RSS Feed
Don't Go It Alone
When it comes to sacred texts, don't go it alone.
Being Catholic and a historian of religion, I am constantly aware of the tensions between different approaches to reading sacred texts. Of course, over a century of scholarship and reflection in the Christian tradition has sought to establish that there is not a necessary contradiction between reading a text "religiously" and in a way open to the insights of the historical critical method. But this is often a delicate balancing act that requires weighing different voices and claims of authority. However one does this, one is certainly not reading a sacred text alone.
From another perspective, a sacred text is sacred precisely because it "says what it means, and means what it says." And if that's true, then any kind of authoritative interpreter is superfluous, even harmful. What matters is how one relates to a sacred text, without an intermediary telling you what you should think or feel.
But when approaching a sacred text, there is a space between authoritative interpreters and our own isolated selves.
During my first undergraduate year in India, I lived with a Hindu family. The father in the family, Pita-ji, would take pride in telling me stories from the Ramcharitmanas, the 17th century poet Tulsidas's rendering of the life Lord Ram, a divine king who is the very embodiment of virtue. Initially, I loved listening to Pita-ji since India and Hinduism were so new to me. But after a couple months, I couldn't stand it. Pita-ji would drone on in Hindi for hours. I had places to go and better things to do--like buying rounds for my friends at the local tea shop. In any case, I could read the Ramcharitmanas sometime later, by myself, in translation.
When I went to graduate school, I did indeed encounter the Ramcharitmanas, but it wasn't in translation. The Avadhi language in which the text was written was so different from modern Hindi: every word and every verse seemed like an insurmountable linguistic obstacle. It was then I thought of Pita-ji, and the linguistic and emotional obstacles that I thought he was placing before me. Those obstacles were really invitations--invitations to encounter and wonder at a different and beautiful religious and cultural vista that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. I missed Pita-ji, his family, and also the culture and religion that he translated for me during those seemingly endless talks. At graduate school, I can't say that I read the Ramcharitmanas religiously and I can't say that I read it as a scholar. What I can say is that I did not read it alone because I had Pita-ji with me--encouraging me, prodding me, and demanding my patience. Clergy and scholars, not to mention our own "selfish" selves, will inevitably, and often justifiably, claim our attention when we read sacred texts. But we should never forget to listen to people like Pita-ji--for they are the ones who finally bring these sacred texts to life by patiently sharing their own readings with impatient people like me.
By
Mathew N. Schmalz
|
February 20, 2009; 1:31 AM ET
| Category:
Interfaith Issues
,
Personal Religion
,
Spirituality
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Sacred Reading and Sacred Sex |
Next: Scriptures: As Much a Part of Life as Breakfast
Posted by: sachin rathore, meerut, india | February 27, 2009 1:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sacred texts, I believe, are meant to be read in community and in dialogue with one another. None of us are isolated from one another and religious practice demands that we form communities. One cannot be Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, etc on one's own.
When we read these texts, we must engage in dialogue with the community that is reading those texts with us.
Religious scholars bring a particular set of tools to the discussion. So do clergy. So do lay people who use the stories in the text to help them get through the day. When we read texts, we must consider all these perspectives--not necessarily agree with them. But our own understanding must dialogue with theirs, so that the community and the individuals within it will be enriched and challenged.
Comments about Protestantism miss the point, I think. Yes there is a crazy amount of diversity and we all disagree with each other and we can spend hours arguing about whose denomination is right. But there is an equal diversity of belief and opinion within Catholicism, I think. Compare liberation theologians with someone like Richard John Neuhaus. There is a world of difference. The point is not that catholics get it and protestants don't, but that none of us read our sacred texts alone. We all do it in dialogue with the communities that read the texts with us. Even if we don't always agree with those communities.
Posted by: anariel | February 23, 2009 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Must always remember that Faith is a gift from God, and something that one has to nourish daily or else lose it. You don't need to be a scholar to understand Faith. Everyone who has Faith knows it and counts it as a blessing.
Posted by: Matt | February 22, 2009 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reading Christian Scripture without any authority is one of the main reasons Protestants have over 20000 denominations.
Posted by: syzito | February 22, 2009 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The individual interpretation argument has a nice ring to it and certainly sells in free societies. However, anarchy is often the result as evidenced by the immense number of "Bible based" protestant faiths.
One rarely, if ever, hears a Protestant pastor cite 2 Peter 1:20. Namely, that no one can explain, by himself, a prophecy in the scripture.
Posted by: Peter B. | February 21, 2009 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yo, Jesus:
"Did I not teach you you have direct access to me and my words without the need for intervention of the Pharisees?"
Hey, what's up? Long time, Bro., I mean really, looonnnggg time. I gotta tellya I'm fine w/the Pharisees. It's the Greeks, not only cuz they're all Greek to me, but judge from their NT--they're Greek to themselves. Any recommendations, Bro.? Like I mean how to I get direct access?
Anxious
Posted by: Anxious | February 20, 2009 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus(if that is really You):
Yes, you did, but you also never instructed anyone to write Your Words down on paper, which is why some people have been trying to figure out what You said and what You meant.
Posted by: Mr. G | February 20, 2009 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Did I not teach you you have direct access to me and my words without the need for intervention of the Pharisees?
Posted by: Jesus | February 19, 2009 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm a Catholic too and my own (admittedly limited) readings of the magisterium have enriched my reading of Scripture immensely.
Posted by: Robert B. | February 18, 2009 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
wonderful write up....