can i be a christian while not taking the bible literally? October 16, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: bible, christianity, faith, literalism, scripture
add a comment
I am living the Bible, but I am living it differently than many Christians. A lot of people create a false dichotomy between biblical literalism and humanism. I do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that it is dictated either directly or indirectly to individuals from God. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God in that it describes a history of people seeking God and describing their experience with God. I claim a profound connection with the Bible and find it to be the paramount scripture by which I can relate to God. However, it doesn’t mean that I think it inerrant or beyond critical inquiry. I don’t believe that God zipped God’s lip the day that the last book of the Bible was penned or that the Bible is homogeneous enough to somehow gain a definitive vision of God from its pages. It is because of the relative views of God presented by different authors in different books of the Bible that I don’t believe we can quote scripture in ways that many do, nor can we derive seemingly “If A + B then C” ideas from scripture… the Bible is too diverse to not be seen as a whole.
I believe that Jesus was more closely aligned with the Will of God than any other being who’s existed and therefore seek to understand his Life and ministry as best I can, since I believe his vision of God to be paramount to all others in the way that it compells me to live.
While I am slipping into a somewhat relativistic position by making these statements, I would suggest that all biblically derived beliefs are necessarily relativistic to some degree just by the very nature of the Bible, which is by no means completely uniform in its descriptions of God. I am not going to tell anyone that I am doing things right and that they are doing things wrong (thereby assuming that my interpretation is more in line with God’s will than others’), but I do have faith that that is so. I have faith that I am endeavoring to live out the Bible as best I can and that I share a connection with God and am working God’s will in the world. I also understand that other Christians believe this as well, but that we are cleary getting different things when we read the Bible.
I most certainly take the Bible more seriously than reducing it to a nice story or poems with morals– but obviously my approach to how I can best take the text seriously is different than many Christians’. My attempt is to learn the languages these texts were originally written in, learn about the historical backgrounds of the people described in the text, and seek to understand the many layers of meaning that are available through experiencing the Bible. In that sense, I am not at all trying to make the Bible say what I want it to be, but am trying to best understand what it meant to those who wrote it down and why it made sense to them, given their context. A lot of people don’t like to involve academics with their scripture, but I strongly believe in doing so. It is my belief that the Bible should be studied from every angle possible.
It is precisely my study of the Bible and my experience of God through study and worship that has brought me to the way that I live out my faith.
A Review of JEDP Theory of the Pentateuch April 15, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, biblical scholarship, christian
add a comment
J: (Jahwist) uses the term “YHWH” for God most commonly. It’s anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, involves vibrant storytelling, and is very creative.
E: (Elohist) uses the term Elohim for God most commonly. It is incorporating other traditions and/or redacting the J tradition.
D: (Deuteronomic) seems to be an early stage of the deuteronomic tradition, in which God is about fear, love, and obedience.
P: (Priestly) is concerned with cultic matters, most notably the rules for priests and the temple.
It is believed that these traditions were combined during the post-exilic period.
Matthew 15 vs Mark 7 April 13, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, biblical scholarship, gospels, scripture, universalism
add a comment
Matthew draws from Mark’s accounts in many instances. There’s are several interesting differences in the accounts, however, one of them being Matthew 15, when a Gentile woman asks for her daughter to be healed. Jesus responds that the children’s food should not be thrown to the dogs.
In Mark, whose account is probably more accurate (being that Mark knew Jesus and worked closely with his disciples after Jesus death, and also because Mark is the earliest gospel account) Jesus responds, “Let us first feed the children…” (emphasis mine).
Both accounts are harsh and both accounts show Jesus learning from the Gentile woman. However, Mark’s version shows a Jesus conscious of the changing paradigm (that God is not exclusively for the Jews, but for all).
Meek and Gentle March 29, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, comparative religious studies, jesus, marcus borg, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
“Fortunate are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.”
–Q11
“The most famous passage in this Sermon on the Mount has always been translated as “the meek shall inherit the earth.” Actually, the Greek word proates means “gentle but strong” and connotes strength that is under control and tinged with a spirit of caring.”
–Marcus Borg
Short Notes March 24, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, comparative religious studies, God, jesus, religion, religious studies, scripture
1 comment so far
Luke is an apology to a Roman magistrate.
Matthew is doctrine.
Mark is a story.
John is an apology against Docetism.
Rapture theology comes from a Biblical passage that is about imprisonment.
Too many people think, when studying scripture, “God will reveal all.” It’s a very Protestant idea that’s all fine and dandy when it’s about Biblical layering, but we need to note those layers. The history and linguistic nuances are part of those layers. God might show you unique ways of experiencing scripture, but God’s not going to teach you history and Greek.
My Tea is Cold March 19, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, environment, nature, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christianity, comparative religious studies, God, hebrew scriptures, jesus, liberal, nature, process theology, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
So when I sat down to begin my Bible study, I had a giant mug of piping hot, fresh green tea. It’s now cold and I haven’t drank any of it, because I got incredibly excited and somehow just lost 2 hours of my life in scripture without noticing it. I still have more scripture to read through and some other reading to complete, as per my Lenten commitment.
ANYWAY…
Tonight I got to the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew. If you’ve ever wondered why it is on a mountain in Matthew and on a plain in Luke, here you go: Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and therefore, his placement of Jesus on a mountain has Mosaic parallels which resonate with his audience. Similarly, Luke is writing for a Hellenistic audience, who appreciates more a Jesus who stands level with them, as an equal.
On a similar note, within this lovely speech, Jesus says (in Matthew), “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The funny thing about that, though, is that the word which is translated as “perfect” from the Greek, means something very different in the original. It means something more to the effect of: “live to your maximum potential.” In short, “give God’s work your all.” Again, however, there is a difference in Luke’s version, which doesn’t say perfect at all, but rather says “compassionate.” This is, again, because Luke is writing to a Greek audience. Because Greek ethics are more situational, the epitome of goodness in Greek society is compassion, and therefore it makes most sense to think of “perfection” as “compassion.”
Might I add that both of these “revised” translations make marvelous sense when viewed from a lens of process theology.
Next, I came upon the section of the sermon in Matthew which talks about the Law (beginning at 5.17). This section is unique to Matthew. Interesting, considering that Matthew was the writer orienting his words toward a Jewish audience. Could this view have been unique to Jewish Christianity, or was this something that simply wouldn’t have been emphasized or made much sense to a gentile audience?
Also, way back in my first year of college, I recall my RelS 99 professor saying that it was likely that the Pharisees were not so much an enemy of the Jesus movement (the Sadducees seem the more likely suspects). In scripture, however, they certainly take the most criticisms oriented toward Judaism’s legal system. I don’t know that his view represents scholarly consensus, but going over my notes from RelS 151, I now know why that theory makes sense– the Pharisees are anti-Hellenization. For a splinter group of Jews proselytizing to gentiles, Hellenization was their friend. In Jesus’ death, the gospel was for everyone and the Pharisees became the angry old ladies at church who didn’t want to see change.
And on a mostly unrelated note….
The Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death… my notes say, “God puts the tree there so that Adam knows he can exist without it.” This cyclical world, where it is easy to fall subject to ennui and lose touch with our spiritual sides, where it seems quite simple to live subject only to the laws of physics, is infused with spirit, hidden within metaphorical hedges… We are better than lives of routine and common courtesy. We needn’t be sucked into such mundane existences if we continue to eat from the Tree of Life, to grow ourselves in God and Spirit in ways that cannot be broken by the laws of this world. True knowledge and spirituality transcend time and space so that they daily land us in our inner Edens.
“There are two trees in the garden… and too much of religion is stuck at the wrong tree. Does it bring Life? Eat from that tree.”
–Rev. Yvette Flunder
Our goal is to be in the world, but not of it– to fully engage in this world and delve into the majesty of Nature, but understand that pure physicality is not enough to nourish our souls. Whatever magical experience a tromp through the forest might provide us, it can only ever be elevated by praying while we dig our fingers into the soil…
I guess it’s true that if we seek, we find. Even more true, however, is that the more I seek, the more I find. The more I read and pray and commit myself to experience God daily, the more I am stunned by God’s beautiful presence within me and around me.
“You can become a blessing.”
–Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen
Jesus March 18, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, jesus, religion
add a comment
What are some of the traditional titles used for Jesus?
lord, savior, Christ, messiah
How is the use of the word “Lord” (kyrios) ironic?
It was an imperial word… it was used to contrast who Jesus was with the caesar.
Why is an emphasis on believing the right things a distortion of what Jesus was on about?
Because Jesus’ ministry focused on love, acceptance, inclusion, and forgiveness.
Eucharist and Agape Meals March 14, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, comparative religious studies, God, jesus, prayer, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
Eucharist and Agape Meals
Eucharist, translated, means “thanksgiving.”
Originally, the Eucharist was practiced as a communal meal, as the depictions of the Last Supper in the gospels suggest. Early Christians shared a meal, confessed their sins, and had the Eucharist– the meal that unified them in the body of Christ. There was a mysticism attached to this ritual; the Eucharist is a mystical union of believers, somewhere in the middle of Catholic and Protestant intentionality regarding communion today.
Consider this Eucharistic blessing, found in the pages of the Didache, the oldest surviving Christian catechism:
“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the holy vine of David your child, whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages”
“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the life and knowledge, of whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages. As this which is fragments, while being scattered upon the hills and brought together became one, so the church shall be gathered together from the limits of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ into the ages”
–Didache, 9.2-5
It captures the mysticism of this Christian community, joined together through time and space through the ritual of the Eucharist.
Early Christians also held agape meals, which were basically giant potlucks to feed their religious community and whoever else might need nourishment. It was true embodiment of the movement’s redefinition of “neighbor.”
Crowds came from Jerusalem and Judea and the regions around the Jordan River to be baptized by John. He said to them, “Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the impending doom? Produce good fruit. Prove that your hearts are really changed. Do not think of saying to yourselves, ‘We are Abraham’s children’ because, I tell you, God can produce children for Abraham right out of these rocks. Even now the axe is aimed at the roots of the trees, so that any tree that fails to produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown on the fire.”
The crowds asked him, “So what shall we do?”
He answered them, “Whoever has two shirts must share with someone who has none. Whoever has food should do the same.”
–Q2
So often we think, I’m a nice person.. Jesus spoke words of truth when he reminded us that everyone is nice to their own friends and family. Rapists and thieves, after all, have friends. The test of Christian faith, I believe, is whether we put it into action– whether we are being nice to more than just our friends and family and giving to more than just our friends and family. Christianity’s intent is to extend our circles of compassion beyond those we might naturally be drawn to love. After all, there is nothing extraordinary about loving and being good to one’s friends and family… pretty much everyone does. Christianity calls us to, as Bishop Spong worded it, “love wastefully.”
And be a simplllllllllllllllle kind of man.
The Prayer of Jesus
Loving God, in whom is heaven.
May your name be honored everywhere.
May your kin-dom come,
May the desire of Your heart for the world be done,
In us, by us and through us.
Give us the bread we need for each day.
Forgive us. Enable us to forgive others.
Keep us from all anxiety and fear.
For You reign in the power that comes from love which is Your glory, forever and ever. Amen.
(re-worded prayer from the Sophia community)
I believe the translation intends to portray the panentheistic Nature of God by playing on the words of our traditional translations by saying “in whom is Heaven” and shows how the pursuit of God is heavenly and gives heavenly light to the souls of those who pursue God.
This was used in a Sophia Community (Catholic) service. By kin-dom, I believe the translator intends to convey an idea that “Kingdom” is truly achieved when it becomes “kin-dom,” which is to say when we treat all members of the human family as true family.
And that does it for today, I think.
You are the body of Christ. You are the blood of Christ. Go into the world and be the hands and feet of God. See with God’s eyes and open yourself to the Holy Spirit as it lures you toward justice, compassion, and peace.
Metaphor and Literalism March 14, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, liberal, religion, scripture
2 comments
How might reading the Bible metaphorically and understanding the Bible as a human product work together in interpreting Jesus for today?
To understand the Bible metaphorically frees it to be placed within the context of today. The Bible was written for a very different audience than exists today. Understanding it as a human product also frees it from dogma. To recognize the Bible as a work that has potential for flaw helps us understand the flaw in treating it as something exempt from logical criticism.
Jesus March 5, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, church, congregationalist, jesus, liberal, religion, ucc, united church of christ
1 comment so far
I’m going to post some questions from “A Course on Chistianity,” which was offered by a former minister at my church, and my answers to them. Here’s the first one, which is probably fitting:
What do the inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life suggest about the way we should interpret not only the text, but the meaning of Jesus’ life?
