When any two people engage in a conversation, it's essential that they can speak and hear in a way that the two can both understand and be understood by one another. Sounds simple until you try it. Two people, same language, gender and age, similar social skills and education, even with the best attempts, good communication can be less than easy. Start tampering with this better than adequate setup for two people to understand and be understood (ie. they speak two different languages), and it will become more difficult for good communication to take place. So I take it as a given that being understood by those who hold to a different view may not come easy. I will try to avoid raising any unnecessary obstacles as best I can, while being as honest and candid as I need.
That being said, it's important that when one is going to discuss things which already presuppose conflict, such as religious disagreements, each side must be prepared to be reasoned and reasonable. Thinking and speaking not shouting. Studying and reflecting not name calling. Don't defend your position by simply restating what the position is, nor avoiding it by moving on to the next issue. Think. Study. Pray. Yes! Disagree with an argument. Disagree with vigor. Disagree with conviction. But let there be substance to the argument.
Let's create an example which I hope will help illustrate how we might navigate through a disagreement. If I make a claim and offer Biblical texts for why I believe this claim and you disagreed, you would probably offer up one or two verses which support your belief and negate my position. Two claims, four verses supporting opposite opinions. It would seem that we have reached an impasse. We conclude that the other's "interpretation" is faulty and we will just have to agree to disagree.
But let's understand what the real problem is that is needing to be resolved. There are 2 separate collections of texts involved: Documents 1 & 2 (the Old Testament & New Testament). Two religions (Judaism & Christianity) claim Document 1 to be "inspired" but disagree on Document 2. Document 1 was produced by Religion 1 and Document 2 was produced by Religion 2. Since Religion 2 claims to have been the "continuation" of Religion 1 (the "truer" "newer" version), it follows that Document 2 must be a continuation of Document 1.
My position is this: Doctrine A is false. Your position is: Doctrine A is true.
Doctrine A is only articulated (or alluded to) in the NT, Document 2 (remember, we both believe that the OT, Document 1, is valid and inspired, whereas the NT is in dispute). If the OT is silent on Doctrine A, one might allow Doctrine A to be "possible," but it would be understandable if Religion 1, Judaism, rejected Doctrine A because it is based on the NT, not the OT. However, if the OT states the opposite (or impossibility) of Doctrine A, regardless of what the NT states, Judaism must reject Doctrine A. Then Religion 2, Christianity, must explain how the NT's Doctrine A is an "INSPIRED" continuation of the OT, yet antagonistic to the OT. I use the word "antagonistic" because this would be more than a simple lack in cohesion. If the two Documents do not complement each other, than one is a fraud. And if there is a fraud, it necessarily means the NT is guilty of the fraud, not the OT.
Now, I apologize for using terms like Document this and Doctrine that. Perhaps, for some, it's confusing. If it is, read it again before proceeding. I just didn't want to be specific about doctrines, as these immediately cause emotional reactions and defensive postures are taken before meaningful conversation can take place.
The preceding explanation of "the real problem," I think, is straight forward and I wish I could leave it there. But it gets more complicated. What happens when both Document 1 & 2 are antagonistic to Doctrine A which is supposed to have been based on both Documents? Or Document 2 implies both agreement and disagreement with Doctrine A?
In my next entry I'll give a couple of specific examples of "the real problem."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Seems to me that if one uses verses to support opposing positions than one is just relying on prooftexting and denying their own interpretive act in reading. This tends to be where discussions I have with Fundamentalist Christians breaks down. I refuse to play that game. If they use a passage, then I look at that passage in its context and if it doesn't fit the context then I identify that, if it proposes alternate interpretations then they also need to be weighed properly.
But the core question is why any of us think that our scriptures are God? What I mean by that is the scriptures (OT, NT, etc) are not unmediated revelations - simply by virtue of the fact that they are texts. This is not even taking into consideration that they are all redacted texts.
As texts they function in a religious community in particular ways. The community mediates their experiences with the help of these texts. But also forms their understandings of the texts via their experiences. This happens quite rapidly in the brain (I'm thinking Helminiak's The Human Core of Spirituality is a helpful text here) so that unless it is exposed (think of Gertrude Stein's poetry, Johan Lehrer's Proust was a Neuroscientist is a brilliant book on this) we function as if it is directly revelatory, when in fact it is a complex process situated in a specific environmental context.
This does not invalidate the texts, but calls us to recognize that the role of the text. (Also I would appeal to the first Noahide law here, something found in most religions.) Especially the role of the reader in front of the text.
Speaking from the evangelical world, too often evangelicals will stand before the text trying to assert all the answers. If this was in fact happening then there would not be continual schism in such churches. Rather it is the way of the mystic that is called for - we stand in front of mystery and are undone.
Post a Comment