Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World by E. Randolph Richards

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

• 
  Carmen Imes

  This is a fantastic book, packed with insights into the biblical text (as well as the global scene). It would work well as a textbook for a class on biblical backgrounds, as it has examples from both Old and New Testaments.
  
  I appreciated the stories from collectivist cultures today. The authors were also very helpful in showing how the gospel interacts with both individualist and collectivist contexts--how neither culture is superior and how the gospel has radical claims to make for both contexts.
  
  Highly recommended.
• 
  Persis

  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.
• 
  Bob

  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  ____________________________
  
  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.
• 
  Aaron

  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
• 
  Jeremy Gardiner

  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
• 
  Adam Shields

  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.
  

  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.

  
  

  Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes is a follow-up book to
  Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, 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.

  
  

  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
  common to hear 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.

  
  

  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.
  NT Wright's biography of Paul 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.

  
  

  At the same time, Jesus (and later the early Christians) redefined the reciprocity of relationships. In
  Matt 5 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)

  
  

  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.

  
  

  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:

  
  
  

  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)

  
  

  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
  Brene Brown's work. 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
  Proverbs 3:35.

  
  

  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.

  
  

  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:

  
  
  

  "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 and to one another. The Bible teaches I'm saved--into a community. (p238, italic in the origial)

  
  

  That saved into a 'we' isn't just about eschatological reality, but current reality as well. Acts 2 isn't about a failed communism.

  
  
  

  "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)

  
  One of the most important passages in my reading is this one.
  

  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)

  
  

  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.

  
  
  This review was originally posted on my blog at
  https://bookwi.se/individualist-eyes/
• 
  Barry

  Highly recommended.
  
  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.
  
  Bob and Adam both wrote valuable and helpful reviews. Check them out:
  
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
  
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
• 
  Debbie

  "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.
  
  I received an ebook review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.
• 
  Roger McCort

  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.
  
  Get this. Read it. You'll be glad you did.
  
  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.
• 
  Andrew

  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?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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).
  
  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).
  
  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.
  
  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 beforehand can keep us from acting wrongly, not just feel bad after 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  ---
  
  I received a prepublication complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions here are my own.
• 
  Kevin Wolz

  Disclaimer: I spent several years as a student of one of the authors, and I read a copy of this book while it was in pre-pub.
  
  Now that it is published, I can gladly recommend it to any who wish to understand the Bible better. The premise of the book is simple. In the West, we read the Bible as individualists. The Bible, however, was written by collectivists. In other words, we are trained to think in terms of “me,” but the Bible is usually talking about “us.” This misreading has caused Christians to misread beloved Bible stories for generations; this book will help you to see the social tools at work in the Bible (and even in your own life), which will in turn allow you to understand the text better.
• 
  Steve Irby

  I just finished "Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World," By E. Randolph Richards and Richard James (pseudonym).
  
  
  Suggested in the preface is that often when reading scripture we in the West we miss out on important details because of things which were assumed in the ancient near East; Collectivism (this is not pro Collectivism/anti individualism as a political philosophy or lifestyle but a book by and for individualists about the rest of the world and the culture of all scripture) is a major one.
  
  
  Some high spots: families would include slaves. Many families made up clans and clans made up tribes (twelve of which God wants united into a People, a People of God, but possibly I get ahead of myself). Entry into a tribe was by birth, marriage, or adoption (I think this will be important so don't forget it). Adoption was usually of an adult due to the high child mortality rate. The aging head of a family wanted to make sure that the estate was entrusted to someone before they died. This was called adoption to sonship. And "Allegiance" rather than "Faith" for pistis (Salvation by Allegiance Alone, by Matthew Bates) makes even more sense in light of adoption: Allegiance to Christ makes us adopted sons in the family of the Father with our big Brother, Jesus; we are not a subculture. 
  
  
  The writers bring out some very interesting things when speaking about the woman at the well. There is no historical reason to believe she was the village outcast because she was drawing water at noon, though possibly she was thirsty. There is no reason to believe she was the town vixen because she had five husbands; she probably married in her early teens as was the norm allowing for more time for older husbands to die on her as well as divorce. Barrenness was a common reason for divorce (remember Rabbi Hillel allowed divorce for burned dinner and his was the common thought in the first century). If she were guilty of immorality to a previous spouse who would have married her again? We read a lot of modernity into this event. We read modernity into all of scripture.
  
  
  The chapters on Patronage were fantastic. In the ANE (and much of the modern non western cultures) this would be an asymmetrical relationship between a wealthy person and a poorer person. For instance: a bakers bakery burns down. The baker goes to a wealthy person in town and pleads his case. The wealthy person accommodates the requests and has a new bakery built (maybe by using others he is a patron to). The baker will now provide bread daily for the patron and maybe his extended family but the patron of much influence also hustles the bakery to his friends. This can be seen in Paul and possibly Lydia, with her as a good patron and Paul and some in Corinth who would have been bad patrons. The gift has strings attached the question is can one live with the strings? If "I follow Apolos" are the strings then no. 
  
  
  It should be remembered that the patron and client relationship was often referred to in the ANE as shepherd and sheep. 
  
  
  When a patron gave gifts to a client these gifts were called CHARIS in the Greco-Roman world, aka Grace. Now go reread how this pateon/client relationship went: it was synergistic with the patron giving more than can be repaid. The patron/client relationship was one in PISTIS in the Greco-Roman world: loyalty or fidelity (faith). Both grace and faith were reciprocal from patron to client and client to patron. Excellent stuff here.
  
  
  All of that is just the first section before Honor and Shame are approached (where we learn that becoming like a child doesn't mean "simple, childlike faith" but not seeking honor over others, precisely what James and John were just asking to do).
  
  
  I still liked the previous "Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes" more. "...Individualist Eyes" is like a finely focused book on a few chapters from "...Western Eyes."
  
  
  #MisreadingScriptureWithIndividualistEyes #ERandolphRichards #RandolphRichards #Missiology #BiblicalScholarship #Exegesis 
• 
  Alexis Voelker

  I loved all the stories the authors told! I’d love a book of just all their stories of their time in collectivist culture (still laughing at the story of one of the authors waking up to discover all of his furniture was gone and he asked his wife about it and she said yeah I noticed it was all gone too 🤣 spoiler alert: he got all of his furniture back and it was a great example about how siblings share things). I also enjoyed their fictional stories that pieced together ancient culture. They made details really come to life and connect geography and families by giving those examples!
  
  There were a lot of things that were new to me (it was common in Jesus’ time to adopt, not small children that you take care of, but to adopt grown men so that they take care of you. This was called adoption into sonship (which then made everything click into place when I’ve seen that phrase in the New Testament). Also the whole concept of patronage was really informative and fascinating to read about.
  
  I will say they sometimes drove home some points just too much for me but I think that’s because I’ve been very lucky to not have grown up in bad churches and I’ve listened to a lot of Tim Keller who does a great job of explaining the Bible and not a western view (ex: the prodigal son story is not a story about how one son was bad but look at how he repented and came back. But that it’s actually a story of how both sons fail yet the father still accepts both).
  
  
• 
  David

  Having lived in a collectivist society for a short time, the collectivist ideas weren't completely unfamiliar to me, yet I never realized just how deep that foundation was in the culture of the Biblical writers. Viewing the Scriptures through that lens is essential to understanding the writer's intent.
  
  At my church, we often talk about reading the Bible with the question, "What did this mean to the original audience?" A very good question to ask. But to truly be able to answer the question, we must understand their mindset: what is their perspective on politics, relationships and culture? Those perspectives influenced the author - the metaphors used, the illustrations given, the concepts unspoken because he expects his audience to already know them, etc. Without having some understanding those perspectives, we might misunderstand what the author is trying to communicate.
  
  This book was very helpful to me for understanding that perspective and therefore better understanding the text of Scripture. I expect that I will come back to this book again and again for reference. I highly recommend it for any serious student of the Bible from an individualistic background.
• 
  Jacob Hudgins

  Much of the material in the first half of the book is a rehashing of deSilva’s Honor, Kinship, Patronage, and Purity. This book was helpful in giving real-world illustrations of the differences between collectivist experience and individualist experience, especially in the reading of scripture. The honor section was weak, but the treatment of shame is the best I’ve read anywhere and finally made sense of the western sense that shame is universally bad despite the Bible’s use of it.
  
  I found the entire book to be useful in exposing my individualist bias. Just thought it was not as good as the first book.
• 
  Kevin Pulley

  Such a fantastic book and a great follow up to “Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes”. Books like these two really help to put the reader in the mindset of the original biblical audience and clue us in to things that aren’t explicit in the text; but would have been to the original readers. Things like shame, collectivism and patronage have negative connotations in the western world but we’re seen as radically different (and positive) in the ANE and the early Greco-Roman world.
  
  I will definitely be reading this books again in the future.
• 
  Kaylee

  I highly recommend this read!
  
  Not being an expert in middle eastern and collectivist cultures myself, I cannot vouch for his accuracy - but this was certainly a very thought provoking and eye opening read.
  
  One of the points that has really stuck with me is this: Christianity is a religion being spread by a culture other than the one from which it came.
  And this book has really helped me to better understand the cultural context of what is written in the Bible. : )
• 
  Jens Hieber

  I liked this even better than the other one. It's clear, concise, has strong examples (both from the authors' lives and biblical passages) and is really insightful. I'd heard some of this before, but it was great to have it all bundled together so neatly. It's also an easy book to recommend to others.
• 
  Kendrick Byler

  A fantastic book describing the Collectivist culture of the Bible and how we as an individualistic culture miss so many important details that to the eastern culture "Goes without being said." A definite must read.
• 
  Peyton Marple

  Does it count if it’s for class? I hope so.
  This was an eye opener and an easy read. Grateful for the discussions with classmates that helped me process all the aspects.
• 
  Joshua

  A phenomenal and accessible look into non-individualist societies, how they differ from individually societies, and the implications on scriptural studies and intercultural relationships.
• 
  Brad

  A worthy read that gives a new set of lenses through which to read Scripture.
• 
  Sam

  Jesus is not honor bound to respond to the blind men who cry out, Have mercy on us Son of David. There is no honor at stake. This makes Jesus actions all the more compassionate!
  John 2:25, Jesus was not entrusting himself to the heart of men. Then John writes, There was a man of the Pharisees (3;1) Nicodemus is the first example of what’s in the heart of man, the Samaritan woman was the next in chapter 4.
  We agree that God wants to remove from people being devalued, disgraced. (e.g. Having child out of wedlock) Removing shame is more than taking away feelings, it would mean providing a path to be restored to self, family, and community. The church can be involved in this. Using one English word shame for both things is not helpful, confusing.
  The modesty Peter/Paul writes about is not sexual modesty, but economically modest! Expensive clothes, gold, pearls said, I have more money than you! It didn’t embody the values at the heart of the gospel.
  Incidentally, the Pharisees are wrong that no prophet arises out of Galilee, Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, Elisha. Jesus is from Nazareth. John expects us as readers to add shame to their actions.
  Paul is trying to make a statement, that Trophimus is not unclean. Paul wouldn’t mock a vow he made before God, he’s making a theological statement. He’s arguing by symbolic action that he can maintain his purity vow and walk with Trophimus.
  One day he went out to his living room after waking up and all his furniture was gone (Indonesia missionary). He walked into the kitchen and said to his wife, Our furniture is gone. She responded without looking up, Yup. I noticed that too. Later that afternoon, a truck arrived with all their furniture. Wait a minute, where’s our furniture been? It was at a wedding. We knew you wouldn’t mind. We’re family. Christians are family and families loan things. Perhaps Christians in the West have forgotten how to be a family?
  Your biggest challenge will be to make a family out of a congregation of individualists.
  Kinship language is intended to transform the way they behave towards one another. This is the outworking of the gospel. Paul says, In Christ they all call God Abba. This shapes the way they care for one another, stand with one another, restored one another, challenge one another, overlook offenses, speak into one another’s life. The intimacy of kin/family. We need to know how scandalous this is. We share a table.
  Very real problems. In 1 Corinthians, most of the problems were about wine parties, immorality, drunkenness, division. Roman pagans might have referred to them as virtues, not vices. Sexual privilege, the blessings of Dionysius (god of wine), social stratification. Hosts were expected to provide hosts, slaves from the house, then Paul and others would have been expected to reciprocate in other parties. What if those slaves were now their Christian brothers and sisters?
  1 These. 4:3, “possess one’s own vessel” was an idiom that meant, keeping your pant zipped.
  When my collectivists friends hear about kingdom they think about people and ask, Who is the king, Where is the community, How big is it? My individualist thinks about the king and his rules, how to live in my individualist life and inviting the kingdom into my heart. Paul writes of, “Giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the light, for he has reduced us and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.”
  When I close my eyes and imagine the kingdom of God, I’m not supposed to see just me and Jesus. How does Jesus portray it? The kingdom is where his people are gathered together feasting at a banquet hosted by Jesus. We should be imagining a banquet table where people from Brazil, Canada, US, Europe, Kurdistan, India, Nigeria, and China sharing a table together with our king.
  The whole community is strengthened spiritually and materially. We read it better as, We strengthen us. Who benefits when I give to a poorer brother or sister? Us! Who benefits when I preach? uS. Who benefits when I tolerate an annoying member of the church? Us! Who benefits when you are gentle to me? Us. For Paul this is the meaning fo fellowship, encourage and build one another up just as you are in fact doing. This has spiritual, relational, material aspects. This is a way of life that comes from entering into God’s grace. The body and every part of it is strengthened and protected.
  This is what Christ means by being a servant leader. It means being a broker, use their skills abilities and gifts to benefit others without seeking to be repaid honor and gifts as if they were the patron. It means taking the servants status, not being honored when they serve. Who can serve? Those whom God has called and equipped. It means to have low status. This is Jesus’ point in saying we must become like children to enter the kingdom. Jesus thinks leaders are those who serve, they act to benefit others in their care as generous brokers for a very generous patron. They don’t do it to be honored, thanked, or burden people.
• 
  George

  This book was fine, but I felt that it was confused about its purpose and repeated itself too often. It is true that the Bible was indeed written in cultures that were much more collectivist than our own. It is equally true that we have much to learn from Biblical stories as they are properly understood within this context. They can certainly challenge us more and help us to think outside of our culture which has perhaps swung too far in the other direction. However, I think the two authors of this book succeed in what they wanted to do only marginally. Ostensibly, the purpose of this work was to correct misreading of scripture. In actuality, it felt like an apologetic for collectivism and that we should renounce our individualist ways. It is funny because in their epilogue the authors state that this is not their intent and that collectivism shouldn't be adopted wholesale either, and I am sure that is the case, they just did not make it clear throughout the book.
  I am pretty sympathetic towards their view. I do think that the Western church has lost a real sense of community as it has become more focused on personal salvation for more conservative folks, and personal enlightenment for more progressive ones. But after about halfway through this book I was beginning to tire of the praise heaped on collectivist cultures. There is much to commend, but collectivism has its problems. But this isn't just me wanting to engage in whataboutism. In reality, I'm confused because modern individualism did not just pop into existence out of the ether. It came about after two thousand years of Christian teaching and cultural belief. Perhaps in many ways individualism is the natural fruit of a civilization which prizes Christ's teachings? I'm not saying that is the case, but we can't just dismiss it as being non-biblical. Jesus challenged the collectivist culture of his day in many ways, and the authors point some of these out. So really the Christian life seems to be a balance of these two. Which the authors say at the end, but that comes as a shock because of the previous bolstering of solely collectivist readings.
  It also was too long, which for a book under 300 pages is not what you want to say. They repeated their points quite a bit and mentioned the same biblical stories several times.
  Overall, this book was okay. I found it useful as a tool for helpful exegesis, a good guide for a class I was leading, and I was amused by many of the personal stories that the authors shared. However, it fails to drive its point home in a way that satisfied me. How individualist of me.
• 
  Johnny

  Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes by E. Randolph Richards and Richard James offers a transformative lens for interpreting the Bible, urging readers to recognize and set aside Western individualist biases. The authors compellingly argue that many Western interpretations overlook key elements of biblical texts due to a lack of understanding of the collectivist cultures in which they were written.
  
  The author covers and reviews how these Cultural values influence are reading scripture throughout the Bible. One story That stood out to me is that of Joseph. While Western readers often focus on Joseph's individual journey and achievements, Richards and James highlight the collectivist aspects of his story, such as Jacob's favoritism towards Joseph, the son of his second wife, and the resulting family dynamics. Many of the aspects of Joseph behavior that I had previously thought were positive and showed how he took initiative could’ve actually been viewed much differently by the original audience. This perspective shift reveals how deeply embedded cultural values of honor and kinship shape the narrative.
  
  The concept of patronage is another vital theme explored in the book. In biblical times, relationships were often reciprocal and involved mutual obligations, which are foreign to many Western readers. Understanding these patron-client relationships helps us grasp the societal structures that underpin many biblical interactions. Recognizing how patronage influenced decisions and relationships in the ancient world can reshape our interpretation of many New Testament teachings.
  
  Living in Asia for 13 years, I've experienced firsthand the importance of collectivist values such as family honor and community roles. These experiences have given me a deeper appreciation for the cultural contexts that Richards and James describe. The authors’ insights into how these collectivist principles operate in scripture have significantly enriched my understanding of biblical texts, revealing layers of meaning that were previously obscured by my individualist perspective.
  
  The practical implications of the book are useful. Richards and James suggest that instead of rejecting patronage-based relationships, Christians should embrace the role of mediators who point to God as the true patron. This approach aligns with my experiences in cross-cultural settings, where acting as a mediator can facilitate deeper understanding and build stronger relationships. I see for myself that I still have a long way to grow and learning more about this.
  
  I don't often give books a five-star rating, but *Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes* certainly deserves it. This book is a must-read and will undoubtedly go on my list of highly recommended readings for others.
• 
  Mark

  This book offers (most typically) Western readers a completely new set of lenses with which to read familiar texts in the Bible. Even for many of us who think we have some basic understandings and workings of collectivist cultures, this was very much an eye opener in discovering how much I didn't know and how much of the collectivist relationship framework is assumed by the biblical writers. For all the reading and learning over the years I thought I gave to this subject, there was a huge number of "oh really?" and "aha" moments.
  
  The authors of this book use countless examples from their own contemporary experiences and from both the Old and New Testaments to illustrate the collectivist undercurrents that are foundational to a "better reading" of scripture. It isn't just the stories and narratives that most explicitly show these relationships, but the collectivist background forms the very basis of salvation metaphors and many of the arguments and theology found in the epistles.
  
  The authors try to explore what this means for Western readers whose culture and society are often far removed from collectivism. On the one hand, they argue that individualists shouldn't have to change their ways drastically. But on the other, the entire premise of the book is that collectivism is the assumed starting point. Do we need to move more toward collectivism? How much? Just in our church life, or should it be more inclusive of all aspects of modern life? I feel like this might be the book's weakest point.
  
  The authors come from what appear to be mainstream, traditional evangelical perspective. The book doesn't touch on much of any of the divisive theological issues of today, although I could see a few tangential references here and their to gender-related ones.
  
  I highly recommend this book as another tool in the toolkit of better reading scripture so that those of us 2000 years removed and half a globe away (at least from where I write) can see richness and nuances in familiar biblical texts that we might have missed before.