"The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." - Albert Einstein
My last post about Fowler's fourth stage and my permanent residency there sparked a comment from a pal that has triggered an avalanche of thought. Her point on approaching the Bible from a different perspective is something I've heard before and rejected because it doesn't fit with my current struggle. It is not up to me, I reasoned, to debate the interpretation of the Bible. I believed, until yesterday, that the current interpretation of the Bible by my more educated elders was the only possible option.
To the current administration, challenging their interpretation is frowned upon using this line of reasoning:
1. We can't cherry-pick what parts of the Bible we believe based on our own discomfort.
2. The Bible is the infallible word of God and is not up for debate.
3. We know more than you because of years of extensive education and study.
4. Because I said so.
5. Sit down, Jaime, and shut up. Please.
It finally occurred to me that I don't actually know precisely what the Bible says about the things I struggle against. For an example, what specific Bible verses condemn homosexuality? I have heard the rhetoric, but have I ever read the source? Like a brick through a window, my old perception of my problem shattered and a new perception appeared.
No. I hadn't read it. I had sat like a dumb sheep and let them tell me what they thought the Bible said. Surely they have all the books, they've done the Bible studies, attended classes and learned to translate stuff from the Greek and Hebrew and came up with this stuff. But WHO are they?
This is where my buddy's comment about appreciating the source of the information triggered a new line of thinking. They are, and have ALWAYS been, both male and in the racial majority. Of course they, the current and past interpreters of the sacred text, have an agenda. It doesn't make them bad, but it doesn't make them automatically right either. How would I know if they are right, if I don't read the books and make my own conclusion?
Because, seriously, this is a group of people that likes McCain. (I know.) In jest, I argue that obviously they have a deplorable lack of decision making skills to fall for the blurge that came out of the conservative right wing this time around the track. In earnest, I argue that their very interpretation of reality is different than mine.
And yet, I hear the argument that the Bible is not current political posturing and cannot be evaluated at a situational level. You can't decide what the Bible says because it isn't convenient for you to go with the current level of thinking. Also, just because our current (evil) culture is telling you that it is ok to live with your partner before marriage, support gay rights, read books and listen to Obama doesn't give you the right to change the Bible. The Bible, as the infallible word of God, is not to be manipulated to say what matches any one personal agenda. (Oh no? Isn't that what they have been doing this whole time?)
That is the argument that I used to bash my head against when trying to reconcile the two, seemingly opposed, belief structures I have. That is how I used to tell myself that I would be stuck in stage four forever because I couldn't reason my way past the arguments against both things that I know to be true.
But Einstein tells us that we cannot solve our problems at the same level we were using when we created them. So a new level of thinking is required. And so here it is:
The Bible is the infallible word of God. The interpretation of the Bible into political beliefs and cultural prejeduces is the fallible word of People.
This is huge. This concept is probably not earth shattering to some, but to experience it myself has really been a shock. That is a key part too - I experienced this change instead of just thinking about it at an academic level.
A few things stand in my way:
1. Studying the Bible myself isn't going to be easy. I don't read Greek or Hebrew, but I will have to apply as much to this process as to any other academic pursuit.
2. I'm part of an establishment that doesn't particularly respond well to being confronted, especially by uppity, educated women.
3. I could be wrong.
(4. Super secret hidden reason: I could disappoint my parents.)
But this, more than anything, represents a primary struggle in my life. Why wouldn't I devote the time and energy to this, what could turn out to be the most important crisis resolution I've ever tackled?
And, seriously, what else do I have going on right now to occupy my enfeebled brain?
- Thanks go out to Colleen, who kicked me in the head with her comment.
2 comments:
Another brilliant post my friend. I have read some stuff by women who have gone back and reinterpreted the original writings and one finding was that Mary Magdalene was not a whore, but actually a powerful woman who helped bankroll Jesus' pilgrimage. But when you get men interpreting this, they may feel threatened and decide to change some of the details. Details which have been used for centuries to subjugate women. I applaud your interest to go back and interpret for yourself. Remember, you and I could see the same exact movie but both come away from it with a different message. We can't divorce our cultural and psychological selfs from our intellectual pursuits. Meaning that you wil interpret things in a way that is probably congrous with your current belief structure.
Many people have set out to understand the Bible for themselves and even to prove it wrong. It is a very appropriate response to your conflict. We all need to be careful of choosing an interpretation that suits our agenda. For example, Jesus and his teaching was the best thing for women in that he gave significant value to them as people; he loved them equally (see Luke 8:2,3. He did not give their sins any more weight than mens' ("If any one of you is without sin, let him be th first to throw a stone at her" -John 8:7). He did not "oppress" them. I encourage you in this endeavor. Maybe in addition to our budgeting accountability, we could study together?
Post a Comment