It is crucial to dispel the myth that any book, the Bible included, says something all by itself. Meaning arises in the reader, not in the text; and the meaning which arises from any given text is contingent upon the context in which it is read. In the supersessionist context, which has been handed down to us by two millenia of tradition, Falwell's comments are not Biblical; more clearly, they are not Christian -- since Christianity is not reducible to the Bible (but rather, the Bible is reducible to Christianity).
When the Bible is divorced from Tradition, the full degree of erroneous exegesis is permitted; when the context-dependant nature of meaning is denied, exegesis becomes unquestionable dogma by being falsely raised to the level of divine truth.
Unfortunately, a lot of energy goes into proving just the opposite. For example, what little I've read by Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning, and not the reader.
Even taking your tack, it seems clear to me that the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale. To pick one of many numerous examples, when David ordered a census of his people, God retaliated against the people. It is fair to say that every indication we have of ancient Judeo-Christian belief is that God will punish the Israelities if they misbehave -- specifically, if they worship other gods, or sometimes if they show mercy to ordained enemies.
The movement that spawned Christianity can even be shown to be a direct product of this belief, if the early Christians are indeed linked to the Dead Sea sect.
Now, whether the position in question is Christian is fascinating. The early Christian movement seems to have been a rejection of this concept of God, and everything that goes with it -- the ceremonial and imperial artifice that was justified by this belief.
Even if so, scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief and in fact mutated so that Christians supported a position that was perfectly in line with the old belief -- that is, that God is the Lord who ordains the government (instead of being opposed to it).
So, I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above.
"I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above."
If by 'mainstream Christianity' you mean post-Reformationist thought, then I would agree with you. However, this is an entirely inappropriate definition for 'mainstream Christianity' -- given that it accounts for a minority of extant Christians and a minority of Christian history. It is probably reasonable to call this 'mainstream American Christianity.'
"Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning"
Of course fundamentalist theologians argue this. That's precisely the error I was alluding to, and precisely what causes them to endorse the erroneous and offensive beliefs in question.
"the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale."
Sure. But this seems like a non sequitur if we're considering people who are advocates of the New Covenant rather than the Old.
"scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief"
Pagels is in error on this account. She reads the early Christians in a post-Reformationist context which is entirely inappropriate to them. The divergance of symbolic and fundamentalist Christian lines did occur, but it occurred a millenium after the disputes of early Orthodoxy and Gnosticism (and the symbolic tradition has remained Christian). The Gnostic-Christian disputes were over entirely different matters.
Gotta love Falwell/Robertson's appreciation of history. 1812? I can understand that they ignore Hawaii because it wasn't officially a state yet, but what about the Civil War? How can they claim the Lord was protecting us during that bloodbath? Were they consistent, they could at least do the politically correct thing and say that 1861-65 was our punishment for slavery...
"Is there any way to demonstrate that Falwell's and Robertson's comments are NOT in line with the Bible?"
I think any discussion of evil and suffering and God's hand in it is wrong unless you quote from Job copiously. Falwell and Robertson are making the same mistakes of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in insisting that the suffering our nation went through on that day was somehow demanded by justice and God's wrath. Remember that Job was given the gift of suffering precisely because he was "blameless and upright," (1:8) not because he was being punished for some specific evil act on his own part.
Actually, I STILL see certain brands of far right fundie Xtians claiming that Lincoln was next to the antichrist for denying the states the right to secede. They blame the whole thing on him, although the conflict was brewing long before he took office. Interestingly enough, the Christians of that era came up with Bible verses on both sides of the slavery issue to support their side of it, and I STILL occasinally see really reactionary types babbling on about the "Children of Ham" and such... scary to think anyone would still condone slavery, but I've run across a few who do, because the Bible does.
In the south, there is an expression that pops up in conversation: "the war of northern aggression." I was born in Washington State and raised in Nebraska, so I was fairly mature before I heard this phrase, and it took me back.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-08-19 02:51 pm
no subject
When the Bible is divorced from Tradition, the full degree of erroneous exegesis is permitted; when the context-dependant nature of meaning is denied, exegesis becomes unquestionable dogma by being falsely raised to the level of divine truth.
no subject
Unfortunately, a lot of energy goes into proving just the opposite. For example, what little I've read by Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning, and not the reader.
Even taking your tack, it seems clear to me that the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale. To pick one of many numerous examples, when David ordered a census of his people, God retaliated against the people. It is fair to say that every indication we have of ancient Judeo-Christian belief is that God will punish the Israelities if they misbehave -- specifically, if they worship other gods, or sometimes if they show mercy to ordained enemies.
The movement that spawned Christianity can even be shown to be a direct product of this belief, if the early Christians are indeed linked to the Dead Sea sect.
Now, whether the position in question is Christian is fascinating. The early Christian movement seems to have been a rejection of this concept of God, and everything that goes with it -- the ceremonial and imperial artifice that was justified by this belief.
Even if so, scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief and in fact mutated so that Christians supported a position that was perfectly in line with the old belief -- that is, that God is the Lord who ordains the government (instead of being opposed to it).
So, I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above.
no subject
If by 'mainstream Christianity' you mean post-Reformationist thought, then I would agree with you. However, this is an entirely inappropriate definition for 'mainstream Christianity' -- given that it accounts for a minority of extant Christians and a minority of Christian history. It is probably reasonable to call this 'mainstream American Christianity.'
"Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning"
Of course fundamentalist theologians argue this. That's precisely the error I was alluding to, and precisely what causes them to endorse the erroneous and offensive beliefs in question.
"the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale."
Sure. But this seems like a non sequitur if we're considering people who are advocates of the New Covenant rather than the Old.
"scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief"
Pagels is in error on this account. She reads the early Christians in a post-Reformationist context which is entirely inappropriate to them. The divergance of symbolic and fundamentalist Christian lines did occur, but it occurred a millenium after the disputes of early Orthodoxy and Gnosticism (and the symbolic tradition has remained Christian). The Gnostic-Christian disputes were over entirely different matters.
no subject
"Is there any way to demonstrate that Falwell's and Robertson's comments are NOT in line with the Bible?"
I think any discussion of evil and suffering and God's hand in it is wrong unless you quote from Job copiously. Falwell and Robertson are making the same mistakes of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in insisting that the suffering our nation went through on that day was somehow demanded by justice and God's wrath. Remember that Job was given the gift of suffering precisely because he was "blameless and upright," (1:8) not because he was being punished for some specific evil act on his own part.
no subject
Interestingly enough, the Christians of that era came up with Bible verses on both sides of the slavery issue to support their side of it, and I STILL occasinally see really reactionary types babbling on about the "Children of Ham" and such... scary to think anyone would still condone slavery, but I've run across a few who do, because the Bible does.
no subject
Those wounds are still a long way from healing.
no subject
Yeah, I've heard that phrase. I was raised in South Louisiana.