I've said that in Deuteronomy 7-11,
there are three basic themes aside from the recounting of the business
with the Ten Commandments and the golden calf. The Israelites are told
to abhor and destroy all of the spiritual paraphernalia of the cultures
they displace or slaughter. They are told that everything they have of
value (including the displacement and slaughtering of other people) is
not by their own merit, but is something that their god provides. It is
also asserted that they will be punished if their god gets angry with
them; all of those blessings will be taken away if the Israelites don't
behave themselves. We've looked at that first theme, so we can turn our attention to the other two themes for a moment.
If you get the feeling that we've already talked about whether God punishes people with natural disasters or whether people can legitimately take credit for the accomplishments in their lives, it's because the theme of God's sovereignty is understandably prevalent in the Old Testament. Hopefully, we can continue to deepen our understanding of personal responsibility, gratitude, tolerance, and insight as we bump up against the Israelites' beliefs again. It's worth noting once more that, although there is no evidence that an external divine being is pulling strings or orchestrating events, there is also no way to disprove such a thing. The point is to recognize the legitimacy of other personal beliefs while still coming to agreement on how those beliefs can play out to honor ourselves and the people around us.
It's easy to disagree when we insist other people agree with our personal beliefs. One person may say, "I'm so glad I got a new car... I earned it." And a friend may interject, "Actually, God provided that car, so you should recognize it as a gift."
"I bought this car with my own money."
"God provided the money."
"No, I earned the money at my job."
"God provided the job."
"No, I got hired out a pool of applicants because I was the most qualified for the position."
"God opened all the doors that led to that moment."
This could go on and on as far back in time as the two people are willing to argue about it. There's no way for either of them to be right, and there is some amount of personal insight in both positions. One person wants to acknowledge the personal decisions and choices that defined his personal journey to that point, and this is a very valid perspective. Even if there is a divine being opening doors for us, we still have the personal responsibility to cross the threshold. Everything we have in life can be attributed to personal decisions to some extent.
It's also a valid perspective that external events have an impact on us. Some people may see it as a god influencing other people's decisions, and others may see it as karma or luck or any number of other things. Any way you slice it, it's true that there are some things in life that are beyond our control. The confusion begins when we start trying to connect the external events to things that we have done -- suggesting that we actually do control things outside of our own decisions. "If I am obedient to God, then I will be rewarded in life with a house and a satisfying career and a healthy family and..." Or the flip side, "If I displease God, then I will experience misfortune, disease, poverty,..." Even the writers of the Bible had a hard time with this, not only because they saw people around them suffering without having committed any apparent acts of disobedience, but also because they saw people around them blatantly living impious lives and experiencing success and satisfaction by all outward appearances. Their response (as we'll see later on) was convoluted because they were committed to the premise of a god capable of rewarding and punishing people with immediacy. My conclusion is a bit more direct.
Things outside of our control are actually outside of our control. Events outside of our personal responsibility are not determined by our actions. We can influence other people by our choices, to be sure. If I decide to fly through every stop sign and red light at 90 miles per hour, you can bet that there will be consequences, maybe even some really big ones. But the lines between my actions and those consequences are directly observable. There isn't a similarly observable connection between speaking harshly to a parent and having locusts consume my crops, for instance. Or making a sacrifice and experiencing rain. I don't care what kind of animal you kill, killing an animal cannot bring about a change in the weather. There is no directly observable line of consequence, even though there may be coincidence from time to time.
So, it's valuable for us to both acknowledge our personal responsibility and to recognize the limits of our control. It's valuable to be grateful for what we have and to see how other people have also made contributions to our lives. Sometimes we can gain personal insights when we are honest about these things -- insights that are not possible when we automatically assume that everything unquestionably traces back to a single infallible source. If we are experiencing drought, we may have some insights about what we need to change in our lives to thrive, or we may have some insight about how to better manage our resources. Those kinds of conclusions aren't possible when we immediately assume that a drought means that our god is angry and wants us to sacrifice something to appease him. We may have a personal insight about a mildly abusive relationship and come up with all sorts of things that we can legitimately control about our contact with that individual. And yet, I have seen people remain in obviously toxic situations because they saw them as tests that God was putting them through for some reason they didn't yet understand. The threshold between the things for which we are responsible and the things over which we have no control becomes blurred when we insist on lines of consequence that don't exist in any observable reality.
Rather than looking at the circumstances of our lives in terms of provisions and punishments, there is so much we can gain by looking at how we can grow from the experiences of our lives. It requires a bit more work, because legitimate lessons will recognize our personal responsibility and how we can improve our ability to create lives that reflect what matters most to us. And legitimate lessons will also recognize that there are limits to our control without assuming malice from something outside of ourselves whenever things don't go the way we want them to. On top of that, the conclusions we draw about how we can grow may be entirely different from the conclusions that other people draw. This doesn't mean that anyone is wrong or right necessarily, it just means that different people reach different conclusions.
There does need to be a measuring stick of some kind, but I think that measuring stick already exists within the core of our being. For instance, we know that bringing harm to someone else for the sake of our own personal gain is wrong, and yet we go against that truth as individuals and as a society time and again. We are the people we often harm the most in these situations, because we act in conflict with who we are at the core of our being. In truth, we are capable of devising some other way of creating the lives we want without bringing harm to other people. It isn't always as easy, but it honors who we truly are in a way that doesn't put us into conflict with ourselves. When we rely on that deep sense of human value... when we are willing to see our own merit, our own beauty, and our own creativity... when we are willing to see the value and beauty and inspiration in other people... it doesn't matter whether our personal beliefs are the same or different from someone else's. What matters is that whatever our personal beliefs are, they create a foundation of responsibility for our own lives and respect for the lives of others.
Showing posts with label respect for beliefs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label respect for beliefs. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
God Told You to Cut Off What Part of My Anatomy Exactly?: Circumcision and the Need to Belong in Genesis 17
Nearly everyone has done something at some point in time to be a part of a special group of people. A person might shop at particular stores, wear a particular style of clothing, take up particular hobbies, listen to particular music, or hang out in particular places because of a desire to be identified as part of a subculture. People join fraternities or sororities in college, or they may join a fraternal organization later on in life, because on some level they want a place to belong. There is, I believe, a deep-seated need to seek out and discover one's place in the grand scheme of things, and there are many benefits that come from being a part of a larger group. Gang culture wouldn't be so compelling otherwise.
One factor that sometimes accompanies belonging to a group is the clear distinction that one does not belong to a different group. One only needs to belong to one fraternity, and there is a certain amount of pride that accompanies wearing those particular Greek letters. Likewise, if one is a Crip, then one cannot also be a Blood. One might avoid wearing red altogether, not just because blue clothing signifies where one belongs, but also because it clearly identifies who the "better" people are.
So competition kicks in on some level when we are finding our group. There is some "survival" value to this competition. If one identifies with people who work in a particular industry, one may be more or less likely to have consistent employment. Belonging to a "better" group could lead to opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be available. At the most basic level, actual survival may even be on the line. This was at least the case thousands of years ago, although most people didn't have much of a choice about the tribe to which they belonged.
Many groups have initiation rites that members must undergo. This "proves" the candidate's level of commitment to the group on a certain level, but more importantly it solidifies a personal sense of belonging with a powerful experience. Christians may be baptized into the church fellowship, Freemasons may undergo a series of initiations into different levels of the group's hierarchy, and a white nationalist may shave his head and get a swastika tattoo. So, some of the initiation procedures into a group leave a mark by which other people can identify a person, but many times the rites leave a much deeper mark on the psyche of the individual, allowing them to claim with some certainty, "I am ___________."
In Genesis 17, God supposedly tells Abraham that the mark by which his people will be known involves the removal of foreskin. Circumcision has meant different things to different cultures. In ancient Egypt, it was simply a rite of passage into adulthood, granting a young man the ability to learn mysteries that were not accessible to children. The initiated would then learn stories, rites, and prayers intrinsic to the religion of the culture at the time. For the Jewish people in biblical times, circumcision was a demonstration of obedience to God, which ultimately meant obedience to religious and community leaders.
In fact, the uncircumcised were literally cut off from the spiritual practices of the community. In no uncertain terms, they knew they were not a part of the in-crowd. Of course, this practice of enforcing identity with the group went beyond any hazing on a college campus. Circumcision was seen as a matter of purity. To be uncircumcised was to be impure. Not just excluded from a group of people, but excluded from favor with the divine. In other words, it was a very effective tool for control.
By now, many people have heard stories or seen movies about how difficult it is to extract oneself from a group. Whether it's the mob or a street gang or a cult, leaving is not easy. Even if one is allowed to break off ties easily, there is a void that some may find unbearable. A person who has broken off from a group no longer has a place of belonging, no longer fits anywhere, no longer has the same easy of identity. And the more intense the rites of inclusions, the deeper the void may feel.
It is not at all uncommon to want to belong somewhere, to want a place where one is accepted as part of the group. That feels safe. It satisfies a deep-seated need. I don't know of many groups, however, that do not in some way look down upon others who do not belong, whether they be people who belong somewhere else or people who don't seem to belong anywhere. It becomes one more Us vs. Them. "We belong to the chosen people." Therefore everyone else is obviously not chosen, or essentially worthless. So, identifying with one group automatically tells us which other groups we can ignore, abuse, or generally devalue.
The trick might be to recognize one's place in the world based on one's capability and passion rather than what kind of initiation one is willing to undergo. Not that everyone has a choice about what is done to their body, especially as a young child, but we do all have choices later on in life about the kinds of associations we make. We ultimately get to choose where we belong. Recognizing oneself as a unique human being who still shares an incredible wealth of characteristics with the totality of the human race can put things in a much healthier perspective than the idea of being part of a chosen few. People wind up doing things that would otherwise be unthinkable, all because of their affiliation with a particular group. Things like committing violence against other people when there could be countless other ways of handling an issue.
The bottom line is that wanting to belong is natural, but rites and marks that set one group apart also identify the outsiders. And "outsiders" is a strange word to use for the people with whom we share this planet. It's time that we stop looking for ways to belong by blindly following what other people tell us is right. We have a place in reality, every last one of us, and that place is determined by what we are willing and able to create, not by what we are willing to endure. No group is better than any other group. We are people. We are all people. Foreskins or not.
One factor that sometimes accompanies belonging to a group is the clear distinction that one does not belong to a different group. One only needs to belong to one fraternity, and there is a certain amount of pride that accompanies wearing those particular Greek letters. Likewise, if one is a Crip, then one cannot also be a Blood. One might avoid wearing red altogether, not just because blue clothing signifies where one belongs, but also because it clearly identifies who the "better" people are.
So competition kicks in on some level when we are finding our group. There is some "survival" value to this competition. If one identifies with people who work in a particular industry, one may be more or less likely to have consistent employment. Belonging to a "better" group could lead to opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be available. At the most basic level, actual survival may even be on the line. This was at least the case thousands of years ago, although most people didn't have much of a choice about the tribe to which they belonged.
Many groups have initiation rites that members must undergo. This "proves" the candidate's level of commitment to the group on a certain level, but more importantly it solidifies a personal sense of belonging with a powerful experience. Christians may be baptized into the church fellowship, Freemasons may undergo a series of initiations into different levels of the group's hierarchy, and a white nationalist may shave his head and get a swastika tattoo. So, some of the initiation procedures into a group leave a mark by which other people can identify a person, but many times the rites leave a much deeper mark on the psyche of the individual, allowing them to claim with some certainty, "I am ___________."
In Genesis 17, God supposedly tells Abraham that the mark by which his people will be known involves the removal of foreskin. Circumcision has meant different things to different cultures. In ancient Egypt, it was simply a rite of passage into adulthood, granting a young man the ability to learn mysteries that were not accessible to children. The initiated would then learn stories, rites, and prayers intrinsic to the religion of the culture at the time. For the Jewish people in biblical times, circumcision was a demonstration of obedience to God, which ultimately meant obedience to religious and community leaders.
In fact, the uncircumcised were literally cut off from the spiritual practices of the community. In no uncertain terms, they knew they were not a part of the in-crowd. Of course, this practice of enforcing identity with the group went beyond any hazing on a college campus. Circumcision was seen as a matter of purity. To be uncircumcised was to be impure. Not just excluded from a group of people, but excluded from favor with the divine. In other words, it was a very effective tool for control.
By now, many people have heard stories or seen movies about how difficult it is to extract oneself from a group. Whether it's the mob or a street gang or a cult, leaving is not easy. Even if one is allowed to break off ties easily, there is a void that some may find unbearable. A person who has broken off from a group no longer has a place of belonging, no longer fits anywhere, no longer has the same easy of identity. And the more intense the rites of inclusions, the deeper the void may feel.
It is not at all uncommon to want to belong somewhere, to want a place where one is accepted as part of the group. That feels safe. It satisfies a deep-seated need. I don't know of many groups, however, that do not in some way look down upon others who do not belong, whether they be people who belong somewhere else or people who don't seem to belong anywhere. It becomes one more Us vs. Them. "We belong to the chosen people." Therefore everyone else is obviously not chosen, or essentially worthless. So, identifying with one group automatically tells us which other groups we can ignore, abuse, or generally devalue.
The trick might be to recognize one's place in the world based on one's capability and passion rather than what kind of initiation one is willing to undergo. Not that everyone has a choice about what is done to their body, especially as a young child, but we do all have choices later on in life about the kinds of associations we make. We ultimately get to choose where we belong. Recognizing oneself as a unique human being who still shares an incredible wealth of characteristics with the totality of the human race can put things in a much healthier perspective than the idea of being part of a chosen few. People wind up doing things that would otherwise be unthinkable, all because of their affiliation with a particular group. Things like committing violence against other people when there could be countless other ways of handling an issue.
The bottom line is that wanting to belong is natural, but rites and marks that set one group apart also identify the outsiders. And "outsiders" is a strange word to use for the people with whom we share this planet. It's time that we stop looking for ways to belong by blindly following what other people tell us is right. We have a place in reality, every last one of us, and that place is determined by what we are willing and able to create, not by what we are willing to endure. No group is better than any other group. We are people. We are all people. Foreskins or not.
Friday, September 9, 2011
September 11, Ten Years Later: The Hypocrisy of Demonizing Islam Is Still Alive and Well in America
It has been a decade since terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The events of that day transformed life, not just for Americans, but for the entire world. This weekend, many people are honoring those who lost their lives, either as innocent victims or as courageous first responders. I deeply respect that heartfelt mourning, and I am profoundly grateful that no one in my closest circle of friends and family was at either scene of violence on that day.
Even beyond those sincere statements, I find it prudent to preface what I am about to write with the assertion that I do not condone the actions of terrorists, regardless of their religious or national affiliation. I’m not a Christian, and I’m not a Muslim. However, I do sympathize with Muslims who unnecessarily bear the brunt of persecution because of their faith, and I am both angered and saddened at the willful misrepresentation by which some American Christian spokespeople have attempted to villainize nearly a third of the world’s population.
I earnestly believed Americans had moved past the wholesale demonizing of Islam, but just this week I have heard Americans who claim to be devout Christians asserting that Islam is a violent faith which encourages the destruction of innocent (Christian) lives. I have heard people fostering the perspective that Americans/Christians are hated for their beliefs by Muslims in general. Perhaps it is not the willful propagation of misinformation. Perhaps these people (who have some measure of influence, by the way) are truly ignorant. My skeptical side would suggest that they know exactly what they are saying.
The strange thing is that some of these people are happy to use a single verse from the Quran to justify their judgment of Islam. If it says in one place that it is a religious obligation to kill infidels, then that closes the book on the subject so to speak. They never seem to remember that the Judeo-Christian Bible says pretty much the same thing. In fact, several times in the book of Deuteronomy, God is quoted as commanding that people be put to death if they don’t agree with the strictures of Israelite culture. After leaving Egypt and wandering around in the desert for a couple of generations, God commanded the Israelites to burn cities of people of other cultures and kill innocent women and children.
I’m not suggesting that this is in any way right, or that people should judge 21st-century Christians based on what people did thousands of years ago. I’m simply saying that there are some pretty violent actions condoned in the holy text of Jews and Christians, and we do not typically think of Judaism and Christianity as intentionally violent faiths. I suppose if the Christians who believe that Islam is a violent faith also acknowledged that Christianity is a violent faith (when the same standards are applied), it wouldn’t seem so deceitful. As it is, their accusations come across as manipulative and underhanded.
It makes sense, though. For hundreds of years, Christians have read and been told that they would be persecuted for their beliefs. When someone treats them poorly, it’s natural for some of them to think: That’s just religious persecution. It not only strengthens their resolve, but it also exonerates them from examining their own actions. To claim that an entire group of people hates you because of your beliefs may seem fantastical, but I’m sure it makes a certain sense in the minds of some Christians. It also makes sense that people unwilling to examine how their actions impact how they are treated as individuals would also be unwilling to consider how an entire group’s actions impact how they are treated by other groups.
I don’t believe that the terrorists were in any way justified in their actions. I also don’t believe that the whole of Islam hates America because of a belief system that not even everyone in this country espouses. It makes more sense that a small group of people were reacting to the actions of the American government and military, actions that had a direct impact on their lives. I don’t even want to get into whether the actions of the American government and military were right or wrong. I just want to be a voice of clarity about what actually happened ten years ago and what continues to happen today.
