Why Is Scripture Not A Universal?

Scripture is a human book written within a certain context that evangelicals or conservatives claim is universal. Universiality is a claim to ominiscicnce. And since no human can have omniscience, as we are bound within many contexts of cultures, we are misguided to think that Scripture is the "ideal". This is where tradition enters.

Tradition is the attempt at "producing" or refining the text. The text has been debated as to his historicity or its mythology. Whether the writers of the text were writing in universal "myths" of their day (Greek) or whether they were using the contexts of their culture's myths (Hebrew), they were attempting to attain to the heavenly. Man has alwasys attempted to describe reality through many ways, philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, literature, art, etc., as man is a creative being. So, tradition was man's attempt at creative interpretation of the transcendent.

Tradition was accepted in cutural norms, values, and mores that held society's "truths" and maintained society's "peace". As the individual, historical science, and the natural sciences gained influence in society through human reason, tradition and tradition's "culture" was challenged. Reality was no longer understood in tribal and communal ways, but individualized ways. The individual became capable of being educated beyond the "confines of culture" and became a "free moral agent". The birth of self-consciousness was "born" within the West and moral choice became of importance and value. Children could grow away from family values and tradition, because they became "self-actualized".

While "self" or the individual became important in the West, and industrialization undermined the "family farm", virtue was defined in different ways than "traditional understandings". Virtue became those who were able to attain through independence, choice and determine their own course in life. Determination was not from the outside, but the inside.

A clash of civilizations was born in the West and the East. The West understood values to be based on the "rule of law", and the social contract, whereas, the East are still influenced by their traditions. Self development is not an option in these cultures, as "self" does not exist apart from tradition. Reason is the enemy in traditional cultures, as it challenges the understandings and values of traditon's absolutes. Critical thinking is not a value to the conservative or evangelical because of their value of text or tradition. Reason is feared to undermine "god". God cannot be undermined from reason's inquiry, as reason is a god-given gift.

People who have not developed their reason, through fear of leaving tradition, are not developed to own their own person and choice and determine their own values. People who are passively accepting of tradition's values are prone to be useful for others to "use". These people are the modern day "dogs", so it is important for conservative and evangelicals to understand their faith in more reasoned and reasonable ways. Otherwise, we will have no impact on society at large. We will continue to be a small sectarian community that fears the world and waits for "god" to correct things. Those who do this are not leaders and they are doomed to wait for heaven to bring about justice.

Unified Diversity

With all of the discussion over whether a text is "special revelation", or by what means is a particular denomination to understand faith and how that plays out in orthopraxy, it seems that there should be a loud and clear call for a "peace treaty" on absolute truth claims.

Battle scars are many where there is an absolute claim on truth. Humans suffer in many ways because we justify actions based on our own limited understanding of what constitutes right behavior.We all have personal values and convictions on what is right or wrong, but sometimes we hold these convictions with little or no reflection. When there is little of no reflection on things that matter or should matter most, which are the ideals we live by, there is limitation on life itself. Socrates said "An unexamined life, is not worth living".

What would it be like to live in a world that let everyone seek their own life, with no interference? If one could pursue interests that were the "ideals" one valued? And everyone left others alone that differed? The world, yes, would be compartmentalized by many "differences", but wouldn't that breed a culture of acceptance and value of difference? And wouldn't it reflect a larger view of "truth" and breed a culture of understanding? Living in unified diversity is what I would call "heaven", as each would "be" and "do" as he understood to be of importance and of value. Then, peace would abound and no one would have a privy or right to jusitfy "speical priviledge" or "special rights", as everyone would be equally respected under "law".

I think this is the "ideal" of our American government. While fundamentalists of all kinds feel it their duty, to warn, rebuke, correct, and convert, I think a more healthy attitude toward self and neighbor is seeking understanding dialogue. Most religions, though, are based on a limited understanding of life and the values of the "transcendent" over-ride one's duty toward others and real life in this world. Is religion dangerous? I am beginning to think so.

Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.

The Problem of Exclusivist Claims

In all of my reading and sifting, struggling and I'm sure not understanding all of the complexities as it regards the tradition of Christian faith. One thing is for sure, there is no consensus, in regards to the text's understanding whether its hisoricity, it's meaning, and how the Church came to be.

I find that the dialogue is interesting, because it doesn't make absolute claims, but listens and stretches to understand.

I find, on the other hand, those who want to assert certainty in their exclusivist positions, are doing so for other reasons than "truth". There may be personal identity issues, or personal agendas, perhaps, even a "protection of the faith "once delivered to the saints". This stance saddens me, as it leaves large gaps in bridging an understanding among religious traditions, that would lend itself to human compassion, instead of dogmatic assertions and concrete opinions that harden one's attitude and approach to those who disagree.

I just heard today that the public schools were doing education in diverse religious traditions, helping students to understand another's traditon. I think this is a good exercise for minds to be expanded and hearts enlarged.

The Christian Church has much to loose, however, in opening up the discussion to others that differ in views. Although I do believe that culture is influenced by tradition, it isn't always in a positive way. Absolute claims are those that breed radicalism and an irrationality that leads to emotional reactions, instead of a steady and rational dialogue. We need more of the later in our world today, not the former.

I am hoping that those who are apologists will at least concede that their claims also "bridge a gap" of understanding within history. Whether one believes Scripture is historical or not, still need to admit that history is not a science of certain claims of exclusive interpretive texts.

Agnostics Are More Believable

Agnostics are more believable than "bible believing Christians", because while they use their reason well (outside the authority of a text and/or tradition), they also understand the limitation to reason. I find this refreshingly appropriate, because it brings humility to the table in regards to things we cannot know, like God, while agnostics do not assume they know he doesn't exist, either!

I am very tired of people trying to theologize evil by laying it at the "foot of the Cross" or some other such nonsense!!! It is the height of arrogance, at least to me, to assert claims of value in suffering. It is Job's comforter's all over again!

Those who want to theologize about suffering are those who place their absolute trust and claims about "God's Sovereignty" and control in history, etc....I do not believe this, as it is so presumptive in regards to other traditions of faith, and to man's reason. People want to minimize what they do, so they scapegoat a God-figure, by creating some "unjust theology" about a mythological figure, or, a shadowy historical one.

I do not believe that we can assume a personal God because it our "hearing" could be nothing other than self-reflection, or projection, which can result in many understandings about oneself, and about life in general. No, I don't believe that God has revealed anything apart from the natural arena of man. Man creates, man directs, man chooses, and makes his own destiny. The suffering theology is one for those who have no choice, or no value to these kinds of Christians. And certainly, while these kinds of Christians claim God's love, they deny him by their theologizing about the suffering of others.

Maybe what Christians should do is "make Christian history real" by bringing in the Kingdom, and taking control of others in the Name of God, because after all, this is what life is to be about...Making disciples, either by their free choice or by force. Church history has revealed that this is not appropriate and has brought about an "us/them" mentality that doesn't do anything to further peace,.

I am weary of Christian people who claim for others, presumptuously, and pre-emptively. This is what suffering is about, because it presumes upon man's developmental nature, which limits these individuals under the "rule" of these unjust Christians!

Ancient Scripture's Meaning and Modern Man

Christians organize their life around different authorities and different activities. But, whenever one source becomes a pominient one, then we are headed for disaster. This is the case for the Chirstian Protestant evangleical Church, which interprets Scripture as their prime source of authority.

Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.

Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.

Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...

Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...