Progressive & Conservative Orthodoxies
forcing the bible into our boxes
No paywalls here; but if you have the means to support, it helps pay the grocery bill and keep the lights on - thank you for your encouragement and support!
There may be spelling / grammar mistakes in my articles that make it through my editing, and that’s on purpose. I’m a recovering perfectionist (who was once VERY hard on himself) and one of the ways I’m learning to be compassionate on myself is by allowing mistakes to just … be.
Friends.
A while back I had Julia O’Brien on the podcast to talk to me about her book, “Prophets Beyond Activism” where she argues that the “progressive orthodoxy” that the prophets of the Bible were primarily concerned with issues of social justice causes those writings to carry a weight that they are, perhaps, not all that equipped to bear.
Why?
Because our assumption that the prophets were primarily (first and foremost, more so than anything else) concerned with issues of social justice suggests that we (as modern readers) can know exactly who they were and what they did.
And that?
That’s rather impossible, really, for these books are complex with language and ideas that speak to (and from) a variety of cultures and circumstances that are far, far removed from our own.
You can listen more to the episode HERE, but this past week I went back into her book because as I was reflecting on our conversation (along with my recent read of Richard Beck’s upcoming book, “The Book of Love”)and I got to thinking how I have spent the majority of my 40-ish years with the Bible trying desperately to jam it into the boxes of my personal worldviews, insisting that it …
Is always on my side.
Always sees things as I see them.
Always supports my beliefs.
Always supports my values.
Always supports my voting choices.
Etc.
… so much so that when I was on both the RIGHT and the LEFT I had my collection of go-to verses that I would toss into conversations to support my ideas, defend my beliefs, and argue others into the ground.
And the prophets? They were a major resource for me - always, yes, but all the more as a progressive-minded person … as someone who (still, today) advocates for and believes in rights for everyone, especially people who are typically pushed to the margins of our society.
Verses like …
“Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” - Amos 5:24
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” - Micah 6:8
"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.” - Isaiah 1:17
"Woe to those who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice. …" - Isaiah 10:1-2
… and more were common on my Facebook page as I would post day after day and share my belief that “just like the prophets of old, we need to be a voice for those who are trampled by society”.
Anyways.
So, I went back to Julia’s book this past week because I wanted to be reminded that the books of the Bible (the prophets, for sure, but all of the writings, honestly) aren’t as black and white and as simple to understand and/or apply to modern circumstances as we might wish them to be.
AND.
When we make them out to be black and white, insisting they they fit into the boxes of our modern day worldviews, addressing our modern day values (whether they be conservative, progressive, etc.).
Well.
I think we do them a great, great disservice.
And Julia’s book? It magnfies this point beautifully as it challenges us to expand our understanding and think deeper about the texts of the Bible - no matter how familar with them we may be.
For example.
In the book one of the things she talks about is a field of study called “redaction criticism”. I’m no Bible scholar, but to sum it up as simply as I can - redaction criticism deals with how the Biblical writings changed over time and includes studying the “modification and addition of content by editors”.
(Read more about redaction criticism HERE.)
What does that mean?
Many things, but for one - it means that what the prophetic writings might have originally said isn’t necessarily what you and I have in our Bibles today because later editors modified and recontexualized and merged materials together for their specific audiences who were going through a specific set of circumstances.
And this?
This is really interesting (to me, anyways) because at one time, Julia says, it was common for scholars to try and undo the edits in an effort to get back to what the prophets originally said before any changes were made.
This is the idea of the “Historical Jesus”, right? The question of, “who was Jesus REALLY?” And “what did Jesus REALLY do and REALLY say?”
These scholars would try to trace back through various copies of a text, pinpoint what edits were made, and aim to peel back all the layers so as to discover what the orginal text likely said or what was historically true or accurate about the person the text is speaking of.
Now, though?
A more recent interest is to “read the books within the context of their redactors, trying to understand what the book may have meant to those who put it into the books we have today [in our Bibles].”
That might sound strange, but it’s really not something most of us are unfamilar with. Think of the 4 Gospels, right? It’s widely accepted (by conservative and progressive scholars, alike) that Mark’s Gospel is the earliest and that Matthew and Luke had Mark as a “source” of sorts.
