djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.28.05.03.51.1989.23408@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >...I gain knowledge of Christ from the revelation reported in the Bible, >which I appropriate using my reason, with the aid of tradition... >...guidance of the Holy Spirit. Wow. Whole books could be written on this. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they have.) I'm going to take a *long* time to digest this. Thanks, boss! >...I see the basic authority as being not the book in itself but what we >encounter in it, both intellectually and experientially. This >includes both events...and teachings sent directly by God... I took an adult confirmation class in an Episcopalian church some years ago. On the first night, the minister tossed a Bible on the ground and stepped on it. Partly, I suppose, to shock us, but more to make a point: the physical object is not the Word of God; the information encoded in it, independent of its physical representation, is the Word of God. This is why a "translation of the Bible" is not only possible but desirable; if it were the book that I hold in my hands that were the Word, translating it into any language beside "the one God wrote it in" would be at least hubris and possibly blasphemous. >...encouraging people to grapple with Scripture directly. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you." I'm not a Catholic, but I think the Catholic position might be very close to yours, only with a stronger emphasis on the need for education. People have justified actions from the Crusades to the Inquisition on Biblical bases; to let any interpretation readers find for themselves stand as acceptable would be somewhere between irresponsible and dangerous. Both those horrors, as is too often repeated, took place within the Catholic church; others, atrocious as you please (e.g., witch hunts) have taken place under Protestant churches and leaders. This last, of course, is a particularly insidious evil; it was precisely because of a mistranslation of the Bible (see above) verse telling the Hebrews (and us? But let's not get into the theology of capital punishment!) not to spare the life of a poisoner that witch hunting became a popular sport; "witch," further, was extended to mean "anyone whose religion conflicts with the idea that Christianity is the one true faith" -- that is, pagans, Jews, heretics, etc. (Heretic in turn being defined as "anyone who offers an interpretation of the Bible or Christianity that those in power do not agree with.") Two thousand years of mistakes made and paid for may have taught the Catholic church many lessons which we may discard only at our own peril; and I fear that the need for guidance in interpreting Scripture would be one of these. I say "I fear" because I am an independent Christian, non-sectarian in the extreme. It goes heavily against my grain to conclude that we need Authorities to interpret Scripture for us. And indeed, perhaps this conclusion is not necessary. There are two potential fallacies here. These are the word "authority" and the concept of "interpreting for us." I suggest that Christians should, indeed, read the Bible and think about it and try to draw their own conclusions about the nature of God, the Universe, and their own selves and souls; the relationship between the three; and what they can and/or should do about it. But, while this is a good idea, it is not sufficient. A "reality check" is needed. Therefore, it is best for Christians to discuss their interpretations and conclusions with other Christians, preferably Christians of the same "level" of education as themselves, and listen to their fellows' interpretations and conclusions -- and their fellows' comments on *their* interpretations and conclusions! -- with an open and loving mind and heart. One need not seek absolute agreement; indeed, this would be, in my opinion, a sign that something was wrong. The Bible speaks to each of us individually, to tell us individually of our own, unique relationship with God and the Universe. But one should also be continually aware of and open to disagreement in the spirit of caritas. One should remember one's own fallibility (= original sin?) and be prepared to accept correction in that same spirit. If you discuss your idea with ten fellow-Christians, all independent thinkers, and they all disagree with you, you may be wrong somewhere... The Nearly Nebulous Net.Roach