 and many other places:</p><br /><br /><blockquote>Paul is indicating his achieved honor. In my individualist culture, boasting has negative overtones. "Don't boast," my grandmother warned. "Boasting is wrong." That's our values at work. So we quote Paul when he says love does not boast (1 Cor 13:4)...We fill in the gaps about why they are condemned: they are condemned for boasting, because boasting is wrong. Yet, if we look closely at these verses, Paul is not actually condemning boasting but boasting for the wrong reasons...Boasting in Paul's culture...was to indicate achieved honor. Furthermore, since honor is collective, everyone else in Paul's group also benefited from his boarsting. For individualists, boasting is a way to put yourself ahead of your peers. For colelctivists, boasting is a way to put you and all of your peers (group) ahead. (p 150-151)</blockquote><br /><p>Part of what is being pointed out is the nuance that we miss because we are in a different culture. We have all heard about the many different words for snow that Eskimos have. The point isn't that our concept of snow (one English word) is just expressed by many different words, or that our concept of love was expressed by four different words in Greek, but that in modern English, we compress those four different Greek concepts or the number of different Eskimo words for snow into a single word/concept. Said another way, we have less nuance for love and snow than Greek or Eskimo languages do. So in Hebrew, there were at least ten distinct terms for what we commonly translate as shame in English (p 180). The concept of shame/guilt has been written about widely, often frame through <a href="https://brenebrown.com/blog/2013/01/14/shame-v-guilt/" rel="nofollow noopener">Brene Brown's work</a>. Her work is helpful, but her distinctions and work are about modern concepts and usages of guilt and shame, not ancient concepts of guilt and shame. And so we cannot simply listen to Brene Brown and use her work to influence how we read <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+3%3A35&amp;version=NIV" rel="nofollow noopener">Proverbs 3:35</a>.</p><br /><p>The main concept (and there is too much I am skipping over) is that shame used rightly in ancient collectivist cultures was an attempt to bring about the restoration of relationships. The misuse of shame in modern culture (as illustrated through Brene Brown) tends to push people out of relationships. The right use of shame in a modern or ancient collectivist culture is restoration. But shame can be misused in either collectivist or individualist cultures. Matthew 18 never uses the words shame, but the concept of quietly going to someone to gently correct and then slowly enlarging the circle to apply more pressure is using the concept of shame in a way that we likely miss.</p><br /><p>Boundaries are one of the areas where I think Misreading with Individualist Eyes is particularly helpful. We individualists tend to think of all boundaries as negative. But within collectivist cultures, boundaries show shared values and group identity. In the New Testament, the importance of boundaries is that:</p><br /><br /><blockquote>"God doesn't want to save me as an individual. God saves us into something: a community...It is true that God loves us, each and every one of us. Salvation is a deeply personal matter, and I as an individual am restored to God. He does love me. At the same time, it is also about we...God sent Jesus as a broker to reconnect us to him <em>and</em> to one another. The Bible teaches I'm saved--into a community. (p238, italic in the origial)</blockquote><br /><p>That saved into a 'we' isn't just about eschatological reality, but current reality as well. Acts 2 isn't about a failed communism.</p><br /><br /><blockquote>"The believers were acting like family...If we call God Abba, then we cannot think of one another as brothers and sisters merely with empty words, as John notes. We must treat one another as brothers and sisters because we are a family under a new heavenly father." (p244)</blockquote><br />One of the most important passages in my reading is this one.<br /><blockquote>The challenge of building a Christian community is not an individualist or collectivist problem. It is a problem of living as God's family in a fallen world. It can be hard to form a deep community from individualists because individualists often do not understand the importance of community. At the same time, it can be hard to form a deep community from collectivists because collectivists understand the importance of community--the ones they are already apart of. (p245)</blockquote><br /><p>Right now we, our society has significant boundary issues. We are ideologically, relationally, and geographically divided. Those divides do not magically disappear because of Christ. But because of Christ, we have tools (ones that we may not recognize, but they are there) to do the hard work of breaking down inappropriate boundaries and maintaining appropriate ones. We have tools to see other Christians as a family under the same patron. And we have the ability to love in a way that illustrates God's care for us to show God's love to others.</p>

I've done numerous courses from a undergraduate, and graduate level on biblical interpretation, New Testament background, and Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds. However, none expanded my understanding of the New Testament world (and current Eastern systems of thinking) more than this book. It explains concepts such as patronage, benefactors, shame/honor, and reciprocal relationships while contrasting western (individualist) and eastern (collectivist) mindsets.<br /><br />The authors do defend these Eastern concepts (like Patronage) against Western disparaging. However, they make clear to not hold one system up as measuring up to the biblical standard. Instead, they argue that both systems fall short of the biblical model in certain aspects. <br /><br />I've had my eyes opened and now I can see clearly that many of the failings of the Western church comes from our cultural mindset of individualism. As as example, many western believers believe the church is optional and they can live the Christian life apart from other believers. That is the flaws of individualism applied to the Christian life. Whereas a strength of collectivism applied to the Christian life would say as a new Christian, I become part of a community who I help and who helps me. An individualist sharing the gospel might say, "go home and read your Bible" and expect the person to gain faith and then grow by themselves. A biblical mindset (more closer to a collective mindset) would say, let me come alongside you (discipleship) and teach/show you how to live the Christian life with our Bibles in hand. On the other side, a strength of individualism would be the emphasis on personal faith and trust in Jesus rather than resting in collective belonging for salvation. As you can see, it's not one or the other.<br /><br />This book can help open your eyes to where you might be more influenced by individualism rather than the Bible. It can also help you to understand what's happening in biblical stories that might have been confusing before. Strong recommended read for all Western Christians.

Highly recommended. <br /><br />This book is an important reminder that our individualist culture is very different than the collectivist culture that the writers of scripture were immersed in, and if we are not careful, these differences can cause us to misunderstand some of the Bible’s teachings. Imbedded within much of the biblical accounts are foundational undercurrents that just “go without saying” because they are simply understood within the collectivist mindset as just the way things are—such as the concepts of shame and honor, kinship and boundaries, and the notion of patronage. We modern westerners are unlikely to adequately appreciate these essential concepts. This book provides some much-needed insight to reveal the surprising message in many otherwise familiar biblical passages.<br /><br />Bob and Adam both wrote valuable and helpful reviews. Check them out:<br /><br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3889208837">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...</a><br /><br /><a target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow" href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3601696144">https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...</a>

"Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes" looks at the cultural background of the Bible in order to better understand what's happening in the Bible. The authors focused on the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, specifically on kinship, patronage, brokerage, honor, shaming, and boundaries. They used modern examples to help explain a concept then showed how this shows up in the Bible. They showed how understanding these cultural differences can change how we view what's going on in some biblical accounts or even what the main point being made is. I've read a lot of these cultural background books yet I still learned a lot. I felt that the authors explained the concepts well. Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a deeper understanding of the Bible.<br /><br />I received an ebook review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.

Like its predecessor (Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes), this book should be required reading for anyone who plans to preach or even just read the Bible. The importance of understanding the culture and context of scripture before you try to understand or explain it cannot be overstated and this book will help you learn and think about these areas in a new way, especially if you (like most of us) have been raised in Western or Western-style culture.<br /><br />Get this. Read it. You'll be glad you did.<br /><br />Don't worry - it's completely layperson accessible, but it includes dozens of academic references in the footnotes, if you are inclined to such things.

I finished this book a couple months ago but procrastinated on marking it read because I wanted to write a review that can do it justice but. . . <br /><br />IT'S SO GOOD. READ IT. <br /><br />That's all I've got. <br /><br />Honestly though, I think understanding these things in the Bible are antidotes to a lot of the nonsense that North American church has gotten itself into these days. 10/10, would recommend for any person who likes the Bible or reads the Bible.

I have a one-question survey that will reveal with near perfect accuracy whether or not you are an individualist. Set? Here it is: Would you readily consider allowing your parents to arrange a marriage for you?<br /><br />Those of us from a Western culture would never give this the slightest bit of serious consideration. But in collectivist cultures (which make up the majority of the world), people answer yes to this all the time.<br /><br />Or perhaps slightly less dramatically, what about this? Would you expect your extended family to decide where you go to college? Maybe your nuclear family but definitely not your extended family. Right? Yet this is common in Latino/a and Asian societies.<br /><br />For individualists, a collective culture is, well, like being in a foreign country. And that’s why, as the authors contend, we so often misunderstand the Bible which comes out of collective cultures. Yet we persistently read it through the lens of our own individualistic mindset.<br /><br />With many stories of their own experiences in the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere, the authors unpack how kinship, patronage, brokering, honor, shame, and boundaries are all hidden in plain sight in the Bible. A few examples.<br /><br />Why does Matthew spend all that time laying out Jesus’ genealogy? Because honor often comes from your family, your family’s history, who you are related to. To be descended from Abraham and David brings great honor (Mt 1:1).<br /><br />Why does Nicodemus come alone at night to talk with Jesus? Not because he feared the other Pharisees. Rather he didn’t want to inadvertently shame Jesus publicly by asking a question that might be seen as a challenge to a teacher he clearly respected (Jn 3:2).<br /><br />When Jacob gives Rachel’s son, Joseph, the multicolored coat, the other sons aren’t jealous because he got a better Christmas gift. No. It was much more serious. They realized this meant Joseph was going to be treated as the first-born and get their father’s inheritance. They were angry that their side of the family (all being sons of Leah) would be dependent on Joseph’s generosity, which seemed unlikely from this arrogant kid.<br /><br />The discussion on shame is especially illuminating because we often only have one definition of shame, and it’s bad—something to always be avoided. But in Scripture and much of the world, there is also a good kind of shame that seeks to nudge people in the community back into proper behavior. It’s kind of like our conscience. Having a sense of shame <i>beforehand</i> can keep us from acting wrongly, not just feel bad <i>after</i> acting wrongly. The book offers multiple examples of when shame creates a path for restoration—which is good shame. When it seeks to exclude and cut others off, that is bad shame.<br /><br />From a Western perspective, we might see patronage as creating unhealthy dependence, even being oppressive. But those inside see it as providing protection, meeting needs, giving security. Yes, it can be abused, but the problem then is not the system but the people in it.<br /><br />Our lack of a corporate sense can minimize our commitment to the church and even to family that the Old and New Testaments assume. I am not just saved, you see. The Bible says I am saved into a community. <br /><br />The point of the book is not to expunge our individualism. That wouldn’t be possible in any case. Rather, we have much to learn about what the Bible is really saying by putting on collectivist glasses. And we have much to learn about living biblically from our brothers and sisters in the faith who come from such backgrounds.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I received a prepublication complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions here are my own.