Monday, March 16, 2009

Translations muddled through time


Original photo caption from facebook:
friend: "Iowa Jesus"
me: Want to come to my last supper in Iowa?
friend: Only if I can stay for the crucifixion.
me: Wasn't planning on having one of those. Was going to hit the road before the soldiers came to find me.
friend: Chicken ... no wonder you don't have any disciples.
me: Don't need them. I have you.
friend: :judas:

Dear friends,

I have been perusing the christian evangelical websites this morning (not only as a matter of practice, but to gain valuable insight into watching churches and ideologies evolve over time) and am still baffled by a few notions...

1. Being gay is a choice.
2. There are multiple levels of acceptance toward achieving "everlasting life."
3. The bible is followed specifically, except in certain regards. Each pastor/denomination makes their own decision as to what rules will be strictly followed. No one fact-checks at the church.
4. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" a quote spoken by Gandhi but referred as a Christian teaching by Christ.
5. Separation of which laws to follow in order to be a true Christian. There is not a clear delineation as to which rules, outside of the Ten Commandments, that Christians are to follow.

"Being gay is a choice" always gets me. I remember when I was back in High School and there was a clear effort toward explaining that the choice was made in following the entire lifestyle. There has been a recent shift in this understanding to the very Catholic notion of being chaste in response to your "homosexual tendencies." The thought is that you are gay, you can change that practice by understanding what it is to live a heterosexual lifestyle, while not condoning the "acts" of a homosexual lifestyle, boiling being gay to a clinical definition. This was the start to my baffled brain, but it got more interesting as I dove deeper into my theological/historical understanding of the topic...

I was having a conversation with my friend, an ex-minister from the Methodist church, and I found some peace in all of my thoughts. Since I don't want to misconstrue our original ideas, I am posting the conversation for you to read...

me: it still throws me off that people believe being gay is a choice
friend: do you think people really believe that? it doesn't make any sense
me: I think people really do believe it in the churches
friend: I think they just say that without really thinking about it. I think for most of those people, it would be more accurate for them to say they think you could choose not to engage in homosexual behavior.
like an alcoholic can choose not to drink
me: yeah, I think that is the new idea but it didn't used to be that
friend: yeah
me: it used to be that a choice was made...you consciously chose to live that 'lifestyle'
friend: you are a sinner
me: I know...and a very good sinner at that.

8 minutes pass

me: let me get this right
friend: ok
me: the Old Testament is the biblical law
friend: no
me: while the new testament was written to refute the old laws
friend: wrong again
me: good to know
friend: haha
the "OT" contains many laws, directives, etc for the life of the Jewish people ... but there are lots of other writings in it
me: yes
friend: most of the NT was written for gentiles, not Jews
gentile Christians do not keep the law of moses
they are not Jews
Jesus and his disciples were Jews, though, so they kept the law
most of it anyway
me: yes. So, modern Christians are practicing two sets of laws
friend: there are some instances in the NT where it indicates that a revision/reinterpretation of the law is in order
me: one of the original Jewish tradition and one of the gentile tradition...it is muddled
friend: no, modern Christians do not keep the law of the OT ... hell, even most modern Jews don't
only the hasidic Jews
friend: and even they don't keep all the law, because there is no temple ... without a temple there is no animal sacrifice
me: but when most laws are referenced, we move toward Leviticus and the Ten Commandments
friend:yes
Leviticus is the bulk of it
me: so, if the OT is the law that is supposed to be followed if you are a hasidic Jew, but Christian churches adopt some of these laws, that is not in accordance with the NT evolutionary response to the laws
friend: correct
and i don't know many Christians who follow the dietary restrictions of the OT
Also, there is a lot of confusion about the "sabbath day" The sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday ... and Christians do not keep the sabbath
me: yeah, well, that is true
The NT laws are, if I am correct, to follow and accept the teachings of Jesus, and to live out what has become the "Golden Rule."
friend: There is a lot of stuff beyond that, too
the epistles address the application of some of this stuff
me: of course, but the practices of evangelical Christians are based on a lot of the OT...I am finding this really interesting
friend: because they are stupid
regular people have no business reading the bible - they aren't equipped to understand it at all
you can quote me on that
me: I just might
friend: one of the problems with American evangelicalism has been that many denominations and splinter groups did not have the same standards of education for their clergy, as the mainline churches had established for many years. there are some well educated conservatives, but there are a whole lot more conservative clergy with little education than there are liberal ones
me: yes, that is true...also, there is not practicing accreditation for the schools that exist within the different denominations
friend: for example, a United Methodist minister needs to have a masters degree ... but it isn't needed for the free Methodists and Wesleyan (much more conservative denominations)
me: Some people can "preach the gospel" with a bachelor's in psychology but an internship or a fellowship with a specific denomination
friend: and in a lot of pentecostal/charismatic groups, no formal education at all was required
me: yes, and a lot of people I knew who preached in those churches had less formal biblical training than I did at my Christian Junior High
friend: yep
and whatever training and course work they have had, is very indoctrinated
me: It became a "preaching from the heart" set-up....or, as some people put it, God speaking through you, just as the bible was written
friend: the more education you get about the bible, religion, and theology, the less you know
me: Yes, the same is true for most Ph.D. students who agree that the more you learn, the less you know
If you are unwilling to look beyond the surface, the surface seems infallible
friend: so ... people who aren't educated shouldn't be trying to read the bible because they have no idea what the hell they are reading
me: I find the teachings of Jesus had everything to do with mentioning how fallible we truly were as a people. This idea that the He was sent here to help us understand what we were doing wrong. Essentially, the use of the OT should help us explain our faults v. using it to explain how we should live
friend: its all a bunch of poppycock anyways ...
first of all, you have to ask who decided what writings would be in the bible, and why ... and what did they leave out
second, even the NT writings weren't actually written until at least 100 years after Jesus' lifetime, so it is a lot of oral tradition compiled and edited before being written
me: yeah, but that is where this notion of "written by God through man" has become the answer to refute
friend: third, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of textual variations out there ... there is no single authoritative copy of any single book of the bible .. scholars have pieced it together taking bits and pieces from a variety of manuscripts
fourth, you can see the seams of editing within the text (though it is easier to spot in the original languages) .. even within a single narrative or story, for example, there are often threads taken form several sources
me: which is the way of scholarly writing
friend: read the creation narrative ... there are 2 different stories there, and the order in which god creates stuff is different
me: I agree
I tend to use the Gospels as my version of that teaching...all four have different stories of how the actual event went down
some of the Gospels contradict the others with time and place
friend: exactly...john's account of the passion has Jesus being killed on a different day
throughout most of the OT, there are at least 3 different names regularly used to refer to go
his [John's] account is more symbolic in nature, so Jesus is slaughtered as the "passover lamb" ... in the synoptic gospels, the last supper is the passover meal and Jesus is killed the next day
me: Eh, it all boils down to what you want to believe and what you can believe based on your own faith practices
friend: except people are basing their beliefs on stuff that isn't true and/or they don't understand
me: well yes, that is true. Somehow people in power encouraged others to stop questioning and follow blindly
so, we have a group of people who read the bible, question the bible without a historical context or background in translating historical documents, have a lack of education toward theological practices, and they are growing in larger numbers toward taking the lack of understanding to a political perspective or ideological front
friend: it would be like you collecting all the papers in your grandmothers house after she died - letters, newspapers, old mail, etc - and putting it all together, along with a bunch of stories you knew about her ... then passing that info along orally for about 2000 years, and then someone finally begins writing some of it down.
who the hell would understand any of it?
me: and all of this is done "in the name of" a person they have never met, the people who wrote the books never met, and a power far greater than a human could or would be able to comprehend
friend: oh yeah - you not only have to pass it along for 2000 years, but then translate it into differntr languages for people in entirely different cultures
its freakin' absurd
me: yes, so I am planning on keeping all of my gmail records in the event that some person in Japan wants to hear the story of a Christian Lesbian with a penchant for weightlifting and beer
friend: in 2000 years
me: well yes, that is, assuming that none of it would have attached a virus, been changed by an ex-girlfriend, or been taken completely out of context due to the date on the email being wrong
It's like the "date created" and the "date changed" due to someone opening the document
only someone could guess when I had originally written the document and gathered enough speculation through hints left within the document toward what time period I would have written a rant against someone I used to date
ahhh, I hope I am able to be a God one day
friend: me too
me: okay, I am posting this in my blog now


While I get to some of the above bullets in my conversation with my friend, some of them still need to be explored. As Prop 8 still looms over me, I take my biblical conversations slowly. I have never been anything but who I am. I would define myself by my Christian upbringing, who studied Taoism and Buddhism semi-extensively, has read the bible from beginning to end, and who practices a modern interpretation (taking into account a cultural historical past and a political leadership during the time of the writing of texts and manuscripts...along with an understanding that language serves to evolve and change due to those who are translating the language through time).

What I find interesting about all my conversations about religion and dogmatic structures/laws has everything to do with the credence I give to those opinions of who discuss these issues with me. If faith plays a major role in belief structures of the individual, I am talking to someone who sees their perspective as "truth". This is so personal. Just as my life, living as an openly unapologetic Dyke, my life is truth. Religion is muddled in fact, fiction, belief, feeling, passion, extraordinary faith in people, and surrender. Those statements and disclosure of the churches unwillingness to bring everyone together still baffles me if credence should be given to everyone's faith. If the teachings of Jesus were followed, everyone would be accepted for who they were or are. Where we get muddled is "my truth is different than your truth"...just as my life is different than your life.

I will continue to pursue thought toward this subject, as I believe this is the newest "holy war" going on in America. The war toward understanding is fought in muddled uncertainty toward a universal understanding, but holds truth in individual feelings, thoughts, and translations of "truth". Interesting, very interesting....

What are some of your thoughts,

Stacy

Thursday, March 12, 2009

hiatus

Dear friends,

Seasonal depression grabbed hold and I was attacked. I am slowly coming out of my complete hate for all things winter, but I am going at the pace of a one-celled amoeba.

Go to Grace the Spot to find my bits of energy.

I will be back when the sun comes out.

Stacy