The inconsistencies, for me, show that there were different understandings of what Jesus’ life and ministry meant. People found different aspects of his legacy important and formed different interpretations of his person because of it. This parallels our view of the scriptures… people find different stories meaningful. People translate the text differently. Because of this, none of us should be so arrogant as to claim that our understandings can be more or less meaningful or authoritative than someone else’s.
notes on notes February 28, 2009
Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christian, christianity, comparative religious studies, jesus, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
“A text without a context is a pretext.” –Brent Walters
What I find astounding is how people can read through the Bible and take it at face value and think they’ve learned something. This is what disgusts me about a lot of American Christianity– it’s ignorant. Yes, there is something you can gain just by reading those words (although you are reading a pretty crap English translation, but that’s neither here nor there), but the layers of Biblical meaning are so intricate and sometimes hard to find that you’re cutting yourself short if you’re not coming at it from every angle possible.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Our English translations are not only biased, but oftentimes simply literal translations. Religious scripture is not like translating “see Jane run.” Scripture has metaphorical value, poetic value, and allegorical value (among others) which are lost with literal translations. That’s why scholarly research and cultural understanding is important.
For example During Jesus’ trial, Jesus tells John that he will betray him [x times, depending on version] before the cock crows. If we read that at face value, we’re imagining some rooster chillin’ in Jerusalem. However, if you understand the context, you know that 1) the “cock crow” was a term for a horn which signaled the switching of guards in the city and 2) there’s no way there would be a rooster running around in Jerusalem because it’s a holy city and such unclean animals were not allowed within its gates. In the context of this story, “before the cock crows” meant: “before midnight.” This is a small misunderstanding that is the result of ignorance on the part of translators, but imagine how many other times this happens (hello, the Bible’s kinda big) and how many other situations where that translation error could hold a lot more weight. The creation story is a shining example of this type of problem.
ANYWAY. Reading the Bible is hard work, if you do it right. Because a text without a context is a pretext, and scrounging up the context for a 2000-year-old work (much more if we’re using Hebrew Scriptures) requires consulting a lot of different fields of study and the works of many scholars.
I am ranting about all of this because I re-read the first chapter of John, which we all know and love, right. “In the beginning, there was the Word…”
Some time ago, in a class on Koine Greek, we went over this passage in the original language. It comes out a little differently: “In beginning was the logos and the logos was towards God, and God was the logos. This one was in beginning toward the God.”
Logos is a loaded term. It’s generally translated “word,” but that translation is a diservice to its meaning. Logos, as it was understood by those writing these texts, was more than just a word, it was a promise, and accounting, the logical implication of a divine order. Now, isn’t that more fun?
revisiting the value of genesis February 8, 2009
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: bible, christianity, creation, eden, sripture
1 comment so far
What happened thousands of years ago in a garden doesn’t matter in my life today. The Eden story has morals and millions of interpretations. It is fascinating to go through the takes of Genesis; it is inspiring to hear the morals; it is a beautiful story. However, it’s a beautiful story whose historical value is nothing compared to its metaphorical value. The message of the Genesis story is not that God did create life or the specifics of how God did so. The messages worth drawing from the text are never that shallow. “Why?” is the question we should be continually asking. Why would God create Adam and Eve, knowing that they would fall? Why go through the trouble? I believe it was to give them choice. Humans are created not for the sake of God, but for the sake of humans. So that we will have the knowledge beyond fact and instinct: knowledge of conscious decision-making skills and a moral compass. So that humanity will have the ability to choose. God did it so we could have the choice to choose a way of living life and understand that choice.
I don’t think God created us for God or out of some kind of need. I don’t think that God needs anything… Because God is God. What could God possibly need from us? I think humanity exists for humanity’s sake. So that we can live and feel and love. Whatever pain or joy there may be in that, I find the most perfect beauty not based on how happy each of us are or the greater utility of the world, but because it is real… because everything has meaning to us and because that meaning is real. Without this world, there would be no love. God created love and we are a necessary part of that. God created meaning and we are a necessary part of that. For me, there is no more profound truth than the reality of meaning. That said, what the heck do I know, eh?
In any case, it is abundantly clear to me that the point of the creation story is not the specifics of how and when God created the world… that there were two people living someplace called “Eden” means squat. If the meaning you find in the creation story is that God is all-powerful and created the world out of nothing, you’re not reading Genesis with your “thinking cap” on.
Biblical literacy should not simply mean that the Bible has been read and that passages have been memorized; it should mean that available resources have been used to supplement the material so that it could be understood to the deepest extent possible. History, archaeology, biology, philosophy, sociology, linguistics, psychology, literature… all frameworks should be applied to best understand the Bible’s themes, context, and relevance. An interdisciplinary approach should be taken when studying the Bible instead of simply taking it at face value. It is stupidity to read the Bible at a literalist level since the Bible is, in fact, a translation that cannot fully translate over both language and history. Human advancement is in vain if we cannot use the brilliance of our species to understand that which we like to say has the most meaning.
If there is nothing anyone can take on faith, the most “sure” claim is that this world exists. And if there is a God and if God did create it or create us or create anything, then this is it. Beyond it? An afterlife… whatever, maybe. But this is here and I think I can know that much. If there is anything I should be working for, it should be this world, because I know it’s here and that if God created it, God must have liked the idea of it being around. If no one created it? Then everything I do matters because it is all that matters. I think I should be working for humanity and the betterment of it. I think I should be helping people where I can, whether that means being there for others when they are hurting or whether it means giving money to women trying to make lives for themselves in Africa. I believe that that means trying to respect this earth, to enjoy nature… whether that means not littering, driving a more gas-efficient car, or giving money to causes which try to save nature.
The most profound truth is the reality of meaning. If this creation/world/bang means anything, maybe we should act like it.
understanding the bible October 31, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: bible, christian, liberal, scripture
1 comment so far
It is easy to think that we can understand the Bible. We can all read, right? I believe that there is a layering of meaning, a multitude of meanings, existing simultaneously. While it’s easy to take the word at face value, I don’t believe it to be the best approach to the Bible… especially since (and I presume you are reading an English translation) our translations are profoundly lacking.
Comparative Religious Studies has opened my eyes in a different way to the complexity of religion and its history. It is my experience that has brought me to my own interpretation of faith, just as it is your experience that has brought you to where you are.
I respect endeavors to love God and walk with Jesus. It is my goal to do the same, though I may see this path differently than most Christians.
John 9 September 24, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: andre trocme, bible, compassion, God, jesus, john, john 9, le chambon, scripture, sermon
1 comment so far
Hillel, a 1st century Rabbi whom Paul of Tarsus studied under, was once approached by a man who told him: “If you can teach me the whole of the Torah while I stand on one foot, you can make me a Jew.”
Hillel responded: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study.”
Think on that… “the rest is commentary. Go and study.”
One of the continuing themes in the Bible is Jesus’ healing on Sabbath days. In all of the gospels, the Pharisees are irritated with Jesus for breaking Sabbath law. If we look in the story of John 9, where Jesus heals the blind man, we see that not only does Jesus give this man the ability to see, he does it in a funny way. Jesus spits, gathers up dirt, rubs it in his hand to make mud, smears it on the man’s eyes, and tells the man to go wash his face.
Why didn’t Jesus just say “abra cadabra” and heal the man?
At this point in the history of Jewish legalism, Sabbath law had become so particular that simple things like molding mud and spitting were considered breaking the law. It had become THAT particular. So why did Jesus spit, gather up dirt, rub it in his hands to make mud, smear it on the man’s eyes, and tell him to go wash his face? Because each of those steps was breaking Sabbath law. Because Jesus was pointing out NOT ONLY how Sabbath law was preventing good works, but also the ridiculousness of how unnecessarily picky Sabbath law had become. He performed the healing in such a way as to rub it in the face of the Pharisees.
Jesus is rubbing his “disobedience” of Sabbath law in the faces of these religious authorities.
If you were standing there that day, wouldn’t you just say, “Oh snap”?
What conclusion do we draw from this story? The easy conclusion to draw from this story is that the law of compassion trumps all other Biblical law. It’s a good conclusion.
I like to think about this in an additional way. I like to see this as a way we should approach religion in general. Stay with me.
“Because God says so” is bad reasoning. I mean, Sabbath law was all about “because God says so.” For a fearful populace that thinks of God like we are ants and God is a human cleaning God’s kitchen, maybe that makes sense. Maybe we should just do what God says so God doesn’t smoosh us. What’s wrong with thinking like that? It’s playing it safe. Jesus was all about playing it safe, right?
