Another update will be coming soon (it has been an insane week and will continue to be insane as it continues) but I wanted to post my rewritten essay for my Issues in the Theology of Scripture class. I can't get the footnotes to post, so you'll have to trust that I've cited things correctly to give credit where it's due and that my points are supported in places. But here is what I wrote after studying the issue for three weeks. Most of the change comes at the end (with completely new paragraphs at the end) but I've made a few wording changes and tweaked things significantly in the interpretation section. Feel free to leave comments!
--
Reading the Bible Faithfully
To say that the Bible is true means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship for humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context from which the Bible was written.
We must begin by asking what the Bible is, which is a complex task. There are at least two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. We have evidence that there were many gospels circulating in the early centuries of the first millennium. Further, the codices and lists of the canonical books show that the Bible’s texts changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while books such as 2 Peter and Jude were contested additions to it. Looking at the criteria for canonical books becomes critical to understanding why some texts were chosen over others, particularly when some of the books seem to be informative and historically useful to the Church (such as the Didache).
One reason the books were selected by Christian communities is that they were written by the Apostles or their close followers. The early church found it important to include books from the apostolic tradition, because their writings best reflected the story of Jesus and the nature of God’s work in the world. While some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, suggest that the early church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to give him a God-like status, this argument imports modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives) into the first century world. Importing these philosophical perspectives into a first century worldview which was unaware of sciences like biology and psychology is anachronistic. Regardless of whether their understanding of the world is scientifically accurate or not, the important point is that the writers of the Biblical texts believed that what they were reporting was true (a point we will return to later).
Biblical texts were also chosen because they reflected the traditions of the Church throughout its history, including the history of Israel. This was an important criterion for the early church fathers who argued for the inclusion and exclusion of particular books. One argument by scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, suggests that the early church was politically motivated to pick and change texts that gave Jesus a particular image in order to stamp out competing strands of Christianity, such as Gnosticism. However, the historical evidence shows that Christianity (until the time of Constantine) was in no political or financial position to pursue such an endeavor. By the time of Constantine, most of the canon was well established, making this argument somewhat sketchy. Overall, there is reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to fabricate a story or emphasize particular agendas in order to dominate other visions of Jesus in the first century.
A final consideration for why canonical texts were chosen is the original languages of the texts. The emphasis on the original languages became critically important on two occasions in history. The first occurred when Jerome translated the canon into Latin and chose the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint ( the Greek Old Testament which including the Apocrypha). While Augustine argued that the Greek text had been the scripture used by the Church from its beginning in the first century, Jerome believed the Hebrew texts should be used because they were the original texts of the Old Testament. This argument returned during the Reformation, when Luther chose not to include the Old Testament Apocrypha in his translation on the same grounds. The emphasis on original languages is valid because we know the Greek Old Testament has additions (i.e. the Apocrypha) that were not originally written in Hebrew, meaning they have not been a part of the larger Church tradition (including Israel’s history). Even the sects of Christianity that use the Apocrypha acknowledge that it is deutero-canonical or of a lesser authority than the Old and New Testaments. Does that invalidate the Apocrypha, meaning we should not consult it at all? No, because it still provides important historical and cultural contexts that help us better interpret the Bible (a point to which we will return). However, this does not make it a source for truth, the next point of discussion.
When we say the Bible is true, this does not mean that the Bible is accurate on every historical and scientific point. Some churches do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible (i.e. the Bible has no mistakes or discrepancies of any kind), but inerrancy assumes that the writers and original audience of the Bible had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. The Bible is not always scientifically or historically correct. For example, the Bible’s cosmology assumes the earth is flat and surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Modern science clearly shows this to be an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Also, some of the historical facts, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, seem skewed if not insupportable. Often this is because numbers carry a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 became important because of their significance to the Israelite community. Sometimes, numbers may have been exaggerated to emphasize or embellish a story, and dates may have been changed to line up with important events. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is crucified on Thursday rather than Friday (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because the Thursday of Passover was the day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered. These discrepancies do not invalidate the stories; rather, they show that dates and numbers may have been changed for literary and social reasons.
The Bible is true because it is trustworthy account about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. The Bible is not meant to be a history or science book, though the Church should affirm the historical nature of the Bible to an extent. These are not stories fabricated by the early church nor are they metaphors (as some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly in I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not happen, then Christianity is a waste. History confirms the accuracy of some of the Bibles stories (such as the crucifixion) while it casts doubt on others, and the Church can be honest about this. But the Bible’s truth transcends history and science while not ignoring them. The truth the Church wants to affirm is that God entered history and acted through the works of Israel and Jesus Christ to reconcile the entire world to God’s self. On those points, the Bible is a trustworthy and valid source to affirm that truth. While every historical detail may not be accurate, history does affirm enough of the Bible to enable the Church to call it true.
To garner the truth of the Bible, the Church must employ good interpretation, which begins with the translation of the texts. One option for good interpretation is to have every Christian learn Greek and Hebrew, and then read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. A central message of Pentecost is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. This does not set the criteria for choosing what texts should be included in the canon. Rather, it opens the possibility that the Church in any culture and context can read the Bible and interpret it well.
There are two layers of interpreting the Bible well. The first layer takes into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. These tools help the Church better understand what the Bible meant to its original audience so it can better understand what it means for the contemporary Church. They should be used to construct good translations which take into account the historical and cultural context of the Bible, translating it into the language of the new audience. The NRSV, NIV, NASB, and the Message Bible are examples of good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would represent less reliable translations.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of good translations the Bible. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid methods to interpret the Bible. If Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations possible (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts (i.e. looking at an entire text, not proof-texting) and the greater context of the canon. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
There is a third element to interpretation: the church. While it is important for lay readers to be able to read the Bible and interpret it without using the tools of Biblical scholarship, there also need to be accountability to ensure that interpretations do not undermine the truth that the Church seeks to proclaim. The Church takes on this role in Biblical interpretation. Throughout the history of the Church, the interpretation of the Bible has been a communal practice, providing both context and accountability for the interpretation. No interpretation of the Bible is valid if the person or group interpreting it purposely puts themselves outside the community of the Church. Rather, it is through the communal practice of the Church that good interpretations of Scripture are made.
Finally, the Holy Spirit must play a part in good interpretation. While this is a complex issue – discerning where the Spirit is moving, how the Spirit works through the Bible, etc – the fundamental way this happens is through prayer. Asking the Holy Spirit to be a part of the interpretative process and to illuminate the truth in Scripture is foundational to good interpretations of Scripture. The Church also plays a foundational role in discerning the movement and work of the Holy Spirit through the interpretation of Scripture. The accountability of the Church community will always be a central aspect of Biblical interpretation. Finally, if we take the message of Scripture seriously that the central ministry of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel, then every interpretation of Scripture should ultimately support that ministry. This is not to say that every verse in Scripture specifically has to address the ministry of Proclamation of the Gospel, as there are multiple ministries in the Church. Rather, no interpretation of Scripture should undermine that interpretation, and ultimately our interpretations of Scripture should lead us to proclamation.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Recent Paper
Occasionally I like to post recent papers I've written so people have an idea of what I've taken away from seminary and the rest of my theological education. This essay was written for "Issues in the Theology of Scripture," and our assignment was to write a 1500-word essay answering these two questions: "What do we mean when we say 'the Bible is true,' and what methods of interpretation help us reveal its truthfulness?" It is an initial essay that we will be revising into a 2000-word essay at the end of our January intensive in a couple weeks, so the goal of the assignment is just to get our cards on the table so that we can see where we have confidence on what we know and what is fuzzy. So here is my initial essay. Feel free to comment if you'd like. I'll post my 2000-word essay at the end of the semester as well so you can see where my thoughts have progressed. I've entitled my paper: "Reading the Bible Faithfully"
*Side note: my footnotes could not be imported, so if it seems like something is unsupported, it's most likely because the footnote didn't make it.*
--
When the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not fully necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.
We must first ask what the Bible is. This is a complex task at the outset because there are two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted collection of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments and the collection which includes the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. Furthermore, scholars believe there were at least 80 gospels written during the early centuries after Jesus’ life with about 30 of them being preserved at least in part. Of the 30 we have, four are contained in the Gospel. Further, some of the oldest manuscripts and lists of the canonical books show that the sacred texts of the Church changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Letter of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while others such as 2 Peter and Jude were later additions. Questions about the Bible’s compilation – particularly about which books were included and which were not – are valid and serious questions.
Two historical reasons come to mind as to why the texts we have in the Bible were chosen. One reason why books were selected by Christian communities is because they were written either by the Apostles or close followers of Jesus. From that perspective, the early church found it important to include books that accurately told Jesus’ story or spoke of his life in a way that was theologically sound. Scholars have suggested that the early church was influenced by other motives, suggesting that the church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to boost his image and make him God-like. However, these arguments import modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives informed by modern science) into the first century world. Some scholars reject the possibility of miracles and other “supernatural” phenomena and assume that the audience of the first century would do the same. While naturalism and materialism could be argued to be flawed foundations, to import them into a first century perspective that was aware of sciences like biology and psychology is inappropriate. Other scholars have suggested that the early church was politically motivated to change Jesus’ image during Constantine’s time. However, historical evidence suggests that the canon was mostly established by the fourth century. Further, most of the Bible’s manuscripts were written before Constantine came to power, making this argument somewhat sketchy. There is enough reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to create an image they knew not to be true.
The second historical reason for books being included in the canon is that only books in their original language should be included. This reason, generated from the Reformation, was used precisely to exclude the Old Testament Apocrypha from Protestant use. The emphasis on original languages is valid since we now know that the Septuagint (the source of the Old Testament Apocrypha in the Bible) had later additions not found in the Hebrew canon. But does that completely invalidate the Apocrypha and mean we should not consult it at all? This leads us to a discussion of what we mean when we say the Bible is true and how we interpret the Bible.
When we say the Bible is true, the Church does not necessarily mean that every detail of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. Some Christians do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but this argument is faulty. It assumes that the writers and audience of the Bible had the same tools for doing scientific and historical research and had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. Further, the Bible is not always correct when addressing science or history. The Bible’s cosmology is one where the earth is flat, surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Concerning the Bible’s reports of history, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, the history is skewed if not completely unsupportable by historical facts. This is usually the case because numbers hold a symbolic meaning in the text rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 are incredibly important because of their significance to the Israelite community.
While historical and scientific perspectives of the Bible are not always correct, does this mean the Bible is not true? No, because the Bible is not meant to be a history or science book. We want to affirm the historical nature of the Bible; these are not simply stories made up by the early church or metaphors (and some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not literally happen, then Christianity is a waste of time. Furthermore, the Church needs to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible to a certain extent. But when the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the Bible is trustworthy for learning about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. This does not mean that nothing reported in the Bible literally happened, nor does it mean the opposite. What matters is that when the Bible speaks about God’s relationship and love for humanity and what that relationship looks like and requires, the Bible is valid and trustworthy. Apocryphal books are useful in that they give greater historical and cultural context to the Bible, but they are not true in the sense that they reveal God’s relationship to humanity or what humanity’s response to God should be.
What does a correct interpretation of the Bible look like? Part of the answer lies in translation. One option is for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. One message of the Pentecost story is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. The Bible can be translated into any languages, but what does a good translation look like? We must look at how the Bible is best interpreted before this question can be fully answered.
There are two layers of interpretation when reading Bible in the best way. The first layer is to take into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. By using these tools, we can better understand what the Bible meant to its original hearers in the first century and earlier so that the Church can better understand what the Gospel means for us today. These are the tools we use to construct good translations of the Bible. A good translation of the Bible into any language is one which best tries to capture the meaning of the Bible as its original audience would have heard it – using the best tools and best available manuscripts – into the language of the new audience. This is why the NRSV, NIV, NASB and even the Message Bible would constitute good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would not.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of the Bible as it is presented in good translations. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid way to read the Bible. Further, if Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and reading the Bible with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts and the greater context of the canon. If the Bible is for and can be read by everyone, then interpretations from laity should be valid to garner truth from the Bible. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
Thus, the Bible is true in that it reveals to the Church what God has done for the world and what is required of humanity in response to God’s action in the world. A valid interpretation requires that one looks critically at the Bible with the tools available to the person reading it, including reading the Bible in community with the church as a whole.
*Side note: my footnotes could not be imported, so if it seems like something is unsupported, it's most likely because the footnote didn't make it.*
--
When the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not fully necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.
We must first ask what the Bible is. This is a complex task at the outset because there are two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted collection of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments and the collection which includes the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. Furthermore, scholars believe there were at least 80 gospels written during the early centuries after Jesus’ life with about 30 of them being preserved at least in part. Of the 30 we have, four are contained in the Gospel. Further, some of the oldest manuscripts and lists of the canonical books show that the sacred texts of the Church changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Letter of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while others such as 2 Peter and Jude were later additions. Questions about the Bible’s compilation – particularly about which books were included and which were not – are valid and serious questions.
Two historical reasons come to mind as to why the texts we have in the Bible were chosen. One reason why books were selected by Christian communities is because they were written either by the Apostles or close followers of Jesus. From that perspective, the early church found it important to include books that accurately told Jesus’ story or spoke of his life in a way that was theologically sound. Scholars have suggested that the early church was influenced by other motives, suggesting that the church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to boost his image and make him God-like. However, these arguments import modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives informed by modern science) into the first century world. Some scholars reject the possibility of miracles and other “supernatural” phenomena and assume that the audience of the first century would do the same. While naturalism and materialism could be argued to be flawed foundations, to import them into a first century perspective that was aware of sciences like biology and psychology is inappropriate. Other scholars have suggested that the early church was politically motivated to change Jesus’ image during Constantine’s time. However, historical evidence suggests that the canon was mostly established by the fourth century. Further, most of the Bible’s manuscripts were written before Constantine came to power, making this argument somewhat sketchy. There is enough reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to create an image they knew not to be true.
The second historical reason for books being included in the canon is that only books in their original language should be included. This reason, generated from the Reformation, was used precisely to exclude the Old Testament Apocrypha from Protestant use. The emphasis on original languages is valid since we now know that the Septuagint (the source of the Old Testament Apocrypha in the Bible) had later additions not found in the Hebrew canon. But does that completely invalidate the Apocrypha and mean we should not consult it at all? This leads us to a discussion of what we mean when we say the Bible is true and how we interpret the Bible.
When we say the Bible is true, the Church does not necessarily mean that every detail of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. Some Christians do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but this argument is faulty. It assumes that the writers and audience of the Bible had the same tools for doing scientific and historical research and had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. Further, the Bible is not always correct when addressing science or history. The Bible’s cosmology is one where the earth is flat, surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Concerning the Bible’s reports of history, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, the history is skewed if not completely unsupportable by historical facts. This is usually the case because numbers hold a symbolic meaning in the text rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 are incredibly important because of their significance to the Israelite community.
While historical and scientific perspectives of the Bible are not always correct, does this mean the Bible is not true? No, because the Bible is not meant to be a history or science book. We want to affirm the historical nature of the Bible; these are not simply stories made up by the early church or metaphors (and some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not literally happen, then Christianity is a waste of time. Furthermore, the Church needs to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible to a certain extent. But when the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the Bible is trustworthy for learning about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. This does not mean that nothing reported in the Bible literally happened, nor does it mean the opposite. What matters is that when the Bible speaks about God’s relationship and love for humanity and what that relationship looks like and requires, the Bible is valid and trustworthy. Apocryphal books are useful in that they give greater historical and cultural context to the Bible, but they are not true in the sense that they reveal God’s relationship to humanity or what humanity’s response to God should be.
What does a correct interpretation of the Bible look like? Part of the answer lies in translation. One option is for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. One message of the Pentecost story is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. The Bible can be translated into any languages, but what does a good translation look like? We must look at how the Bible is best interpreted before this question can be fully answered.