Innocent people lost their lives at the hands of violent men committing atrocious acts. The men were affiliated with an extremist group who identify with a particular religious tradition. These people and people like them are no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of mainstream Christianity. It’s easy to get people riled up when it comes to hating an entire group of people. I don’t know why we’re wired like that, but we’re very practiced at generalizing and stereotyping. It isn’t honest, though. It isn’t the truth that sets anyone free. It is a deception which keeps people in chains of anger and resentment. And it isn’t appropriate behavior for people who claim to follow a new command to love one another.
Even beyond those sincere statements, I find it prudent to preface what I am about to write with the assertion that I do not condone the actions of terrorists, regardless of their religious or national affiliation. I’m not a Christian, and I’m not a Muslim. However, I do sympathize with Muslims who unnecessarily bear the brunt of persecution because of their faith, and I am both angered and saddened at the willful misrepresentation by which some American Christian spokespeople have attempted to villainize nearly a third of the world’s population.
I earnestly believed Americans had moved past the wholesale demonizing of Islam, but just this week I have heard Americans who claim to be devout Christians asserting that Islam is a violent faith which encourages the destruction of innocent (Christian) lives. I have heard people fostering the perspective that Americans/Christians are hated for their beliefs by Muslims in general. Perhaps it is not the willful propagation of misinformation. Perhaps these people (who have some measure of influence, by the way) are truly ignorant. My skeptical side would suggest that they know exactly what they are saying.
The strange thing is that some of these people are happy to use a single verse from the Quran to justify their judgment of Islam. If it says in one place that it is a religious obligation to kill infidels, then that closes the book on the subject so to speak. They never seem to remember that the Judeo-Christian Bible says pretty much the same thing. In fact, several times in the book of Deuteronomy, God is quoted as commanding that people be put to death if they don’t agree with the strictures of Israelite culture. After leaving Egypt and wandering around in the desert for a couple of generations, God commanded the Israelites to burn cities of people of other cultures and kill innocent women and children.
I’m not suggesting that this is in any way right, or that people should judge 21st-century Christians based on what people did thousands of years ago. I’m simply saying that there are some pretty violent actions condoned in the holy text of Jews and Christians, and we do not typically think of Judaism and Christianity as intentionally violent faiths. I suppose if the Christians who believe that Islam is a violent faith also acknowledged that Christianity is a violent faith (when the same standards are applied), it wouldn’t seem so deceitful. As it is, their accusations come across as manipulative and underhanded.
It makes sense, though. For hundreds of years, Christians have read and been told that they would be persecuted for their beliefs. When someone treats them poorly, it’s natural for some of them to think: That’s just religious persecution. It not only strengthens their resolve, but it also exonerates them from examining their own actions. To claim that an entire group of people hates you because of your beliefs may seem fantastical, but I’m sure it makes a certain sense in the minds of some Christians. It also makes sense that people unwilling to examine how their actions impact how they are treated as individuals would also be unwilling to consider how an entire group’s actions impact how they are treated by other groups.
I don’t believe that the terrorists were in any way justified in their actions. I also don’t believe that the whole of Islam hates America because of a belief system that not even everyone in this country espouses. It makes more sense that a small group of people were reacting to the actions of the American government and military, actions that had a direct impact on their lives. I don’t even want to get into whether the actions of the American government and military were right or wrong. I just want to be a voice of clarity about what actually happened ten years ago and what continues to happen today.
Innocent people lost their lives at the hands of violent men committing atrocious acts. The men were affiliated with an extremist group who identify with a particular religious tradition. These people and people like them are no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of mainstream Christianity. It’s easy to get people riled up when it comes to hating an entire group of people. I don’t know why we’re wired like that, but we’re very practiced at generalizing and stereotyping. It isn’t honest, though. It isn’t the truth that sets anyone free. It is a deception which keeps people in chains of anger and resentment. And it isn’t appropriate behavior for people who claim to follow a new command to love one another.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Wisdom of Acknowledging Similarities over Differences: Rewriting Genesis 11
One of the most familiar biblical tales, the story of the Tower of Babel appears in Genesis 11. It makes sense to blame or credit a divine force for the dispersion of cultures and peoples, and from the context, it even seems like this was considered a wise thing to do. My revision, or course, stems from a radically different perspective.
