Is dialogue inherent to Christianity?

Pope Benedict asserts that both reason and dialogue are inherent to Christianity:

Possibly most readers read or heard about the lecture that Pope Benedict XVI gave to academicians at Regensburg University on September 12 of last year. Nearly all of the reaction was about his quoting a medieval source's blunt comments regarding Islam. His main point, however, was that all persuasions including religion should be promoted by reasonable dialogue and not by force. That is not to say that his comments about Islam should be minimized or ignored. Many commentators who are familiar with the Pope's ability to express himself intellectually feel that those words, even though quoted from a historically distant source, were carefully chosen. Personally, I was somewhat taken aback by how early in the talk he inserted the quote. Nevertheless, I admired the Pope's forthrightness in boldly speaking his mind. The issues of Islam and violence must be confronted head on and that is what the Pope did. Those comments, however, were not spoken without cost: the strong and sometimes violent reaction to his comments continued for a long time afterwards, carried out by partisans who consider any perceived dishonor worthy of revenge.

That particular comment, however, was not what provoked my main reaction to his talk. What really caught my attention was his thesis that Christianity has incorporated the value of reason and dialogue by way of loan from Greek thought, albeit a selective and purified borrowing. In other words, Benedict claims that Christian theology has been “Hellenized," and thereby made conformable to reason and dialogue. His chief piece of evidence is the acceptance of the Greek notion of “logos.” This term, developed by Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato, and others, encompasses concepts inherent in the following English ideas: reason, word, seed, logic, speech, thought, order, and principle. It even is used by John to refer to Christ himself as seen in John 1:1.

Benedict developed this idea in another address referred to as the “Crisis of Culture,” given a day before the death of his predecessor (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/RatzingerEurope.php). In that talk as well as his most recent, he asserts that Christianity is a religion built on reason, and that the world and all that is in it has a rational and therefore meaningful origin. He goes on to say that not only the world, but also Christianity was born within a context of reason and that reason continues to be its criterion and goal: “In the dialogue so necessary between secularists and Catholics, we Christians ought to be very attentive to return the faithful to this fundamental guide: to live a faith that comes forth from the Logos, from creative Reason, and which is therefore also open to all which is truly reasonable” (from “Crisis of Culture”). It is as if he is saying to Islam and other persuasions such as science: I am here to listen, to learn, and to dialogue and not just teach. Let's agree on the ground rules and begin to speak with each other. In order to drive home his point concerning religion, he adds that reason and not compulsion or violence is bound up in the very nature of God himself.

Now concerning the part that caught my attention: What he has done is revisit one of the great controversies that has characterized Christian theology since its very beginning: What should be our relationship with the surrounding culture, beginning with Greece? What should we accept and what should we reject? Or as Tertullion put it: What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? The answers, of course, vary. Benedict takes the position that we in the past have incorporated the best of Greek thought and that it is now irreversibly a part of Christianity. Of course one reason why he said this was to underscore the importance of reason and reasonable dialogue. But another reason was to point out that Christianity is not at odds with what is true in other philosophies or religions. Although he doesn't mention it, it may well have been an invitation to Muslim scholars to bring their best thinking to the table, knowing that the Pope would give it a fair and open appraisal. Since very few Muslims have been seen rushing to that table of peaceful dialogue, one can imagine how gravely misinterpreted the Pope must now feel. One thing is for sure: the repercussions from that lecture at Regensburg will be felt for a long time to come. The debate, peacefully reasonable or not, is not yet over.`

Beneficial dialogue means including new perspectives

(One of the characteristics of pluralistic dialogue is the idea that there is much to be gained listening to a different perspective. The following article exemplifies that principle. Specifically, it talks about how everyone who studies the Bible can benefit from the insights that come from those who study literature.)

The Literature Student Approaching the Hermeneutic Table

Michael J. O'Connor, MA

Today's literature students, who study and interpret literature, especially literature across cultures, can apply a lot that they have learned towards a better understanding of the Bible. They often develop certain insights into interpreting texts that are often missed by others.

Besides being written in several languages, the narrative style of the Bible is different from what we find ourselves today not only in terms of culture and history, but also in terms of rhetoric. One aspect of this is the very frequent use of literary expressions (figures of speech) that are very different than what we are accustomed to. Some have listed at least 200 different kinds of figures of speech found in the Bible. (Bullinger, 2003) One such example is the figure of speech called hyperbole, also known as exaggeration. This devise is used much more frequently in other cultures, including those of the Bible, than in our own culture.

Let me give you some examples. In my experience working in Latin America, I would hear ministers teaching their students regarding certain promises in the Bible.

“He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” ( Rom 8:32)

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. (Mat 7:7-8)

These are powerful and expansive promises which express the intent of God. Nevertheless, within them there are signs of poetic style that need some qualification. They definitely need to be put into the context of a larger Biblical narrative.

But often as an addendum to the promises, the students would frequently hear this, “God never exaggerates.” It is this latter statement that I would like to examine. How about this idea of exaggeration? God, as He expresses himself in the Bible, never exaggerates? What does the word exaggerate mean? Must it always be regarded as an error unworthy of our respect? If by exaggeration one means lie, than, I don't think the Bible is presenting us with that kind of God. The rhetorical devise of exaggeration is indeed used in the Bible but the intent is not to lie or deceive or hide any truth or change the facts.

I often found it ironic to hear these claims because these teachers are from a culture that is Hispanic in nature. One of the salient characteristics of the Spanish language and culture is the use of exaggeration as a figure of speech. It is built into the language itself. For instance, General Franco of Spain was not just General Franco. He was Generalísimo or “Utmost High General”. Likewise, one comments to one's host that the food is not just deliciosa; it is deliciosísima, no matter how it is... So, one would think that at least because one was Latin, one should be able to recognize exaggeration when it appears in the Bible and that it has a valid purpose. It is also the case that in the culture and languages of the Bible, and indeed throughout the whole Mediterranean, exaggeration was and is a frequent rhetorical or communicative devise.

But, as in the case of many ministers in Latin America, especially Protestants, most have been influenced or trained by North Americans. One of the characteristics of the culture of North America (and Northern Europe) is a dislike of any type of exaggeration. It is often considered to be tantamount to lying. We North Americans see this early on in life. Children, by nature, invent stories and exaggerate. However, in our culture they learn quickly that such imaginative expressions are wrong and they receive swift corrections. And that rebuke sticks with most children for the rest of their lives.

Because of this antipathy, we English speakers often misinterpret the rhetorical use of exaggeration in the Bible. We fail-- and sometimes refuse-- to see it for what it is: a way to get across a point, a way to motivate and not just inform. (Stein, 1997) Even for those of us contextually informed interpreters who generally believe in the historicity, supernaturalness, truthfulness, and authority of the Bible, our theology can be skewed towards a “wooden” literalism. By wooden, I mean a kind of knee-jerk reaction towards focusing literally on each word rather than on the the willed intent of the author taking into consideration the overall meaning of the phrase as expressed in a larger context. We therefore often end up with wrong conclusions about the full truth of the Biblical passage as it applies to us today, or at least we have a hard time understanding what is meant.

Then there are those who go off in the opposite direction. Also literally reading such portions of the Bible, but not finding them true, they disdainfully reject certain doctrines or even the Bible itself, in toto. Had they realized that exaggeration is often employed as a rhetorical device, they might have been able to get beyond their objections (or distortions) to a more accurate understanding of the truth that the text intends to convey.

What then are some of these “exaggerations” that often become obstacles for many people, distorting or sometimes canceling their faith? Some are obvious: “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:24-26) Most have understood this to mean that it is nigh impossible to enter the kingdom of God, in this case, because of the distraction of riches. In fact, Jesus later replies that God and only God can make such entrance happen! However, throughout the ages there have been scholars and researchers who have looked for a structure that was called “the eye of a needle”. Even if it existed, that was not the point. In order to get his idea across, the author (in this case, Jesus) used an analogy that in effect was a gross exaggeration in order to point out a humanly (and creaturely) impossible feat.

Here's one that some sincere believers miss: Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. (Mar 11:23) Even though the passage itself refers to an exaggerated example (moving mountains), the reader is expected to put this verse into the context of what he or she already knows about both the overall message of the Bible and the parameters of life itself. The verse speaks mightily of what can be called achieving faith, however, it must be seen in the context of all that we know about God and the Scriptures. As the writer of Habbakuk says, there are times when “the fig tree does not blossom, nor fruit is on the vines...” (Hab 3:17) Yet in spite of all this loss, the believer is called to maintain a joyful faith in God. Knowing when to take an active stand of faith to see “mountains” moved, and when to just stand in the face of loss requires discernment on the part of the believer. Both verses, however, point to a larger narrative of common theology.

Of course there are even other believers, hyperliteralists, who believe that this verse means that just with speaking to the mountain you can move a mountain or something equally massive, almost like magic. To date I have not heard of any mountains being singularily moved (much less on a significantly frequent basis) just at the will and speech of a believer.

Another good example can be found in the Scriptures that assert that Jesus healed “all.” (Matthew 4:24, 8:16, 12:15, etc.) Many present day believers put a lot of faith in God to heal based on this word. Believing that God heals, by the way, in and of itself, is laudable: One of the chief characteristics of the overall description of God in the Bible is that He is Jehovah Rafa, God, the Healer. This rhetoric, however, is triumphant, speaks of all cases, and was typical of the time of the writer.The problem comes when today's reader discovers that there are times, both in present experience and in the accounts of the Jesus, himself, when God seemingly does not heal. (Mark 6:5) These believers now are presented with many dilemmas: How do they square that with the assertion that Jesus went about healing all? For many, they just ignore the concomitant qualifying Scriptures, but also they ignore every believer's experience that most of us suffer ailments at some time in life and eventually die from one malady or another.

