We have already looked at some of the New Testament texts in comparison to texts outside the Bible, including texts of other religions. Here we take a look at the New Testament as a whole, compared to the Qur'an as a whole. As a reminder, this is not a comparison at the subjective level, but a mathematical comparison of how often different words are used in the texts. So you come across issues like translations, and whether the same words (even if we allow across languages that they are the same words) really mean quite the same thing in two different cultures. Still, for a person who wants an idea how two things are alike and different, it is a place to begin.
Results
The New Testament has a shared emphasis with the Qur'an of about 35%.
The Similarities
Much of the overlap is due to the shared monotheism: "God" is the single most prevalent word in both texts, if we allow "God" and "Allah" to be considered a shared match, and if possessives (God's, Allah's) are included in that count. "Lord" is also common in both texts. The overlap also includes the involvement of God with people through his word or message, as shown in the common use of "man, people, men, faith, called, truth, earth, good, life" in both texts. Both texts keep in mind the matter of time and eternity, with both texts having "day" and "heaven" as common words (if we posit that "heavens" in the Qur'an translation used matches "heaven" in the New Testament translation used).
The Differences: New Testament keywords not emphasized in the Qur'an
From the New Testament's point of view, the New Testament's distinctive view of God is missing in the Qur'an, as the New Testament common words "Jesus, Christ, son, father, spirit" are not among the Qur'an's common words. The different view of God is a long-noticed key difference between the two faiths, and is confirmed as an objectively real difference by the relative word emphasis. The New Testament texts portray God as loving and benevolent like a father, and involved to the extent of sending his Word to live among us as human in Jesus, and participating in our life now by sending his spirit to live in his people. Other words that are uniquely emphasized in the New Testament are "love" and "holy", which are not among the important words in the Qur'an. It bears mentioning here that the Qur'an's use of "mercy" is not entirely different than the New Testament's view of "love", and the details of that is well outside the scope of this set of notes on the statistical differences in word use.
The New Testament also has more emphasis on individual people and their history, as the common words include the word "disciples" and the names Paul, Peter, and John. The New Testament has more emphasis on the setting of Jesus and his followers, with "Jews" and "Jerusalem" among the common words. It looks to its Jewish religious setting with much discussion of the role of "law". While we saw the Qur'an along with the New Testament has a prominent place for the word "life", the New Testament also contains "dead" and "death" -- which come up in several instances, whether Jesus raising people from the dead, or God raising Jesus from the dead, or the New Testament teaching that Jesus' people are joined to him in death and therefore also in God's favor and resurrection. I hope to present the differences in chart form soon, rather than turn this discussion into a catalog, where a table or graph is a more suitable presentation for some material.
The Differences: Qur'an keywords not emphasized in the New Testament
From the Qur'an's point of view, the New Testament lacks the emphasis on judgment, hell, and the last day that are so prevalent in the Qur'an, where we have a whole series of common words that are not emphasized in the New Testament. "Fear, evil, penalty, fire, reject, unbelievers, reward, judgment, punishment" each have their own emphasis as keywords in the Qur'an. The persistent focus on hell and punishment is something that has caused comment among Christians who read the Qur'an, and again is confirmed as an objectively real difference by the
relative word emphasis.
The Qur'an at time considers the role of other monotheists -- and their writings -- in its common references to "Moses" and "book". It also does have some emphasis on "mercy" -- while less prominent than the New Testament's emphasis on "love", it may be comparable in some ways. The Qur'an's view of "guidance" may also apply here. Again, I hope to present the word comparisons in chart form soon, since a table or graph is a more
suitable presentation for some material.
Showing posts with label comparative religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comparative religion. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Word Cloud: Qur'an
Allah(2803) Allah's(127) Moses(173) Pharaoh(85) account(79) angels(87) apostle(76) apostles(107) behold(194) believers(112) book(198) bring(115) brought(91) call(148) children(81) clear(145) command(89) companions(83) created(151) day(510) death(76) deeds(161) earth(406) evil(265) exalted(96) faith(232) fear(272) find(92) fire(187) follow(137) forgiveness(75) full(152) garden(75) gardens(78) gave(92) god(82) good(264) grace(78) great(76) grievous(87) guidance(122) hands(83) hearts(157) heavens(199) judgment(133) knowledge(175) land(87) leave(115) life(213) light(77) lord(935) man(207) men(364) merciful(108) mercy(162) message(114) messenger(171) nay(115) night(103) order(107) path(94) penalty(217) people(508) place(84) power(190) prayer(92) punishment(131) put(96) qur'an(80) receive(85) reject(177) rejected(98) remember(77) reward(156) righteous(108) send(86) servants(87) set(75) show(85) sign(88) signs(324) soul(95) souls(78) time(101) true(109) truth(310) turn(208) turned(78) unbelievers(172) understand(83) verily(310) wisdom(79) witness(95) women(95) word(85) work(75) world(80) worship(136) wrong(114)
Technical notes:
There were some unexpected obstacles in getting this word cloud.
- Unfortunately, the Qur'an seems to be too large for my previous free word cloud generator. This has potential to be important, since they may use different formulas to detect word frequency, for example controlling for singular/plural. I may need to re-check the new word cloud generator used here with some of my previous texts to make sure that it gives comparable results.
- From the results of this word cloud generator, I did have to clear out two-word phrases, since that is not currently in our list of things we analyze.
- The translation that I used, though done in modern times, used "King James" English. This was also preventing the word cloud generator from behaving in its normal way, since a word cloud generator will typically filter out words like "you" and "your" and "will" as not really being the most important words in the text, but have no such automatic filtering for the older equivalents like "ye" and "thy" and "wilt". Some careful searching and replacing was done to the text to modernize the language, at least for items common enough to affect the word cloud results. In this way the results were more comparable to all the other texts, which used modern English translations.
- The translation also had a large number of words in parenthetical comments, in the way that usually identifies words that are not in the original text but were instead added by the translator. There were a surprising number of such parenthetical words, enough that it would be worthwhile to repeat the exercise with a different translation.
- There were some instances where the text contained abbrevations (such as "a.l.m" for "Alif la mem"). This could potentially throw off the word counts, though it does not occur often enough to throw off the results by much.
- The text used in the current analysis does not include the invocation that the website printed at the top of each surah ("In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful") because that phrase was presented as distinct from the regular text of the surah. That is to say, it was set apart in a separate typeface and a different color, and was above the first numbered verse of each surah. For that reason the invocation was not included as part of the text that was analyzed. I think the text might best be analyzed both with and without the invocation as part of the official text, to see the difference. When given two options, I generally like to see them both. The invocation has only a few words that are not routinely screened out by the analysis filters (name, Allah, most, gracious, merciful), and "Allah" was already the most-common keyword. While I favor more analysis, this current decision would not affect the most-common keyword.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Gospels, the Tao, and the Analects: Comparison
There are many reasons we might want to compare two documents to see how much they cover the same material. We have looked at the Biblical gospels in comparison to each other, and to one of Paul's letters. We have compared the combined gospels to the Torah. We have looked at how the Biblical gospels compare to a Gnostic Gospel. Here we take it to the next step: What do we see when we compare the gospels to the texts of other religions?
