The following is something I wrote in response to a class discussion question on contradictions in scripture. The question was what we can do with such contradictions. I wasn't expecting to write anything useable for this blog, but it just sort of happened, and I feel comfortable sharing. I hope it helps you in some way.
-James
"As someone who is re-experiencing biblical material from a philosophical background, I appreciate things like clearly defined terms and mutually affirming accounts of things. Contradictions, I've learned, are to be avoided or rooted out. But this is not possible in the case of scripture, or even of ancient literature. The method of editing is drastically different from the one we've adopted today. Rather than edit the text to coalesce as a whole in order to make a single point, ancient editors compile different views and thoughts in order to present the subject in as nuanced a light as possible. While maddening in its own way, I think these inevitable contradictions give us the opportunity, as readers open to experiencing the Divine, to examine faith in very important ways (of which I mean to present two).
First, the contradictions provide us a window into the mindset of the author(s) and editor(s). As has often been noted in class, an interpretation of a thing will always reveal more about the interpreter than the thing being interpreted. We can learn from the contradictions by encountering them not as objective, literal accounts, but as viewpoints that color the text. Biology teaches us that diversity is a sign of health in any given system; I'd argue that this holds true even in matters of scripture. It is well that I have multiple accounts of the creation myth or of David's introduction to Saul. This means that I am presented with not just one viewpoint to consider, but two. If I were only interested in scripture for its prescriptive value to tell me what to believe, multiple accounts of a single event might be distressing. But if the study of human nature has taught me anything, it's that no two people ever encounter the same phenomenon in quite the same way. If I approach scripture from the viewpoint of a learner, I have more material to work with if I have multiple accounts. The unravelling of a mystery is always richer and more satisfying when there are many layers to consider. In this way, contradiction in scripture can be edifying in a scholarly way. I can learn to read the text as the author(s) intended it to be read.
The second opportunity provided by contradictions in scripture is a result of the first; it is the mystical encounter with the God who is infinitely larger than the scriptural context that presumes to encapsulate him. When I am presented with two different accounts, I am not passively spoon fed the Word of God; I am forced into picking up the spoon and feeding myself. The contradiction of opposing accounts of creation may initially be distressing, but when I meditate on them and listen to which of the two is meant for me, suddenly I have found something far more valuable than a scholarly "guesstimation" of the truth of the matter. Suddenly, I have found a truth that achieves reality in me. Kierkegaard called this a process of subjective appropriation, wherein truth is not only encountered by the individual, but also absorbed into the individual. When I am forced into grappling with the different accounts of the Christian Gospels, I am pulled into a deeper examination of what significance Christ's words hold. The result of my grappling is a mystical experience with truth, with God, which goes beyond mere intellectual assent; the truth achieves reality within me. This is merely my personal way of thinking on the subject. Suffice it to say that contradictions in scripture can be the catalyst for a mystical experience of the Divine, one that is not bogged down by doctrine or dogma. I can learn to read the text as God, not just the author, intended me to read it.
All this has been a rather longwinded way of saying that I think the key to dealing with any given discrepancy in a scriptural text is first to discover what the author meant and how they encountered the Divine. Second, to discover what the Divine means to you. We can't just jump back in time and witness the past for ourselves, that is, an objective view of scripture is denied us. But a subjective view, whether through the our own eyes or the eyes of the author(s), is always accessible."
This is the Idiot, signing out.
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Human Subjectivity and the absolute Interpretive Authority of the Catholic Church
The following was originally the first segment in a much longer piece of writing, which I decided to post as its own entry. It is long, meandering, and not to be taken as a serious argument for any given position. More than anything, it is merely a representation of my thoughts at present. That said, I hope it does not offend, and that it stimulates your thoughts in some way.
In the months since I have earned my Bachelor's Degree, I have a lot of free time. Some of it is spent in not very productive ways, some of it is spent working, and some of it is spent in reflection on what I have come to believe. There is no question in my mind that my perspective has broadened in recent years, due in no small part to the academic rigors of my education at Calvin College. But broadened perspectives and answered questions tend to lead to new investigations, wherein old axioms are questioned and new beliefs can come into play. The struggle to navigate between already acquired truth and these new beliefs as diplomatically as possible can be an anxious one.
