The Bible – tradition – and truth.

[andrewlittle]

This is an offshoot of the “Is the Bible against homosexuality” thread – well loosely.

With sympathies to “inerrantists”, while being a theoretical inerranist myself, the question cannot be limited to “what the Bible says.” While I believe, in what may be my own delusionary religiosity, that “original” scripture was God-breathed and inspired to the authors/writers, I contend that this applies to manuscripts and/or oral traditions that are no longer extant. It also, in my mind, refers to those things that Jesus considered scripture. Since Jesus didn’t leave us a listing of those books, but rather quotes from them and stories based on them, we can only infer what the Canon of Jesus would look like. Suffice it to say, since Jesus is quoted as affirming the Laws of Moses and the prophets while doing battle with the legalism of the Levitical and priestly laws, his canon was considerably smaller than “ours”. It also did not contain those writings that later religious bodies decided were scriptural – the writing that make up the New Testament.

I am not, personally or professionally, willing to toss out as useless the Bible that later human tradition has compiled. It does deserve, however, the discipline of reading and understanding utilizing the faculties with which God graced the human mind. And it does need to take into account, in the absence of absolute clarity, the work of the Holy Spirit through which the meaning of scripture continues to unfold in the lives and minds of millions of people.

That may be the longest disclaimer I’ve ever written.

I contend that tradition has given the meanings to scripture to which inerrantists and non-inerrantists alike cling. Tradition can, and many times is, a wonderful thing – it is the wealth of knowledge and belief of generations handed down to successive generations. Tradition, however, is not born in a vacuum.

Tradition is a process of “normalizing” belief and practice – of creating orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Traditional generally develops to project an idea or act that is subsequently challenged somewhere along the line, and so becomes in need of “protecting” as right thought or action. Tradition, it seems to me, is the process of culturally legislating rightness. Tradition cannot be blindly followed but requires, for a thorough understanding, an examination into the why’s, when’s, who’s, and especially in response to what’s, that propelled its development in the first place.

In short, tradition is to be suspect – not just disallowed as errant or useless, but truly examined to see if it still has any use or value. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, in her “hermeneutic of suspicion” breathed life into the reading of scripture by allowing women and almost all liberation theologians to view the traditional compilation of scripture suspiciously – questioning the motives of writers, translators and interpreters that gave the current scriptures its voice in the world. I see this as no less the work of the Holy Spirit in reading the Bible as a living document – the compiled work of God’s inspiration and generation after generation of people trying to understand it in its fullness.

I don’t know if these thoughts will lead to further discussion or not – I guess I hope so, but don’t know what direction that conversation will take. In regard to this forum specifically, I think it is vitally important for people who have been damaged by literal and biased readings of scripture, and cultural and legal legislation that have resulted, to fully understand the Book that is the source and the traditions that have created the damage. To a large extent these conversations occur, but there still seems to be a lot of wrestling with traditions as if they themselves are the word of God and within which to find value as a child of God. It is my hope that those damaged by errant interpretation and tradition can find healing by challenging the errors of tradition and embracing the truths found within the text.

So ends the preach to the choir – for now.

[kara speltz]

I contend that tradition has given the meanings to scripture to which inerrantists and non-inerrantists alike cling. Tradition can, and many times is, a wonderful thing – it is the wealth of knowledge and belief of generations handed down to successive generations. Tradition, however, is not born in a vacuum.

Tradition is a process of “normalizing” belief and practice – of creating orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Traditional generally develops to project an idea or act that is subsequently challenged somewhere along the line, and so becomes in need of “protecting” as right thought or action. Tradition, it seems to me, is the process of culturally legislating rightness. Tradition cannot be blindly followed but requires, for a thorough understanding, an examination into the why’s, when’s, who’s, and especially in response to what’s, that propelled its development in the first place.

In short, tradition is to be suspect – not just disallowed as errant or useless, but truly examined to see if it still has any use or value. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, in her “hermeneutic of suspicion” breathed life into the reading of scripture by allowing women and almost all liberation theologians to view the traditional compilation of scripture suspiciously – questioning the motives of writers, translators and interpreters that gave the current scriptures its voice in the world. I see this as no less the work of the Holy Spirit in reading the Bible as a living document – the compiled work of God’s inspiration and generation after generation of people trying to understand it in its fullness.

.

Dear Andrew: What an awesome piece! I was reminded of a discussion I had with a woman friend of mine who was a nun and attended a seminar at Esalen, decades ago. The conference had equal numbers of men and women, all of similar intellectual capacity and education. After it was over, they took the tapes and transcribed them into a pamphlet on the seminar.

Much to my friend's amazement, even though women had contributed as much as men to the discussions, when the pamphlet came out, only men's voices were heard. She wrote to the editors and pointed that fact out. She also suggested that exactly what had happened at Esalen, had happened as the New Testament was being compiled. Women contributed significant teachings and lessons, but their voices were considered of no importance. As she related this story to me, it was the final piece in my comprehending that while the bible is a wonderful love story of God's unconditional love, it is slanted towards men's understanding of what is important and what is not.

