Hector Avalos ‘The End of Biblical Studies’
The
following notes are based on the youtube interview cited above originally
created in 2007. Parts of this blog in-between parentheses are my own comments.
Violence (also Religious Violence) is Caused by Scarcity
All violence,
according to Avalos, has "scarcity" at its core. If people perceive
that there's not enough of something, they will compete in order to get a share
of that and that struggle frequently results in conflict and violence.
Religious violence is similar in cause and structure. At the national level, things
such as water, political power, energy ... all of these could be scarce
resources.
Religion
works in the same way. Religion creates scarcity. Avalos points out four religious scarcities: 1) Access to divine communication=only some
people get divine revelation or more divine revelation than others; 2) Sacred Space such as the Holy Land=Israel as a physical-geographical location is not so
valuable. It is very valuable though in terms of what it means for the
religious identity of certain religious groups; 3) Group privileging on the
basis of religion; 4) Salvation - long-term commodity such as eternal life. If
only some are saved or if only one can be saved because of practicing or
following a certain religion, then salvation itself becomes a “scarce resource.” Because of these religious scarcities, religion becomes an ingredient in causing violence.
The
big problem here is: Religious scarcities can never be proven to exist or they
may not exist at all.
The
End of Biblical Studies (2007 book)
Avalos’
main contention in the book is: Biblical Studies as it is currently
practiced should end. Why? As the discipline stands now, it still functions
as an arm of the church. It is founded on and permeated by religious and
theological assumptions (that can never be proven). It is not yet completely secular.
(By this he means, objective and free of vested theological interests. For
Avalos, only if biblical studies becomes truly secular can it become also truly
objective.)
In
biblical studies, there is always some apologetic aim, e.g., to defend the validity
of the Bible for the current world. In all sub-fields of biblical studies,
scholars try to prove that their disciplines are important even though the
results have proven that they are not. (By that he means: many things contained
in the Bible such as its laws and principles are so irrelevant to the world
today. But biblical scholars try to show that they are still relevant.)
Why
is the Bible not relevant to current life? Many Christians simply don't read
the Bible. According to him, 21% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics do not read
the Bible. What about those who do read the bible in some way? They actually do
not read much of it. (Frequently, the reading style of many Christians is very
selective, hence, many Christians only have a sketchy knowledge of the Bible.)
Many Christians, even if they try to apply the Bible to their lives, apply very
little of it. (The reason for this, I think, is that it is so difficult to
apply many parts of the Bible as they stand!)
Promoting
the relevance of the Bible today can be described as a mere marketing strategy.
They try to say: you really need this book. The whole enterprise of biblical
publishing is based on the message that this book is so important, you've got
to have it!
Biblical
translations often hide what the Bible really says in order to make it relevant
and palatable to modern sensibilities. But if you take the Bible at face value,
many of its injunctions are downright absurd or distasteful (bizarre,
unacceptable or offensive) to modern people. E.g., Lk 14:27 "You must hate
your parents to follow me." The Good News Translation says
26 “Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they
love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers
and sisters, and themselves as well.
(“love
me more than your parents” is not really the same as the original word “hate”.)
The
book's title ‘The End of Biblical Studies’ is meant as a double entendre. There
are three possible scenarios for biblical studies for Avalos:
- End it completely - not Avalos’
position
- Keep it going as it is -
not completely objective. Obviously, this is what Avalos is struggling
against.
- Keep biblical studies
but expose the way in which biblical studies has been hiding what the
Bible really says. No to a "doctored" (palatable to moderns) image
of Bible. This is what Avalos wants!
My
Reactions to Avalos’ Points
I am
very sympathetic to the concerns that he raises about biblical studies being in
many ways duplicitous and I agree to a certain extent that it is because the
field is, as he says, meant to be an arm of the church in promoting
Christianity’s message.
I’ve
had the same dilemma for many years now. This is one of the major reasons why I
became convinced that I could not remain a member of the clergy class anymore.
However, my
position on this question is: I consider the Bible as an integral (hence, unabandonable and,
yes, indispensable) part of the tradition (even the “Tradition”) to which many
of us belong. In short, it is like letters, journals, documents that our family
(ancestors) wrote and/or considered (even canonized as) sacred and
foundational. The right relationship with the Bible therefore is not completely
abandoning it but considering it thus (a family heirloom that still tells us
where we came from and thus who we are [according to the tradition]).
Armed
with that, we apply both a hermeneutic of trust-retrieval (positive) as well as
a hermeneutic of suspicion. In short, we relate to it with love and a critical
sense. Often we’ll have to struggle with it even by correcting and revising it
in order to forge a better future.
All
of these things are going into the book that I’m currently writing (while on
sabbatical).
No comments:
Post a Comment