We like to notice differences. It’s something that our brains do well. Differences in language, for example. Some might say that if it weren’t for our differences, we could accomplish just about anything as a unified people. But when we start looking for differences between people, the list is nearly unending. Every culture has its own unique way of doing things, its own stories, its own songs, its own language. Every family has its own unique history, its own traditions, its own inside jokes. Every person has unique experiences, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses. However minutely we might want to parse groups or individuals into different categories, there are innumerable differences we can use as criteria.
Like children with a healthy sense of curiosity, we may notice all of these differences and wonder why. Why are we not all the same? Why do we have different stories, different songs, different traditions, different strengths? Some people think there must be a good reason for us to have so many differences. There must be a good reason for us to have such an obstacle in the way of accomplishing the great things we could do if we shared more in common. Some of us might conclude that a higher power must have ordained the vast differences we observe.
Of course, there’s also something within us that hates to be wrong. If someone does something or believes something differently from us, then we slip easily into judging which is right and which is wrong. Most of the time, we are quite insistent that our language or beliefs or traditions are right, and therefore those that are different must be wrong. If we have the approval of a higher power supporting us, then we have even more reason to be convinced of our own rightness.
If we take a step back to the question of why all these differences exist, there’s a possibility that we don’t really need an answer. Merely accepting that there are differences between people and families and cultures might even lead us to look for commonalities. Not only does the list of commonalities between people extend at least as far as any tally of differences, the truth and beauty and creativity at the heart of every person certainly outweighs any differences we may perceive. In fact, that very sense of truth and creativity is what allows us to overcome any challenges that arise because of differences.
The 21st-century world has room for a multitude of beliefs and traditions and songs and languages. While there are ethical and moral circumstances in which right and wrong are legitimate concerns, our personal beliefs and cultural traditions are not truly threatened if we give credence to the beliefs and traditions of others. Humanity is full of differences, but human creativity, persistence, and ingenuity have devised ways to overcome those differences time and again. We are actually alike enough that it is essentially as though we all share a common language. When we truly acknowledge all that we share in common with one another, nothing we plan to do in unity will be impossible for us.
We like to notice differences. It’s something that our brains do well. Differences in language, for example. Some might say that if it weren’t for our differences, we could accomplish just about anything as a unified people. But when we start looking for differences between people, the list is nearly unending. Every culture has its own unique way of doing things, its own stories, its own songs, its own language. Every family has its own unique history, its own traditions, its own inside jokes. Every person has unique experiences, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses. However minutely we might want to parse groups or individuals into different categories, there are innumerable differences we can use as criteria.
Like children with a healthy sense of curiosity, we may notice all of these differences and wonder why. Why are we not all the same? Why do we have different stories, different songs, different traditions, different strengths? Some people think there must be a good reason for us to have so many differences. There must be a good reason for us to have such an obstacle in the way of accomplishing the great things we could do if we shared more in common. Some of us might conclude that a higher power must have ordained the vast differences we observe.
Of course, there’s also something within us that hates to be wrong. If someone does something or believes something differently from us, then we slip easily into judging which is right and which is wrong. Most of the time, we are quite insistent that our language or beliefs or traditions are right, and therefore those that are different must be wrong. If we have the approval of a higher power supporting us, then we have even more reason to be convinced of our own rightness.
If we take a step back to the question of why all these differences exist, there’s a possibility that we don’t really need an answer. Merely accepting that there are differences between people and families and cultures might even lead us to look for commonalities. Not only does the list of commonalities between people extend at least as far as any tally of differences, the truth and beauty and creativity at the heart of every person certainly outweighs any differences we may perceive. In fact, that very sense of truth and creativity is what allows us to overcome any challenges that arise because of differences.
The 21st-century world has room for a multitude of beliefs and traditions and songs and languages. While there are ethical and moral circumstances in which right and wrong are legitimate concerns, our personal beliefs and cultural traditions are not truly threatened if we give credence to the beliefs and traditions of others. Humanity is full of differences, but human creativity, persistence, and ingenuity have devised ways to overcome those differences time and again. We are actually alike enough that it is essentially as though we all share a common language. When we truly acknowledge all that we share in common with one another, nothing we plan to do in unity will be impossible for us.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Does the Bible Need to be Rewritten?
Short answer: no. The Christian community appreciates the Bible just as it is, some even preferring outdated or inaccurate translations in favor of more familiar language. Translations of the Bible improve in accuracy as scholars learn more, and translations also evolve with the language of human cultures. Paraphrases opt for accessibility over accuracy and use more contemporary language to tell the same stories, seeking to preserve the same meaning and spiritual honesty of scriptures without being precise about the best English translation of the ancient Greek and Hebrew.
As you may have surmised from my reinterpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, I've launched a bit of a paraphrase project. I don't know how far I will take it, but it could be of some value to articulate the purpose for it. Obviously, I'm not going for a literal translation. Rather, I am aiming for spiritual truth. This means that there may be some dialogue along the way that helps to refine a thing or two, which is why I think this interactive venue is ideal for a project like this.
Why the Bible? I believe that the same core spiritual truths can be found in the writing other religions hold as sacred. Even though I've studied many of these books, I'm still most familiar with the Christian Bible. I am at least in part a product of my environment, and that environment is a largely Christian-influenced culture. I hope that anyone who wants to can gain some insight from what I write, regardless of their beliefs or their level of familiarity with the book.
What's the point? While the Bible doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten for Christians to be happy with it, I also think that its words get frequently misused by people that want to cite an unquestionable authority. For some, quoting scripture is tantamount to quoting God, and no one can really argue with God. But words can be twisted around and taken out of context and interpreted to suit a particular agenda. My goal is to draw forth spiritual truth without claiming to quote the actual words of an almighty being, to develop and encourage a deep understanding of human spirituality outside of organized religion.
Isn't that disrespectful? While I do consider myself to be post-Christian in my thinking, I still believe that spirituality has a place in human culture and relationships. If people choose to express that faith in terms of a particular religious system, my hope is that they would do so with honesty and thoughtfulness. Perhaps my take on things will challenge or inspire someone to take a closer look at personal beliefs, but my goal is not to insult or denigrate anyone's choice of spiritual expression.
On top of that, the most likely people to consider a personal interpretation of the Bible to be disrespectful are those who hold the Bible to be higher than any other spiritual authority. What better place to begin a dialogue aimed at deepening spiritual integrity? My sense is that people with less attachment to the Bible as the only source of spiritual knowledge will have less reason to take issue with a recontextualization of its words. I may be wrong, but I'm willing to take that chance.
So, next week, I'll delve a little further into Genesis and see where it all winds up. Any dialogue that emerges will hopefully sharpen us all.
As you may have surmised from my reinterpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, I've launched a bit of a paraphrase project. I don't know how far I will take it, but it could be of some value to articulate the purpose for it. Obviously, I'm not going for a literal translation. Rather, I am aiming for spiritual truth. This means that there may be some dialogue along the way that helps to refine a thing or two, which is why I think this interactive venue is ideal for a project like this.
Why the Bible? I believe that the same core spiritual truths can be found in the writing other religions hold as sacred. Even though I've studied many of these books, I'm still most familiar with the Christian Bible. I am at least in part a product of my environment, and that environment is a largely Christian-influenced culture. I hope that anyone who wants to can gain some insight from what I write, regardless of their beliefs or their level of familiarity with the book.
What's the point? While the Bible doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten for Christians to be happy with it, I also think that its words get frequently misused by people that want to cite an unquestionable authority. For some, quoting scripture is tantamount to quoting God, and no one can really argue with God. But words can be twisted around and taken out of context and interpreted to suit a particular agenda. My goal is to draw forth spiritual truth without claiming to quote the actual words of an almighty being, to develop and encourage a deep understanding of human spirituality outside of organized religion.
Isn't that disrespectful? While I do consider myself to be post-Christian in my thinking, I still believe that spirituality has a place in human culture and relationships. If people choose to express that faith in terms of a particular religious system, my hope is that they would do so with honesty and thoughtfulness. Perhaps my take on things will challenge or inspire someone to take a closer look at personal beliefs, but my goal is not to insult or denigrate anyone's choice of spiritual expression.
On top of that, the most likely people to consider a personal interpretation of the Bible to be disrespectful are those who hold the Bible to be higher than any other spiritual authority. What better place to begin a dialogue aimed at deepening spiritual integrity? My sense is that people with less attachment to the Bible as the only source of spiritual knowledge will have less reason to take issue with a recontextualization of its words. I may be wrong, but I'm willing to take that chance.
So, next week, I'll delve a little further into Genesis and see where it all winds up. Any dialogue that emerges will hopefully sharpen us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)