While I eventually want to analyze far more texts than these, I started by comparing two Biblical gospels (Mark and John) to two eastern texts (the Tao Te Ching and the Analects of Confucius). Full disclosure: I'm fond of both the Tao and the Analects, and am starting here because I am glad for a chance to re-read them and review them again. I considered writing up the comparisons separately for the Analects and the Tao, but there is more that comes to light when the comparisons are reviewed side-by-side.
Summary of Results
First, comparisons of two Gospels and the Tao
Gospel of Mark and the Tao: 7% shared emphasis (or 10% if "teachers" and "sages" are matched)
Gospel of John and the Tao: 9%
Next, comparisons of two Gospels and the Analects
Gospel of Mark and the Analects: 22% shared emphasis
Gospel of John and the Analects: 18% shared emphasis
For those interested, comparison of the Tao with the Analects:
16% shared emphasis, or 20% if "Master" and "sages" are matched.
Details
The Gospels and the Tao have so low a match that it barely registers. The match between Mark and the Tao is the result of only 5/48 words from Mark's keywords list: people, teachers, things, called, and heaven. Again, the match between John and the Tao is the result of only 5/44 words from John's keywords list: world, life, things, people, called. We may know that both are on the general topic of teaching people about life, the world, and heaven -- a very high-level, summarized type of common ground.
The Analects, on the other hand, have a noticeably higher match. For Mark and the Analects, there are 9/48 words matched: man, asked, people, replied, things, heard, called, heaven, others. For John and the Analects, there are 9/44 words matched: man, asked, love, replied, heard, things, people, speak, called.
So the reason the Analects is more similar to the Biblical gospels is mainly from the basic framework of the documents: the Analects, like the gospels, narrate someone's teachings through their conversations with others. I would wonder whether there would be a similar patten found for any writings that record dialogue-style conversations, especially teachings.
For "called", it should be mentioned that a word may have more than one meaning, and a next-generation version of this tool would eventually need to take that into account. A disciple may be "called" by Jesus, and an act may be "called" virtuous, without "called" really meaning the same thing. That is to say, this version of the tool may slightly miss its estimate since it does not have that kind of precision yet.
For a little more perspective, when we compare the Tao to the Analects, we find 8/50 keywords matched: people, virtue, called, things, heaven, wish, state, words. If we consider "sages" and "Master" as a match -- which is debatable -- that would be 9/50 keywords matched.
The Tao and Analects share some things with each other that they do not share with Mark or John. To take one example, they share an emphasis on "virtue". Anyone who has read the gospels knows that human "virtue" is found under different words; it is not necessarily easy to say which is the closest match. Do we compare the call to be "righteous" or "perfect" or "holy"? Or do we note that the gospels take a different approach from discussing the hypothetical man of virtue? These are not questions I will pretend to answer in a mathematical analysis of word frequencies. There are some kinds of questions that the mathematical analysis may answer; for others, it simply brings to our attention other areas that deserve a look.
The Tao and the Analects were written in different languages than the Biblical gospels; the comparisons have all been done from English translations. (Beyond that, they also came from different cultures and were speaking to different contexts.) I don't apologize for comparing them in English since eventually we have to find a common platform on which to compare them. Part of the job will be to keep that common platform from distorting the picture, no matter which common platform is chosen. The original languages and cultures will need to remain part of the picture.
While I eventually want to analyze far more texts than these, I started by comparing two Biblical gospels (Mark and John) to two eastern texts (the Tao Te Ching and the Analects of Confucius). Full disclosure: I'm fond of both the Tao and the Analects, and am starting here because I am glad for a chance to re-read them and review them again. I considered writing up the comparisons separately for the Analects and the Tao, but there is more that comes to light when the comparisons are reviewed side-by-side.
Summary of Results
First, comparisons of two Gospels and the Tao
Gospel of Mark and the Tao: 7% shared emphasis (or 10% if "teachers" and "sages" are matched)
Gospel of John and the Tao: 9%
Next, comparisons of two Gospels and the Analects
Gospel of Mark and the Analects: 22% shared emphasis
Gospel of John and the Analects: 18% shared emphasis
For those interested, comparison of the Tao with the Analects:
16% shared emphasis, or 20% if "Master" and "sages" are matched.
Details
The Gospels and the Tao have so low a match that it barely registers. The match between Mark and the Tao is the result of only 5/48 words from Mark's keywords list: people, teachers, things, called, and heaven. Again, the match between John and the Tao is the result of only 5/44 words from John's keywords list: world, life, things, people, called. We may know that both are on the general topic of teaching people about life, the world, and heaven -- a very high-level, summarized type of common ground.
The Analects, on the other hand, have a noticeably higher match. For Mark and the Analects, there are 9/48 words matched: man, asked, people, replied, things, heard, called, heaven, others. For John and the Analects, there are 9/44 words matched: man, asked, love, replied, heard, things, people, speak, called.
So the reason the Analects is more similar to the Biblical gospels is mainly from the basic framework of the documents: the Analects, like the gospels, narrate someone's teachings through their conversations with others. I would wonder whether there would be a similar patten found for any writings that record dialogue-style conversations, especially teachings.
For "called", it should be mentioned that a word may have more than one meaning, and a next-generation version of this tool would eventually need to take that into account. A disciple may be "called" by Jesus, and an act may be "called" virtuous, without "called" really meaning the same thing. That is to say, this version of the tool may slightly miss its estimate since it does not have that kind of precision yet.
For a little more perspective, when we compare the Tao to the Analects, we find 8/50 keywords matched: people, virtue, called, things, heaven, wish, state, words. If we consider "sages" and "Master" as a match -- which is debatable -- that would be 9/50 keywords matched.
The Tao and Analects share some things with each other that they do not share with Mark or John. To take one example, they share an emphasis on "virtue". Anyone who has read the gospels knows that human "virtue" is found under different words; it is not necessarily easy to say which is the closest match. Do we compare the call to be "righteous" or "perfect" or "holy"? Or do we note that the gospels take a different approach from discussing the hypothetical man of virtue? These are not questions I will pretend to answer in a mathematical analysis of word frequencies. There are some kinds of questions that the mathematical analysis may answer; for others, it simply brings to our attention other areas that deserve a look.
The Tao and the Analects were written in different languages than the Biblical gospels; the comparisons have all been done from English translations. (Beyond that, they also came from different cultures and were speaking to different contexts.) I don't apologize for comparing them in English since eventually we have to find a common platform on which to compare them. Part of the job will be to keep that common platform from distorting the picture, no matter which common platform is chosen. The original languages and cultures will need to remain part of the picture.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Word Cloud: Analects of Confucius
ability (15) able (19) according (18) anxious (17) asked (102) away (16) called (35) carry (21) case (18) ceremonies (17) ch'i (16) ch'ih (18) ch'iu (22) change (18) chau (18) chi (25) chief (23) conduct (33) confucius (74) country (20) court (18) dare (16) disciples (21) done (18) duke (33) duties (18) employ (20) equal (17) family (32) father (19) faults (17) filial (17) follow (18) friends (16) give (25) government (54) heard (40) heaven (29) hold (19) hui (19) indeed (32) instructed (15) keep (24) knowledge (20) knows (18) kwan (16) lead (16) learning (42) love (37) lu (17) man (237) master (526) mind (18) minister (19) mourning (17) music (29) nothing (22) office (40) others (37) people (96) perfect (26) person (19) philosopher (17) practice (34) present (23) prince (46) principles (32) proper (18) propriety (52) regard (16) replied (57) retired (19) rules (34) sacrifice (17) saying (46) sincere (29) son (20) speak (30) stand (18) state (45) superior (95) talents (15) things (52) think (23) truth (17) tsang (24) tsze-chang (24) tsze-hsia (25) tsze-kung (49) tsze-lu (49) virtue (106) virtuous (39) wan (16) wish (44) words (46) years (25) yen (26) yu (56) yuan (17) zan (18)
created at TagCrowd.com
Sunday, January 22, 2012
"People take different roads" in spirituality
It's good for anyone to be able to look at what their critics are saying, to weigh whether the criticism has merit, and to explain their thoughts clearly. So as an exercise, I saw this saying this weekend attributed to the Dalai Lama, and thought it would be good to take a look at it:
Towards the end of this post I've put more detailed thoughts -- which were written first but are lengthy. Not everyone will care to read that much detail. But here I did want to offer possibilities of how to explain Jesus' way better in ways that are quick and to the point.
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #4
More detailed thoughts are below. For those who stop here: Let me know how you'd respond.
I should mention from the outset that I haven't verified whether the quote actually comes from the Dalai Lama.
The first step in looking at this quote is to see it for what it is, and how it fits in the existing conversation between people of different faiths. The words chosen about "different roads" and "lost" suggest that he's thinking about Christianity and Jesus. Even if he firmly believes that the same applies to all faiths, still the words seem specifically selected to address Christianity first and foremost. In particular, the wording seems to be chosen to disagree with Jesus' call "Follow me", his claim of being "the way, the truth, the light" -- that "nobody comes to the Father but through me", and how he has come to seek and save the "lost". If this is the intended meaning, then the quote is a claim that Jesus' teaching is false or meaningless. The original quote above seems intended as a rebuke to any Christian who would stand by Jesus' claims to uniqueness, and to evaluate Jesus' claims not in terms of truth or goodness, but in terms of whether someone could find a way to be happy somewhere else.
Look at how the goal of life is portrayed in that saying: "seeking fulfillment and happiness." It speaks of fulfillment and happiness as if they are goals in themselves, and that they might be attained in any number of ways. It implies that our own feelings of fulfillment and happiness are the goal of our spiritual path; there is no recognition of God, no recognition that fellowship with God, reunion with God, reconciliation with our neighbors -- that these have a necessary and unmovable part in the kind of "fulfillment and happiness" that is meaningful and lasting.
Look at how the idea of "one true path" is portrayed in that saying. The way of following Jesus is not here portrayed as Jesus himself, but as "your road" -- a private thing, not something belonging to the whole world or all of creation. The saying is meant to claim the equal validity of all paths -- and to characterize those who say there is one path as narrow, arrogant, and prideful. It seems meant to silence those who teach that Jesus really is the Messiah, the world-wide ruler ordained by God the Father to bring peace to the nations. In silencing and ignoring Jesus, it silences and ignores the hope he brings.
I'm sure the reader will have noticed that the original saying does not recognize or acknowledge God's existence, and turns all spirituality into a private matter without basis in reality. The only measure that it recognizes is human emotion, specifically "fulfillment and happiness".
I've mentioned before in some detail ways in which Jesus is unique, from the unmatched power and beauty of his teachings, to his credible knowledge of the end of all things, to his resurrection from the dead. So I will not trouble myself too much right here with explaining again all the ways in which Jesus is unique. It is important for us to know how to answer when people claim that Jesus' uniqueness is a private or personal opinion rather than a demonstrated and beautiful truth. The question here is: Once we have seen Jesus' uniqueness, can we explain it to other people in such a way that their minds will be open to hearing? The appeal to "different paths" often means "my mind is closed to Jesus."
Jesus' greatness is apparent to those who read the accounts of his life. Jesus' greatness is seen as a threat by those who would like a Jesus-free spirituality. But how do you justify avoiding something despite its greatness? It can't be done; it is clearly narrow-minded, shallow, and petty. Still there are some who want a way to ignore Jesus or make him irrelevant. The simplest way to do that is to characterize the people proclaiming his greatness as intrusive meddlers who are themselves the petty and narrow-minded ones.
Can we find a way to explain so that other people will be open to hearing? In some cases that will depend on the hearer; some people, in taking up a saying like that quoted above, intend only to get rid of Jesus from their religion, to stake a claim that a Jesus-free spirituality is just as valid as following Jesus. So the above are my thoughts on how we might explain our thoughts, and how we may correct how our thoughts are mischaracterized by that original saying.
So what would you say in response?
People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness.
Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost. (attributed to the Dalai Lama)
Towards the end of this post I've put more detailed thoughts -- which were written first but are lengthy. Not everyone will care to read that much detail. But here I did want to offer possibilities of how to explain Jesus' way better in ways that are quick and to the point.
Option #1
Different roads lead to different places.
If the path you are on does not lead to reunion with God, then you are lost, and the happiness and fulfillment you find apart from that will not last.
Option #2
If people are not following Jesus, they are not on the road to where Jesus is.
The other spiritual leaders of past ages are in their graves; Jesus rose from the dead.
See for yourself whether all paths lead to the same place.
Option #3
There is no such thing as a great truth that it is good to ignore.
There is no such thing as a great philosophy that avoids great truth.
There is no such thing as a great spirituality that ignores Jesus.
Option #4
If we strive for right speech then we avoid wrong speech.
If we strive for right action then we avoid wrong action.
If we strive for the right road then we avoid the wrong road, and those on the wrong road are lost.
More detailed thoughts are below. For those who stop here: Let me know how you'd respond.
I should mention from the outset that I haven't verified whether the quote actually comes from the Dalai Lama.
The first step in looking at this quote is to see it for what it is, and how it fits in the existing conversation between people of different faiths. The words chosen about "different roads" and "lost" suggest that he's thinking about Christianity and Jesus. Even if he firmly believes that the same applies to all faiths, still the words seem specifically selected to address Christianity first and foremost. In particular, the wording seems to be chosen to disagree with Jesus' call "Follow me", his claim of being "the way, the truth, the light" -- that "nobody comes to the Father but through me", and how he has come to seek and save the "lost". If this is the intended meaning, then the quote is a claim that Jesus' teaching is false or meaningless. The original quote above seems intended as a rebuke to any Christian who would stand by Jesus' claims to uniqueness, and to evaluate Jesus' claims not in terms of truth or goodness, but in terms of whether someone could find a way to be happy somewhere else.
Look at how the goal of life is portrayed in that saying: "seeking fulfillment and happiness." It speaks of fulfillment and happiness as if they are goals in themselves, and that they might be attained in any number of ways. It implies that our own feelings of fulfillment and happiness are the goal of our spiritual path; there is no recognition of God, no recognition that fellowship with God, reunion with God, reconciliation with our neighbors -- that these have a necessary and unmovable part in the kind of "fulfillment and happiness" that is meaningful and lasting.
