 |
|||||||||||
                     |
|
THE USES—AND ABUSES—OF SACRED TEXTS IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE As the nation watched Massachusetts lawmakers debate the constitutional definition of marriage this spring, undulating, hand-held signs turned the sidewalks of Beacon Hill into a sea of dueling biblical quotes. "One man, one woman, God's plan," chanted gay marriage opponents, hoisting placards citing Leviticus 18:22, which condemns homosexual acts. Proponents retorted with a series of signs, "We can quote the bible, too"—mocking biblical passages about slaves' obeisance to masters, virgin brides and polygamy.
The biblical text bashing on Beacon Hill is but one example of how scripture is cited and distorted in public debate, which was the topic of a May 10–12 conference sponsored by the Interreligious Center on Public Life (ICPL). Sacred Texts: The Uses and Abuses of Scripture in Public Discourse was attended by more than 300 scholars and community leaders from Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities. The keynote event, a public forum the evening of May 10, addressed two controversial works that have brought interpretations of scripture—and vigorous criticisms of those interpretations—into the limelight: Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses (Viking Books, 1989). At the forum, President David M. Gordis; Dr. Gregory Mobley, associate professor of Old Testament at Andover Newton Theological School; and Ahmed H. al-Rahim, preceptor in Arabic in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, presented individual statements and responded to audience and panel questions. "If it were a case of misinterpretation, it would be easy to fix; but the real issue is that each of our traditions contain texts that are problematic when they are represented and interpreted accurately," Gordis said. Admittedly speaking from a modern Jewish viewpoint, he said that when Jewish texts include prickly statements, it's imperative that we enter a "dialogical relation" with them. No matter how central, if a passage leads to the humiliation of others, it's a result of the human interpretation of that passage, not the word of God, he said. And since we naturally bring our personal biases to the text, we therefore "need to bracket the sections that are not authoritative and note them as such." Though Gordis acknowledged that Gibson and other fundamentalists have the right to shape films as they wish and interpret the Gospel text as they do, he said he believes the Passion was intended "to generate mischief and wrench progress made between Jews and Christians." Mobley said he wished to focus his remarks on the merits and weaknesses of Gibson's film, and not "beat the antisemitism drum," which he said has been done enough already. To the film's credit, he said, it offered Gibson's vision of Jesus. Like Gibson, Mobley said that he carries a personal image of Jesus in his mind, and that he "was not unhappy to see [Gibson's] Jesus." Mobley commented that Gibson's film contained "the best cinematic scene of Jesus I have ever seen: where an adult Jesus banters with his mother in the courtyard of their home. The playfulness, the earthiness, the tenderness, the charisma of the Jesus in that scene captures the qualities of a man that I would drop my nets to follow." The downside of Gibson's film, Mobley said, is "its flat portrait of Jewish leadership." Like previous films Gibson has directed—The Patriot, Braveheart—the cinematic villains are not developed as much as the "outlaw hero" who is "beaten early, tortured along the way, isolated in society, but drafted to defend it." "Gibson doesn't take time to build the social character of his enemy leaders. They're unambiguously base. He shows no reason for his villains," Mobley said. "I'd have to rate Gibson below a master of hero films like John Ford, who always humanized the Apaches as well as the cavalry." "You can't have interfaith dialogue if you don't tackle the difficult questions, the tough realities in sacred texts," al-Rahim said, and Mobley agreed: "We'll make progress in dialogue when we disagree." Overall, members of the Christian community, even those who haven't seen it yet, Mobley said, have been having mixed reactions to the film. Though he anticipates the film uniting Protestants and Catholics, he acknowledged that evangelists are using it as a conversion opportunity.
According to the Qur'an, he said, "the individual who was crucified wasn't Jesus—it was a stand-in. For Muslims, Jesus was raised to heaven." He also instructed that in the Muslim world there is little if any discussion of the problem of antisemitic views as they are found in Islamic texts, the Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Mohammed). "The hermeneutics Dr. Gordis discussed hasn't been developed for Islam—the bracketing, the critical qur'anic studies. The debate didn't happen. These things Muslims must aspire to." As to The Satanic Verses, Mobley interpreted the novel as a nonlinear, satirical work, a thousand-and-one vividly drawn but desultory tales attempting to reveal the chaos behind the façade of order existing in the world. The book therefore contrasts with other great works of fiction that attempt to divine order from the chaotic flow of experience, he said. Al-Rahim explained that Ayatollah Khomeini, in issuing a fatwa, or death sentence, against Rushdie in response the book's publication, was acting in accordance to certain interpretations of Islamic law, which state that any apostate (someone who rejects his own faith or attempts to leave it) should be sentenced to death. "In Mohammed's time, people blasphemed Islam's God and the Qur'an but weren't sentenced to death," al-Rahim said. In modern times, however, this leniency doesn't seem to exist. "The majority of Muslims [today] take the Qur'an as a whole and are unwilling to bracket certain texts, which demonize the other—you can't take part of it and not the whole. "It's important that Muslims begin studying biblical criticism to see how it could be applied to their own sacred texts," he said. "We need to develop centers here in America where Muslims study that methodology and are open to questioning and reinterpreting their traditions." In addition to the forum, the two-day conference featured close group readings of the binding of Isaac in Genesis, the passion of Jesus in John, and Jesus' work as a prophet in the Qur'an. Other panel discussions tackled authority and dissent in the three faith traditions, and the sacred personalities of Jesus, Mohammed and Moses. Rabbi Sanford Seltzer, director of the ICPL, said the reaction he received from participants is encouraging. "There was a call to not let it end here, to find a way to continue the dialogue," he said. "They found [the conference] to be a very important opportunity to begin exploring how Jews, Christians and Muslims understand—and do not understand—the sacred texts of each other's faiths, which speak to them in very different ways." The speakers likewise endorsed interfaith dialogue and text study. Though "deeply committed to my own religious culture," Gordis said, "it doesn't mean I can't appreciate and learn from visitation into other cultures. We will only grow when we are introduced to other faiths." "Diversity is part of God's plan," he continued. "The problem is when we try to turn others into a copy of ourselves. We should view them instead as opportunities for growth." "You can't have interfaith dialogue if you don't tackle the difficult questions, the tough realities in sacred texts," al-Rahim added, and Mobley agreed: "We'll make progress in dialogue when we disagree." |
|||||||||
Far from clarifying the heated debate inside the gold-domed statehouse, the textual jousting only served to intensify polarization over what has become a divisive national issue. Excerpted from context and commentary, the biblical verses could easily seem arcane and alienating—a concern not only to those who value thoughtful public debate over complex cultural conflicts, but also to religious scholars and communal leaders who value meaningful dialogue about sacred texts.
Al-Rahim said that within the current Muslim religious context, discussion of or debate over the meanings of sacred texts and how they relate to modernity barely exist.