Speaking about my own experience with my tradition in conflict with Scripture means looking both at how I have been formed and the world in which the Bible, (especially for Christians the New Testament), was written.
My Tradition: Salvation by Faith and the Individual
The Protestant tradition looks to the reformation, Luther etc. as a climactic moment in returning the the truth of Scripture as obscured by the Catholic tradition. The debate with the Catholic church over authority and certain practices (such as selling indulgences) formed Luther and Calvin's thought in a certain way. Salvation by faith was a key element of their teaching over and against the earning of salvation by purchasing indulgences and doing penance. This was a positive development, but what happened was that certain insights were hardened into dogmas that when removed from the original debate over specific practices and teachings lead to the opposite exremes. Salvation by faith becomes a rule or law which is hardened in the tradition and it obscures other important elements of what Jesus taught. I'll come back to that after another element of my own tradition.
For westerners (generally people living in Europe and U.S. and Canada) the individual has a heightened importance. The individual person is more important (in the way we think and act) than the family or community. There are lots of reasons for this from philosophy to industrialization, the point is, because of this, when we read the Bible we are naturally disposed to favor individualistic readings over ones concerning the community.
The New Testament
The New Testament, when read within my tradition, is often interpreted primarily with regards to the salvation (by faith) of the individual. The strength of the tradition, and the power that it has over interpretation ensures that other readings seem strange and are usually discarded without being given a chance. Readings that answer the question "how is the individual saved?" are given priority. The definition of "being saved" is usually, the guarantee that the spirit of the individual (as opposed to the body) will join God in heaven after death.
Although the subject matter of the New Testament does deal with the salvation of individuals, this happens within the context of the salvation and restoration of Israel. Often times, we ask questions of Scripture that the texts are not answering. Reading texts in light of salvation by faith make it difficult to understand New Testament texts calling for God's people to obediently work out their salvation. The book of James, for instance, with its demand that the people of God be obedient to the "perfect law that gives freedom", was useless to Luther in his polemic against Catholic practices, and has not been as important in my tradition as texts that speak of salvation as the free gift of God. When taken out of the context of polemical debate, the book of James as well as the letters of Paul can be seen as complementary, although different expressions of Christian faith seeking to answer different questions. That is why when interpreting we need to be disciplined about seeking which questions a text is asking.
Another example of our tradition harming interpretation is when texts are read only in light of the salvation of the individual. The prophetic tradition (Isaiah, Ezekiel and so forth) looked forward not just to a day when the individuals of the world would be saved. Rather, they thought in terms of the promises of the covenant God to Israel. They thought in terms of the fate of the nation, and God's purpose for Israel. Jesus and the New Testament stand firmly within that tradition, although through them the tradition is radically transformed. The point is that highly individual readings obscure the communal element of what the New Testament teaches.
An example of this is that texts such as Romans 9 which deals with the questions concerning Israel's fate in light of what happened in Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Paul claims that God's promises to Israel have not failed and that his purpose in electing Israel will continue through the redefined people of God in Christ. It is those very passages that are often used to discuss the election of specific individuals, some for heaven, others for hell. The problem, to me, is that the tradition obscures the meaning of the text by asking the question, "how is the individual saved?"
How do we, in response, improve interpretation? First of all we need to acknowledge that our tradition has had much to do in forming the way we read the Bible. There is nothing wrong with this fact, unless we allow premade theological answers to replace interpretation. If we do that, then we take away the ability of Scripture itself, hardening our hearts to ways that the Spirit may be seeking to transform us through it.
Secondly, we need to let the New Testament determine the questions it is answering. To do this we need to understand something of the historical context within which it was written, compare it to other writings of the time period, pay attention to matters of genre and be aware of how our own tradition might obscure the intention of the authors in question.
06 September 2006
Why I'm a Critically Real Christian Part I
If being a Christian meant to simply inherit the Christian faith of the people before me and to uncritically hold to it, then it is nothing more than just a cultural element passed on like language, food, customs etc. I think that most of the time, in American church, because of the way things are set up, the masses of people have no way of knowing why they believe the things they are being taught.
The very hope of Christian faith, to me, is that God's Word can address us- break in to the present and transform us. Our relationship to our tradition is so important because the tendency in any tradition is for beliefs to solidify and harden into repeatable phrases, dogmas that lose their power to transform when separated from the real presence of the Spirit and the hope and expectation that God himself might be addressing us.
The problem when the Bible's meaning is presented by one person in a pastor/congregation model, is that the people become disempowered in terms of coming to the Bible's texts and actually coming to a better understanding of its meaning.
We have a big problem because we are inheriting a tradition and we are not even aware that there is a whole history behind us that affects how we think, our way of living and how we perceive ourselves in the world. My own tradition as a Western Protestant Christian is one that goes back from Scripture to the Church fathers, has been profoundly influenced by philosophy (from Plato to Descartes and beyond), the reformation, Luther and Calvin, the Enlightenment etc. As a white American I've been formed by the history of America, from Deism to slavery, from racial inequality and white flight to American individualism and consumerism.
