While
in the local public library recently I noticed a book on display
entitled Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's
Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins. I didn't immediately check out
the book. In fact I put it back on the shelf, left the library and
only returned to check it out the next day after a night of thinking
about what the book might have to say. I will not argue that the book
is profound, but it is thought-provoking and worth consideration by
anyone who ascribes some type of authority to the Bible.
Jenkins
starts with the fact that the Bible contains verses that describe
actions which to our modern sensibilities are reprehensible and
unacceptable. In fact, were we to encounter a description of such
actions today we would likely refer to them as genocide. He has in
mind particularly the stories of the Israelite conquest of Canaan
under the leadership of Joshua, though he does make reference and
consider other troublesome passages as well. He acknowledges that
much of our modern sensibilities, the very ones that should trouble
us when we read passages such as those in the book of Joshua, have in
fact grown out of a Judeo-Christian tradition and asks how it is
possible that we are able to tolerate the existence of such stories
in the Bible.
He
points to a few primary means of dealing with this disturbing texts.
Historically they have often been allegorized, meaning that they have
been read not essentially as factual historical documents but as
stories that depict in human activities the spiritual realities that
humans confront. For example, the battle to drive out the Canaanites
might be read as the story of each believer needing to drive out
sinful characteristics in his or her own life. These types of
readings occurred more frequently early in church history and often
seem quaint and unrealistic to modern readers.
Another
response has been to project contemporary believers into the place of
the Israelites and assigning whatever enemy they faced to the role of
the Canaanites. In this way people could justify the fight against
and even the annihilation of other ethnic groups. This response
should rightfully trouble us, but continues to hold merit in certain
circles even today. Jenkins shows how this type of reading has led to
very “unchristian” behaviors, including massacres and genocides,
perpetuated because of a particular biblical hermeneutic. Corollary
to this, the violent acts are justified by arguing that the victims
were particularly evil, unholy and a threat to the survival of
righteous people and even of humanity in general. Such a viewpoint
may also emphasize the sovereignty of God, arguing that anything God
commands cannot be wrong, therefore the annihilation of a nation or
city cannot be considered morally reprehensible when God himself has
commanded it. God must have his reasons and even when we don't fully
understand them, we must accept them.
Yet
another response has been to effectively expunge these texts, not
removing them from the canon by deletion but by neglect. This,
Jenkins argues, has occurred in most Christian churches today. He
gives the example of the Revised Common Lectionary and shows how a
reader following the readings of this lectionary would never have to
deal with the most violent passages of the Bible. A corollary to this
approach has been to pass lightly over such passages. In this way one
might continue to present the story of Joshua taking Jericho but not
really consider the full implications of the story in terms of the
eradication of an entire city or race.
Many
Christians will have difficulty accepting Jenkin's arguments because
he makes clear at the beginning of his book that he does not accept
as factually historical the stories in which the most violent texts
are found. He presents evidence for his position, evidence that will
carry weight with some and which others will reject out of hand.
However, regardless of how one views the authority and factual
historicity of the Bible, Jenkin's book raises questions that
Christians should address. Whether one accepts the story of Joshua's
conquests as factual history or not, the Christian church has
included them in its canon from the earliest years of church history
and they have formed a part of Christian theology and worldview. If
one rejects them as historical, one must still take into account
their presence within the canon and the effect they have had through
the centuries. If one accepts them as historical, then one must
wrestle with the implications for our understanding of God and his
interaction with humanity. The issues are not easily resolved and
therefore are generally avoided.
Jenkins
raises these questions at this time in part, I believe, because of
the number of voices, Christian and non-Christian, that argue that
Islam is an inherently violent religion, as demonstrated by its holy
book the Quran. Jenkins counters that the Bible in fact contains more
passages that clearly advocate and condone violence than anything
found in the Quran. Whether one accepts or rejects this, Jenkins
presents evidence and arguments that must be taken into
consideration. Jenkins also claims that, just as Christianity and
Judaism have outgrown their more violent tendencies by and large
(allowing for certain fringe groups that would continue to use such
passages as grounds for ethnic or religious violence), so there is
hope that the voices in Islam that advocate a broader, more tolerant
approach to those of different faiths, will gain the ascendancy in
Islamic interpretation. Ultimately, Jenkins says, we must remember
the context in which any holy text is written and in which it is
currently being interpreted and applied.
Jenkins
presents some suggestions for how one might read these violent
passages. He advocates, like Martin Luther, that the reader “read
cleanly,” meaning that he or she must consider whether a given
passage applies to the reader today or not. If it does, then the
reader must seek to understand how. This approach recognizes what
most believers actually practice even if they affirm the inspiration
of every word of the Bible: that some verses are applicable to the
modern reader and others are not. Jenkins quotes the medieval
scholastics, who had a rule: “Quidquid reciptur ad modum
recipientis recipitur,” which he translates into English as
roughly: “What people hear depends on who is doing the hearing.”
Jenkins also advocates reading any text within the larger context
both of the particular book and the Bible as a whole. This requires
an awareness of the context in which a particular book or story was
originally written as well as the overall purposes of the Bible.
Finally, Jenkins recommends that readers “read from below,” that
is, that we consider each story not only from the perspective of the
protagonists, the victors and the heroes, but also from the
perspective of the vanquished, the oppressed and the powerless. This
requires listening to interpretations coming from voices of those who
have been or are marginalized and not simply to those who continue to
write from positions of power, privilege and influence.
This
book troubled me. It also challenged me to think about and read the
Bible differently. I recommend it to others who want to engage with
the biblical text that is, not the one we like to think of existing:
the one that contains passages that are disturbing, even
reprehensible. If we cannot do this honestly then we cannot deal
truthfully with those who question the meaning and authority of the
Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment