N.T. Wright Project

“The average Jews would hear a lot of scripture read aloud or sung, and might well know large amounnts by heart…In particular, the psalter, with its continual emphasis on the importance of the Temple and on the promises made to David, would have formed an important part of the mental furniture of the average Jew.”

Tom Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 241

Wright argues that every worldview answers four basic questions. Who are we? Where are we? What is wrong? And what is the solution? (NTPG, 123). Using this framework, he summarizes Israel’s worldview. The people of Israel are the chosen people of God, living in the Holy Land under the wrong rulers, and thus expectantly adhering to Torah while waiting on God “to act again” (NTPG, 243). The question then becomes: what grounds this worldview, or, on what basis might someone respond differently to these four questions? Wright’s response: scripture. He mentions the Essenes, Philo of Alexandria, and the chief priests of the Temple as different ways of employing Scripture within the Jewish worldview.

This understanding of worldview and Scripture makes perfect sense when the the “mental furniture” of Scripture is arranged in similar ways within a culture, in this case that of the Jews. But what happens when we consider a culture, say that of America, which consists of Christian subcultures that reconfigure the mental furniture of Scripture in radically different ways? To further complicate the issue, what happens if many Americans - even those who call themselves Christians - are only vaguely familiar with the mental furniture in the first place?

In Religious Illiteracy, Boston University professor Stephen Prothero addresses the latter issue, contending that Americans are strikingly unfamiliar with the contents of Scripture, especially when one considers how many Americans profess to be Christian. His argument causes a prolonged lament in light of the phrase, the “mental furniture of the average Jew”.  Many a Christian suffers from biblical illiteracy - many more are unaware of how Scripture has functioned in different Christian communities. Historically, the average white Christian, black Christian, and Latino Christian, etc. have arranged the mental furniture in different ways. The varying interpretations of the Exodus narrative, for instance, illustrate this point well. Some read the story and deduced that they were a chosen race to settle “God’s New Israel” and drive out the barbarians (read: Native Americans). Others read the story and reached a different conclusion: America is Egypt, not Israel, and the same God who liberated the Hebrew slaves will liberate us from the yoke of bondage. Still, there are others who read the story with great difficulty, recalling how it was used to airbrush the assasination and atrocities committed upon their ancestors.  These three readings arises from contexts that raise differing - at times irreconcilable answers - to Wright’s worldview questions of identity (who are we?), environment (where are we?), evil (what is wrong?), and eschatology (what is the solution?).

Christians have the same furniture of Scripture, but our houses look different. They must. This is not to say that we should erase normative discourse about how a house should look, bowing at the alter of contextuality. Dialogue across various contexts is indispensable and important.  I am, however, suggesting that Christians must be ever so careful - and to build on an idea in Keas’ post, ever so willing to listen -  when we evaluate how Scripture is situated within the mental furniture of people groups and contexts different than our own.  This carefulness and willingness to listen, I hope, will usher in a renewed spirit of conversation - where Christians season their speech with salt, striving to be quick to listen and slow to speak.