There are two layers of interpretation when reading Bible in the best way. The first layer is to take into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. By using these tools, we can better understand what the Bible meant to its original hearers in the first century and earlier so that the Church can better understand what the Gospel means for us today. These are the tools we use to construct good translations of the Bible. A good translation of the Bible into any language is one which best tries to capture the meaning of the Bible as its original audience would have heard it – using the best tools and best available manuscripts – into the language of the new audience. This is why the NRSV, NIV, NASB and even the Message Bible would constitute good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would not.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of the Bible as it is presented in good translations. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid way to read the Bible. Further, if Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and reading the Bible with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts and the greater context of the canon. If the Bible is for and can be read by everyone, then interpretations from laity should be valid to garner truth from the Bible. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
Thus, the Bible is true in that it reveals to the Church what God has done for the world and what is required of humanity in response to God’s action in the world. A valid interpretation requires that one looks critically at the Bible with the tools available to the person reading it, including reading the Bible in community with the church as a whole.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Some Thoughts on Twilight
I am taking a class called "Children's Fantasy Literature and Moral Formation," and this week we looked at the book Twilight. Now I had attempted to read the book last semester, but due to my thesis and some difficulty getting into the book, I wasn't able to make much progress. I saw the movie when it came out in November and had mixed feelings about. So while I am familiar with the story, this was really my first good look at the book. I thought I'd share some of my thoughts based on my own reaction as well as conversation we have in class on Monday.
I do have to make a quick note about the writing. I wouldn't say that it is atrocious, but Stephenie Meyer will not - or at least should not - be winning any awards any time soon for her grammatical or syntactical prowess. There are some gems in the writing and particular phrases that are quite moving, but for the most part the writing is terrible. As many of us have heard in English classes, it is better to show, not tell. Meyer is a teller through and through. Often her prose is repetitive and detrimentally descriptive. The dialogue is good, but she gives too much away and doesn't allow the reader to interpret her work. For more on this, I'll point you to a friend's website for a prime example of this bad writing: http://marchon2884.blogspot.com/2009/02/theervampireis-in-details.html .
The first thing that almost immediately jumps out and attracts discussion is the relationship between Edward and Bella. This is what most teenage girls are immediately interested in and discuss the most (at least based on the research one of our Ph.D. students did in preparation for class). This, to me, is actually the most disturbing part of the book. Now, it is hard to critique the relationship fully because we have to remember that this is a fantasy world: some of the rules are not the same and not everything is meant to be realistic. But part of the fantasy world is to set up the ideal, the perfect in a certain sense though that term is probably too strong. The relationship between Edward and Bella is anything but ideal; in fact, I would go as far as to say it is dangerous. It is an example of what I like to call "Outlaw Biker Syndrome" (and yes, I did get to use that phrase in class). Their relationship seems to exemplify the idea that the type of man that attracts women are dangerous, mysterious and abusive. Edward fits all these characteristics; what's more is that Meyer seems to idolize this type of man and this type of relationship. He constantly reminds her of his threatening nature, that at any moment he could spring on her, kill her, destroy her, but immediately follows this with words of passion and love. This seems harmless, but as one high school sophomore girl raised with great insight, what if Edward were not a vampire? What if he was an everyday kid? The fact that he stalks her, watches her sleep at night, obsesses over her: these are downright creepy acts. Add on top of this that Edward is at least 100 years old, though he is technically in a 17 year old body, and this becomes a predator-prey situation.
Again, I admit that we have to take into account the fantastical nature of the literature and that some of these elements simply reflect the nature of the story. The problem is that teenage girls idolize Edward. Browse the Pieces of Flair boards on teenage girls' profiles and it is not hard to see. Or watch the movie with a group of teenagers (as I did on opening night) and it is easy to see that there are many girls out there who want to find their Edward. In this way, many critics have characterized the book as "Female Pornography." I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for that position. If I were a youth director or a parent of a teenage girl, I don't think I would want them to read the book without taking the time to reflect on Edward's true nature and examining whether this really is the ideal relationship and the ideal man. There is really no way to control that since this is, simply put, the most popular book among teenage girls right now, and most of them have read the book. Reflection is needed on these points.
That is not to say that everything about Bella and Edward's relationship is bad. In some ways, it does reflect the model of many high school relationships. I think this is the reason why so many girls connect with the story and the book series: Bella is all too human, reflecting many of the common insecurities of both men and women. And in some ways, Edward is the reflection of the perfect man, even God: he is the omniscient protector, the omnipotent savior of Bella. And I think these are qualities that need to be elevated and discussed. The important part is to read the book critically, which is happening more than I think many of us would expect but also not as much as it should be happening. I think there are many teenage girls who do read the book with a critical awareness, but I think there are just as many, if not more, who read the book without seeing the nature of Bella and Edward's relationship at a deeper level.
