"Destructive criticism finds as little to hope from in the discovery of new documents as do advanced ecclasiastical views."
— J. Rendel Harris
This is a very important reality in modern religious America, yet I fear that very few people understand what is meant because our churches do so little to bring the scholarship that ministers get in seminary into the churches. Many people know what their churches want them to know, but are super unfamiliar with other viewpoints.
For instance, many churches teach that the Bible is anti-gay. I can make some compelling arguments why that is not the case and refute the scripture passages that people use to support anti-gay viewpoints. I doubt, however, that many folks from conservative traditions have heard the pro-equality side (while I have certainly heard the anti-gay biblical arguments).
Many of our churches do a very good job of articulating doctrine... of explaining to congregants what the church believes and why it believes such things based in scripture. This may not be done overtly, but it is done. Those churches, however, are not good at branching out. They are not good at telling people what other people might believe based on the same scripture passages or what scholars think of these passages or what political and cultural realities might be influencing a biblical author's position or....
You know, just scholarship, frankly.
Scholars consider a whole bunch of things when they consider a text: The original language; the political, cultural, regional, etc realities that might influence the text; other texts from the same period and region; other texts that tell the same story and the similarities and differences between them; the authors (not just who churches say authors are) and how their vantage point may skew their telling; allusions, analogies, and other literary devices that change the meanings of stories in ways modern readers may not pick up on because of our very different context; the ways that stories may be nonliteral because an author is trying to make connections with other biblical characters (SYMBOLS AND METAPHORS); how numbers might be used in symbolic ways that are not factual; how stories may be retold less accurately because of the winning voice; how certain acts and characters may be more countercultural and radical than we consider today because of our current context, ETC ETC ETC.
These are all things that many churches gloss over in favor of a simplistic reading that gleans a literal meaning (one that is skewed because of our 21st century lenses, right off the bat). Yes, it is easier. Yes, it makes arguing for particular interpretations much easier.
AND IT IS A TOTAL DISSERVICE TO THE GOSPEL, WTH. Would you go to a doctor who had a degree in philosophy or none at all? Not unless that doctor had a medical degree, too, right? Why would you go to a church led by a dude with a degree in finance? That sounds weird to me.
I don't pretend that my academic background means that I totally understand the Bible. I don't. It's a big library of books that are super complicated and old and removed from my time and place and whose historical journey has many gaps and breaks. Many great people have devoted their lives to studying one small portion of the Bible and still don't feel that they totally understand. I will say, however, that I think my academic background will get me much closer to the meanings that were intended by my biblical authors than I would with my high school education or with some other degree and I am so glad that my denomination requires ministers to be educated in fields that are relevant to ministry.
And I think it's wrong to lead religious communities without getting educational backgrounds that can help you help your community. You don't have to be educated to be Godly and you don't have to be Godly to be educated... but I think both together make for the best communities.
This is a very important reality in modern religious America, yet I fear that very few people understand what is meant because our churches do so little to bring the scholarship that ministers get in seminary into the churches. Many people know what their churches want them to know, but are super unfamiliar with other viewpoints.
For instance, many churches teach that the Bible is anti-gay. I can make some compelling arguments why that is not the case and refute the scripture passages that people use to support anti-gay viewpoints. I doubt, however, that many folks from conservative traditions have heard the pro-equality side (while I have certainly heard the anti-gay biblical arguments).
Many of our churches do a very good job of articulating doctrine... of explaining to congregants what the church believes and why it believes such things based in scripture. This may not be done overtly, but it is done. Those churches, however, are not good at branching out. They are not good at telling people what other people might believe based on the same scripture passages or what scholars think of these passages or what political and cultural realities might be influencing a biblical author's position or....
You know, just scholarship, frankly.
Scholars consider a whole bunch of things when they consider a text: The original language; the political, cultural, regional, etc realities that might influence the text; other texts from the same period and region; other texts that tell the same story and the similarities and differences between them; the authors (not just who churches say authors are) and how their vantage point may skew their telling; allusions, analogies, and other literary devices that change the meanings of stories in ways modern readers may not pick up on because of our very different context; the ways that stories may be nonliteral because an author is trying to make connections with other biblical characters (SYMBOLS AND METAPHORS); how numbers might be used in symbolic ways that are not factual; how stories may be retold less accurately because of the winning voice; how certain acts and characters may be more countercultural and radical than we consider today because of our current context, ETC ETC ETC.
These are all things that many churches gloss over in favor of a simplistic reading that gleans a literal meaning (one that is skewed because of our 21st century lenses, right off the bat). Yes, it is easier. Yes, it makes arguing for particular interpretations much easier.
AND IT IS A TOTAL DISSERVICE TO THE GOSPEL, WTH. Would you go to a doctor who had a degree in philosophy or none at all? Not unless that doctor had a medical degree, too, right? Why would you go to a church led by a dude with a degree in finance? That sounds weird to me.
I don't pretend that my academic background means that I totally understand the Bible. I don't. It's a big library of books that are super complicated and old and removed from my time and place and whose historical journey has many gaps and breaks. Many great people have devoted their lives to studying one small portion of the Bible and still don't feel that they totally understand. I will say, however, that I think my academic background will get me much closer to the meanings that were intended by my biblical authors than I would with my high school education or with some other degree and I am so glad that my denomination requires ministers to be educated in fields that are relevant to ministry.
And I think it's wrong to lead religious communities without getting educational backgrounds that can help you help your community. You don't have to be educated to be Godly and you don't have to be Godly to be educated... but I think both together make for the best communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment