Tyler F. Williams on Hermeneutics
Some good insights on how we often read our own reality into the Biblical world:

I believe that one of the greatest hindrances to the proper interpretation of the Bible is a false sense of familiarity. There are a number of things that contribute to this false sense of familiarity, including Bible translations that mistakenly modernize idioms and contexts (A translation should not make its readers think that they understand the Bible better than they actually do). While this may sound counter-productive, one of the first steps to properly interpreting the Bible is to create some historical distance between our world and (to echo Barth) the “strange new world within the Bible.” If we don’t take care to create this historical distance, then we will read our modern presuppositions into the biblical text. Gadamer notes: “If we fail to transpose ourselves into the historical horizon from which the traditionary text speaks, we will misunderstand the significance of what it has to say to us” (Truth and Method, 303). Similarly, “it is constantly necessary to guard against overhasily assimilating the past to our own expectations of meaning. Only then can we listen to tradition in a way that permits it to make its own meaning heard” (Truth and Method, 305).

posted by Jimmy at 11:13 AM | |

 
Acts 4
We are still working on our new Bible translation that is more, er, "seeker-friendly" for Amercians. Here's just a taste of what we have from Acts:

With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales, and built houses and church facilities in better neighborhoods where there weren't any poor people. Acts 4:33-35

posted by Jimmy at 8:53 PM | |

 
Thoughts on Mel

1) The incident and subsequent events surrounding Mel Gibson's arrest should certainly give pause to any Christian who would seek to put their hope in anything other than the living spirit of God for improving conditions in the world around us. It was and remains an absurd chasing of the wind for Christians to continue thinking that anything is going to get better because they somehow "force Hollywood to pay attention to them" or whatever other ridiculous notions they have of redeeming the culture through Christian-friendly media.

2) Both fans and critics of Mel Gibson should realize that he is a man. He's not a secondary savior, but he's not a devil, either. As it appears to me (and I'm no personal friend of his), the man is intelligent enough and familiar enough with Christian doctrine to realize that anti-semitism and racism is sin. He also was brought up by a man who, it appears, was a holocaust denier. You can rest assured that he probably has an emotional side that was taught to have negative feelings for Jews. This side is probably normally held in check by his rational side, but when one loses control to alcohol... well, this is the danger, isn't it?

3) This incident SHOULD be used as a lense through which to view his depiction of the death of Christ in his movie. I, for one, went into the movie skeptical about such negative portrayals of Jewish leaders, thinking that critics were probably being overly-sensitive. Since seeing it, I more understand their criticisms. There were points when it seemed that the Pharisees were portrayed in an almost ogre-like fashion, nearly drooling with hatred and evil. Like Mel, these were also people, rather than angels or devils. They were probably abundantly normal people. Some probably were corrupt, others were simply concerned about the spiritual well-being of the community around them. Attending one of their meetings probably looked no different than a gathering of any institutional religious leaders of today. Yet Gibson's portrayal of them was almost cartoonish at times, and, in my mind, was harkening less at realism and more at traditional church views of Jewish leaders, which isn't exactly flattering.

4) With all that said, it appears that Gibson is doing EXACTLY what he should do, as called for by propriety and his religious convictions. He is going straight to those who he offended and seeking to repair the breach. Certainly he could be accused of self-interested damage control, but those who would make such claims are seeking to divine issues of motive that cannot be known by anyone in the general public, and it doesn't take away from the fact that outwardly, it IS what he should do.

5) I find it interesting that Jewish leaders asks Gibson to perform "acts of goodwill," such as visiting Nazi death camps, before they will meet with him. This would be a good thing for Mel to do. Yet, it seems to me a highly symbolic gesture that doesn't strike at the heart of the issue, which is Gibson's apparent tendency to lapse into a dehumanizing attitudes toward Jewish people. It seems to me that the best way to remedy that would be not to give him a history and culture lesson, but to actually see him involved in the lives of Jewish people.

6) The Anti-Defamation League has been quick for an institutional entity to respond positively and helpfully, saying that they will be ready and willing to help him when he emerges from rehab. Such goodwill and readiness to forgive is often hard to find in individuals, much less collections of them.
posted by Stephen at 3:23 PM | |