One such new belief of mine that came about by way of reflection is the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church is a paradoxical blend of indispensable insights and disturbing errors. On the one hand, the Church displays profound understanding on the contemporary issue of the supposedly mortal conflict between science and faith, that is, they understand that there is no conflict between the two, as they are more intimately related than many today may feel comfortable admitting. The Catholic Church has shown no timidity in addressing advances in science in an affirmative and constructive manner. The theory of evolution, the Vatican has said, is not a threat to the unchanged relevance of holy scripture. In short, the Catholic tradition, which is a very rich and nuanced tradition indeed, is one of the most credible and reasonable voices in the debate of science and faith.
On the other hand, however, the Catholic tradition strikes me as exceedingly dogmatic in more social/cultural contexts. The hot button topics of female ordination and homosexual exclusion immediately come to mind. Moreover, the common Catholic perspective I've experienced is that the sole authoritative interpretation of scripture is a Catholic one. True church authority is to be found exclusively in the Roman Catholic view of things. This is, after all, the church founded on a rock by Christ himself, and it is the Holy Spirit that guides it.
But as I live my life and think on what truth God has revealed to me through my own experiences, I find that the Gospel is a message intended for the ears of all people, not just a few. I find that God reveals himself to the subject, wholly of his own initiative and in his own good time. It seems that humanity does not ascend to meet God, but that God descends to address each and every person to whom his call beckons. God's word is revealed as objective reality, which the individual appropriates as subjective truth that gives rise to a life of faith defined by deep reflection and robust action. Simply put, the process by which God reveals himself to his creation is as subjective as it is objective.
And why should anyone neglect human subjectivity in favor of objectivity? After all, we each cannot avoid the uniqueness of our respective existences; when God reveals himself, we cannot avoid perceiving what is revealed from our own perspectives. There is no view from nowhere. As Heidegger would put it, we are each thrown into the world, each in possession of a unique facticity which we cannot help having. This is the situation on the scale of the individual. But what happens when a group of people, to whom God has revealed himself, comes together? We band together as subjects, each answering God's call as best as possible, within communities that we call churches or denominations. Within the activities and liturgies of these communities, the subjective truth implanted in the individual by God blossoms outward into something objective. What was inwardly real now gains external reality. The implication is that each community will be unique in its personality and outlook while remaining fixed upon the common element, which is God's word. These communities are diverse, because the people that constitute them are diverse, and that is how God made us.
With these thoughts in mind, I discover that my issue with the Catholic Church is that it places too much importance on its own interpretation of scripture. God's word is an objective reality to which all must comply, the church says. Well and good. But the additional claim is that there is only one interpretation of scripture that is valid, meaning that the subject's interpretation of God's word must fit within the Church's interpretation, or else risk falling into error. The uniqueness of one's facticity has no bearing on your reception of God's word, because there is only one way to receive God's word in truth. It does not matter that people are diverse and that this is how God made us; the only valid human authority on the interpretation of scripture is the Roman Catholic Church, and the only valid perspective is the Church's perspective.
The church's authority is an objective reality, and this is how the eyes of the Catholic subject are meant to interpret scripture. The objective shines into the subject, never the other way around. The conclusion is that under Catholic authority, human perspectival diversity is not accounted for. This, I find, is a terrible state of affairs, because it closes the subject off to what Christ may say them in favor of what the Church may say. Christ alone is divine. It ought not to be that the Church shapes the perspectives of individuals. It ought to be that individuals come together, in prayer, humility and honest reflection, to shape the perspective of whatever orthodox church they constitute. The Gospel is meant for human subjects to interpret, not for a single abstract entity we call the Catholic Church.
If I seem to have left anything out, don't worry. More to come.
Idiot, signing out, etc etc.
