From the UUS-L mailing list
From: | Chris Walton <CWalton@UUA.ORG> |
Date: | Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:03:24 -0400 |
Reply-To: | Chris Walton <CWalton@UUA.ORG> |
Myra Symons-Kazanci wrote:
> In our
> church we are considdered a Hate Free Zone. In my
> opinion that almost puts the Old Testament out the
> door.
The Bible is a library more than it is "a book." It isn't "by" a single
writer. The many books in it (Genesis, Exodus, and so on) were written over
the course of a thousand years, each with at least one point of view, topic,
and context. The Bible only makes sense now in some interpretative context
or another: The meaning of the Bible depends on a community of
interpretation. The more historically aware, spiritually sensitive, and
intellectually engaged your "community of interpretation" is, the better
your Bible will be -- without changing a word in it.
Unitarian Universalism ought to be the most historically aware, spiritually
sensitive, and intellectually engaged religion -- but when it comes to the
Bible, we sometimes seem to lose our nerve, letting somebody else define
what the Bible "means" before we even take a crack at it. That's all to our
loss.
> The more I read the Bible the more I see that this is
> a very confused/confusing religion.
The Bible isn't a religion. The Bible (as we usually think of it) is a
collection of writings that Protestant Christians accepted as scripture
around four hundred years ago. "The Bible" means something different if you
are a Roman Catholic, or if you are Russian Orthodox, or if you are Jewish.
Each biblical religion includes different books in its Bible, which you'll
see quickly if you compare the tables of contents of different translations.
Each religion reads the Bible differently. Each religion has a different way
of talking about it. The book, from a religious standpoint, requires
interpretation -- and the kind of interpretation you bring to it is an
expression of your religion.
The Bible is *used* for hateful purposes by people whose religion is already
hateful; it is used for spiritual purposes by people whose religion is
spiritual; it is used for complex and multiple purposes by people whose
religion is complex and various. If our religion is "liberal," we will use
the Bible in liberal ways -- which means thoughtfully, critically,
rationally, and spiritually, as William Ellery Channing and our other
Unitarian forebears demonstrated and defended two hundred years ago.
We like to say that ours is a church that doesn't ask you to check your
brain at the door. We should also say that our Bible doesn't ask you to
check your brain at the front page, either.
For those who would like an accessible, modern, thoroughly informed guide to
how the "Old Testament" came to be what it is today, I'd recommend "Who
Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman, which is a wonderful book.
Next spring, Beacon Press will publish "Understanding the Bible: An
Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers and Religious Liberals," by former UUA
President John Buehrens. In the meantime, I'd also suggest picking up "The
Good Book" by Peter Gomes and or "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by
John Shelby Spong.
Abandoning the Bible to its worst meanings is like ditching Shakespeare
because there's astrology in "King Lear," or banning "The Color Purple"
because there's a rape on the novel's first page, or censoring the
dictionary because we don't like some of the words in the English language.
The Bible is a central element in our cultural heritage. We ignore it at our
peril, because other people *do* use it for hateful purposes, and it helps
to know your enemies. But if we pay better attention to it, I believe we'll
find treasure and nourishment there, too.
Chris Walton
Cambridge, Massachusetts
IECC Searchware 1.3