I have to say that part of this idealization of this type of relationship is due to Stephenie Meyer's background. While she says (correctly) that this is not a piece of Mormon literature, it is unmistakably marked by her theology. Borrowing from one of the Ph.D. students, there are three "Mormon landmarks" that permeate the book's themes. The first is "Choosing the Right." Throughout the book, especially seen in the Cullen family, there is an emphasis on choosing the right, the morally correct thing to do. Every act that Edward makes reflects this desire to do the right, to act out of love. Deeper into the book, we realize that the Cullens represent a set-apart community that lives among the world but chooses the right. The second point is connected to the first: sacrifice. Choosing the Right often, if not always, requires sacrifice even to the point of giving one's life for the good. Again, Edward reflects this sacrificial love, and even toward the end of the book, Bella begins to exemplify this virtue as well. Finally, the theme of celestial marriage is emphasized, mainly in terms of purity. One should always choose purity over anything else, including life, and especially when it comes to sexual purity. Our preceptor quoted one Mormon theologian who said it is better to die pure than to live impure. Another quote he gave was from Mormon parents who said it would be better if their children did not come home from mission if they were impure. Again, this is reflected in the book, especially through the theme of abstinence as idealized throughout Edward and Bella's relationship. These themes are not necessarily intentionally inserted but they reflect the Mormon theology out of which Meyer is writing. There is much more I could say on that matter but I'll stop there.
Now, I know as I end this, there are many of you who are probably thinking, "Why can't you just read the book without having to get into all this crap?! Just enjoy the book!" To which I respond, I do enjoy the book. In fact, I want to continue the story because I find the mythology fascinating ... plus someone ruined the end for me by telling my what happens in the fourth book, but I want to see how it eventually gets to that point. At the same time, taking a class on the moral formation that happens in children, teenagers, and even adults, I think it's important to see how this literature functions in shaping the moral imagination of kids and adults today. And because of the popularity of this book, it is absolutely essential as Christians and as the Church to know what is interesting our kids and knowing how the church should respond to this type of literature. I personally have no problem with teenagers reading this book so long as there is some sort of critical reflection going on about the relationship between Edward and Bella. I think all the male characters, including Charlie, Bella's father, need to be examined for their good qualities and also their bad qualities, and from there there needs to be discussion about who the ideal man is. Same thing for the female characters in the book for men who read the book.
I do have to make a quick note about the writing. I wouldn't say that it is atrocious, but Stephenie Meyer will not - or at least should not - be winning any awards any time soon for her grammatical or syntactical prowess. There are some gems in the writing and particular phrases that are quite moving, but for the most part the writing is terrible. As many of us have heard in English classes, it is better to show, not tell. Meyer is a teller through and through. Often her prose is repetitive and detrimentally descriptive. The dialogue is good, but she gives too much away and doesn't allow the reader to interpret her work. For more on this, I'll point you to a friend's website for a prime example of this bad writing: http://marchon2884.blogspo
The first thing that almost immediately jumps out and attracts discussion is the relationship between Edward and Bella. This is what most teenage girls are immediately interested in and discuss the most (at least based on the research one of our Ph.D. students did in preparation for class). This, to me, is actually the most disturbing part of the book. Now, it is hard to critique the relationship fully because we have to remember that this is a fantasy world: some of the rules are not the same and not everything is meant to be realistic. But part of the fantasy world is to set up the ideal, the perfect in a certain sense though that term is probably too strong. The relationship between Edward and Bella is anything but ideal; in fact, I would go as far as to say it is dangerous. It is an example of what I like to call "Outlaw Biker Syndrome" (and yes, I did get to use that phrase in class). Their relationship seems to exemplify the idea that the type of man that attracts women are dangerous, mysterious and abusive. Edward fits all these characteristics; what's more is that Meyer seems to idolize this type of man and this type of relationship. He constantly reminds her of his threatening nature, that at any moment he could spring on her, kill her, destroy her, but immediately follows this with words of passion and love. This seems harmless, but as one high school sophomore girl raised with great insight, what if Edward were not a vampire? What if he was an everyday kid? The fact that he stalks her, watches her sleep at night, obsesses over her: these are downright creepy acts. Add on top of this that Edward is at least 100 years old, though he is technically in a 17 year old body, and this becomes a predator-prey situation.
Again, I admit that we have to take into account the fantastical nature of the literature and that some of these elements simply reflect the nature of the story. The problem is that teenage girls idolize Edward. Browse the Pieces of Flair boards on teenage girls' profiles and it is not hard to see. Or watch the movie with a group of teenagers (as I did on opening night) and it is easy to see that there are many girls out there who want to find their Edward. In this way, many critics have characterized the book as "Female Pornography." I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for that position. If I were a youth director or a parent of a teenage girl, I don't think I would want them to read the book without taking the time to reflect on Edward's true nature and examining whether this really is the ideal relationship and the ideal man. There is really no way to control that since this is, simply put, the most popular book among teenage girls right now, and most of them have read the book. Reflection is needed on these points.
That is not to say that everything about Bella and Edward's relationship is bad. In some ways, it does reflect the model of many high school relationships. I think this is the reason why so many girls connect with the story and the book series: Bella is all too human, reflecting many of the common insecurities of both men and women. And in some ways, Edward is the reflection of the perfect man, even God: he is the omniscient protector, the omnipotent savior of Bella. And I think these are qualities that need to be elevated and discussed. The important part is to read the book critically, which is happening more than I think many of us would expect but also not as much as it should be happening. I think there are many teenage girls who do read the book with a critical awareness, but I think there are just as many, if not more, who read the book without seeing the nature of Bella and Edward's relationship at a deeper level.
I have to say that part of this idealization of this type of relationship is due to Stephenie Meyer's background. While she says (correctly) that this is not a piece of Mormon literature, it is unmistakably marked by her theology. Borrowing from one of the Ph.D. students, there are three "Mormon landmarks" that permeate the book's themes. The first is "Choosing the Right." Throughout the book, especially seen in the Cullen family, there is an emphasis on choosing the right, the morally correct thing to do. Every act that Edward makes reflects this desire to do the right, to act out of love. Deeper into the book, we realize that the Cullens represent a set-apart community that lives among the world but chooses the right. The second point is connected to the first: sacrifice. Choosing the Right often, if not always, requires sacrifice even to the point of giving one's life for the good. Again, Edward reflects this sacrificial love, and even toward the end of the book, Bella begins to exemplify this virtue as well. Finally, the theme of celestial marriage is emphasized, mainly in terms of purity. One should always choose purity over anything else, including life, and especially when it comes to sexual purity. Our preceptor quoted one Mormon theologian who said it is better to die pure than to live impure. Another quote he gave was from Mormon parents who said it would be better if their children did not come home from mission if they were impure. Again, this is reflected in the book, especially through the theme of abstinence as idealized throughout Edward and Bella's relationship. These themes are not necessarily intentionally inserted but they reflect the Mormon theology out of which Meyer is writing. There is much more I could say on that matter but I'll stop there.
Now, I know as I end this, there are many of you who are probably thinking, "Why can't you just read the book without having to get into all this crap?! Just enjoy the book!" To which I respond, I do enjoy the book. In fact, I want to continue the story because I find the mythology fascinating ... plus someone ruined the end for me by telling my what happens in the fourth book, but I want to see how it eventually gets to that point. At the same time, taking a class on the moral formation that happens in children, teenagers, and even adults, I think it's important to see how this literature functions in shaping the moral imagination of kids and adults today. And because of the popularity of this book, it is absolutely essential as Christians and as the Church to know what is interesting our kids and knowing how the church should respond to this type of literature. I personally have no problem with teenagers reading this book so long as there is some sort of critical reflection going on about the relationship between Edward and Bella. I think all the male characters, including Charlie, Bella's father, need to be examined for their good qualities and also their bad qualities, and from there there needs to be discussion about who the ideal man is. Same thing for the female characters in the book for men who read the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)