Here's some thoughts I've had about applying postmodern insights to our interaction with the Bible. These comments relate particularly to the antifoundational and demystifying attributes of PM as I've described them.
I'll use as a space for illustration the disputed authorship of some letters traditionally ascribed to Paul. I'm no Biblical scholar, but apparently some 'experts' suspect that Paul didn't write 2 Thessalonians amongst others. This dispute of authorship simply sets up a contrast between a modern and post modern approach to these particular scriptures. A modern engagement with this issue has long stressed the importance of focussing thorough historical research, textual analysis, archaeology, and other disciplines in order to determine information about scriptural texts, including age, authorship etc. The assumption (explicit amongst the relevant experts and more or less implicit amongst many Christians) is that historically accurate provenance and context are essential starting points from which to consider the text. But, apparently with the 2 Thessalonians example, the evidence regarding authorship is duplicitous, so we cannot rely on it to clearly show the identity of the author.
A modern approach to this uncertainty would firstly continue the search for conclusive proof of authorship. Scholarly enquiry may eventually prove conclusive. Secondly, such is the importance of provenance within the modern mainstream that the dispute would largely be ignored or downplayed and the assumption of Paul’s authorship affirmed; since productive engagement with the text would risk being undermined by insidious doubt regarding who wrote it (and if not Paul, then not only who wrote it, but why? And why pretend to be Paul?). In other words, the authority/authenticity of the text is intertwined with its author.
In contrast I suggest a postmodern approach might question why we need to determine the author. It would ask what difference authorship has on authenticity – and would answer by offering an alternative concept of authenticity. Rather than linking the authenticity of the text to its authorial pedigree (and thus fixing it as static), a postmodern stance may premise authenticity on the ability of the text’s message to fulfil its purpose (a provisional conferment of authenticity, since the ability of the text to fulfil its purpose depends only partially on the text itself; relying also on the reader and the culture to receive it and apply it effectively). Let’s think how this PM approach may be beneficial: What if new research revealed conclusively that some Pauline letters were ‘fakes’, written by someone other than Paul, pretending to be Paul, and moreover, that the real author’s purposes were destructive. The modern connection between authorship, authenticity and authority would struggle to accommodate this revelation. Should such ‘fake’ material, written for mischievous reasons remain in the canon? Should its content be reconsidered with suspicion? What if other fakes come to light? Not only would this situation be uncomfortable, but ironically it could support a retreat from scientific enquiry in an attempt to stop further erosion of authenticity/authority as traditionally conceived.
But if the authenticity of the text is based rather on its ability to speak keenly to us now – with a relevance that engenders positive transformation – then its authority is testified to by our response of being transformed. Here authorship takes on a different level of importance. (It doubtless would continue to stoke fascinating historical/hermeneutical debate).
This PM approach puts the focus squarely on the fruit of the message itself, decoupling authority from provenance and in so doing, demystifying the text’s authority. It also sounds an antifoundational note by denying the text a privileged starting from which to establish truth (authority). Rather, the text is made to work - engaging with the reader and with the culture - to produce fruit.
Would this not transform our engagement with scripture? Or with any text/ body of ‘truth’?
We’ve been watching a TV documentary called “Who Wrote the Bible?”, presented by Christian historian Robert Beckford. It made for interesting viewing, essentially presenting archaeological evidence to suggest that much of the Bible is actually historically inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteFor evangelicals, such as myself, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are foundational to our faith. We have been brought up to believe that the authorship and compilation of these books have been inspired by God in such a way that the Holy Bible, in its entirety, reveals what God wants to say to us. We should not seek to subtract from or add to this literature in any way. Although many churches (such as our own) teach that God can speak to people outside of the pages of the Bible (e.g. through prophetic gifts), we are taught always to test everything against the foundation of Scripture. This discrete set of 66 books is positioned by itself on a higher plain where it can’t be touched. Any attempt to critique these works risks pulling apart the very basis of our faith. But perhaps this attitude reflects the modernist perspective that underpins evangelicalism and the time is right to get a bit more postmodern.
In reality, the Bible was written by many different authors with many different motives. Is it really necessary to believe that, every time these men (or women?) put pen to paper, their words were entirely protected by the Holy Spirit from human error, intentional or otherwise? Moreover, the centuries-long process by which the canon that we are instructed to accept came to be is also highly prone to human error, intentional or otherwise. Could it be that this human error has resulted in parts of Scripture, at least, misrepresenting God and his message to us in some way? If so, where does that leave us as Christians?
I think that this is where the postmodern approach comes in. It allows us to keep the baby while throwing out the bathwater. It allows us to believe that the Bible can still tell us about the nature of God and instruct us in his wisdom in spite of many uncertainties regarding its sources. It would be really refreshing to hear a sermon that embraces a critical stance towards the Bible, informed by historical evidence, and yet imparts truth and wisdom nonetheless. However, as a church are we ready to hear such a sermon?
As an enthusiastic advocate of PM I agree with your comments Andy. For me, one really useful insight is the distinction that Karen Armstrong makes between literal truth and mythic truth - decoupling the requirement for factual, literal correctness to be the only prerequisite for the truth/validity/value of meaning.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether we are ready to hear such a message, my guess is that many are not, because any assault on modern tenets can have significantly unsettling effects. But, I'm encouraged that there are many Christian communities where this message is being presented, wrestled with and applied. I'm sure there are many more places than those I have heard of. But some that have come to my notice are Mars Hill, Grand Rapids, Michigan and Ikon in Belfast. Also, thoughtful, humble and insightful scholarship and contemplation from Phylis Tickle, Brian Maclaren, John Caputo amongst others. Check this stuff out. Let's debate it and weigh it.