Being critically real means first of all to acknowledge the fact that we have a history and a tradition. All of these things have formed us and our thinking in ways we might not even be aware of.
Beyond all of that, as an American evangelical, the way I was taught to read Scripture was formed by a tradition and handed on to me. The problem I have had, though is that the way I was taught to read the Bible and the actual subject matter of what I was reading came into a sharp tension. The tension has been formulated into a question which drives forward for an answer- and that is why I'm a critical realist. If I wanted to hold on to the way I was given Scripture, I would have to dismiss the question; however, if I follow the question, I need a method to guide me.
The general shape of critical realism as a method for understanding ourselves and our world is as follows: things are never what they seem. Appearances are always related to reality but never fully reveal it. Because of that, we need to be critical in the way we seek to know the world as it is presented to us. When it comes down to it, on a certain level we are all critical realists- for example, when watching a movie we interact with it on two levels- 1. As a story- we put on our blinders so to speak and enjoy it through a kind of chosen naivete. 2. We recognize that the reality of the movie is not the pictures flashing across the screen or the story told, but the whole system and industry surrounding it, from production (actors, stunt men, special effects) to advertising, and consumption.
If we are not critical, the reality behind the appearances will stay hidden.
When it comes to Christian faith and Scripture, it is necessary on a certain level to come to God as children- with a simple faith. At the same time we need to be critical in the way we appropriate what the tradition has given us. Otherwise we might get stuck in ways of living, acting and thinking which obscure true Christian faith and have now way of moving beyond what we have been given, and being transformed.
Often, when a question arises, we default to pregiven answers handed down to us by the tradition. A critical realist can not do that because he or she is compelled to seek an answer, which is relevant to the question being formed. If you do not follow the drive to know to the point where the question you want answered, even the question itself will come out of the tradition instead of from the process of seeking knowledge. It is not bad that the tradition gives us questions and answer, It becomes a problem when you get stuck in a circle of questions and answers which never change, and the faith that has been passed on to us is unable to be challenged and transformed even by the Scriptures themselves.
None of this makes sense unless we move on to understand it through concrete examples.
to be continued...
The very hope of Christian faith, to me, is that God's Word can address us- break in to the present and transform us. Our relationship to our tradition is so important because the tendency in any tradition is for beliefs to solidify and harden into repeatable phrases, dogmas that lose their power to transform when separated from the real presence of the Spirit and the hope and expectation that God himself might be addressing us.
The problem when the Bible's meaning is presented by one person in a pastor/congregation model, is that the people become disempowered in terms of coming to the Bible's texts and actually coming to a better understanding of its meaning.
We have a big problem because we are inheriting a tradition and we are not even aware that there is a whole history behind us that affects how we think, our way of living and how we perceive ourselves in the world. My own tradition as a Western Protestant Christian is one that goes back from Scripture to the Church fathers, has been profoundly influenced by philosophy (from Plato to Descartes and beyond), the reformation, Luther and Calvin, the Enlightenment etc. As a white American I've been formed by the history of America, from Deism to slavery, from racial inequality and white flight to American individualism and consumerism.
Being critically real means first of all to acknowledge the fact that we have a history and a tradition. All of these things have formed us and our thinking in ways we might not even be aware of.
Beyond all of that, as an American evangelical, the way I was taught to read Scripture was formed by a tradition and handed on to me. The problem I have had, though is that the way I was taught to read the Bible and the actual subject matter of what I was reading came into a sharp tension. The tension has been formulated into a question which drives forward for an answer- and that is why I'm a critical realist. If I wanted to hold on to the way I was given Scripture, I would have to dismiss the question; however, if I follow the question, I need a method to guide me.
The general shape of critical realism as a method for understanding ourselves and our world is as follows: things are never what they seem. Appearances are always related to reality but never fully reveal it. Because of that, we need to be critical in the way we seek to know the world as it is presented to us. When it comes down to it, on a certain level we are all critical realists- for example, when watching a movie we interact with it on two levels- 1. As a story- we put on our blinders so to speak and enjoy it through a kind of chosen naivete. 2. We recognize that the reality of the movie is not the pictures flashing across the screen or the story told, but the whole system and industry surrounding it, from production (actors, stunt men, special effects) to advertising, and consumption.
If we are not critical, the reality behind the appearances will stay hidden.
When it comes to Christian faith and Scripture, it is necessary on a certain level to come to God as children- with a simple faith. At the same time we need to be critical in the way we appropriate what the tradition has given us. Otherwise we might get stuck in ways of living, acting and thinking which obscure true Christian faith and have now way of moving beyond what we have been given, and being transformed.
Often, when a question arises, we default to pregiven answers handed down to us by the tradition. A critical realist can not do that because he or she is compelled to seek an answer, which is relevant to the question being formed. If you do not follow the drive to know to the point where the question you want answered, even the question itself will come out of the tradition instead of from the process of seeking knowledge. It is not bad that the tradition gives us questions and answer, It becomes a problem when you get stuck in a circle of questions and answers which never change, and the faith that has been passed on to us is unable to be challenged and transformed even by the Scriptures themselves.
None of this makes sense unless we move on to understand it through concrete examples.
to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