Look at how the idea of "one true path" is portrayed in that saying. The way of following Jesus is not here portrayed as Jesus himself, but as "your road" -- a private thing, not something belonging to the whole world or all of creation. The saying is meant to claim the equal validity of all paths -- and to characterize those who say there is one path as narrow, arrogant, and prideful. It seems meant to silence those who teach that Jesus really is the Messiah, the world-wide ruler ordained by God the Father to bring peace to the nations. In silencing and ignoring Jesus, it silences and ignores the hope he brings.
I'm sure the reader will have noticed that the original saying does not recognize or acknowledge God's existence, and turns all spirituality into a private matter without basis in reality. The only measure that it recognizes is human emotion, specifically "fulfillment and happiness".
I've mentioned before in some detail ways in which Jesus is unique, from the unmatched power and beauty of his teachings, to his credible knowledge of the end of all things, to his resurrection from the dead. So I will not trouble myself too much right here with explaining again all the ways in which Jesus is unique. It is important for us to know how to answer when people claim that Jesus' uniqueness is a private or personal opinion rather than a demonstrated and beautiful truth. The question here is: Once we have seen Jesus' uniqueness, can we explain it to other people in such a way that their minds will be open to hearing? The appeal to "different paths" often means "my mind is closed to Jesus."
Jesus' greatness is apparent to those who read the accounts of his life. Jesus' greatness is seen as a threat by those who would like a Jesus-free spirituality. But how do you justify avoiding something despite its greatness? It can't be done; it is clearly narrow-minded, shallow, and petty. Still there are some who want a way to ignore Jesus or make him irrelevant. The simplest way to do that is to characterize the people proclaiming his greatness as intrusive meddlers who are themselves the petty and narrow-minded ones.
Can we find a way to explain so that other people will be open to hearing? In some cases that will depend on the hearer; some people, in taking up a saying like that quoted above, intend only to get rid of Jesus from their religion, to stake a claim that a Jesus-free spirituality is just as valid as following Jesus. So the above are my thoughts on how we might explain our thoughts, and how we may correct how our thoughts are mischaracterized by that original saying.
So what would you say in response?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The image of God and Losing face
In some Eastern cultures, a more natural way to speak of ideas like sin and guilt and shame is with the language of "losing face." The moral character, dignity, or integrity of a person, their image, is one way to speak about how a person's good character is related to their acceptance.
We use similar ideas here when someone loses their reputation: we say their image is tarnished. "Image" and "face" are closely related in meaning. The Bible speaks in terms of "image" fairly often; I expect the better Bible translations into Chinese may take some of these passages about "image" and speak of "losing face" and related ideas about it being granted, saved, or restored.
There is a work that Jesus does particularly for those who have lost face. The prophet Isaiah speaks of Jesus himself becoming like a person who is avoided, where people hide their faces from him -- someone considered evil and immoral. The prophecy spoke of Jesus as "disfigured", his face marred (Isaiah 52:13), being despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:3), a man of sorrows who was acquainted with grief. But it was our sorrow, our grief, our shame that he carried, so that he might reach out to those who had lost acceptance, even through their own fault.
Here again we see how Paul explained what Jesus has done for us, for all the times when we have lost that character which God had intended for us:
Paul explains that this image of God comes to us, first of all, through Christ, whom he calls
Paul speaks of our renewal as a kind of reprise of creation, comparing Christ, the "heavenly man", to the first man or "earthly man":
God is all about restoration, making things whole, and pure, and new again. No loss is beyond his power to restore.
We use similar ideas here when someone loses their reputation: we say their image is tarnished. "Image" and "face" are closely related in meaning. The Bible speaks in terms of "image" fairly often; I expect the better Bible translations into Chinese may take some of these passages about "image" and speak of "losing face" and related ideas about it being granted, saved, or restored.
There is a work that Jesus does particularly for those who have lost face. The prophet Isaiah speaks of Jesus himself becoming like a person who is avoided, where people hide their faces from him -- someone considered evil and immoral. The prophecy spoke of Jesus as "disfigured", his face marred (Isaiah 52:13), being despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:3), a man of sorrows who was acquainted with grief. But it was our sorrow, our grief, our shame that he carried, so that he might reach out to those who had lost acceptance, even through their own fault.
Here again we see how Paul explained what Jesus has done for us, for all the times when we have lost that character which God had intended for us:
You have taken off the old man with his acts and have put on the new, being renewed in knowledge after the image of him who created him. (Col 3:10)
Paul explains that this image of God comes to us, first of all, through Christ, whom he calls
the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him were all things created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible. (Col 1:15)
Paul speaks of our renewal as a kind of reprise of creation, comparing Christ, the "heavenly man", to the first man or "earthly man":
As we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man. (I Cor 15:49)
God is all about restoration, making things whole, and pure, and new again. No loss is beyond his power to restore.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Awareness of world religions: The Quiz
Here is a quiz about world religions -- specifically, about the lives and sayings of their founders, and the earliest followers' understanding of their mission. I'd really like to see people take a crack at this.
By the way, I have no intention of scoring anyone who answers, even though as the one who picked the questions, I do happen to know the answers. I figure anybody could ace a test if they got to pick the questions, so I won't use the quiz that way at all. But if you find yourself curious, please take a shot at it.
Here's how the quiz works: I have listed some things about various religions that are important either for understanding the life and character of their founder --or-- that are easily misunderstood and can be used to mis-represent the life and character of the founder. I've also added a few items about the early followers and their understanding of the founder. I believe that all of the answers about the founders can be verified in the official recognized source materials of each religion, though some of the "early follower" questions lead to wider reading in the early history of each faith. There may be more than one answer for a founder in the same category -- for example, the same person may have said more than one objectionable thing. Occasionally an answer will apply to more than one person, though that is rare. And there are a few "red herring" items that don't actually apply to anyone on the list. So for each, please answer:
B = Buddha
J = Jesus
M = Mohammed
N = None of the above
I know this is something off of the usual subject matter of this blog, but I am very curious which things are general knowledge and which are not. So if you're as curious as I am, I'd be glad to hear your response -- as much as you're willing to share.
By the way, I have no intention of scoring anyone who answers, even though as the one who picked the questions, I do happen to know the answers. I figure anybody could ace a test if they got to pick the questions, so I won't use the quiz that way at all. But if you find yourself curious, please take a shot at it.
Here's how the quiz works: I have listed some things about various religions that are important either for understanding the life and character of their founder --or-- that are easily misunderstood and can be used to mis-represent the life and character of the founder. I've also added a few items about the early followers and their understanding of the founder. I believe that all of the answers about the founders can be verified in the official recognized source materials of each religion, though some of the "early follower" questions lead to wider reading in the early history of each faith. There may be more than one answer for a founder in the same category -- for example, the same person may have said more than one objectionable thing. Occasionally an answer will apply to more than one person, though that is rare. And there are a few "red herring" items that don't actually apply to anyone on the list. So for each, please answer:
B = Buddha
J = Jesus
M = Mohammed
N = None of the above
- Abandoned a wife and child
- Compared a woman who sought his help to a dog
- Defied the Temple authorities in the Temple
- Died of exposure in the desert after a pilgrimage
- Died peacefully of old age
- Early followers admired their leaders for conquering neighboring nations
- Early followers admired their leaders for their boldness in proclaiming good news, sometimes suffering torture, imprisonment, or death
- Executed as a criminal for treason and/or blasphemy
- Extreme ascetic practices affected his health
- Followers' mission: Bringing the world into submission to God, and, where the people are receptive, to do so peacefully
- Followers' mission: Condemning polytheism, including Trinitarianism
- Followers' mission: Proclaiming forgiveness to the world, preaching cleansing and rebirth
- Followers' mission: Seeking enlightenment, following the right path
- Got financial support from donations from supporters
- Got financial support from holding hostages for ransom
- Got financial support from raiding and looting / plundering
- Got financial support from working as a tentmaker
- Ordered the torture of a man who hid treasure from him and his army
- Ordered the assassinations of his critics
- Said that his followers must hate their father and mother and follow him
- Spoke of a future when his followers would succeed in armed conquests of other nations
- Vowed to mutilate 30 of his enemies
- Was executed as a criminal for treason and/or blasphemy
- Was poisoned by a woman he had enslaved
I know this is something off of the usual subject matter of this blog, but I am very curious which things are general knowledge and which are not. So if you're as curious as I am, I'd be glad to hear your response -- as much as you're willing to share.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Awareness of world religions
All restaurants are the same. You pay money, you get food. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between Olive Garden and McDonald's and Popeye's; it just means that to qualify as a "restaurant" you have to be doing the same kind of thing.
All books are the same. They have bindings and pages. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between A Tale of Two Cities and Where the Wild Things Are and Harry Potter; it just means there are certain things that qualify an object as a "book".
All religions are the same. You find out what can be known about the big picture of life, the universe, and everything, and about being a good person within it. Most people I've known underestimate the differences among the various religions, often to an amazing degree. "All religions are the same" is a mantra generally spoken by those who do not know much about any of them, much like "All books are the same" is not something you would hear from someone who spent any amount of time reading. We have book and movie critics attuned to the fine differences in kind and quality in their field of expertise; it's a shame we (or the media folks) take books and movies so much more seriously than religion.
Recently I saw the results of a study where various people had been asked various questions about religion and scored on the results. The write-up I saw was analyzing which groups did better than others on questions about world religions or about Judaism and Christianity. But the two things that struck me most about the results were these:
I'd like to conduct a brief survey of my own here. I'll post it separately so people don't have to read this introduction unless they happen to want to. But it will focus not on the names of holidays or the names of theologians, but on the original teachings of the original founder / hero of the faith. I'll focus on major world religions with a recognizable human founder and focus on one question: What do we, as people of our day and culture, actually know about the founders of the major world religions?
All books are the same. They have bindings and pages. But that doesn't mean there's no difference between A Tale of Two Cities and Where the Wild Things Are and Harry Potter; it just means there are certain things that qualify an object as a "book".
All religions are the same. You find out what can be known about the big picture of life, the universe, and everything, and about being a good person within it. Most people I've known underestimate the differences among the various religions, often to an amazing degree. "All religions are the same" is a mantra generally spoken by those who do not know much about any of them, much like "All books are the same" is not something you would hear from someone who spent any amount of time reading. We have book and movie critics attuned to the fine differences in kind and quality in their field of expertise; it's a shame we (or the media folks) take books and movies so much more seriously than religion.
Recently I saw the results of a study where various people had been asked various questions about religion and scored on the results. The write-up I saw was analyzing which groups did better than others on questions about world religions or about Judaism and Christianity. But the two things that struck me most about the results were these:
- Most of the scores for all groups were failing scores; it was just varying degrees of dismal
- Many of the questions were superficial, for example "Name that holiday"
I'd like to conduct a brief survey of my own here. I'll post it separately so people don't have to read this introduction unless they happen to want to. But it will focus not on the names of holidays or the names of theologians, but on the original teachings of the original founder / hero of the faith. I'll focus on major world religions with a recognizable human founder and focus on one question: What do we, as people of our day and culture, actually know about the founders of the major world religions?
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Confirmation day and my niece's bat mitzvah
Today was confirmation day at our church. We had a good sized confirmation class this year. They seemed bright. They could articulate their faith.
But it's only been a few months since my niece's bat mitzvah. And again, much like the year of my nephew's bar mitzvah, I couldn't help but notice a few differences in the way the two congregations approach a youth's coming of age. For my niece and nephew, it was the day they first wore the tallit, the prayer shawl -- and all that comes with that. But just a quick note on the shawl before the more important part about what comes with it.
Every time I look at a Jewish prayer shawl, I can see an inheritance of our Christian faith from its Jewish roots -- because I see a prayer shawl every week in Christian worship. Most Christians would also think a prayer shawl looked familiar -- any Christian who has ever been to worship in a church that is rooted in the ancient traditions: the priest or pastor or minister still wears one. Though we call it by a different name, the pastor's stole is still recognizably based on the Jewish tallit. It even still has the trailing tassels inherited from Judaism: "Throughout the generations to come, you are to make tassels on the corners of one's garments ..." (Numbers 15:38) Apparently it passed into Christian practice back in the days of the apostles when the leaders of all the earliest Christian churches were Jewish.
But more important than the prayer shawl was what came with it. In the synagogue, it wasn't just the rabbi who wore the prayer shawl. Being a conservative synagogue, everyone both male and female past the age of bar mitzah/bat mitzvah wore the shawl. You may think, "Well, it's just not a sign of leadership, then." Actually, it is. On the day my niece took up her shawl for the first time, she led the services. She led the prayers. She read the readings. She led the songs. She gave the sermon. Now don't get me wrong -- Billy Graham's reputation as an articulate speaker was not in any danger from her, or from my nephew before her. But when she came of age, it came with leadership responsibility. Every adult member of that congregation not only can lead services if needed, but in fact has already done so at least once. (Well, twice if you count the Friday evening and Saturday morning services separately.) It's part of being an adult member of the congregation. That level of leadership, at a minimum, is expected of everyone. So it's not that you look out on a congregation full of shawls and think, "Well, it means nothing; everybody is wearing them." Instead, it means, "Every last one of them is capable of leading, in a pinch." That's something to be proud of.
People generally rise to our expectations of them. In our churches, we do the youth no favors by setting low expectations.
As for our confirmands of 2010: Other than the confirmation itself when they were received as adult members, their participation in the service was limited. They did not lead the services. They did not lead the prayers. They did not lead the songs. They did not read any of the Scripture readings. They did not give a sermon. And they joined a congregation in which leadership is not expected of its people.
There are many things we have known and claimed of our Jewish heritage. I believe that here is another inheritance for us to claim: training all of our members to lead.
But it's only been a few months since my niece's bat mitzvah. And again, much like the year of my nephew's bar mitzvah, I couldn't help but notice a few differences in the way the two congregations approach a youth's coming of age. For my niece and nephew, it was the day they first wore the tallit, the prayer shawl -- and all that comes with that. But just a quick note on the shawl before the more important part about what comes with it.
Every time I look at a Jewish prayer shawl, I can see an inheritance of our Christian faith from its Jewish roots -- because I see a prayer shawl every week in Christian worship. Most Christians would also think a prayer shawl looked familiar -- any Christian who has ever been to worship in a church that is rooted in the ancient traditions: the priest or pastor or minister still wears one. Though we call it by a different name, the pastor's stole is still recognizably based on the Jewish tallit. It even still has the trailing tassels inherited from Judaism: "Throughout the generations to come, you are to make tassels on the corners of one's garments ..." (Numbers 15:38) Apparently it passed into Christian practice back in the days of the apostles when the leaders of all the earliest Christian churches were Jewish.
But more important than the prayer shawl was what came with it. In the synagogue, it wasn't just the rabbi who wore the prayer shawl. Being a conservative synagogue, everyone both male and female past the age of bar mitzah/bat mitzvah wore the shawl. You may think, "Well, it's just not a sign of leadership, then." Actually, it is. On the day my niece took up her shawl for the first time, she led the services. She led the prayers. She read the readings. She led the songs. She gave the sermon. Now don't get me wrong -- Billy Graham's reputation as an articulate speaker was not in any danger from her, or from my nephew before her. But when she came of age, it came with leadership responsibility. Every adult member of that congregation not only can lead services if needed, but in fact has already done so at least once. (Well, twice if you count the Friday evening and Saturday morning services separately.) It's part of being an adult member of the congregation. That level of leadership, at a minimum, is expected of everyone. So it's not that you look out on a congregation full of shawls and think, "Well, it means nothing; everybody is wearing them." Instead, it means, "Every last one of them is capable of leading, in a pinch." That's something to be proud of.
People generally rise to our expectations of them. In our churches, we do the youth no favors by setting low expectations.
As for our confirmands of 2010: Other than the confirmation itself when they were received as adult members, their participation in the service was limited. They did not lead the services. They did not lead the prayers. They did not lead the songs. They did not read any of the Scripture readings. They did not give a sermon. And they joined a congregation in which leadership is not expected of its people.
There are many things we have known and claimed of our Jewish heritage. I believe that here is another inheritance for us to claim: training all of our members to lead.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Admiring the Tao?
The Tao Te Ching has long been one of my favorite religious texts outside of the Bible.
In every good and true and right thing, we find common ground among cultures. Every land has had people searching for the best. The image of the clay and the potter that we saw here from the Tao Te Ching is familiar to Christians as well; we remember the Bible's image of the blessed emptiness, the holy weakness, the treasure that God keeps in jars of clay.
Some would hesitate to express unalloyed admiration for certain passages of the Tao Te Ching. Some would insist (or assume, without examining) that witnessing to Christ should involve some kind of fault-finding with someone's current beliefs. I suspect that God has called us to a better way: that witnessing involves love and redemption, making sure that nothing good is ever lost. In making sure that the good is never lost, I mean both the people and their thoughts, their existing loves and philosophies and religions. I do not think it is going too far to express unalloyed admiration for what is good in another religion. In fact, I think it is too little to merely admire a work like the Tao. Certain passages deserve more than admiration; they deserve to be owned and kept and honored as a truth that comes from the Eternal. When certain passages teach the same truths we already know, how can we not recognize a common source? How can we criticize without faulting our own? How can we oppose what is good without making ourselves enemies of the good?
Some suspect that this diminishes the truth of God or the uniqueness of Christ. If someone reacts against what I have just said from love of the truth of God, if someone's suspicion and hesitation towards this thought comes from devotion to truth of God's word and the love of God in Christ, I would hope they would hear a little more; I share a love for the truth of God's word and awe for God's love in Christ. I ask you to consider a few possibilities.
What if every culture has a memory of union with God?
What if every faith somewhere expresses this longing?
Should we start proclaiming the love of Christ by disparaging what they know? How can they trust us, if we do not even look to see what memories and longings for God they may already have, what truths they may already know? If we do not care for any beauty and goodness they may already know, how can they believe we are on the side of good?
Some, on the other hand, are satisfied to find the good in the other. I think this is too small a thing. Again, I take the Tao as a starting point: it is at many times beautiful and profound. But it gives no reason for hope in eternal life because it does not know that the Eternal is God, and that God is love. It does not know that Christ has promised to raise us up at the last day, redeeming so that the good He has made in us will not be lost but restored. The Tao may long for knowing the Eternal, but it has not dared to dream that the Eternal One loves us in such a way that He describes eternity to us as a wedding feast. Have they heard that there is rejoicing in heaven when we turn back to God? Have they heard that God loves the poor in such a way that when we feed the hungry, God counts it as service to himself? To keep the word of Christ to ourselves is to forget that it is good news, a blessing and a cause for celebration to those who understand it.
And then there is our Lord, Christ. It is not as if they did not, in a way, know how to recognize the Way when he appeared.
The Tao has a deep love of humility and compassion. There is also a recognition of the paradox between what appears powerful but is truly weak, and what appears weak but is truly powerful, what appears like disgrace but is really the highest integrity. So again, it is not enough to admire the Tao as a beautiful and profound text of another time and place, to put it in a box as if it were culturally isolated and had no connection to the eternal truths known elsewhere around the world. As if it were possible for eternal truths to be isolated from each other! Here, with the Tao, we proclaim Christ back to people in such a way that they can see he does not threaten any good they already knew, does not come to rob or take away the good but to fulfill it. So again, it is not enough to merely admire the Tao. We have to see the eternally true and good in it, and proclaim it again. Have they dreamed that the Eternal Tao would take human flesh and walk this earth?
Some would say that this approach diminishes the Tao more than any other approach possibly could. What is the good, you may ask, of acknowledging the eternal truth and goodness of the Tao, only to make that a subset of the proclamation of Christ? Is this not worse than calling it a culturally-limited text worthy of only patronizing, uncommitted admiration? The answer depends entirely on who is the Christ that is proclaimed. Is he merely a rival culture's culturally-limited sage, for whom the right reaction is a patronizing, uncommitted admiration? Or is he actually the Eternal One that the sages always sought? Is following him mere partisanship, or is it to meet the Truth that is the foundation for all truths? Our answer to that question shows whether we have any business proclaiming him. It will also, I think, change how we look at the glimpses of the eternal that we may find in other faiths.
Mix clay to create a containerWe people tend to divide into factions. When we meet someone of a different background or belief, it is a natural thing to take sides -- that is, to create divisions. It is almost a reflex to imagine every idea as a challenge to our own. A defensive reaction creates opposing sides; were they necessary or good?
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room.
(from the Tao Te Ching, chapter 11)
In every good and true and right thing, we find common ground among cultures. Every land has had people searching for the best. The image of the clay and the potter that we saw here from the Tao Te Ching is familiar to Christians as well; we remember the Bible's image of the blessed emptiness, the holy weakness, the treasure that God keeps in jars of clay.
Some would hesitate to express unalloyed admiration for certain passages of the Tao Te Ching. Some would insist (or assume, without examining) that witnessing to Christ should involve some kind of fault-finding with someone's current beliefs. I suspect that God has called us to a better way: that witnessing involves love and redemption, making sure that nothing good is ever lost. In making sure that the good is never lost, I mean both the people and their thoughts, their existing loves and philosophies and religions. I do not think it is going too far to express unalloyed admiration for what is good in another religion. In fact, I think it is too little to merely admire a work like the Tao. Certain passages deserve more than admiration; they deserve to be owned and kept and honored as a truth that comes from the Eternal. When certain passages teach the same truths we already know, how can we not recognize a common source? How can we criticize without faulting our own? How can we oppose what is good without making ourselves enemies of the good?
Some suspect that this diminishes the truth of God or the uniqueness of Christ. If someone reacts against what I have just said from love of the truth of God, if someone's suspicion and hesitation towards this thought comes from devotion to truth of God's word and the love of God in Christ, I would hope they would hear a little more; I share a love for the truth of God's word and awe for God's love in Christ. I ask you to consider a few possibilities.
What if every culture has a memory of union with God?
What if every faith somewhere expresses this longing?
Should we start proclaiming the love of Christ by disparaging what they know? How can they trust us, if we do not even look to see what memories and longings for God they may already have, what truths they may already know? If we do not care for any beauty and goodness they may already know, how can they believe we are on the side of good?
Some, on the other hand, are satisfied to find the good in the other. I think this is too small a thing. Again, I take the Tao as a starting point: it is at many times beautiful and profound. But it gives no reason for hope in eternal life because it does not know that the Eternal is God, and that God is love. It does not know that Christ has promised to raise us up at the last day, redeeming so that the good He has made in us will not be lost but restored. The Tao may long for knowing the Eternal, but it has not dared to dream that the Eternal One loves us in such a way that He describes eternity to us as a wedding feast. Have they heard that there is rejoicing in heaven when we turn back to God? Have they heard that God loves the poor in such a way that when we feed the hungry, God counts it as service to himself? To keep the word of Christ to ourselves is to forget that it is good news, a blessing and a cause for celebration to those who understand it.
And then there is our Lord, Christ. It is not as if they did not, in a way, know how to recognize the Way when he appeared.
High virtue appears like a valleyThis is not so different from what Isaiah foretold of the one who had no beauty that we should esteem him, of Christ's disgrace on the cross.
Great integrity appears like disgrace
(from the Tao Te Ching, chapter 41)
The Tao has a deep love of humility and compassion. There is also a recognition of the paradox between what appears powerful but is truly weak, and what appears weak but is truly powerful, what appears like disgrace but is really the highest integrity. So again, it is not enough to admire the Tao as a beautiful and profound text of another time and place, to put it in a box as if it were culturally isolated and had no connection to the eternal truths known elsewhere around the world. As if it were possible for eternal truths to be isolated from each other! Here, with the Tao, we proclaim Christ back to people in such a way that they can see he does not threaten any good they already knew, does not come to rob or take away the good but to fulfill it. So again, it is not enough to merely admire the Tao. We have to see the eternally true and good in it, and proclaim it again. Have they dreamed that the Eternal Tao would take human flesh and walk this earth?
Some would say that this approach diminishes the Tao more than any other approach possibly could. What is the good, you may ask, of acknowledging the eternal truth and goodness of the Tao, only to make that a subset of the proclamation of Christ? Is this not worse than calling it a culturally-limited text worthy of only patronizing, uncommitted admiration? The answer depends entirely on who is the Christ that is proclaimed. Is he merely a rival culture's culturally-limited sage, for whom the right reaction is a patronizing, uncommitted admiration? Or is he actually the Eternal One that the sages always sought? Is following him mere partisanship, or is it to meet the Truth that is the foundation for all truths? Our answer to that question shows whether we have any business proclaiming him. It will also, I think, change how we look at the glimpses of the eternal that we may find in other faiths.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Word Cloud: Tao Te Ching
One of my long-term projects is on comparative religion. This post is something of a continuation of an old series on the topic. To recap my basic approach, I hope to neither lose anything true and good regardless of where it is found, nor to force a round peg into a square hole by pretending all religions and spiritualities are the same or even fully compatible. My prior posts go into more detail on that.
Word clouds have proved a useful tool for a basic overview of the main emphases of a writing; I've used those here before for snapshots of various books of the Bible. I thought I'd break back into the topic of comparative religion with a word cloud of the Tao Te Ching.
The commentary will come later ... but for the moment, enjoy!
Word clouds have proved a useful tool for a basic overview of the main emphases of a writing; I've used those here before for snapshots of various books of the Bible. I thought I'd break back into the topic of comparative religion with a word cloud of the Tao Te Ching.
The commentary will come later ... but for the moment, enjoy!
achieve (16) act (11) action (9) alone (8) ancients (9) appears (9) attained (9) become (15) beginning (6) benefit (10) benevolence (5) called (37) clarity (7) constancy (7) contend (7) contrived (6) country (16) create (7) dare (10) death (13) desire (7) difficult (7) disgrace (6) due (8) earth (15) easy (8) empty (6) eternal (7) excessive (7) exist (6) fault (9) favor (6) fear (6) follow (14) force (6) goodness (8) governing (9) greater (7) hard (6) harm (10) harmony (7) heaven (25) hold (14) kill (9) knowing (17) knowledge (5) lacking (11) life (13) live (10) lose (10) loss (10) lower (10) meddle (7) misfortune (9) mother (7) myriad (13) mystic (7) name (10) nameless (5) nature (6) nothing (10) observe (6) obtain (8) oneness (10) others (8) overcomes (6) people (68) person (8) position (6) possess (6) produces (6) reach (6) regard (7) result (6) return (9) root (6) ruler (12) sages (32) seems (11) self (10) soft (8) sovereign (6) standard (7) state (10) stop (7) strong (8) tao (75) tasks (10) therefore (45) things (35) tranquility (6) understand (8) uses (9) valley (10) value (10) virtue (42) weapons (6) wish (13) words (10) world (60)
created at TagCrowd.com
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Song of Solomon: The benefit of its being in the canon
BK over at CADRE Comments recently quoted an old C.S. Lewis essay on which I have been meaning to comment for some time. Lewis comments that for a religion to be adequate for the world in which we live, to have any right to contend as the true religion, it must meet certain criteria: it must have mysteries and ecstasies and celebrations on the one hand, and ethics and philosophy on the other; any religion which only contains one or the other is simply inadequate to cover the whole truth of the world, regardless of whether it might get certain individual things right. This serves as a decent introduction for my comments on the Song of Solomon, one of the follow-ups I still intend to post on the topic of the canon of Scripture.
The Song of Solomon was once among the contested books of the Bible, back when the canon of Scripture was still being formed. Being a cycle of sensual poems about romantic love, some liked it for its content, some disapproved of it as less than holy, and some allegorized it.
I have heard outspoken atheists mock Christians for having such a sensual book in the Bible; they've apparently confused sexual integrity with being cold, rigid, and joyless. That is a mistake; but it is a mistake all too commonly made. More than one religious person has taken a badly wrong turn by supposing that morality was something cold, rigid, and joyless; it has given goodness and uprightness a bad name that was never deserved. One of the Bible's best-loved characters is a king who was a shepherd, a musician, a composer of songs who was known to dance in the streets. The ancient traditions hold that it was his son Solomon who composed this particular cycle of poems.
The Song of Solomon deserves its place among our holy books for its portrayal of beautiful, playful, sensual, and devoted human love. Including a book like this in the canon makes a statement on the nature of goodness. It sets the married man free to enjoy his wife's beauty in a tender way, not in the harsh and degrading tones of pornography, but in a way that is also compassionate and dignified. It shows intimate sensuality coupled with kindness and devotion, a sensuality with decorum instead of crudeness. It sets the wife free to pursue the sensuality of spices and dancing and wine, to celebrate with her husband. It recognizes and appreciates the body without losing sight of the beloved as a person; instead it appreciates the other only because the other is the beloved. There is no talk about what the beloved's body should be like; it is simply appreciated and celebrated for what it is.
What kind of religion has sensual poetry in its sacred texts? One that recognizes the value and goodness of the world as creation; one that does not think of the material world as a distraction or a mistake but a blessing; one that recognizes the right place of unrushed private moments between a husband and wife; one that values things not only for their abstract philosophy but also for their humanity. If a religion had no place for that, is it really broad and generous enough to speak to the whole range of human experience? If a religion had disowned that text, is it really glad enough and life-affirming enough -- and personal enough -- to be entrusted with directing our lives? Imagine what a cold effect would it have, and what a loss it would be, if there was no such cycle of poems in the Bible. Our own culture is one where a healthier image of the marriage relationship is much needed. Imagine the effect it would have on the lives of people in our culture if they had an ideal in which sexuality is combined with love, devotion, decorum, and kindness; where uprightness is combined with a celebration of spices and wine and delight in the other person. That is a text that can help a confused age reclaim its humanity.
The Song of Solomon was once among the contested books of the Bible, back when the canon of Scripture was still being formed. Being a cycle of sensual poems about romantic love, some liked it for its content, some disapproved of it as less than holy, and some allegorized it.
I have heard outspoken atheists mock Christians for having such a sensual book in the Bible; they've apparently confused sexual integrity with being cold, rigid, and joyless. That is a mistake; but it is a mistake all too commonly made. More than one religious person has taken a badly wrong turn by supposing that morality was something cold, rigid, and joyless; it has given goodness and uprightness a bad name that was never deserved. One of the Bible's best-loved characters is a king who was a shepherd, a musician, a composer of songs who was known to dance in the streets. The ancient traditions hold that it was his son Solomon who composed this particular cycle of poems.
The Song of Solomon deserves its place among our holy books for its portrayal of beautiful, playful, sensual, and devoted human love. Including a book like this in the canon makes a statement on the nature of goodness. It sets the married man free to enjoy his wife's beauty in a tender way, not in the harsh and degrading tones of pornography, but in a way that is also compassionate and dignified. It shows intimate sensuality coupled with kindness and devotion, a sensuality with decorum instead of crudeness. It sets the wife free to pursue the sensuality of spices and dancing and wine, to celebrate with her husband. It recognizes and appreciates the body without losing sight of the beloved as a person; instead it appreciates the other only because the other is the beloved. There is no talk about what the beloved's body should be like; it is simply appreciated and celebrated for what it is.
What kind of religion has sensual poetry in its sacred texts? One that recognizes the value and goodness of the world as creation; one that does not think of the material world as a distraction or a mistake but a blessing; one that recognizes the right place of unrushed private moments between a husband and wife; one that values things not only for their abstract philosophy but also for their humanity. If a religion had no place for that, is it really broad and generous enough to speak to the whole range of human experience? If a religion had disowned that text, is it really glad enough and life-affirming enough -- and personal enough -- to be entrusted with directing our lives? Imagine what a cold effect would it have, and what a loss it would be, if there was no such cycle of poems in the Bible. Our own culture is one where a healthier image of the marriage relationship is much needed. Imagine the effect it would have on the lives of people in our culture if they had an ideal in which sexuality is combined with love, devotion, decorum, and kindness; where uprightness is combined with a celebration of spices and wine and delight in the other person. That is a text that can help a confused age reclaim its humanity.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Beauty, the Word of God, and the nature of morality
Confucius spoke of the ideal man, one whose thoughts were moved only by the Odes, whose actions were moved only by the Odes, whose words were moved only by the Odes. The Odes can be thought of in an idealized way as an ancient poetry of primal beauty that reveals the right order of the world; this poetry, once planted in our hearts, would cause the actions to be of similarly pure beauty. Many of the Israelites considered the Torah in a similar way as a thing of exceptional beauty, and that likewise someone whose life was holy would be ordered around the Torah, moved when it moved, silent when it was silent, spoke what it spoke. As Confucius may have conceived of the Odes as a kind of Natural Law, so the Israelites thought of the Torah as an expression of Natural Law, which is to say an expression of God's character, as the beautiful law which could not be otherwise without lessening the world.
Christians recognize that archetypal Word of God as the power by which God made the world, the creative beauty which gave it shape. We recognize the same loving and creative force, the same Word of God embodied in Jesus of Nazareth; we recognize him by his embodiment as the one who was moved by the Torah, who spoke when it spoke and was silent when it was silent, who lived that life of beauty, holiness, peace, and power whose possibility was promised by the existence of the Word.
This archetype -- the Word of God which transforms us and makes us holy -- arouses great desire and longing in humanity. But so long as the Word of God was a book, or a half-forgotten Ode of surpassing beauty, it could do little more than arouse in us holy frustration. When the Word of God was embodied before our eyes as Jesus of Nazareth, we saw more clearly, remembered more completely, the hints of the things of God, things that had been half-known or half-forgotten, half-suspected or half-doubted. Beyond Jesus showing us the Word clearly, he also spoke that Word of God to us again. The Sermon on the Mount from the Blessings to the end, the sheep and the goats, the law of love, the greatest commands -- these are the ancient Word of God which set the world in order. These are the words that the listening poets have strained to catch. From creation, this is the Word of God that was spoken over the dust as we were made.
The true nature of morality, as the Living Word, the Christ, made clear, is a joyful and loving thing, reserving anger for those things that dam the River of Life and profane the Holy Name. The true essence of morality is a thing that naturally attracts us to itself. The tedium of laws was given because of our need, broken humanity's need to be confronted about all the selfish and spiteful ways in which we mistreat and demean each other and cheapen each others' lives. Life by the Spirit of God is not like this.
Christians recognize that archetypal Word of God as the power by which God made the world, the creative beauty which gave it shape. We recognize the same loving and creative force, the same Word of God embodied in Jesus of Nazareth; we recognize him by his embodiment as the one who was moved by the Torah, who spoke when it spoke and was silent when it was silent, who lived that life of beauty, holiness, peace, and power whose possibility was promised by the existence of the Word.
This archetype -- the Word of God which transforms us and makes us holy -- arouses great desire and longing in humanity. But so long as the Word of God was a book, or a half-forgotten Ode of surpassing beauty, it could do little more than arouse in us holy frustration. When the Word of God was embodied before our eyes as Jesus of Nazareth, we saw more clearly, remembered more completely, the hints of the things of God, things that had been half-known or half-forgotten, half-suspected or half-doubted. Beyond Jesus showing us the Word clearly, he also spoke that Word of God to us again. The Sermon on the Mount from the Blessings to the end, the sheep and the goats, the law of love, the greatest commands -- these are the ancient Word of God which set the world in order. These are the words that the listening poets have strained to catch. From creation, this is the Word of God that was spoken over the dust as we were made.
The true nature of morality, as the Living Word, the Christ, made clear, is a joyful and loving thing, reserving anger for those things that dam the River of Life and profane the Holy Name. The true essence of morality is a thing that naturally attracts us to itself. The tedium of laws was given because of our need, broken humanity's need to be confronted about all the selfish and spiteful ways in which we mistreat and demean each other and cheapen each others' lives. Life by the Spirit of God is not like this.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
