Catechism III: Q & A
“As you do not know the path of the wind,I have a hard time with many philosophical yes-or-no questions, especially when in one party’s opinion the state of one’s soul or fitness for ministry are at stake. ‘I don’t know’ and ‘that depends’ are generally the wrong answers, even if that is true. The following is part of my ongoing process of recovery from Sunday-school ‘answers’ and how I was taught to think (or not think) about what I believe. (Put your orthodox reflexes on mute momentarily and hear me out on this one . . .)
or how the body is formed in a mother's womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.” – Ecc. 11:5, NIV
“As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” – Ecc. 11:5, ESV
* * *
Hypothetical Inquisitor: Do you believe that the holy scripture, the Old and New Testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct?
Me: That depends on what you mean by ‘word,’ ‘perfect,’ ‘rule,’ ‘faith,’ ‘doctrine,’ and ‘conduct.’ I believe that ‘Word’ is not limited to verbal revelation, that the Creation and the Incarnate person of Christ also proceed from (or are) the Word. Also, I suspect that the scriptures were not dictated verbatim by God into your favorite contemporary language translation. They might actually be at least partially the result of a human process involving cultural context and literary sophistication unfamiliar to modern readers and therefore need not (and cannot) be taken as face-value literal statements in order to be rightly valued and appropriated as Truth. As there are different translations, they cannot all be equally perfect, and there are no perfect interpreters. Even the decision to take something literally (or not), or to translate a word one way rather than another, are acts of interpretation. Also, I’m not sure that the Bible was ever trying to be a ‘rule,’ and I do not understand ‘faith, doctrine, and conduct’ as separate categories.
I am committed to interacting with the Bible as a paradigmatic story for adoption into the family of Christ and participation in the Realm of God. There is a great deal of mystery involved that might not be best served by verbal definition phrased in absolutes. Faith-doctrine-conduct is a matter of identity and belonging, who you are and (most importantly) whose you are, not a regimented series of formulae to be navigated, propositions requiring assent, and a codified list of behaviors to avoid, appearances to maintain, and errors according to which we not only may but ought to look down on other people.
* * *
Does answering ‘yes’ to the above catechism question really lead to a situation in which the whole canon of scripture is forming and guiding the church? (“Something that serves to form character and guide discernment and action” would be a definition of ‘rule’ I can live with.)
One example: “See poverty? See evil? Look up, and you’ll see corruption and love of money.” Despite centuries of orthodox propagation (and enforcement) of the Faith, this recurrent theme of the Bible has hardly become paradigmatic for the way institutions and individuals going by Christ’s name approach interpretation of and engagement with reality.
In much of church tradition, the Bible is perfect, and relevant to conduct, only insofar as it is convenient for those whose social location bestows upon them, in their sovereign opinion, the exclusive and inalienable right to (and capacity for) accurate, normative interpretation of scripture. When not convenient, whole passages can be ignored, trivialized, banished to the archives, hidden under a bushel, rendered merely figurative or metaphoric, spiritualized, or otherwise explained away in deference to the highest task of much self-described ‘orthodox’ faith: the formulation and defense of Doctrine.
Historically, individuals or movements that question this arrangement are given the official seal of disapproval, assigned an epithet by which they can be summarily condemned without a hearing, and sometimes violently dispatched. The official records tend to erase public consciousness of such troublemakers when possible. If said troublemakers are not sufficiently forgettable, those whose version of history has the most political, financial, and ecclesial backing either co-opt renegade characters and ideologies to neutralize their subversive power, or they anathematize them as heretics. Naturally, histories, scripture translations, and venerable institutions endorsed by socially ensconced persons are a simple fact of the created order, divinely revealed, ordained, and appointed, and therefore free from all interests, agendas, biases, ideologies, and contextual perspectives. Any ‘alternative’ and ‘marginal’ voices that might beg to differ are obviously illegitimate.
* * *
Answer ‘no,’ and may God have mercy on your soul. Because knowing all the right answers about God and how He works is why He put us humans here in the first place. That and keeping score, making sure that prior to eternal judgment at least a degree of mercy is withheld from everyone who falls short of God’s purposes.
(Really? Where is that written?)
posted by Ingrid at 4:05 PM
3 Comments:
I probably don't disagree with any of your caveat's about the loaded meaning within the affirmation, but as I read it I don't think any of that precludes the heart of the question--will you live under the authority of scripture as though it is true? Its not about infallibility, innerrancy, or the veracity of other forms of revelation. Its about having the humility to say, "I don't have the answers on my own, so I turn to the scriptures that Jesus read and believed and the teaching of his Apostles to be my guide... because I am lost without them." To me, that's what I say yes to when asked this question.
I don't think that the process of Catechism is a kind of "withholding mercy". Though a church may not accept a candidate for membership or ordination because they cannot yet affirm the authority of scripture, that does not mean the church doesn't show them mercy. In fact, it might be considered a disservice for the individual if the church does not ask the catechumenate to proclaim where they stand in relation to the scriptures. While unfortunately some churches treat it the affirmation as a way of "keeping score" of who has all the right answers, the language of the affirmation itself does not demand this. Again, its an issue of knowing your place in the created order: do you have all the answers yourself or do you rely on Jesus, the prophets, and apostles for lighting the way?
Yes, it is sadly true that many marginalized voices have been left out of the theological conversation and powers have totalized certain metanarratives to keep the poor on the fringe... but an amazing phenomenon of both scripture and the Christian tradition is that there persists a plurality of voices that have not been silenced by the best efforts of the powerful. A cursory reading of the scriptures reveals a radical sensitivity of the text towards those who suffer, and the new global expressions of Christianity reflect that. It has in fact now become the case that the person most likely to answer "no" to the question is a rich person of European dissent-- ask sisters and brothers in Africa and Asia or the urban and rural poor of our own nation and you'll hear a resounding yes! It is because those on the margins truly know that human efforts alone are inadequate to know God and live a just life-- the powerful don't know their need for God, the poor do. The poor understand, "Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few" Ecclesiastes 5.2
Thanks for the thoughts, Matt. I agree completely with the last paragraph.
I am not presuming to reject any of the tenets of orthodoxy. I am lamenting that what it means to live under the authority of scripture has historically been narrowly defined by people whose actions suggest that they are more interested in other people living under their authority than anything else. Many 'marginal' theologies and expressions of discipleship are still written off as unorthodox even though, as you say, they are saying "yes!" to the God of scripture with all of their hearts. The theology of the poor is expressed in their lives, and seldom makes it into books that any first-world affluent person going through catechism will have to study and endorse.
Emphasis on Doctrine Proper and on rote catechesis just seems to lend themselves to abuse. It's not what IS in the catechism that I have a problem with. It's what gets left out. The whole point of what I wrote is that "where they stand in relation to the scriptures" is not best diagnosed by a yes-or-no question.
Calls to mind the term "Generous Orthodoxy". Thanks for your thoughts. Its always good to be reminded that a simple "yes or no" is never really that simple :)
Post a Comment
<< Home