On slurring Cretans and Indians
Happily ensconced within my hotel in South Bend, Indiana and with a couple hours until this evening’s reception, I have decided to avail myself of a bit of blogging. I’ll focus on responding to a key excerpt from davidstarlingm’s defense of Paul’s comments on the Cretans in Titus 1:12-13:
Paul was telling Titus to rebuke those people, who were “acting like Cretans are said to act”. This is different from Paul labeling the entire congregation as “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” and thus excusing any responsibility on Titus’s part.
Well yes and no. Paul is not claiming that all the Cretans in the congregation are acting in an equally offensive manner. That is certainly true. But for those who misbehave he is identifying the source of trouble with their ethnicity. And that is a problem.
Here’s an illustration. Imagine that you visit me at my flea market booth. A young South Asian couple walks up and begins to look closely at the jewelery I’m selling. In that moment I lean over to you and whisper: “Those East Indians sure love a deal.”
Note first that the comment has the same basic form as Paul’s insofar as it appeals to a general cultural/ethnic stereotype to explain a specific instance of behavior. In the example I am not necessarily claiming that all East Indians “love a deal” (a phrase which seems to be code for “are spendthrifts”) any more than Paul is suggesting every single Cretan in the church is a liar. But I am explaining the behavior of the couple at my booth with reference to the general stereotype just like Paul is attempting to explain the Cretans’ behavior with respect to the general stereotype.
Second, note that the actual content of my comment in the scenario is much less extreme than Paul’s comment. I say that East Indians “love a deal.” Paul claims that Cretans are liars, evil brutes and lazy gluttons.
Finally, note that the milder comment I make in the thought experiment, (which shares the same form as Paul’s comment on Cretans) is nonetheless offensive and pernicious. It is offensive to explain the shopping behavior of those who are ethnically Indian with respect to a general stereotype that Indians are spendthrifts. And it is pernicious to marginalize specific people groups in this way by tacitly feeding latent hostilities.
So in summary, the India comment shares the same form as Paul’s, is less extreme than Paul’s, and is nonetheless offensive. But then why wouldn’t we consider Paul’s statement to be at least as offensive and pernicious as my comment on Indians?
By the way, I have visited Crete, and I didn’t find any evidence that the ethnic Cretans I met were any worse than any other Greek people. (I can already anticipate somebody offering this rebuttal: “Maybe two millennia diluted the gene pool!” Yeah, that’s it. So maybe my stubborn side traces to a Cretan gene.)
The problem is that people who try to defend Paul are shouldered with defending the negative stereotyping of specific ethnicities, and that is a lose-lose scenario.
Here’s a radical idea: admit the obvious. Paul was wrong to explain the behavior of some Cretans by appealing to a vicious ethnic stereotype. Now in light of that rather obvious concession let’s read scripture anew and learn from Paul’s mistake even as we recognize it is our mistake as well.
Tags: ethnicity, inerrancy, inspiration, Paul, prejudice, racism, Titus
16 Comments
3 Trackbacks
-
[...] has been considering how “Paul”1 makes use of a racial stereotype in Titus 1:12-13. In On slurring Cretans and Indians Randall presented this as a gross racial slur, however, returning to his topic in Can N.T. Wright [...]
-
[...] way has been considering how “Paul”1 makes use of a racial stereotype in Titus 1:12-13. In On slurring Cretans and Indians Randall presented this as a gross racial slur, however, returning to his topic in Can N.T. Wright [...]
-
[...] Rauser has a couple of posts on Paul’s use of the stereotype “All Cretans are liars” in Titus 1:12-13. Whether one agrees with his views on [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
MGT2 says:
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 10:26pm
Randal,
The problem here is two-fold. First it has to do with subjecting, especially with this example, the situation of the first century text to our twenty-first century moral intuitions, and that without showing whether it was either an issue then or whether the characterization of the Cretans was true and accepted as such. That is, the historical-cultural context is needed.
Paul says “This witness is true.”
I side with Paul.
Second, this idea of reading “scripture anew” in the context of this discourse implies, as one of your interlocutors suggests in the prior thread, that the Bible is merely a collection of writings by flawed men sans divine inspiration, and that undermines the authority of scripture.
So you are either saying that Paul was lying by affirming that the witness is true, and is therefore wrong for maliciously and deliberately slandering the Cretans because he did not know how to deal with congregational problems, or you are mistaken in your interpretation.
I know you are trying to teach something about how we should view inerrancy, but I think your interpretation of this text is flawed.
Walter says:
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 10:51pm
I side with Paul.
Color me surprised.
Paul and deutero-Paul will always get the benefit of the doubt…thus sayeth the Lord.
randal says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:18am
MGT2, I have assumed that it is wrong to ascribe the wayward behavior of individuals to the moral and/or intellectual inferiority of their particular ethnic identity. You have responded that my response is a matter of subjecting a “first century text to our twenty-first century moral intuitions”. This response commits you to the position that it is in principle possible to ascribe the wayward behavior of individuals to their specific ethnic group, a group which is on the whole morally and/or intellectually inferior to other groups.
Okay, provide one other example of such an ethnic group.
Beetle says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:13am
P0: Plain reading of certain scriptures says something awful
P1: The Bible is inerrant
[cognitive dissonance]
therefore P0 doesn’t say what it plainly says
[complex incoherent rationalization follows]
randal says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 12:20am
Beetle, we may not find ourselves in agreement very often, but in this case we’re in the same general vicinity.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:17pm
Randal,
You suggest, “This response commits you to the position that it is in principle possible to ascribe the wayward behavior of individuals to their specific ethnic group, a group which is on the whole morally and/or intellectually inferior to other groups.”
No, not really. Let me be clear, I am in no way characterizing anything close to “a group which is on the whole morally and/or intellectually inferior to other groups” as you suggest. But I am saying that it is possible to understand SOME behaviors of individuals based upon the cultural tendencies of their ethnic groups or subcultures, especially if they are estranged, but closely associated with the groups.
In some ethnic groups, it is morally objectionable for a woman to walk side-by-side with her husband. In fact, it is quite acceptable for men in some parts of India, Pakistan and some Arab and African countries to engage in what we in the west would consider abuse, sexually and otherwise. Many of these groups have religious rites that we also object to on moral grounds. There are enclaves of these ethnic groups in the United States and Canada.
For many Christians who work at evangelizing these communities, the problem of syncretism is a challenge. Pointing out the cultural tendencies to a young pastor working with congregations peopled by converts from these groups will help him/her to better understand and deal with some of the attendant issues. This is neither slurring an ethnic group nor engaging in racism, or even elitism; it is acknowledging the fact that our native cultures inform our actions. It would be sound advice to give in instructing the young evangelists, and it would be irresponsible for the leader of a Church organization to fail in doing so.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:18pm
I mean “not estranged”
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:47pm
This “plain reading” of a biblical text is no guarantee of correct interpretation. It is in fact naive to think so.
I have often heard people comment on the so-called disrespect Jesus demonstrated towards his mother in John 2 when, upon her requesting him to do something about the depleting wine at the wedding feast at Cana, he said to her “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come” (v 4).
The objection is with the use of “woman” to refer to his mother. A couple thousand years removed in both time and culture, we frown upon addressing one’s own mother in this manner because it shows disrespect. (When I was a youngster, any stranger would slap me upside the head if I said that and they were close at hand. And on top of that, I would be in for a good whipping.)
But back then in the first century, the word “woman” as used by Jesus in that context was an expression of endearment.
Walter says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:56pm
This “plain reading” of a biblical text is no guarantee of correct interpretation. It is in fact naive to think so.
So much for the bible being perspicuous. I guess we really do need the infallible Magisterium of the One True Church to inform us what the text “truly means.”
Silly protestants, eisegesis is for kids.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 3:27pm
We need to do the necessary work that constitutes proper hermenutics and, most importantly, we need the enlightment of the Holy Spirit in reading biblical texts. “Plain reading” does not necessarily involve these things.
Think about Philip and the Ethiopian Eunoch in Acts 8:26-39
Or you might consider the “plain reading” of
Dreams
by Langston Hughes
Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly.
Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow.
Or you my want to try the “plain reading” of the Aeneid by Virgil.
You need to consider the the historical-cultural context, the lexical-syntactical devices, the imagery and metaphors. No, a mere “plain reading” will not always work.
Walter says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 4:36pm
You need to consider the the historical-cultural context, the lexical-syntactical devices, the imagery and metaphors. No, a mere “plain reading” will not always work.
What I see is that every sect “exegetes” the texts through the lens of their particular church’s creeds and confessions.
Presuppositions play a part here, too. If you presuppose the bible canon is a perfect revelation from a deity, free of any human taint, then your mind will refuse to see human flaws, contradictions and errors in the texts.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 5:33pm
There are errors in the text because of the failings of copyists, because of translations from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek, and Hebrew to Greek to the various languages we have today; because of poorly understood idioms, and because of historical distance.
But none of that is a problem for inerrancy. The fact that we can identify these errors (not those conspiratorial fantacies) strengthens the argument for inerrancy by showing that the Holy Spirit is still at work to preserve the integrity of the Word.
Walter says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 5:42pm
The concept of biblical inerrancy is so heavily nuanced these days that the meaning of the term has died the death of a thousand qualifications. Nowadays even the errors in the bible are inerrant.
MGT2 says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 5:54pm
I do not understand what you mean. The most enduring meaning of inerrancy that I know is that the ORIGINAL autographs that bear the message of God for the salvation of humans is without error.
davidstarlingm says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 8:09pm
I think I see where the problem lies.
“Paul is not claiming that all the Cretans in the congregation are acting in an equally offensive manner. That is certainly true. But for those who misbehave he is identifying the source of trouble with their ethnicity. And that is a problem.”
That could definitely pose a problem, and if that was the case, I would have to look very closely at the way I was approaching the text. I am not necessarily opposed to considering that Paul could have given bad advice; he certainly stated on several occasions that a particular statement was given “as a man” and not through divine inspiration.
However, that isn’t the case here. Paul is not saying that “the source of trouble” is the ethnicity of the people he is censuring. Instead, he is making use of a common axiom — “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” — in describing the actions of these individuals. He isn’t saying, “These people are Cretans, so you can expect them to act like this.” Instead, he’s saying, “These people are shameless, emulating the Cretans’ own self-imposed stereotype; rebuke them.”
It is difficult to construct a modern analogy, but I’ll try.
Let’s say that I’m a senior pastor writing to a young youth pastor doing work with a church in a predominantly African-American community. It has come to my attention that several young men in one of the youth groups have begun stirring discord: hanging out in the parking lot blasting music, insulting the other youth for their lack of jewelry and status symbols and “cred”, and accosting the young women. They’ve also shared pot with some of the youth. Many of the youth are either becoming angry with them or trying to win their approval. The pastor writes to me, asking whether he should confront this issue or try to be “culturally sensitive”.
In my response, I quote a line from a common rap song: “Black boys all just wanna get ice, get laid, an’ get high,” and tell him that they are acting out the label that the culture is imposing on them. In other words, don’t be sensitive to the culture in this area, because the culture is pushing them in the wrong direction.
It could be easy for someone else to take what I said the wrong way, and conclude that I actually think all African-American men are sex-craved druggies. But their confusion doesn’t change the fact that my advice is helpful.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 12:40am
Thanks, David. That is a good way to see it.