…
(the answer is no)
For one thing, within ANY religious tradition, you can say, “it says in scripture that this is the right action,” and there is ALWAYS another passage you can draw from that contradicts that position. ALWAYS. So we can say that the contradictory nature of religious scripture should make clear to us the problem of Biblical literalism.
Well, that’s dispassionate, isn’t it? “Don’t claim God as your reasoning because someone can use your same God to contradict your reasoning.” There’s my dispassionate position.
My passionate reasoning goes more like this: To be compassionate because God says so is cheap. It’s no longer compassion, it’s again adherence to law, and the problem with law is that it imposes boundaries. We should never put boundaries on compassion.
One night, I was driving home… from IHN, actually… with my then-boyfriend. As we were heading down Ellsworth, he exclaimed, “Oh my gosh, I think that guy was hurting that girl.”
“What? Where?” I asked.
“Back there,” he said and motioned. “He had her pinned against that wall.”
I turned the car around.
“What are you doing?” he asked.
I said, “I’m going back.”
“Why? What are you going to do?”
At this point, we see that the couple was merely making out. I didn’t have to figure out what I was going to do. What was I going to do? I don’t know. Call the police? At least shine my headlights and get him to take his hands off her? Invite her into my car? What was I going to do? I don’t know. Not the point.
As we drove away, he asked, “Why do you always do that?”
Of course, he wasn’t referring to some tendency I have to interfere in instances of domestic violence. Thankfully, I don’t often encounter domestic violence. He was referring to the times I’d step in between his friends in bar fights. To the times I’d help out a random girl in a club. To the times I stop and try to talk to someone crying on the street. To the earfuls I’d give to large strangers exhibiting sexism. To the conversations I’d have with homeless people. To the times I’d run outside and break up a cat fight (the kind between cats…). To the everyday small things, sometimes stupid things, I would do. To all the things he’d get irritated with after I did them. Why do those things?
What he meant was, “Why do you always get involved in other people’s business?” And perhaps… “especially when it involves some kind of risk.” It really bothered him. He saw my actions as butting into other people’s lives. If his friends were going to get hit in a bar fight, they deserved it for being stupid. I’m a 110-pound female. How am I going to help?
Well, I like to think that because I am a 110-pound female, a man is unlikely to hit me. It’s maybe a risky bet, but it’s one that I’m willing to make.
But my boyfriend’s question goes unanswered. Why? Why do I do that? Do I do it because it’s what God wants? Because it’s what Jesus taught? Because it says somewhere in the Bible? I say I do it because it’s the way my momma raised me. And my mommy didn’t raise me talking about God or Jesus… or Buddha or the Pope or the Dali Lama…
My mother raised me to take other people’s experiences into my own. She told me not to hurt other people in my words or actions. People don’t like to hurt. “Would you like someone to do that to you?” she would always ask. I avoid hurting people for the same reason I try to help people… because we should be acting with a mentality of Human community. Of course, my mother never said this. Before now, I never have, either.
Why do we try to help people? We just do it. It comes from inside, not from outside. If God told me to help people, God did it from the inside. Not through scripture, through Humanity.
God gave us free will and these beautiful minds that are capable of some extremely complex thought. Why would God do that if God just wanted us to simply surrender our own judgment to authority? It doesn’t really make sense, does it? Why give us these beautiful analytic minds and then say, “everything you need to know should be in Leviticus”? It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense because God is still speaking.
God gave us a mind and a heart and a moral compass. God gave us these tools with which to learn from scripture, to learn from Life. I think that God’s main guiding tools for us are internal. After all, scripture only has meaning to us BECAUSE of those tools, because of that Spirit of God in all of us.
If God is in me, God is in you, and if God is in MY motivation, God is in yours as well. I should take EVERYONE’S wellbeing into my decision-making. God probably does.
My willingness to stand in between 2 people on the verge of violence is because my mom taught me not only to anticipate MY possible outcomes, but others’ as well.
One of my professors referred once to a book called, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed by Philip Hallie. The subtitle of this book says it is “The story of the village of Le Chambon and how goodness happened there.” What a funny way to phrase things. The book is about a small village whose center was a small Protestant church. The pastor, Andre Trocme, started housing Jews during the Holocaust. As time went on, his home and church became full of Jews and his hiding them seriously endangered his own life, the lives of his family members and the lives of everyone in their village… but this whole village came together and helped hide these Jews from the military. They all risked their lives for the well-being of complete strangers.
Compassion does not know the boundaries of law or religion or any other boundaries.
Andre Trocme believed that beyond the moral strengths and weaknesses of human beings, there is something much more valuable. In Trocme’s eyes, God showed how valuable each and every Human Life was when he sent Jesus to help us. Trocme believed that every Human life had a “spiritual diamond” that God cherished.
At the time that Hallie wrote his book, Andre Trocme had passed away, but his wife was alive and available to interview. I’d like to share a passage from the book.
“When I asked her why she found it necessary to let those refugees into her house, dragging after them all those dangers and problems, including the necessity of lying to the authorities, she could never fully understand what I was getting at. Her big, round eyes stopped sparkling in that happy face, and she said, “Look. Look. Who else would have taken care of them if we didn’t? They needed our help, and they needed it then.” For her, and for me under the joyous spell she casts over anybody she smiles upon, the spade was turned by hitting against a deep rock: there are no deeper issues than the issue of people needing help then.”
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.”
How could the people of that small French village let the Jews stay in harm’s way? They recognized the community of Humanity and saw that those lives mattered as much as their own. They took on the struggle of strangers… because those strangers needed help then. When a girl is crying on the street in San Francisco, she probably needs help then. When 2 people are about to break into violence, they need help then. Getting an ice pack 20 minutes later is helping a different problem.
The gospel stories are inspirational and illustrate time and again how compassionate service matters. When Jesus heals the man in front of the Pharisees, he doesn’t say “God told me to.” He just does it. He does it by rolling up his sleeves and getting dirty… quite literally. He doesn’t justify himself in any way and in fact does it in direct contradiction of those rules which are supposed to be moral guidelines. Jesus doesn’t refer to some section of the Torah or wisdom literature to substantiate his reasoning for acting this way. He just does it.
Why do you behave the way you do? Why do I behave the way I do? I try to think about my whys and what I want my whys to be. When someone asks us, “Why do you do that?” hopefully we can say: “it needed to be done, and it needed to be done then.”
relsdork September 10, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.Tags: apocrypha, bible, christian, comparative religious studies, religion, religious studies, scripture
add a comment
I’m a Religious Studies major. People always ask me what drew me to it and why I’m doing it… often in the same tone as one would ask someone how they got a rash.
Do I want to be a minister? What do I do with that degree?
My degree isn’t going to get me a certain type of job. I’m not doing it because I lurve Jesus or because I decided to take the whole cemetery thing an extra step…
It’s my passion.
My view and thoughts have changed. Although I don’t look at the Bible or Christians the way I used to, I’m just as passionate about it.
I can’t foresee reaching a point where I don’t want to go any deeper. I’ll never want to stop learning what archaeologists are finding about first century Jerusalem. I’ll never stop caring what scholars are saying about Jesus now. I’ll never stop being angry at what Christians are doing. I’ll never want to stop considering new angles of interpretation. I’ll never want to stop reading the theological musings of philosophers. I’ll never want to stop reading more apocrypha. I’ll never want to stop considering different translation options.
There is SO MUCH to know about Christianity. Its history stretches back thousands of years. And SO MUCH is written down. And SO MUCH is NOT written down.
And how crazy is apocrypha? What a crazy idea it would be to be writing before canon. And how different is Christian writing after canonization? And what a HUGE thought shift in the history of a religion… pre and post canon. And so what ABOUT apocrypha? How legitimate is any of it? Who wrote the texts? Why? When? Where? What makes them inauthentic? Or perhaps: what makes them authentic?
How can we discern when texts are written? How can we discover the contexts? How much is our knowledge of the history of these cultural groups dependent on the text and how much of the text is dependent on our knowledge of these cultural groups?
What happens in translation? What metaphors and allusions are lost? What mystical meanings are lost? What art is lost?
How does a text evolve throughout the history of its transcription?
How has the body of followers changed? How has the basic belief set changed? How has practice and custom changed? How has clergy evolved? How is the religion different in different regions? What are the variations of the religion that exist? What predictions can we make about the future of these groups? How are these groups interacting with each other? How do they deal with etic perspectives? How are these questions correlated? How do they interact? How many more questions are there? And how many valid answers are there to each question?
What can I say? It’s really just because I’m a RelS dork.