Symbolism has always been a key feature of religion. There are a few reasons for this. First, (as mentioned in a previous entry) symbols reflect the mystery of God. God – as we view Him – is beyond the understanding of Man; thus it becomes necessary to depict Him through enigmatic phrases such as "God is love," "God is a consuming fire," "God is a sun and shield," and "God is spirit," as well as God’s portrayal as a burning bush or the Holy Ghost descending "in the form of a dove." All of these metaphors serve to describe the nature of God in terms familiar to Man while maintaining the essence of His mystery. It is important to note the contradictory nature of this: we use symbols to both comprehend God and to show His incomprehensive nature. This is seen in religious art: In icons and paintings, Christ and the saints are shown with auras of light around their head -- they are human, and yet non-human at the same time.
A second reason symbolism is integral to religion is that symbols create group identity and inspire adherents. The Star of David, the crucifix, and the Islamic crescent are symbols which carry great emotional and religious symbolism, while also identifying and inspiring their adherents. To use diametrically opposing examples, the swastika united Nazis (a mystical political movement) in the same way that the Star of David united Jews.
A third reason symbolism is integral to religion is to keep truth hidden. Symbols can hide truth from outsiders as well as insiders of a religion. For instance, early Christians used symbols like the ‘fish’ to recognize one another as Christians while protecting themselves from Romans. More than protection, these symbols can affirm a religion’s privileged status because they are privy to insider information. These 'inclusive/exclusive' symbols were used by Masons, Kabbalists, and Rosecrucians, as well as Catholics, Protestants and even the Boy Scouts. Practically any group wishing to maintain a group identity will have a flag, seal or symbol distinguishing themselves from outsiders.
However, this obfuscation is also applied to insiders. For instance, it was only the Levite High Priest who was allowed to enter the sanctum sanctorum and carry out the most sacred rites. Similarly the Freemasons’ mysteries are only unfolded to a member dependent on his degree of advancement. In ancient Sumer, the priestly caste’s power was dependent on discerning the will of the gods, much in the same way as the Greeks depended on oracles and the native americans on medicine men. In fact, every society has had a ‘priestly caste’ of some sort.
So why does this matter? It matters because we are presented with all of these problems when we study theology or religious history. We are dependent for our knowledge on ancient scriptures: the Bible if we are Christians; the Tanakh if we are Jews; if Muslims, on the Qur’an; if Hindus, on the Vedas and Upanishads. Because of this, we must pore over scriptures written in an ancient time, place and language, and attempt to glean prevalent modern truth from them. Misinterpretation of symbols is easy enough to do when you are speaking face-to-face with someone -- let alone when you are reading mystical texts written millenia ago. In reading scriptures, we are forced to wonder how much meaning has been lost through the centuries due to copying errors, degrading manuscripts and papyri, changing culture, evolving nuances of language, and even the purposeful obfuscation of truth.
3 comments:
If that were true you wouldn't even need ancient scripture -- You could rely entirely on inspiration to teach you everything you need to know of God, Christ, and living. On the contrary, every mainstream church (even the Mormon church) relies on scriptural texts to validate its theological basis. The only exceptions I can think of are humanistic oriental religions (e.g. Shintoism), African Shamanism, and Aboriginal Totism.
The reason for this, I believe, is because the passage of time adds "legitimacy" to scripture by making it impossible to prove or disprove. The interesting thing about scripturally-based churches is that they never seem to take their own scripture at face value: they pick and choose which verses they will use and which they will discount as inaccurate translations, etc. They also insulate themselves from the bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament by saying that "that was then, this is now." I don't know a single civilized person who, given the command by God to kill another individual, would actually go and do it. War is another thing entirely. We justify ourselves in war and say God is on our side. What I'm talking about is an actual single-person slaying.
You're right about one thing, though: modern revelation is key to truly understanding ancient revelation...It's one thing I appreciate about Mormonism. What I don't like, however, is for it to be a "cop out" answer. We need to look our beliefs straight in the face and figure out what it is, exactly, we believe.
You say that "some scripture is just a historical account." I agree with that statement. I think some of the Bible is written history, some of it is poetry, some of it is folklore, some of it is jurisprudence, and some of it is prophetic writings. The only common thread is that it was written by the Jewish people. So when you say "truth revealed six thousand years ago is just as relevant today," I say: What truth? Do we still believe it's true that the earth was formed in seven days? Do we still believe that Adam was formed of the dust of the earth? Do we still believe that Eve was formed from Adam's rib? Do we still believe that eating fruit from a tree caused them to become mortal...and that they were convinced to do so by a snake?
I don't think so. I think what you'd reply is that either a) those were all figurative terms, or b) that you don't know but you have to have faith. Which, I might add, is how you have to believe in the Bible these days: with a grain of salt. You either reinterpret it (or call certain verses "mistranslations") or you throw the entire argument out the window by saying that logic messes up faith.
Every Christian church says that every other Christian church takes everything out of context. They have to say this. I mean, how can you refute one scripture with another except by saying that the other is "out of context"? You imply that every church "without modern revelation" takes their scriptures out of context.
I would venture that EVERY church takes its scriptures out of context to a small or large degree. I don't know. I am just suggesting as much.
The reason I value the idea that modern revelation is the way to go is because I feel it's the only possible way that it would all make sense; but then the discrepencies and oddities of the Bible, all of the "misinterpreted" scriptures we have to discount or ignore, and the apparent bipolarism of God, all undermine the idea that modern revelation has really answered anything.
A final note:
I am Mormon. I attend church and pay tithing. I believe this church has something to say for it and that it might very well be true. However, I am extremely bothered that so many people remove themselves from a logical discussion by falling back on obstinacy and religious conceit.
I'd like to offer one counterpoint to the comments I've made. C.S. Lewis made a really good point once, when he remarked that some people suggest that the Bible is merely mythology. Lewis answered these people collectively by saying, in effect, how much mythology have you studied? He points out the fact that he has studied mythology and was - in fact - a professor of Classical Literature. He then went on to say that there was comparison.
Now, I haven't studied mythology or classical literature nearly as much as Dr. Lewis, and I've only managed to read the entire Bible twice. I would like to study the issue out for myself (rather than take his word for it) because I have often wondered whether or not the Bible is merely mythology. However, the fact that the Bible continues to be a much-debated living document says a lot for it (We don't argue about whether or not Zeus is a real god, for instance).
I feel strongly about everything I've said here; and I am not going to back down in my skepticism at this time. However, I thoroughly admit that the Bible could very well be true and I could be worrying over nothing.
Post a Comment