I remember once being bothered by some guy's remark that he was taking the Bible "as story"--which I thought threatened to evade an absolutely crucial issue: "Is this story the truth?--or merely a fiction I happen to like?"

And now I'm slogging through NT Wright's The New Testament and the People of God. And one consideration I find compelling there is that we live in 'stories'--mental/emotional structures of intentions and outcomes--so that we make contact with physical "reality" within those structures, rather than having our stories determined by physical 'given's as people commonly assume. "... we find that human beings tell stories because this is how we perceive, and indeed relate to the world."

Normally we meet the physical world in a context where we're trying to accomplish some object, while various elements of "reality" help or hinder the effort. If we're trying to start a car, the state of the spark plugs may or may not be a physical 'fact', but we meet that fact in a process of interaction, making and testing hypotheses by trying 'this' and having 'that' happen, until we've arrived at some successful or unsuccessful outcome, and can get on to the story of our next subgoal.

But all this goes on within some larger story.

For the Jews of Jesus' time, the larger story was as follows:
1) Who are we? We are Israel, the chosen people of the creator god.

2) Where are we? We are in the holy Land, focused on the Temple, but paradoxically, we are still in exile.

3) What is wrong? We have the wrong rulers: pagans on the one hand, compromised Jews on the other, or, half-way between, Herod and his family. We are all involved in a less-than-ideal situation.

4) What is the solution? Our god must act again to give us the true sort of rule, that is, his own kingship exercised through properly appointed officials (a true priesthood; possibly a true king); and in the mean time Israel must be faithful to his covenant charter.

Of course, as Wright says, the high priests and other rulers of Israel would have rejected items 2-4, but the bulk of the nation would have more or less taken them for granted, reinforced by frequent communal services with prayers and psalms within that context.

I haven't read on to what the early Christian version of this would have been. What I've been meanwhile thinking about: What about us?

Some form of the Christian scenario served as backdrop for most of our previous 2000 years, but at some point we had people like Nietzsche observing that "God" (as a social fact in people's 'practical' lives) was "dead". And in this country, the official "American" story of triumphant capitalist-democracy getting better-&-better took its place. Among the pious, we have the AntiChristian "Jesus is going to airlift me & a few of my friends away to where we can watch the rest of you go to Hell" perversion of the story--but what about us?

It seems to me, that the core of the christian story--is that Jesus, despite the apparent failure of himself and his work, was preserved and vindicated by God, who is still in the (long, alas!) process of bringing it to fruition. This, despite my difficulties in understanding and observing it, is what must be true.

But I don't think I'm alone in finding it difficult, and my impression is that most Americans have found it literally impossible, are busy clinging to the "better-&-better" myth in a desperate attempt to fend off the "worse-and-moving-towards-unlivable" scenario we get from an unblinking look at the secular world.

What will you say?

Views: 32

Comment by Forrest Curo on 6th mo. 30, 2009 at 12:48pm
Okay, but that Sitz is basically the psychological frame in which some person's story took place... "fact" inside "story" inside "fact" inside "story"... because each fact comes to us in the journey along our plotline.

In the poet biz, you find many stories that are "true" despite making no pretense of factuality--and there are Bible stories that implicitly belong to that mode. Also there are Bible stories that blur the distinction, and stories presented as real-world events, in which falsity becomes, at best, mistaken.

But generally the Bible stories are written by people who see themselves clearly belonging within their overriding national/theological story.

And I continue to suspect that, on the whole, modern USians aren't sure whether they're playing Hamlet or Bozo--like ancient Hebrews in Egypt, wondering whether there'll be something good on the menu at Joe's Fleshpot tonight.

Is this incorrect, or simply too unkind?
Comment by Forrest Curo on 6th mo. 30, 2009 at 10:57pm
Okay, neither one of us needs an ancient source of authority to justify our beliefs in compassionate love and justice.

Where that ancient source--or any source, ancient or contemporary--comes in, is that it purports to establish the setting and basic plot line of a story in which you and I are toting spears and singing bit parts!

I'm not saying they got it all right! They are not the people I'd go to for an account of how the Solar System functions--and when they try to tell me whom I should stone for what, I have to prefer our appalling contemporary injustice system! Neither have I found their advice (or example!) on proper sexual relations appropriate for a modern social context.

But I find the universe, here & there during my life, thumping me in an attention-getting manner. I find that universe operating in a meaningful way, and I can't imagine that this is a local phenomenon, or that it just started with me!

But if the universe is causally linked by laws of mind, not physics--if the fall of a handful of coins, coded through an ancient Chinese book, connects to my psychic weather when I throw them--then the persistence of the Biblical books is not accidental either. They themselves largely fit within that world-view, insisting that this is a unified, spiritually-created world, governed by the intentions of... a god whom they frequently describe in accord with my own experience--or (allowing for cultural differences) like the 'Heaven' of the I Ching, or with Jesus' statements of what "being like God" would entail, ie giving everyone, "good" or otherwise, what they need (& when that isn't what they like, so it goes! See "getting thumped" above!)

To say that we're born, eat, sleep, toil, screw and die... Even for materialists, this is not a satisfactory story. But if we're spiritual beings--Then the existence of this Setting, and our place in it, seem to need more explanation than "We thought we'd play 'World' awhile!" It's hardly been a recreational park for most of us embodied critters!

If you are a character in this 'play'--What play is it?


You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.

You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"I'd rather encourage people to examine the Bible sympathetically than discourage them from…"
3rd day (Tue)
William F Rushby replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Instead of floundering and thrashing around to find a way to conceptualize God, Turn to the Bible…"
3rd day (Tue)
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Masculine _nouns_? A word like "Godd-ess" would imply that 'God's were normally…"
2nd day (Mon)
Patty Quinn replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"To hear God referred to in masculine nouns and pronouns feels to me like a slap in the face to the…"
2nd day (Mon)
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"It's probably best to talk about many Biblical concepts of God. What they have in common is…"
7th day (Sat)
William F Rushby replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Some Christians try to stick closely to the Biblical concept of God.  Of course, we know that…"
7th day (Sat)
Thomas Maxwell replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Yes I agree. I believe we can be fluid in our conception of our Higher Power. I love Kuan Yin but I…"
2nd month 19
Ronald Gordon updated their profile
2nd month 19

© 2021   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service