LinearThinking literally (Main Forum)
Many years ago there was a sarcastic man who was superior of a community of religious brothers. Sarcasm is never a good idea. It is a low form of wit. It is bad writing. Directed at people it scalds their souls. The superior, a teacher should have known this but he didn’t. If he did he chose to ignore it. He was a scalder. His community detested him. One day he had the young brothers working on the grounds of the school. In those days in that town the local council used give trees to the schools to plant around the grounds. The young brothers had worked all day while the superior sat in his office reading a novel. Finally he came out to inspect the work. He made a few sarcastic remarks and the young brothers felt both discouraged and angry. He kept giving instructions and one of the brothers asked, “What about these new trees, what do we do now?” I suppose he meant “Do we water them or fertilise them or what?” But the superior said scornfully, “Pull them all out. What do you think?” And he stormed off back to his novel.
So the young brother pulled them all out. And went and had a shower to get ready for evening prayer. Of course he knew the man was being sarcastic. But he took him literally. Sarcastic people need to be taken literally. It might not cure them but it gives some satisfaction to the person they try to hurt.
In our culture in 2012 we do not always take things literally. We have irony for example otherwise we could not understand Monty Python or Spike Milligan or any number of other humourists or wits. We have metaphor and if we did not we could not read the psalms or the opening of John’s gospel. In both cases if we took them literally they would not make sense.
There are lots of times when we do not think literally and if we did we would cause offence, confusion or possibly chaos.
But we also do a lot of thinking literally because we are deeply influenced by science. We say it is four hundred kilometres from Sydney to Young and if you drive at 100kms an hour it will take you four hours. We used say of Manly (a Sydney beach) ‘It is ten miles from Sydney and a thousand miles from care.” That was a mixture of literal speech and metaphorical. Now of course when Manly has a bad record of drunken violence on the weekend it might not even be metaphorically true. My father used say, “It’s ten miles by road but as the crow flies it’s about six.” That is partly literal and partly metaphorical too but we all know what it means.
But it is true that Australians take a lot of things literally, almost but never entirely without metaphor. We are trained into it. We have had a hundred years of presuming literalism. We presume that when a history book says that Cezanne died in 1906 after a stroke suffered as he rode his bike out to paint Mt St Victoir again that that is exactly what happened.
Of course when we read that Red Riding Hood went to visit Granny and a wolf was there dressed in her clothes we do not take it literally but our inclination is to take most things we read literally because we are trained into it.
And my experience of teaching for a long time is that we are not very good at thinking metaphorically. Even quite educated people like Richard Dawkins are not good at it.
It is amazing how many people in our culture, even people with PhDs etc, cannot easily tell when what they are reading is metaphor and when what they are reading is meant to be taken literally. This is especially so if what they are reading claims to be religious writing.
And the churches have not helped us. Far too often in my lifetime I was taught things that were written as metaphors or as parables or as fairy stories as if they were written to be taken literally. For example that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, or that Jesus could walk on water.
This is what David Tacey is complaining about.
Children often take things literally that are not meant to be taken literally. It is called ‘concrete thinking’ and is normal until you are at least twelve. You ask a five year old whether they would prefer a two dollar coin or a dollar coin and they usually choose the one dollar coin because it is bigger. That is literal thinking.
I had to be taken out of Bambi when I was a small child. I have never gone back to see the movie but recently another adult told me that she was always terrified that her mother would die and leave them. Then she said, “When I saw Bambi I had to be taken out crying. Bambi lost his mother.”
I had one of those “Aha!” moments. For various reasons when I was a child I too was always terrified that my mother would die. Bambi was too much for me. If there is a metaphor in the Disney film I missed it.
It is appropriate for a four year old to miss metaphors. But as David Tacey says it is not helpful for adults to do it. If you can’t read metaphor you can’t read poetry (except Banjo Patterson and Co), you can’t read the ancient myths like Ulysses and you can’t read the Bible properly.
You are instead bound to a life of tabloid newspapers, pretend reality television and Hollywood schlock. And worse at least in religion you miss all the exciting bits and you are impervious to mystery. You have to live a boring life instead of a joyful one.
St Benedict when he taught his monks Lectio Divina knew this. He taught them to read meditatively. I do not know how Benedict thought but he knew that when we are reading scripture we read it slowly and with faith and we ask, “What is the point of this story? What did the author intend and presume? What does it say to me now?” Because Benedict knew that Job is a parable, Jonah is a fairy story, the psalms are poetry, Revelation and Daniel are apocalyptic, the Song of Songs is an erotic love song, and Ruth is a moral yarn.
He knew about genres, that is different kinds of writing with different aims and rules and conventions.
I don’t know if he knew that three days in a whale would leave a man without skin after all the stomach acid and anyway he’d be dead for lack of breath. It isn’t the point of the story and Benedict didn’t care about a few scientific details just as when we read Peter Pan we do not fret about the aerodynamics of the children flying.
Did Benedict take things literally that were not meant to be literal? I don’t know. Possibly. We still argue about what genre is what. But I think the meaning of ‘literal’ changes as what we know literally changes. I know that energy can neither be created not destroyed and that on earth, at least until the 1960s we have lived in a closed system. That is literally true. So the molecules that made up Jesus and Mary are still here somewhere. As Julius Caesar went to England and as I have English ancestors I might share molecules with him. So when I hear of the Assumption the Catholic in me says, “Ah, that is a story about resurrection in the life of a Christian.” But the scientist in me says, “Surely it is not at all about molecules.”
It is all but impossible to actually think as people in other ages thought because you know things they did not know and vice versa and you have a different cosmology from them. For example people in Elizabethan England did not distinguish between the metaphysical and the physical and so ghosts and numerology and astrology seemed normal to them. But we can try. When Jesus was alive, people in what is now the Middle East and people in the Greek and Roman lands knew that many heroes were born of a virgin mother, that most of them died young defending some cause, and that many of them were then raised in some way and taken to the gods. When they heard that this was a rough outline of Jesus’ life this did not test their faith. It was to be expected. When they read that the sun went across the sky it did not surprise them. How much any one of them was thinking literally we cannot be sure but we know that usually they were not.
They were telling stories for theological reasons, for nation building reasons, just because it was a good yarn (they were Jews after all), to excuse themselves for some recent slaughter, to make you think their laws were made up by God (this is an old trick used by politicians), and any number of other reasons.
Even now when we claim to be speaking literally we often are not. History is a classic example. Bean wrote the history of Australian soldiers in WWI. But he had an agenda. He was into nation building and so Australian soldiers were brave, tall, suntanned, slightly disobedient, and not afraid of officers especially if they were British. In WWII Bean’s history was used to encourage the young of that generation to be all the things Bean had claimed for his generation. It was quite often literal truth but it was also myth making. Historians do this a lot.
A hundred years before in Ireland there was a statesman called Daniel O’Connell. It used be said that if you walked past an orphanage in Ireland and threw a stick over the fence you would hit a child fathered by O’Connell. As far as I know O’Connell fathered no illegitimate children but in Ireland at the time a famous man (unless he was clergy – I hope!) was expected to be virulent and so stories were made up. If you read the Bible about Solomon or David you will get the same stories, written for the same reasons. Famous men bed lots of women. I think it is also about men feeling inadequate but don’t tell the fundamentalists who think all that stuff about David is literally true. Actually he had trouble getting an erection and all his children were adopted (I just made that up!).
What David Tacey is complaining about is that very often Church leaders and other leaders have on purpose or accidentally or because they are ignorant or because they are literal minded and don’t understand myth and poetry or because they do not want anyone to enjoy themselves have used all the Bible as if it is literal when it is not. And it was never meant to be.
Imagine the writer of Jonah saying, “What? You thought I was giving you a literal account when I was telling you a story full of truth and you missed the whole point of it? It is a fish story after all. What a dingbat!”
Let’s go back to the sarcastic superior. After a while he went outside to inspect the work the young brothers had been doing. And there beside the garbage cans were piled the tender young trees that brothers had spent all day planting. He ran up to the young brother’s room frothing at the mouth.
“What have you done, you fool? You have pulled out all the trees?”
“Yes. You said to. You said ‘Pull them all out’”, the young brother replied.
“I was being sarcastic. I didn’t mean it literally.”
“Oh,” said the young brother, “well next time you’ll know won’t you? When you are talking to me get it clear what genre you are using. I’ve had a sound Biblical education.”
lockedThinking literally
by Helen 
, The other side of Australia, Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 16:48 (365 days ago) @ Enda
What a great teacher you are Enda - thanks for this.
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedThinking literally
Thank you for that, Enda. You have the gift of explaining things so the less educated among us (me) can understand. I've kept a copy for future reference. You say that we Australians have a habit of taking things literally, but I feel that that habit leads to us and therefore you, being able to say what is needed in a very down-to-earth and easily understood way.
Rambler.
lockedLiterally illuminating
by Ynot , Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 20:43 (364 days ago) @ Enda
Thanks Enda, for this wonderful composition.
tony
'TonyL
"A post is a free gift, and it will go where it pleases."'
lockedThinking literally
Thanks from me too, Enda. 
You and Tony have a wonderful gift for carefully and patiently developing your ideas and then presenting them in a relaxed and attractive way. And I always enjoy your stories and reminiscences.
Sue
lockedThinking literally
Yes, thank you Enda, for another clear and enjoyable piece.
But I do have a query.
But we also do a lot of thinking literally because we are deeply influenced by science. ..
But it is true that Australians take a lot of things literally, almost but never entirely without metaphor. We are trained into it. We have had a hundred years of presuming literalism....Of course when we read that Red Riding Hood went to visit Granny and a wolf was there dressed in her clothes we do not take it literally but our inclination is to take most things we read literally because we are trained into it.
I accept what you say about the influence of science, but I wonder if it is science that, rather being the cause of literalism, has made us realize that much of what we read in the Bible is metaphor and is not to be taken literally.
It was science that made us realise that the world could not have been made in 6 days, that humans didn't suddenly just appear from the mud of the earth, and that we are the product of millions of years of evolution.
And then textual criticism and archeology taught us that the books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses, that it is quite likely that the Hebrews were never in Egypt, that almost certainly the walls of Jericho came tumbling down many thousands of years before the Hebrews were anywhere near the place.
In other words, it is science that is telling us that the biblical stories, in the main, have to be metaphor, have to be Little Red Riding Hood stories, because they can't be anything else.
Even now when we claim to be speaking literally we often are not. History is a classic example. Bean wrote the history of Australian soldiers in WWI. But he had an agenda. He was into nation building and so Australian soldiers were brave, tall, suntanned, slightly disobedient, and not afraid of officers especially if they were British. In WWII Bean’s history was used to encourage the young of that generation to be all the things Bean had claimed for his generation. It was quite often literal truth but it was also myth making. Historians do this a lot.
Anzac is the best local example we have of mythmaking, and it is part of human natue to do so. But the big difference between contemporary and ancient mythmaking is that we have much better tools to point out the myths. For ancient myths we have to rely on archeology, or perhaps some other fragmented sources. But with Anzac, for example, we still have contemporary historical records, photos, film etc. And Australia is not unique in this. All throughout South America, particularly in Argentina, you have these equestrian statues of San Martin, (the importance of the town can be judged by the size of his statue or the cojones of his stallion) the hero of the war of independence. But few people realise that he went to live in Europe in comfortable circumstances after the war and did nothing for the development of the newly independent countries.
What David Tacey is complaining about is that very often Church leaders and other leaders have on purpose or accidentally or because they are ignorant or because they are literal minded and don’t understand myth and poetry or because they do not want anyone to enjoy themselves have used all the Bible as if it is literal when it is not. And it was never meant to be.
This is where I have to disagree. I am sure that if you asked Bean about whether Gallipoli was where Australian nationhood was born (ignoring the previous 17 years after independence in 1901, as if nothing happened), he would say it was "true". People believe their own bullshit. Just ask any contemporary politician. And people still believe Bean's bullshit.
It seems to me that it was science that made people realise that much of the Bible is myth and metaphor. But the big problem for religion is, and still is, how much of it is literal and how much is myth? John Selby Spong is regarded by more conservative Christians as being beyond the pale for saying that it virtually all is, and this would seem to be close to the position of David Tacey. Other Christians say everything in the Bible is all litrally true. But to come to that conclusion, they have to reject the science.
The history of religious thought over the last two thousand years has been for the Church to reject the science initially, and then after about 150 years (certainly in the case of Galileo and Darwin), to grudgingly concede that those bits that they formerly thought were literally true, are just myths and metaphors. But the rampants are still up waiting for the next scientific onslaught that might suggest that even more than that is myth and metaphor. Tacey and Spong may be a step ahead, but they are regarded by the mainstream as heretics.
lockedThinking literally
The problem for Spong et al is that if they are believers at all they may well believe in the value of any number of metaphors - but they have to believe in something literally to which these metaphors refer: i.e. God. Otherwise why get around in the priestly garb and persuade others to any form of prayer or devotion?
lockedThinking literally
I wonder if it is science that, rather being the cause of literalism, has made us realize that much of what we read in the Bible is metaphor and is not to be taken literally.
Yes, I am sure you are right James and I am sure you are right that the Church has fought a rear guard action every inch of the way against science.
locked
I'm not sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Thursday, June 21, 2012, 03:08 (364 days ago) @ Enda
I'm not sure I should be sticking my neck out again like this, either, but I don't seem to be able to help myself! I not only remain unconvinced by this anti-literalism argument, but I'm also somewhat puzzled. In particular, why does it MATTER if people take the Bible literally or not? Surely the important thing is to focus on what the underlying meaning of a Biblical text is. Also, if it really is true that a non-literal reading of the Bible leads to a more vivid, meaningful and joyful understanding of the Bible than a literal one, then please SHOW us how that is so! You'll never convince people of that sort of thing just by argument.
So, all this leads me to wonder if something else is going on - hence my subject line. Let me emphasise that I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory and I am not criticising Enda, Tacey, Spong or any other individual. What I'm talking about here is something which you yourself mention, Enda: the tendency of groups to formulate beliefs or tell stories which support and maintain the group's structure and identity. In most cases, this happens at an unconscious level: it's not something people decide to do, it's just how groups seem to work. Dare I suggest that all this anti-literalism thing is itself a sort of metaphor to bolster a newly-emerging form of Christianity?
In that long discussion we had on David Tacey's article, I mentioned that my main problem with the Church is not that it takes the Gospels too literally, but that it doesn't take them literally enough. In particular, one of the constant themes of the Gospels is the idea that Jesus came to call us into a new kind of community, one based on the values expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, and above all, one where "the last shall be first", where the leaders of all would be the servants of all, and where the despised, the rejected, the forgotten ones would not only be allowed in, but would have a special place.
Now, wouldn't it have been wonderful if, throughout history, the Church had taken this literally and had undertaken to establish and nurture such a community? Now THAT would've been a miracle, never mind virgin births or walking on water! But how could the Church ignore such an obviously central part of Jesus' teaching, and get away with it? Presumably, part of the reason was, for much of history, ordinary people had little or no access to the Bible themselves. Also, the Church gave them a personal God who could comfort them in their sorrows and troubles and who would reward them in the next world. Nowadays, of course, everything is very different. Ordinary people can read those radical texts for themselves, and most people, at least in the West, are no longer prepared to wait till the next world (if they believe in it at all) to receive good things. But of course the fact remains, the establishment of and, even more to the point, long-term survival of the sort of radical community which Jesus envisaged would still require nothing less than a miracle!
Once again, let me emphasise that I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy to keep people in their place. I must also admit I have not read much of the works of Tacey, Spong, etc., but I assume they don't argue against Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, or anything like that. Nonetheless, underlying the argument against literalism seems to be the idea that the Gospels (or Bible in general) are all based on common sense, that they don't challenge us to question our assumptions and they don't turn our world upside-down. Instead it's all just business-as-usual, and it's no good expecting miracles, whether the miracle should be the sudden appearance of an angel or the chance that a just and loving community could be a reality!
Christianity has always adapted itself to changing social conditions, but this usually means that it ends up supporting the mainstream values and structures of the society, which in turn means that it is the religion of those who are best off in that society, or at least those who are reasonably comfortable. The misfits and outcasts of society will also be the misfits and outcasts in the Church. Is it possible for this to be different?
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedI'm not sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Thursday, June 21, 2012, 12:04 (364 days ago) @ CathyT
Instead it's all just business-as-usual, and it's no good expecting miracles, whether the miracle should be the sudden appearance of an angel or the chance that a just and loving community could be a reality!
Good point Cathy. Miracles do happen every day - minor ones mostly, but they happen.
I agree that we can become too pragmatic about the reality of miracles - "must be a natural explanation for them, can't possibly be 'just an unexplained happening'."
I believe in the little miracle - not too sure about apparitions - that is a different ball game as far as I am concerned. Why is it that the apparition supports the Roman Curia by the way?? But it is the nice things that happen to you - whether it is someone helping you when you most need it - a line in a book that helps you overcome some problem - and yes, even occasionally some monetary help.
At least that is how I view minor miracles.
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedI'm not sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
by PeterR , Thursday, June 21, 2012, 17:01 (364 days ago) @ CathyT
"Also, if it really is true that a non-literal reading of the Bible leads to a more vivid, meaningful and joyful understanding of the Bible than a literal one, then please SHOW us how that is so! You'll never convince people of that sort of thing just by argument."
Cathy T,
As we used to be taught: what is "inspired" is the thought in the mind of the writer; hence, failure to identify the literary form could lead to failure to receive the inspired thought.
Peter
lockedI am sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
Gosh Cathy, it is hard to know where to start.
It MATTERS if people take the Bible literally all the time because you would literally have to tear your eyes out if they offend you and cut off your hands if they offend you because it says that in the New Testament.You would also have to stone your daughter to death if she disobeyed you because it literally says to in the Hebrew Bible. There are hundreds of cases where taking it literally will lead to most unChristian acts.
As I read you you seem to argue that 'literal' means true and anything else is not true. I guess you have read Hamlet. Some folk think it is the best piece of writing in English and that it is full of truth. But it is not literally true at all. It is poetic and dramatic and wonderful but at no stage literally true. This is true of Genesis as well - full of magnificent truths like "God said it was good" and "we are made in the image of God" and lots of other things but it is scientifically nonsense because the writers knew no science and weren't interested in the least. They had a story to tell full of truths but not literally true.They also have a marvelous God called Yahweh whom I find is my kind of God and he is almost nothing like the literal God I was taught at school
You say, "Surely the important thing is to focus on what the underlying meaning of a Biblical text is." There is no 'underlying meaning' in a text, just a range of possible meanings, some may be more profound than others of course and some only become apparent long after the text was written and some disappear with time .
James McAuley wrote a poem that begins:
One thing at least I understood
Practically from the start,
That loving must be learned by heart
If it's to be any good.
You'll notice in this that it has at least two meanings. Love has to be learned by heart, as in you do it over and over until you get it right, AND love is a heart thing rather than a head thing. Now none of this is literally true. But it is astoundingly poetically true. By the way do you notice what he is doing with 'practically'? Clever hey?
I have read no Spong and only two of Tacey's books. I do not know how much I agree with Tacey though a lot of him appeals to me. I am in at least two minds about his guru Jung. I am interested though in READING and interpretation and without good reading and good interpretation the Bible doesn't make sense.
And literal reading is not good reading unless the text is meant to be read literally. ANd the older I get the less of it I think is meant to be read literally.
I heard a man say the other day, "Gawd, the missus took off and now I'm down the mine. I feel like popping my clogs." Read that literally and it makes no sense at all. But if you read it properly you might say, "I'll pray for you" or "Have you rung Lifeline?" and they both make sense. The same rules can be applied to the Bible.
locked
I am sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
by gemstones , Sydney, Thursday, June 21, 2012, 20:48 (363 days ago) @ Enda
Bravo! Bravissimo!!
lockedI am sure I take this anti-literalism thing literally!
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Friday, June 22, 2012, 01:17 (363 days ago) @ gemstones
Bravo! Bravissimo!!
Can I add a bravo too!
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedLiteralism and the Mad Hatter
It MATTERS if people take the Bible literally all the time because you would literally have to tear your eyes out if they offend you and cut off your hands if they offend you because it says that in the New Testament.You would also have to stone your daughter to death if she disobeyed you because it literally says to in the Hebrew Bible. There are hundreds of cases where taking it literally will lead to most unChristian acts.
Enda,
This passage illustrates the problem of metaphor in the Bible very well.
Clearly, the people who heard Jesus's words at the time about taking out your eye etc would not have taken him literally.
But the second bit about stoning your daughter, in the context of Leviticus had to be taken literally by the people at the time, because it was the law. The same goes for all the other prohibitions and requirements relating to food. When I read Leviticus it always reads to me like a 3,000 year old version of the NSW Pure Food Act. And today we have to take our modern version of that literally, because if you don't, you are off to court. Try telling a magistrate that when you put more than the required fat in your sausages in your butcher shop, it was just a metaphor.
But it illustrates the problems with the Bible, because what was once meant to be understood literally, now has to be understood metaphorically, for the very pertinent reasons you point out. But it not only applies to things like religious commandments. It also applies to what actually happened.
The question then of what is metaphor and what is literal seems to be answered by the huge variety of Christian sects in the way of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland - it's as metaphorical as you want it to be.
lockedLiteralism and the Mad Hatter
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Friday, June 22, 2012, 01:19 (363 days ago) @ James
which brings up the question - what is the 'Mad Hatter' a metaphor for????
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedLiteralism and the Mad Hatter
Helen...
From Wikipedia:
"Mad as a hatter" is a colloquial phrase used in conversation to refer to a crazy person. In 18th and 19th century England mercury was used in the production of felt, which was used in the manufacturing of hats common of the time. People who worked in these hat factories were exposed daily to trace amounts of the metal, which accumulated within their bodies over time, causing some workers to develop dementia caused by mercury poisoning. Thus the phrase "Mad as a Hatter" became popular as a way to refer to someone who was perceived as insane.
And, there is a whole gaggle of celibate; senile; misogynistic; 14 year-old prepubescent males; dressed in elaborate pointed headdresses; wearing fancy and very expensive archaic robes; running about the world shouting: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", who truly fit the description to perfection.
Joe
lockedCorrection: it was Humpty Dumpty
Sorry for sending you both off on a tangent, but my reference should have been to Humpty Dumpty!
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/2chpt6.html
And in biblical terms, you can choose to call something a metaphor, or you can choose to say it is literally true. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, "The question is which Christian denomination do you want to belong to. That's all."
locked
Literalism and the Mad Hatter
by desi , Australia, Friday, June 22, 2012, 04:07 (363 days ago) @ James
Try telling a magistrate that when you put more than the required fat in your sausages in your butcher shop, it was just a metaphor.
More like big fat porkies! 
lockedWhat about the bits the Church has never taken literally?
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Friday, June 22, 2012, 16:28 (363 days ago) @ Enda
I don't know about anyone else, but I often find that writing posts for this Forum is hard work! Often I'll press the "submit" button just because I have run out of steam, and then I'll think, "Did I really say what I meant to say?"
Maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly in the post which you responded to, Enda. I wasn't trying to say that if something is not literally true, it's not true at all. I also take your point that a text may have more than one "underlying meaning". And of course I agree with you when you say:
It MATTERS if people take the Bible literally all the time because you would literally have to tear your eyes out if they offend you and cut off your hands if they offend you because it says that in the New Testament.You would also have to stone your daughter to death if she disobeyed you because it literally says to in the Hebrew Bible. There are hundreds of cases where taking it literally will lead to most unChristian acts.
What about the verses, though, where Jesus says he has come to bring good news to the poor, to heal the lame and the blind, to set free the prisoners? Or where he says that the last shall be first, and that the greatest ones will be the servants of all? Or where he puts such a big emphasis on forgiveness, compassion, generosity?
The trouble is, the Church has obviously NOT taken those sorts of teachings literally. Obviously, in the rise of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity played a major role. And yet, if you look at medieval society, quite clearly it is NOT based on the sort of values which Jesus taught and which I've listed above. Anything but!
From the time of Constantine on, Christianity has been the official religion of Europe, but far from challenging secular culture and being genuinely on the side of the poor and the oppressed, for the most part Christianity has bolstered up the power structures of Western society and been the religion of the dominant culture. Now, of course, there has been a definite split between Christianity and secular culture. You might hope that this would be the chance for Christianity to reclaim the radical vision of its Founder and become a real challenge to secular society, and to take the side of the poor and the disadvantaged, and of anyone who is alienated from or a misfit in mainstream society. So, I'm concerned about where all this anti-literalism thing is leading. Will we be told that all those radical sayings of Jesus shouldn't be taken literally, that they really mean something quite different from their face-value meaning: something, in fact, which will once again make Christianity the religion of the dominant class, and which supports mainstream culture instead of challenging it?
Gotta rush off now. I hope I've said what I meant to say!
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedMiracles -- a different world view altogether
by Debb , Thursday, June 21, 2012, 14:57 (364 days ago) @ Enda
This whole way of thinking, looking at stories written two thousand years ago, and then wondering in which category, or "genre" to put them (literal, metaphorical, saga, myth) seems to be peculiar to modern Christianity. I wonder if it occurs at all in other religions.
For about four years I attended a Tibetan Buddhist centre, where the miraculous was taken for granted. We learned, for example, if you are an advanced practitioner, you can control what happens to your body as you die. It will be dissolved into light and disappear -- what is known as "rainbow body". There was no doubt at all in our teachers that some contemporary people attain rainbow body when they die. I heard no argument there about whether this was literal, or metaphorical, or whether we should look for the meaning behind it. It was just something that could happen if you were a sufficiently advanced practitioner of this form of Buddhism.
It was experiencing the utter faith of those Buddhists in such phenomena, which became apparent depending on the level of skill of the practitioner, that started me thinking about whether Christianity was worth re-exploring.
I did not hear these Tibetan Buddhists worrying about whether or not science would verify theses phenomena. In fact, it seems the Dalai Lama welcomes scientific study of meditation and has no fear that science will discredit his practice.
We seem to get ourselves tied in knots about all this, about whether science proves or disproves our beliefs, as though science is the superior measure of truth. Buddhists, or at least the ones at the centre I attended, many young well-educated people, did not seem to go through the same wranglings. They just got on with learning how to meditate and live by the precepts.
lockedIt's about interpretation
But what does it mean?
Jews have been arguing forever (well for maybe 4000 years) about what their scriptures and other holy books mean. Christians once they settled on what books were their holy books (they stole a lot of the Jewish books and said “Well actually they were prophesying our books and people so we have a right to them”) had the problem of interpreting them. Paul helped. He said that we do not have to be circumcised (blokes that is – the Jews were not into female circumcision. Think of the fights that would cause!) to become Christians and Jewish dietary laws do not apply to us. So some bits of the Hebrew Bible are marked “Do not apply” but are left there anyway.
Right from the start there were issues with interpretation. St Augustine was a great user of allegory – ‘this stands for that’, ‘this means that’ etc. He was not a literalist. He had his own problems which he bequeathed to us but that is another story.
Eventually the Church (the Catholics that is) decided that the pope was the final word on interpretation. Actually we didn’t quite decide that and there has been a fight that breaks out periodically about whether a council properly called has more power than the pope. It is one of the agendas underlying a lot of the unease in the Church at present and for the moment the dictators are in control. We’ll see what happens next.
Even more eventually Martin Luther and John Calvin and others decided that it had to be more democratic. And anyway they hated allegory. Well really they were both quite dictatorial too but when dictators fall out anything can happen and it did. It became a free for all especially in the United States and now freestyle interpretation is the norm. One result is that Biblical scholarship has blossomed and with archaeology, text criticism and all sorts of modern scientific approaches we know a lot more about texts and how we might interpret them. We also realise that there is no sure authority and even some good Catholics think the pope gets it wrong now and then (or more often).
One of the things John Calvin most feared was idolatry. He pointed out correctly that Catholics have a tendency to kneel down in front of popes, cardinals, statues, litres of recently deceased pope’s blood etc as if they were God. He was convinced that a steady dose of the Bible well interpreted by each believer would cure this. As humans always go to extremes (see Adam and Eve who have everything and then want to be God as well) many of Calvin’s followers did think for themselves but they kept going and became atheists. The large number of Scots who began as Presbyterians deep in thought and ended up leading atheist philosophers is more than coincidence.
So we get to Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In Munich etc the Catholics were doing as they were told and accepting what the pope said about the Bible (it was basically “Don’t read it and leave it to the priests to tell you what to believe and by the way science is dangerous and usually wrong). In the north and east of Germany the Protestants were going about interpreting it all for themselves.
Then along came Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (November 21, 1768 – February 12, 1834) a German Protestant theologian, philosopher, and biblical scholar. He hated confusion so he began a way of looking at interpretation which came to be called hermeneutics. It is a flash word that means interpretation and it is called after Hermes the messenger of the gods.
Ever since Protestant theologians and Biblical scholars have practised hermeneutics, theories of interpretation in an attempt to help themselves and others know what the Bible means. Eventually when Catholics were allowed back to the Bible (about 1954) hermeneutics became an issue for us too. There are a number of very good Catholic hermeneuts around at present as well as a lot of others who are not Catholics.
If you have been reading Catholica for a while you will know that some biblical scholars from a Catholic background (Robert Crotty for example) now think that all of the Bible is mythical writing. A Canadian Protestant scholar Northrop Frye said a long time ago that any history in the Bible is there by accident. In the USA and other places various Christians )including Catholics) in reaction have decided that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.
This led a couple of weeks ago to a pastor picking up a very dangerous snake and letting it bite him. It says in the New Testament that if a true believer picks up a dangerous serpent and is bitten it will do him no harm. In this instance the pastor died a painful but mercifully quick death which just shows that he was not a true believer, or that the passage is not to be taken literally, or that some people are just stupid and there is nothing to be done for them.
lockedIt's about interpretation
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Friday, June 22, 2012, 13:15 (363 days ago) @ Enda
Again, thank you Enda for this, especially for those of us who are not versed in theological history.
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedIt's about interpretation
by Debb , Friday, June 22, 2012, 14:10 (363 days ago) @ Enda
Enda, thank you for that outline of the history of Christian interpretation, which you have given as a response to my post about my experience as a one-time Buddhist. Yes, I know Christian interpretation has changed a lot over the centuries and that there has been greater or lesser unwillingness to accept the biblical accounts at "face value" in different times and places, and your summary is a helpful one. However, I wonder if you have misunderstood my intent, which was not to argue, but to invite some creative loosening in our thinking about all this.
My own story with regard to Christianity, was that at one time in my life I decided it was all meaningless, and I could live without any of it, belief in God, reading of Scriptures, attendance at church etc. My disillusionment came from various sources, but was partly due to having read so much critical theology that debunked all that I had believed in. That phase of my life lasted for ten years, and came to an end when I was present at the death of a close friend, someone who had no interest at all in anything spiritual. However, as she died, and just afterwards, I became aware of a powerful spiritual presence in the room. Others experienced it also. That set me searching for an explanation, which led me to "The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying", which led me to Tibetan Buddhism, which led me to a new appreciation of how to understand events that seem impossible from a Western scientific point of view.
So, the question I was raising was about how we believe or do not believe in the miraculous, especially when we locate the miracles in the past, 2,000 years ago. I was not raising the question as a point of argument with you, as part of a debate, but rather to invite you to wander with me down a side path, to see if there might be another way of gazing upon it all.
In the Buddhist sanga I attended, I encountered people who not only believed that amazing (miraculous) events can occur, but that they are occurring, now, in his modern world, and that they occur when people are sufficiently advanced in their skill in spiritual practice.
That experience has made me less willing than I used to be to discount all the stories of miraculous healings and Jesus' rising from the dead. I have no difficulty at all in believing that after he rose from death, Jesus walked through a door. I have experienced spirit of such power that such an event does not seem at all impossible.
I accept what you have said about the way people have read sayings that were meant to be metaphors or sarcastic challenges as literal commands ("Pull out the trees"). But I am also interested in Cathy's question about why we do not take seriously (literally?) Jesus' injunctions about living simply and eschewing power.
I suppose there is also the question of what comes first - experience of powerful spiritual reality, or intellectual understanding that makes belief in such spiritual reality possible? These days I am inclined to the view that it is the experience that comes first. Pursuing theology (which I have done) will not bring me to the experience, although it does help to clear away the chaff that occludes.
Thank you for putting so much thought and energy into this discussion, Enda. You have elicited both gratitude and questions - a sign of a worthwhile piece of writing I'd say. And for that I dips me lid.
lockedTaking the command to powerlessness seriously
Hi Cathy and Debb
I have just been working out lately that one of my faults is that I wish for a better world instead of dealing with the world in front of me. This is what they call in AA knowing that you are powerless (over alcohol) or whatever. I am not alcoholic. My need for admission of powerlessness is that I cannot manage the world. My childhood wishing to be somewhere else didn't work and now as an adult it is a real drawback.
BUT I can make choices. I can change me.
I am not sure why I started with that but it is trying to address Cathy's question about why the Church is so bad at taking the command to powerlessness literally or even seriously . As St Francis found out quickly enough that is one of the things an awful lot of the heavies 'know' was not meant to be taken literally even though Jesus seems pretty clear that he really meant it.
I think it is the confusion we (they?) keep making between a community and a corporation .
Have you noticed how many of the Church heavies at the moment would not be at all out of place in BHP or any other corporation? Once they fitted in well as princes (I grew up being taught that cardinals are princes of the Church - and all that ring kissing and "My Lord" and "Your Grace" were straight out of Dungeons and dragons not out of the gospels). Now they look like executives flying first class, wearing all that gear, being on first name terms with the high and mighty.
But I think the answer is not in whether the scriptures are taken literally. I think it is taking seriously justice, poverty, compassion, love and all those critically important words in Amos and the OT prophets and in the gospels. We can take them seriously metaphorically, literally, poetically, dramatically and in many other ways.
The Church at its best does some marvellous things about what the gospel demands but sadly even the best efforts (Francis again) so often become corrupted.
I suppose that is where the good people come in. We cannot control them but we can change ourselves.
lockedTaking the command to powerlessness seriously
by Uncle Pat , Friday, June 22, 2012, 18:59 (363 days ago) @ Enda
Biblical exegesis demands more of the human intellect than sub-atomic physics. Analysing James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is child's play in comparison.
Why? Re- sub-atomic physics: scientists agree on what are acceptable methods for examining matter.
Re-Finnegan's Wake: we have the original text and Joyce's writings about how he was trying to enrich the English language.
But re- The Bible? There is such a diversity of opinion on how the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures are to be examined it is a wonder Biblical scholars can talk to one another at all.
And what of the Biblical texts we read? Copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations - Hebrew - Greek - Latin - English - The Vernacular (and that is simplifying the mincing process the scriptures have gone through).
As if that was not enough, we have "the spin" various prophets (ancient and modern) have put on the words and stories.
When a Cardinal uses the phrase, " When God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Eve and Steve", to mock homosexuals, I thought of Shakespeare's bon mot: "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose."
Keep writing Enda, we need you.
lockedIt literally blew my mind!
by Debb , Friday, June 22, 2012, 12:47 (363 days ago) @ Enda
Enda, you point out that Australians think literally - We have had a hundred years of presuming literalism.
The other thing that just occurred to me, is that most Australian do not know what the word "literal" means. How often do you hear someone say something like, "It literally blew my mind!" ?
locked