In the months since I have earned my Bachelor's Degree, I have a lot of free time. Some of it is spent in not very productive ways, some of it is spent working, and some of it is spent in reflection on what I have come to believe. There is no question in my mind that my perspective has broadened in recent years, due in no small part to the academic rigors of my education at Calvin College. But broadened perspectives and answered questions tend to lead to new investigations, wherein old axioms are questioned and new beliefs can come into play. The struggle to navigate between already acquired truth and these new beliefs as diplomatically as possible can be an anxious one.
One such new belief of mine that came about by way of reflection is the conviction that the Roman Catholic Church is a paradoxical blend of indispensable insights and disturbing errors. On the one hand, the Church displays profound understanding on the contemporary issue of the supposedly mortal conflict between science and faith, that is, they understand that there is no conflict between the two, as they are more intimately related than many today may feel comfortable admitting. The Catholic Church has shown no timidity in addressing advances in science in an affirmative and constructive manner. The theory of evolution, the Vatican has said, is not a threat to the unchanged relevance of holy scripture. In short, the Catholic tradition, which is a very rich and nuanced tradition indeed, is one of the most credible and reasonable voices in the debate of science and faith.
On the other hand, however, the Catholic tradition strikes me as exceedingly dogmatic in more social/cultural contexts. The hot button topics of female ordination and homosexual exclusion immediately come to mind. Moreover, the common Catholic perspective I've experienced is that the sole authoritative interpretation of scripture is a Catholic one. True church authority is to be found exclusively in the Roman Catholic view of things. This is, after all, the church founded on a rock by Christ himself, and it is the Holy Spirit that guides it.
But as I live my life and think on what truth God has revealed to me through my own experiences, I find that the Gospel is a message intended for the ears of all people, not just a few. I find that God reveals himself to the subject, wholly of his own initiative and in his own good time. It seems that humanity does not ascend to meet God, but that God descends to address each and every person to whom his call beckons. God's word is revealed as objective reality, which the individual appropriates as subjective truth that gives rise to a life of faith defined by deep reflection and robust action. Simply put, the process by which God reveals himself to his creation is as subjective as it is objective.
And why should anyone neglect human subjectivity in favor of objectivity? After all, we each cannot avoid the uniqueness of our respective existences; when God reveals himself, we cannot avoid perceiving what is revealed from our own perspectives. There is no view from nowhere. As Heidegger would put it, we are each thrown into the world, each in possession of a unique facticity which we cannot help having. This is the situation on the scale of the individual. But what happens when a group of people, to whom God has revealed himself, comes together? We band together as subjects, each answering God's call as best as possible, within communities that we call churches or denominations. Within the activities and liturgies of these communities, the subjective truth implanted in the individual by God blossoms outward into something objective. What was inwardly real now gains external reality. The implication is that each community will be unique in its personality and outlook while remaining fixed upon the common element, which is God's word. These communities are diverse, because the people that constitute them are diverse, and that is how God made us.
With these thoughts in mind, I discover that my issue with the Catholic Church is that it places too much importance on its own interpretation of scripture. God's word is an objective reality to which all must comply, the church says. Well and good. But the additional claim is that there is only one interpretation of scripture that is valid, meaning that the subject's interpretation of God's word must fit within the Church's interpretation, or else risk falling into error. The uniqueness of one's facticity has no bearing on your reception of God's word, because there is only one way to receive God's word in truth. It does not matter that people are diverse and that this is how God made us; the only valid human authority on the interpretation of scripture is the Roman Catholic Church, and the only valid perspective is the Church's perspective.
The church's authority is an objective reality, and this is how the eyes of the Catholic subject are meant to interpret scripture. The objective shines into the subject, never the other way around. The conclusion is that under Catholic authority, human perspectival diversity is not accounted for. This, I find, is a terrible state of affairs, because it closes the subject off to what Christ may say them in favor of what the Church may say. Christ alone is divine. It ought not to be that the Church shapes the perspectives of individuals. It ought to be that individuals come together, in prayer, humility and honest reflection, to shape the perspective of whatever orthodox church they constitute. The Gospel is meant for human subjects to interpret, not for a single abstract entity we call the Catholic Church.
If I seem to have left anything out, don't worry. More to come.
Idiot, signing out, etc etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)