Thanks again, I always love what you post. kara

[BruceChris]

And is She Pissed!

P&L, BC

(Maybe you need to read more Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, and some Virginia Ramey Mollenkott)

And if it gets really bad, there's always Mary Daly

[scott snedeker]

How I feel when I read or hear biblical verses is a reflection of my emotional-spiritual escrow.

If I feel bad then this tells me I need to focus on something spiritually undeveloped within me to feel better.

I see many verses as tests of this spiritual escrow.

A threatening verse is only threatening if I feel vulnerable. So If my unconditional love of self is strong enough, the verse simply becomes trivial.

God has put it there to test my unconditional love of self; I can tell If I passed this test already if no negative emotional reaction results after I read it.

So now taking the test again is trivial and a waste of time.

This is God's way of rewarding me for my accomplishment. I see it as his way of telling me move on to the next stage in spiritual growth.

I see this as His method to heal my emotional-spiritual wounds.

Cool!:cool:

[BruceChris]

From hearing of her "hermeneutic of suspicion', I went on to try to think in terms of a "hermeneutic of God's Love", although I haven't begun to give that an exact definition. :o: :confused: :reading: If some bible verses do not seem to be teaching me God's love, I just put them on the shelf, until they do. Scott, I'll have to think about what you've suggested above.

When I stop to consider that some out there may very well have a Hermeneutic of Patriarchal Supremacy, Self-Righteousness, and Homophobia, I must remember to stop and humbly ask the Holy Spirit :pray: to guide my thoughts, when I am reading the Bible. Lord knows I get judgemental enough, just posting here.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

Pablo, I was going to post this in the other thread but by the time I got done with it I decided it would fit better here.
how can gays be the downfall of a civilization? We are a very small percentage of the population. If one locked all LGBT individuals in prison, would the problems in society go away? How are we any threat at all?
If we are seen as equal to heterosexuals, then women would be seen as equal to men. Our equality ultimately represents women’s equality (to men).

They say as much whenever they talk about gay marriage – that the differences between men and women wouldn't matter anymore. It’s an absurd commentary until you realize that the “difference” they’re talking about is not between masculinity/femininity, but of the superiority of men to women.

It would be the end of the male dominated power structure, civilization as they know it. Our rights represent the loss of their "right" to define rights. I think that’s why they almost exclusively focus on gay men when referring to “homosexuals.” Lesbians don’t count because women don’t count.

Kara made a related point above.
She also suggested that exactly what had happened at Esalen, had happened as the New Testament was being compiled. Women contributed significant teachings and lessons, but their voices were considered of no importance. As she related this story to me, it was the final piece in my comprehending that while the bible is a wonderful love story of God's unconditional love, it is slanted towards men's understanding of what is important and what is not.

Come to think of it, is it any wonder that men decided that God was a male?

[tdogg]

Andrew, I'm in your choir on this one! You are right on! For those who state they live the Bible literally and completely, I say impossible. Rather, it cannot be applied literally today, but only through careful and considerate reading, meditation and prayer can it be applied to our lives in the context of life in the 21st century. You said it better than I could try!

Patrick, You bet! There is no denying that the Bible as a literary piece is a total piece of work by men. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could travel back in time and have women do all the interpreting and translating. I fear it would produce a tome significantly different in tone and meaning. I also get you on the issue of what equality would mean to this 'men's world', would completely destroy the 'men are superior' point of view so prevalent and successful in the hierarchy of this country - both governmentally, religiously and financially.

[Daniel]

I contend that tradition has given the meanings to scripture to which inerrantists and non-inerrantists alike cling. Tradition can, and many times is, a wonderful thing – it is the wealth of knowledge and belief of generations handed down to successive generations. Tradition, however, is not born in a vacuum.

Tradition is a process of “normalizing” belief and practice – of creating orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Traditional generally develops to project an idea or act that is subsequently challenged somewhere along the line, and so becomes in need of “protecting” as right thought or action. Tradition, it seems to me, is the process of culturally legislating rightness. Tradition cannot be blindly followed but requires, for a thorough understanding, an examination into the why’s, when’s, who’s, and especially in response to what’s, that propelled its development in the first place.

In short, tradition is to be suspect – not just disallowed as errant or useless, but truly examined to see if it still has any use or value. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, in her “hermeneutic of suspicion” breathed life into the reading of scripture by allowing women and almost all liberation theologians to view the traditional compilation of scripture suspiciously – questioning the motives of writers, translators and interpreters that gave the current scriptures its voice in the world. I see this as no less the work of the Holy Spirit in reading the Bible as a living document – the compiled work of God’s inspiration and generation after generation of people trying to understand it in its fullness.
.

Andrew- what a great post! You've given my a lot to think about. How strange then, to open the science section of the NYTimes this morning and read about a man who, because of treatment for prostate cancer, is now a 'eunuch', and has experienced changes in perception from a lack of testosterone & andgrogen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/health/27case.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

While the article is not all about perception and hormones per se, it made me think about church history and how the bible has come to be what it is. My thinking is that hormones play a part, especially as 'career' advancement is concerned by virtue of a man's aggressive tendencies.

