In the modern era, there seems to be two major ways of teaching Scripture: As Oracle and as Literature. The Oracle view treats one set of Scriptures as an entirely Divine product which overrules any human contribution to the text. The Literature view is the opposite. Scriptural texts are entirely human products, and any Divine involvement (if there is such a thing) must be bracketed and excluded to truly understand them. Note that these labels are my way of quickly labeling two trends I have found in my experience as a student and teacher of Scripture and Religious Studies. I don’t know if anyone else uses these labels, but I do know that the phenomena which these labels describe occurs all the time in religious studies classrooms across the Western world.
The Oracle view seeks to establish “our” Holy Scriptures as unique texts, which God speaks uniquely through, completely unlike any other form of literature. Our Scriptures are especially different from all other forms of Spiritual Literature, which are hopelessly false and deceptive when compared with “our” true revelation. The literary problem, of course, is that “our” Scriptures are so obviously similar to other literature— from the forms and conventions of genre, to the truth and value claims made by other Scriptures— that it is impossible for the discerning mind to uphold the absolute dichotomy of “ours versus theirs”. It is just obvious to anyone who has deeply engaged Spiritual Literature across religious traditions that the literature is often similar in form and in content. And yet it is also obvious that Spiritual Literature is often diverse and confusing and context heavy: If these texts are Divine Oracles, then the Divine is not making itself clearly known or understood. And this is true not only in “our” tradition, but in all traditions.
This leads to studying Scripture as literature, in which great pains are taken to show how “our” Scriptures are just like other forms of literature in every way. There is nothing special or unique about our Scriptures, and in fact they are often derivative or redundant. Crucially, claims of Divine Revelation in these texts are methodologically excluded: They are treated as merely human products in every way. This, of course, diminishes interest in the Scriptures, and largely removes motivation to listen to what they say. Whereas in the Oracle view, Scriptures must be attended to in order to glean the truths necessary for salvation, now there is no Pearl of Great Price to find at all. Only a dead and desiccated shell. Thus it is no wonder why many feel Religious studies programs are irrelevant when they emphasize this kind of ruthless demythologization and deconstruction of all spiritual claims. If it is all bunk, it does not require a degree to find out why.
Perhaps the way out of this dilemma is to embrace a Mystical reading of Holy Scripture which emphasizes that the same Divine Source has been reaching out to humanity through culturally and historically diverse traditions and Scriptures. Then “our” Scriptures are in a similar class with “their” Scriptures, while both are fundamentally different from Secular Literature which was not intended to be Scripture, or has never been embraced by a significant community as Scripture. Scriptures come from identifiable Spiritual Traditions and communities which are long lasting and life giving, and have influenced the growth and development of entire cultures. The Sacred Texts of these Spiritual Traditions can and ought to be studied together, noting convergences and divergences, to learn to hear the Voice of that Mystical Source which speaks through them to countless generations of human seekers. Thus a Mystical approach to the study of Scripture will emphasize that something special and unique is going on in an entire category of “Spiritual Literature” which is not explicitly going on in literature that is understood as “Secular Literature”.
To put it another way: Secular Literature has two fascinating and complex “dimensions” to study. It starts with the dimension of origin, which includes the intentions of the author(s), the forms and genres used, and the cultural and historical context behind the content chosen. This leads to the dimension of reception, in which we look at the intentions of the interpreters, and the historical and cultural context behind why they interpret the texts the way they do. By understanding these two dimensions, we generate a robust and vital dialogue about the human condition. Spiritual Literature adds a third dimension: The dimension of inspiration. This third dimension does not negate the other two dimensions in any way, but stresses that there is a Mystical Depth and Transcendent Value which is trying to reveal itself through human cultural forms. This distinction also does not deny that Secular Literature could also reveal spiritual depth (as it often does implicitly). It is just that Spiritual Literature explicitly makes the claim, and/or an identifiable and long lasting community of people make the claim, that it is spiritually “inspired”, and reveals something about the Transcendent Source of Reality.
By adopting a Mystical View, and situating all Spiritual Literature together as a special class of texts through which Transcendent Value reveals itself, we can avoid the pitfalls treating the Scriptures merely as Oracle, or merely as Literature. We can provide a rationale and motivation for why these texts ought to be studied, because they disclose ideas and ideals not explicitly found in Secular Literature. We can also avoid the myopia of thinking that the Divine only speaks through the texts of one Spiritual Tradition, and if these texts are not correctly interpreted, we risk eternal retribution. This does not mean that all Spiritual Literature has to be artificially viewed as having the same value or depth, or that we must believe they are all ultimately saying “the same thing”. Due to the diverse traditions we come from and the diverse interests we have, interpreters will evaluate Spiritual Literature differently (just as we evaluate Secular fiction and non-fiction differently). At the end of our Comparative Study of Spiritual Literature, we may come to the view that one or more texts contain the most comprehensive revelation of our Transcendent Source. But this would not negate that something important is also revealed, and can be gleaned from, other texts as a kind or preparation for, or foreshadowing of, the most comprehensive revelation. Thus a Mystical View would seek to adequately account for both the human and divine dimensions of Scripture, as we adapt the strengths of the Oracle and Literature views, while avoiding their weaknesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment