Archive for September, 2007

17
Sep
07

Postcritical Naivete

Continuing down the road of “reading the bible again for the first time”, Borg shares his thoughts on the cycle that takes place (or should take place) when one stands before the bible and tries to understand it. The cycle starts at precritical naviete to critical thinking to postcritical naviete. These, he says, “identify ways of reading and hearing the Bible that we recognize in our own experiences.”

Precritical naivete is an early childhood state in which we take it for granted that whatever the significant authority figures in our lives tell us to be true is indeed true. In this state(if we grow up in a Christian setting), we simply hear the stories of the Bible as true stories.

It did not occur to me [Borg] to wonder, “Now, how much of this [biblical stories] is historically factual, and how much is metaphorical narrative?” I [Borg] simply heard the familiar stories as true. Moreover, it took no effort to do so. It did not require faith. I [Borg] had no reason to think that things were otherwise than the stories reported.

Critical thinking begins in late childhood and early adolescence. One does not need to be an intellectual or go to college for this kind of thinking to develop. Rather, it is a natural stage of human development; everybody enters it. In this stage, consciously or quite unconsciously, we sift through what we learned as children to see how much of it we should keep.

In modern Western culture, critical thinking is very much concerned with factuality and is thus deeply corrosive of religion in general and Christianity and the Bible in particular. As critical thinkers in that culture, most of us no longer hear the biblical stories as true stories–or at the least their truth has become suspect. Now it takes faith to believe them, and faith becomes believing things that one would normally reject.

Postcritical naviete is the ability to hear the biblical stories once again as true stories, even as one knows that they may not be factually true and that their truth does not depend upon their factuality.

This way of hearing sacred stories is widespread in premodern cultures. A favorite of mine [Borg] is the way a Native American storyteller begins telling his tribe’s story of creation;”Now I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true.” If you can get your mind around that statement, then you know what postcritical naivete is.

Importantly, postcritical naivete is not a return to precritical naivete. It brings critical thinking with it. It does not reject the insights of historical criticism but integrates them into a larger whole.

Though the movement from precritical naivete into critical thinking is inevitable, there is nothing inevitable about moving into the state of postcritical naivete. One can get stuck in the state of critical thinking all of one’s life, as a significant number of people in the modern period do. The initial movements into critical thinking is often experienced as liberating, but if one remains in this state decade after decade, it becomes a very arid and barren place in which to live.

We need to be led into the state of postcritical naviete. It does not happen automatically. This is one of the major tasks in our time as we learn how to read the Bible using a historical and metaphorical approach.

14
Sep
07

How then shall I view the Bible?

 

As you know if you’ve looked through my Books section, that I am a fan of Marcus Borg. According to Rabbi Harold Kushner, Borg has “removed many of the barriers that separate thoughtful people from the wisdom of the Bible.” Why should I check my brains at the door when trying to learn the wisdom of the Bible? Borg says, you don’t.

In Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Borg encourages seeing the Bible metaphorically-historically as opposed to inerrant factuality. To prove his point about metaphorically seeing the bible, he lists three examples that I will list here:

A Finger Pointing to the Moon

The first metaphor comes from the Buddhist tradition. Buddhists often speak of the teaching of the Buddha as “a finger pointing to the moon.” The metaphor helps guard against the mistake of thinking that being a Buddhist means believing in Buddhist teachings–that is, believing in the finger. As the metaphor implies, one is to see (and pay attention to) that to which the finger points.

To apply the metaphor to the Bible, the Bible is a finger pointing to the moon. Christians sometimes make the mistake of thinking that being Christian is about believing in the finger rather than seeing the Christian life as a relationship to that to which the finger points.

The Bible as Lens

…using the lens metaphor and applying it to the Bible itself: the Bible is a lens. A student of Borg’s, after a few weeks into a semester made this statement that has stuck with him: “I think I’m beginning to get it. You’re saying that the Bible is like a lens through which we see God, but some people think that it’s important to believe in the lens.”

The point, of course, is the same as the finger metaphor: there is a crucial difference between believing in the lens and using the lens as a way of seeing that which is beyond the lens.

The Bible as Sacrament

Now [Borg] extends the metaphor so that is includes the Christian tradition as a whole: the Bible as well as Christian creeds, liturgies, rituals, practices, hymns, music, art, and so forth. When one sees Christianity as a sacrament of the sacred, being Christian is not about believing in Christianity. That would be like believing in the bread and wine of the eucharist rather than letting the bread and wine do their sacramental work of mediating the presence of Christ. It would be like believing in the finger or the lens.

Rather, being Christian is about a relationship to the God who is mediated by the Christian tradition as sacrament. To be Christian is to live within the Christian tradition as a sacrament and let it do it transforming work within and among us.

As mentioned above, Borg also suggests seeing/reading the bible historically. I will post on this at a later time.

13
Sep
07

Unlikely Pair

Read an article about an unlikely pairing of an abandoned macaque and a pigeon. These species are on opposite sides of the spectrum, yet they have found common ground.
What a lesson from the world of animals. Why can’t we as human beings, supposedly with higher intelligence, learn to find common ground and live in peace with one another? Is it a matter of pride? Most definitely. “Who is the most right?!” Shouts the mindless society. And in reply, “WE ARE!! WE ARE!!”. This is far to polarizing a stance to take if we are ever going to live in peace with one another. Forget about being right all the time and take a lesson from a macaque and a pigeon.

12
Sep
07

What Makes A Man Hate Another Man?

 

I am a long time fan of Depeche Mode. I was listening to some old school Mode today and really listened to some lyrics to one of the their best known songs. Read Martin Gore’s lyrics below:

People are people
So why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

So we’re different colours
And we’re different creeds
And different people have different needs
It’s obvious you hate me
Though I’ve done nothing wrong
I’ve never even met you so what could I have done

I can’t understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand

Help me understand

Now you’re punching
And you’re kicking
And you’re shouting at me
I’m relying on your common decency
So far it hasn’t surfaced
But I’m sure it exists
It just takes a while to travel
From your head to your fists


 

06
Sep
07

Zeitgeist Movie

Yesterday I decided I would watch the Zeitgeist movie after reading a post about the movie. I had to clear some time off my schedule to watch the on-line movie because it is almost two hours long. What did I think? I’m glad you asked. I will give a general summary and then share my thoughts.
The movie is broken down into three parts, or theories, on Christianity, 9/11, and International Banking and the Federal Reserve Bank. Be warned these are theories steeped in conspiracy. In order to make it through, I had to be VERY open-minded to even make it past the first half hour (if you do watch it, skip the first seven or so minutes, its just instrumental, doesn’t add to the movie at all).
Act 1: “The Greastest Story Ever Told”
The movie suggests that Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus are all based on astrology, Egyptian religious figures, and several other pagan “potpourri”. The story of Jesus’ miracle birth is described as being a plagarized story from any number of religious gods ie. Horus, Mythra, Krishna, etc. All of these and several others according to the movie had similar miraculous occurances surrounding their birth, life, deaths, and in most cases resurrection. Also, the movie suggests that Jesus never existed and all the stories about him are in fact about astrology. The sun, which is central to ancient astrology, is equated to the story of Jesus in many facets. One of those facets is Jesus is literally God’s Sun. When the sun starts to go through the winter months, food supplies dry up and freeze, and “death” starts to the creep in. This time is a desolate time for ancients and  they look to the sun to start ushering in warmer climates so that “life” can begin again. Miraculously ;) , on December 25th the sun actually starts this climb back higher into the sky. So Jesus, God’s Sun, is born on this date (every year). During this time three stars from Orion’s belt line up with the some sun’s birth. The name of these three stars you may be asking? The Three Kings (Wise Men). There are too many other suggestions made by the film dealing with Christianity, Jesus, and the like, to be made here. Watch if you want to see the others. My thoughts on this act. First, there is very little  support for the claims made (and the other Acts). There is plenty of theory but very little facts presented. The sources on the movie home page are very hodge podge and not very academically recognized. My first thoughts were that the facts presented seem very “cut and paste”. Take a little from here and a little from here and Voila! here is the answer to life’s questions. I believe that this would make good discussion starters but little else.
Act 2: “The 9/11 Myth”. The movie expounds on some thoughts that have circulated since Sept. 11th. Were the Bush’s conspiring with the bin Laden’s over several years? Were the WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 detonated by explosives and not by planes? Building 7 was not even hit by a plane, why did it fall? The 9/11 commission seems to glide over important facts and in fact covers some up, does it? Of the three acts in this movie, this one has spirred my curiousity the most. I will comment further after I have spent some time investigating. Of course it is too over the top. If the movie creators could have spent some more time on this act and left the other two out completely, I would take it more seriously. The acts don’t really go together and I think this makes me less certain of the claims made.
Act 3: “The Men Behind The Curtain”. This has been in conspiracy theories archives for a long time. I remember being real young hearing about “One World Goverments”, “Implants by governments to enslave their societies”, etc. I think that again facts are too scarce for true academic thought. I think it would make a pretty good book plot. If you could take what Dan Brown does and mix just enough facts with a huge portion of fantasy and sell a million copies.
If I had to guess, this movie was made by people that have been hurt by the church and the federal government. I don’t know for sure what led the producers to make such a movie. I can guess, but that is all it will be. Watch the movie if you want to. Don’t watch the movie if don’t want to. Either way, no harm done but be warned, again, these are theories by those that believe in conspiracies. You must consider the source.