This eunuch-angel connection has helped me understand and adapt to the side effects of androgen deprivation. When I was stoked up on testosterone in the old days, for example, I would obsess about exacting revenge on those who offended me. Now I see the foolishness in such macho fury. Rather than trying to undo others, I can now willfully exercise restraint. It’s not that I’m never pugnacious anymore, for I’m no perfect angel, but I realize it’s better to maintain a higher mission than fight petty battles.

If anything, the early church was fraught with battles regarding what and who was going to take precedence. It makes one wonder what would have happened if women- and their ameliorative influence- had been more involved.

And interestingly, the author now sings in a choir!

[Emproph]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could travel back in time and have women do all the interpreting and translating. I fear it would produce a tome significantly different in tone and meaning...the issue of what equality would mean to this 'men's world', would completely destroy the 'men are superior' point of view so prevalent and successful in the hierarchy of this country - both governmentally, religiously and financially.That would have been a good one for "Sliders," the show where they got lost in the maze of parallel realities?



"In an infinite universe with infinite time, eventually everything will happen."

I always like to remember that whenever I feel like I'm "missing out." :inspector:

Believe it or not though – if you can understand that concept enough to believe it – it really does help to satiate that constant curious craving for the way things "could be".. :magic:

[BruceChris]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could travel back in time and have women do all the interpreting and translating. I fear it would produce a tome significantly different in tone and meaning...the issue of what equality would mean to this 'men's world', would completely destroy the 'men are superior' point of view so prevalent and successful in the hierarchy of this country - both governmentally, religiously and financially.

If each and every one of us is made in God's image, and there are 6 billion individual people on this earth, that's a LOT of images, more than half female. I would call that diversity.

Tdogg and Kara: I guess I would just have to accept that as applied "Hormone-eutics" (Now why didn't E.S.H. think of that? Oh, yeah, I guess she knew she wouldda been verbally beaten up and rideculed by some Male Chauvinist Pig of a male theologian)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[u-dog]

Tdogg and Kara: I guess I would just have to accept that as applied "Hormone-eutics" (Now why didn't E.S.H. think of that? Oh, yeah, I guess she knew she wouldda been verbally beaten up and rideculed by some Male Chauvinist Pig of a male theologian)

Yuck! I'm not a male-chauvinist but I am a male theologian and I am afraid that I WILL have to shoot you the first time we meet BruceChris. ("what a tragic waste of human life" - M. Python)

dave

PS. Nice pic of you there BC! My gosh... you really ARE an O.F.!

[kara speltz]

They say as much whenever they talk about gay marriage – that the differences between men and women wouldn't matter anymore. It’s an absurd commentary until you realize that the “difference” they’re talking about is not between masculinity/femininity, but of the superiority of men to women.

It would be the end of the male dominated power structure, civilization as they know it. Our rights represent the loss of their "right" to define rights. I think that’s why they almost exclusively focus on gay men when referring to “homosexuals.” Lesbians don’t count because women don’t count.



It has struck me a number of times the role fear plays in our culture. Those who cling to a dogma of superiority (whether it be male over female, hetero over homo, or white or black) actually experience a sense of inferiority. This to me was clearest when I looked at the laws back during Jim Crow days. As I understand it, if a person was 7/8 white, and 1/8th black they were considered black. Think about that! 1/8 beats 7/8?

When you know you are truly made in the image of God, you don't need, nor do you desire superiority over any one.

Kara

[andrewlittle]

...just forward.
Andrew, I'm in your choir on this one! You are right on! For those who state they live the Bible literally and completely, I say impossible. Rather, it cannot be applied literally today, but only through careful and considerate reading, meditation and prayer can it be applied to our lives in the context of life in the 21st century. You said it better than I could try!

Patrick, You bet! There is no denying that the Bible as a literary piece is a total piece of work by men. Wouldn't it be interesting if we could travel back in time and have women do all the interpreting and translating. I fear it would produce a tome significantly different in tone and meaning. I also get you on the issue of what equality would mean to this 'men's world', would completely destroy the 'men are superior' point of view so prevalent and successful in the hierarchy of this country - both governmentally, religiously and financially.

Slowly - ever so slowly - it's happening. For the first time in history, female theologians cannot be swept under the rug and their ideas mined for useful pieces that can be co-opted and subsumed under the name of a male theologian.

The work is on, and is being joined by many male theologians who are supportive of re-interpreting scripture through different sets of eyes. There many of us now out there who do not accept the idolatry of a male God, or androcentric readings of scripture. This is, I believe, indelibly intertwined with the re-interpretation of scriptures to free GLBT folk from the scriptural abuse of the past. We can each find ourselves represented in scripture, as well as help dismantle the idolatries of the past.

[u-dog]

Just bumping this thread up to make it easier to find !! How about this as a location for your post Keltic/Michael?

[keltic63]

Just bumping this thread up to make it easier to find !! How about this as a location for your post Keltic/Michael?

decided to go with a separate thread for that question. Who knows where it will go? ;)