I've had the germ of a thought rattling around my head for a while now. It's only been partially formed. It was like trying to grasp a shadow, and I'm still not sure that I've fully grasped it yet. But I've read what others have said on the topic—one years ago, and the other just now. Some will probably find what I'm about to opine to be blasphemous. So be it. I've been learning to be less scared about what others might think. Not that I'm insensitive to other ideas or thoughts (or feelings), but I'm trying to develop a thicker skin to derision or venom. Anyway . . .
I think some people put too much emphasis on scripture.
I know, I know, how can a Christian say such a thing? Look out for the thunderbolt. Here's the thing: I have no problem with the Bible itself. Well, not so fast. Let's say I have no major problem. I do wonder a lot about which books are in the canon and which didn't make it. And I've heard all the stories . . . God guided those (rich established white) men when they made their proclamations. Maybe to some extent that's true. But I tend to believe very strongly in the idea of free will. Those guys chose those books and not others. I don't doubt that they believed that they heard from God on it. Or at least claimed to. And, hey, maybe they did. But they had their socio-political reasons too.
But I think my biggest issue—and here's a feeling that I've heard echoed in some other places recently—is the way that so many people approach scripture. And I think that this is a multi-layered problem. One issue is that many allow no room whatsoever for the whole issue of interpretation. And it's a BIG issue. We're talking about 66 very different books (although there is certainly some similarity in the epistles) written by many different authors over thousands of years. They were unarguably colored by the authors themselves. And they have such disparate cultural backgrounds. And here we are looking at them through modern and post-modern Western (and moreover American) eyes. There is bound to be some disconnect. Especially considering that we are reading translations of translations.
And this issue dovetails directly into my other (perhaps larger) qualm. Much of the Church takes a legal/constitutional approach. They come to the scriptures like a lawyer coming to a contract or a builder coming to the blueprint for a house. Is that any way to come to a spiritual text? First of all, it's very cold and sterile. Where's the life in that? And I can't imagine that they were written with this in mind. The vast majority of the world was illiterate when all of this was written down, so there was no inkling that people would be holding words up to a microscope like so many do nowadays.
The ancient traditions were oral. People shared these stories over meals and in other gatherings. And the ancient Eastern mind was much more visual, much more poetic than the 21st Century mind. That's why Jesus taught in parables. What's more, even for them the new way of looking at life and God (the Good News!) was so radical that it had to be presented in allegory and questions. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." Love your enemies?? Forgive those that do you wrong?? Welcome the stranger?? Associate with Romans and prostitutes?? This is all radical stuff. And it's the very thing I like about scripture. That and how human it all is. The Psalms are some of the most open, vulnerable stuff you could read.
But please let's don't quote verses at each other like lawyers trying to cite precedent and win a case. Not the point at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment