Hello bloggerites! This post is simply a response to some of the criticisms of my last post “Religion or Education: “The Chicken or the Egg.” A lot of what I have heard in response to this was similar to, and is a summation of Mr. A’s critique. (I suggest you read his critique in the comment section) Mr. A has such an invaluable and crucial perspective on this issue, and religion itself. Throughout this past year, Mr. A has been giving me a perspective that looks at religion from an agnostic perspective in which he asserts a more anthropologic look at religion. I have found his perspective to be more than necessary for a Christian theologian to consider. He makes me realize my context, and criticizes with respect, yet conviction. Our dialogue on religious beliefs has been a constant in my blogging career. So once again, thanks Mr. A. Keep up the criticism! Let me respond to some of his criticisms.
I’ll break down his comments and reply to them individually. Here is the first of his criticisms:
“Do you really think it's simply a matter of reading or not reading particular passages of the Bible? I would guess that Fred Phelps has read every word of the Bible. I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept. Should education come before faith? Sure, but who is doing the educating? The intelligent Christians? The PhD Christians?”
A great criticism! I have found myself giving this exact criticism for those who hold and argue that their biblical perspective is simply correct down to the detailed tenets. The truth (my use of this word bleeds irony right now) is, we all have our situatedness. We all have our context that shapes the way we reason, the way we perceive, and in turn, shapes our beliefs and worldview. Mr. A helps illustrate this well. I agree with much of the postmodernists’ sentiment, especially regarding truth claims. As Derrida argued, we all have our texts. To think that we can wholly separate ourselves from our situatedness, is simply absurd. This is a mainstay in my theology/philosophy (One that has me deemed “liberal” by many “labelers.”) I know, I know, I bleed Westernism…
But I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in what I meant in my post. I do not assert that I have an exhaustive understanding of the biblical texts. What I would assert, is that I have an objective understanding of the very few main overarching motifs of the bible. What I mean to argue is that, these main motifs are not difficult to exegete. One needs not be a Christian or a scholar to see these motifs. These are plainly evident in the text. Jesus preached an ethic that toted outrageous self-sacrificial love. This doesn’t take a PhD to understand. Nevertheless, with a lack of education I think some people pervert this basic motif of the holistic text (or metanarrative, meaning the themes and message of the entire bible). This is why I asserted that education is seemingly crucial in my previous post) A Fred Phelps takes minuet passages out of context and makes an entire worldview out of these passages. This, we call “proof-texting”. This occurs when one asserts meaning without placing the text in its own social context, literary genre, and/or overarching meaning from the whole book. Fred Phelps argues from the Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3 passages to argue that God hates certain people (homosexuals). The passages he use read:
Malachi 1:3
“’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’
Romans 9:13- “‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
(For more on this particular passage, see this link. I am not endorsing this site, but this article, illustrates the a sound exegesis of this passage. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-Esau-love-hate.html)
Phelps strings this argument together: Since God hated Esau, God endorses hatred. God also condemns homosexuality in Phelps’ opinion, and so ‘God hates Fags’. What a boob! His perverted theology is more than uncouth.
Phelps failed to engage in a study of this text. He takes ‘hatred’ for its 21st century English meaning as the opposite of love. But this is simply not the case in the Ancient Near-Eastern definition of the word. He has used “hatred” anachronistically. James Butler, (Ph.D (Princeton) and Old Testament scholar) asserts that “hatred” should be translated as “not preferred” or “did not choose” for its correct meaning for the 21st century mind. These texts assert that Yahweh “chose” Jacob to carry on the covenant, and “did not choose” Esau to carry out the covenant. Phelps has given an uneducated misinterpretation of this text and oppresses people unabashedly with his absurd fallacy. Again, this is why we need education and critical thinking before we assert a truth claim or belief.
With that said, I offer three musings.
1) Religious texts can be difficult to decipher. I don’t deny this. I equate much of this to differences in cultural context. We need to contextualize texts to gain sound meaning. (eg. Language can have different meanings in different situations) It is critical that we engage in good textual criticism. Without it, we can get grossly perverted theologies and messages from texts. 21st century CE American has vastly different social constructs than 13th century BCE Mesopotamia! To turn your head from these differences is pure and foolish ignorance. Fred Phelps, I’m lookin’ at you buddy.
2) If minuet passages in religious texts don’t seem to align with the text’s “meta-motifs” or overarching messages, you probably have a perversion of what the text really is getting at. Love, mercy, and justice are “meta-motifs” in the Hebrew Bible and concepts of self-sacrificial love are championed in the New Testament. Hate simply doesn’t fit. The logical thing to do then, would be to dig deeper, contextualize, find genre, and language differences and so. Wa La! Seeing the differences in language rids us of this passage’s translation ambiguity.
3) I hope I have demonstrated that a simple, yet closer look at texts can relieve a lot of ambiguities. I would accuse a lot of Christians of doing horrible exegesis (interpretation of what a text means in its own context). A lot of these terrible ideas stem from the lack of good exegesis combined with a rushed theological stance without criticizing a theological claim. (It’s terribly frustrating to me). Here’s where education is integral to doing good theology. If we don’t educate ourselves with good methods of doing theology, we get these horrifying perversions. We are far too quick to hold a belief, without first thinking critically about its facets.
Concluding remarks to, “...I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept…”
I would argue that there is always a correct interpretation, and always a wrong interpretation. Nevertheless, I think our contextual situatedness as humans restricts us from ever fully revealing an exhaustively correct interpretation of the whole text. I don’t recall what theologian said this, but a textual critic argues that the text cannot mean what it never intended to mean. So the writer of each text always means to say something objectively. The meaning is not subjective when it comes to these texts. The problem is that we cannot assume to gain an objective meaning. Our interpretation is always subjective in some regard. Therefore, there is a correct interpretation. We simply cannot know it exhaustively. So let’s exercise some theological humility!
Nevertheless, I would still assert that the biblical “meta-themes” are not difficult to exegete, but are easily perverted by silly interpretations and proof-texting. Biblical texts must be looked at holistically. If one wants to quote a passage from let’s say Matthew, they should see the quote in light of the whole book of Matthew. So particularizing a passage, should be done after gaining a holistic theology of the text, if done at all.
Phelps is the proverbial zit on the face Christianity. Good biblical exegesis is the Clearasil.
Mr. A’s critique calls all theologians to exercise humility in doing theology. We must study these texts meticulously prior to making theological claims, and we must allow the text to be ambiguous at times and be okay with simply saying, “I don’t know.”
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Education or Religion? The Chicken or Egg?
Last night I swung down to the Red Lion German Pub in Silver Lake for Amy's birthday to have a beer, and enjoy some conversation. As we sat in the sweltering heat (I guess German's like it hot) sweating ourselves dry, we couldn't help but get into a friendly debate. It's kind of inevitable when you mix a pub with eight theologians. Wes, my favorite barista at Coffee By the Books here in Pasadena (try his Oreo Frapuccino; it's a gentleman's delight!) and all around great man and scholar, sat next to me. I couldn't help but turn to him with this week's lurking and seemingly imponderable question that has been weighing on my mind. I turned and asked (after much unnecessary prefacing and qualifying), "What comes first, Education or Religion?" I won't recite our whole conversation, but here were my thoughts.
As a Christian, when I look in retrospect at the two-thousand-year history of Christianity, I cannot help but be appalled. From Constantine to the Crusades, from the Thirty Years War to the recent divisions in Ireland, Christians have not acted Christlike toward each other, or their "enemies." We Christians have done a horrible job of being Christlike by serving our enemies, and praying for those who persecute us. This is Christianity 101 and since our beginnings, we've brutally and embarrassingly made a mockery of this basic Christian teaching. In my internal dialogue this week, I have tried to find a sound and coherent reason for why Christians have looked far more like Western Imperialists, than "dying to self" Christ-mimickers. Here's the best I can do.
I submit to you that an uneducated Christian is bound for misinterpretation. Faith without education seems to be ridiculously destructive. Our faiths breed a zeal that can be beautifully constructive for the building of Christ's Kingdom, or they can be painstakingly destructive to the Kingdom. It seems to me that the worldview that is wrought with education usually makes for the more constructive faith (though not an absolute). I feel like I've seen many Christians who blindly follow a certain denomination, creed, or tradition, but never take the time to look at it critically. They follow as blind sheep! Without an element of critical examination of one's tradition, we are bound to confuse beliefs with our own criteria, ideas, and concerns. We see this, I would argue, in Just War Theory, nationalism in American Christianity, and remember Manifest Destiny?!?!?! It makes me nauseous just thinking about the ways Christians have perverted the gospel throughout history.
But I wonder if those "Destiny Manifesters" ever read the Sermon on the Mount? How would they respond to Jesus' pacifistic teachings in the gospels? How would Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" cronies respond to Jesus' words, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you..." or these simple words, "Do not resist an evil person." I wonder if they recall the beatitudes as they are protesting Gays' and Soldiers' funerals? "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
Their lack of education leads to these atrocities. How did they get so misinformed? I don't know? But they did? I'm not suggesting that I or some have it all figured out, we don't, and have a long way to go at that. But I would assert that there are some basics and fundamentals of the gospel, that are simply not complicated like, humility, service, love, and self-sacrifice. But these essentials; these are even susceptible to becoming perverted by some who believe they bear the name of Christ. How could this be?!?!? It's outrageous! Where is the humility in Fred Phelps? What does God have to do with hate? Isn't Jesus the antidote to hate? Christians have been so easily duped into horrifyingly bad theology. We must make educated decisions with our faith. Its crucial for the well-being of all humanity.
So I can't help but argue that we Christians absolutely must educate ourselves along with our faith. Now you could argue that the Holy Spirit guides you, and education is some type of Western construct that is non-essential, but if we simply get pragmatic with it, where was the Spirit during the Thirty Years War? Where was the Spirit in the Crusades? Where was the Spirit during the Slave Trade? I would imagine that all these oppressors believed they had the Spirit. But did they? I don't know? What is true of all these situations, is that they all perverted Jesus' words. If they were educated in their faith, how could it have happened? If they truly set aside their own agendas and followed the gospel by the gospel's standards, could they oppress in this way? Is there a way to release oneself from one's context and think critically about what it is they are blindly following? God I hope so! What's so complicated about, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"? Can we rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us? I don't know? Christian history suggests otherwise. Perhaps if we educate ourselves in the gospel and look to the Spirit to guide us alongside our studies with humility, then maybe we gain some ground.
So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Faith or education?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
I want to make music...
As we closed our last session of the class "Topics in theology: Pop Music" I was left thinking about what I want to do with music. The last taste of music was one of the most beautiful, evocative, and emotive songs I've heard in years. It was a Sigur Ros tune which I should blog about later since that's not what this post is trying to accomplish. We also watched a Nick Cave video "Into My Arms" which should leave anyone with a soul with a dash of despair. I suggest you youtube that one. Whatever the case, I was left thinking about my place in the world of music. What do I have to offer? Who do I want to affect? What should my songs accomplish? So I wrote this quick poem...
I want to make music
I want to make real music
Music that takes the mundanity out of people's lives
Music that hurts
Music that inspires
Music that shoots you in the guts when you hear it for the first time
Music that makes you consider otherwise
Music that makes you say, "YES!"
Music that makes you say, "Fuck!"
I want to make music
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