BUT.
Matthew and Luke are much different from one another AND are much, much different from Mark - they tell lots of the same stories, yes, but very, very differently. If you look at this through the lens of “redaction criticism”, Matthew and Luke were redactors of Mark - they modified and recontextualized his material for their audiences.
And?
If we didn’t have Mark’s Gospel, we’d never be exactly sure of what he said.
AND.
To take it further.
Can we ever be really sure what Mark said anyways? Especially since an ending that was not original to Mark was added to the text centuries later AND appears in most of our Bible’s today? I mean, if that’s the case - what else was changed or edited or added or substracted?
Hm.
Back to the prophets.
Most of the redactions in the prophetic books took place during the “postexilic period”, which is around 550-350 BCE when the decendants of Judea who had been exiled by the Babylonian Empire returned to their land under the protection of the Persian Empire.
What does this mean?
It means that when we read these productions that were created DURING this Perian period, we have to realize that although the texts might read like they are being written as transcripts or play by play biographies of what happened in and leading up to Babylonian captivity, they are actually “theological documents in which the prophets are discerning the Divine perspective on the truth of the past and the future”.
In other words:
They are writing REFLECTIVELY about the past - reflecting on what happened and wondering about why it happened.
AND.
They are writing DISCERNINGLY about their present and future - reflecting on where they are and dreaming of where they could go from there, having learned from their past mistakes.
ALL of which, I think, is a gift to their generation and genrations to come. Among other things, redaction criticism helps us see that the prophetic books aren’t simply made up of actions and speeches of heroes who fought on behalf of the downtrodden (although sometimes they MAY BE that), but are more so “literary productions of communities who were seeking to understand the workings of YHWH and thereby find a way forward from disaster.”
Phew.
So why I am sharing this with you?
First of all, because I think that all “sides” have “orthodoxies”.
Right?
In other words, there are certain things on both the conservative AND the progressive side that you are taught NOT to question in regards to theology, the Bible, etc.
On the conservative side, for example, you don’t question whether or not the Bible teaches that you must “believe in Jesus” in order to be saved from God’s wrath or saved from hell or whatever.
“Of course it does!”
AND.
On the progressive side, for example, you don’t question whether or not the Bible (the prophets, in particular) puts forth a consistent message of “social justice”, arguing that God is always for the poor, women, LGBTQ people … and anyone who is marginalized.
“Of course it does!”
Yes.
Both sides have their set of values or beliefs and boxes that they squeeze the Bible into that people on that side are not supposed to question.
And secondly, more importantly for myself, because these are all ideas that are swirling around in my head as I have recently picked my Bible back up to explore it amidst yet another season of my spiritual journey.
A season where I’m not …
Seeking to use it to win arguments.
Seeking to force it into supporting my political opinions.
Seeking to point out all the ways God agrees with me.
… but where I’m seeking to let the Bible be what it is.
Rather than come to it with an agenda of all the ways it backs up my beliefs or supports my politics or values what I value, I’m trying to read it while keeping at the forefront of my mind that …
It’s not as black and white as I might like it to be.
It contains documents and writings that span the course of thousands of years and were written in languages and by people who were far removed from my modern day worldviews.
The writers were writing to make sense of their times and their days and their problems.
They were trying to figure out what it looked like to make their way through all of those very visible things while maintaining faith in a very invisible God who (they believed) was much different and grander and bigger than any other God anyone could ever imagine.
And.
Maybe?
To go back to “redaction criticism” - maybe just as those prophetic writers and Gospel writers “redacted” or edited or expanded on earlier writings to make sense of their times, maybe that’s the ultimate invitation that the Bible extends to you and me:
Not to force it into the boxes of our worldviews so that those with differing worldviews are excluded, but to take these ancient writings and edit and expand on them in an effort to make sense of our times and what it looks like to make our way through these heavy and very visible times all the while following a very invisible God who we (like the writers of old) believe is much different and grander and bigger than any other God anyone could ever imagine.
Much love.
Glenn || SUPPORT / ART STUDIO