There are other factors that cause some to not interpret adequately the exaggerations that are in the text. One of those factors has to do with the personal makeup of the reader, an important participant in the hermeneutic event. Sometimes our own perspective comes to bear on how we interpret a certain passage. Such a perspective is often based on our own particular cognitive or personality style. For instance, some individuals have a cognitive style that is very linear, logical, and detail oriented. When they read a passage like Romans 8:32, they start to think of each and every possible situation. For them there should not be any exceptions, unknowns, or paradoxes. Logically, they adhere to the notion of the law of non-contradiction. This law states that two seemingly opposing ideas can not both be true at the same time. Often this means that if there is one exception, then the whole principle must not be true. In the case of Romans 8:32 it would be the principle of God's bountiful provision. It might not be that they overtly oppose such a principle; rather, believing that it was too full of exceptions, they would subconsciously ignore it. Because such individuals focus on earthly details, they fail to grasp the ultimate reality of God that the Scriptures express.

When they study the Bible, they are excellent in learning and remembering its many details, but they are notorious in not properly understanding the rhetorical use of exaggeration , or for that matter, other similar rhetorical devices such as figurative, typological, or metaphorical speech, and other poetic expressions. They need the help of others who, having a different cognitive make-up or training, see the whole forest and not just the trees, that is, the whole intent of the author. These people are global thinkers who see the overall patterns. They often are quick to see how a certain passage fits into a larger context or principle. But because they too can err by overreaching, even to the point of seeing things that are not in the text, they need to stay in touch with the detail people. While some refuse to admit that a certain promise may have exceptions in life, these detail oriented thinkers focus too much on the exceptions. Both types of thinking ultimately lead to missing the intent of the Scriptures and are in need of not just each other but the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The conclusion: yes, some people can miss certain aspects of the Bible such as exaggerations. Because of this, the literature student does have a place at the hermeneutic table. But even he or she must remember that others also have important places at the same table. Pertinent to that, the Scripture says, “wisdom is justified by all her children.” (Luke 7:35) In other words, there is room for many at that table.

(All Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 2001. Crossways Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.)

Suggested reading:

Bullinger, E. W. 2003. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

What follows is a hypertext outline of Bullinger's reference work:

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/Groupings/by%20Author/Bullinger.htm#omission

Caird, G.B., 1980. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. 1998. Leland Ryken et al, eds., Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Osborne, Grant R., 1991. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Stein, Robert. 1990. Difficult Passages in the New Testament: Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the Gospels and Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Stein, Robert. 1997. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

The Rushdie affair and the onslaught against free speech

Most remember the case of novelist Salman Rushdie and the stark assault not only against him but against the principle and practice of free speech in the West.

If not, let me remind you. Mr. Rushdie is a British citizen of Indian origin who is one of Europe's most celebrated authors. His many novels frequently deal with the theme of the East intersecting with the West. In 1988, he came out with a novel called Satanic Verses that was interpreted by many as being anti-Islamic. As a result, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (a legal pronouncement, in this case, a death sentence) against him or anyone else connected with the publication of the book, calling on anyone of his religion to carry it out.

In spite of the on-going fatwa, Rushdie has survived with his life. Others connected with the book either have lost their lives or have been seriously wounded. Many have lost their lives participating in riots which have been in protest against the book. This whole affair has once again surfaced in the news because of Queen Elizabeth's recent bestowal of a knighthood on Mr. Rushdie. Another influential cleric in Iran, the Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, reminded his worshipers recently that the deadly fatwa against Rushdie was still in effect. Although reprisals against writers for "blasphemous" writings has occurred in the West, the idea that someone could lose his or her life over the publication of a novel is now foreign to most Westerners. Even more strange is the idea that a prominent religious leader would authorize it.

There are many issues involved in this on-going Rushdie Affair in addition to freedom of speech. For instance, the Rushdie Affair raises the issue of the role of a novel within a society. Most successful novels in the West have been granted a prestigious position and most have been oppositional to traditional values in some manner. (Many novels, such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are highly objectionable to Christians, yet still circulate free of any censorship.) This idea of a novel, of course, does not sit well within almost all Islamic societies, where novels are not held in such high regard nor are they allowed to criticize religious values. (see:"Notes for Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses", Paul Brien)

Do all regard freedom of speech as a primary value?

Not all cultures regard freedom of speech as a primary value. But for many of us, especially here in the West, the right of the individual to freedom of speech is regarded as indisputable and universal in its application. It surprises us that this is not the case everywhere.

In general, the most notorious Muslim thrust throughout the world is spearheaded by radical elements that resist Western, liberal modernization. In their often outrageous and sometimes murderous attempts to purify themselves against Western influence, they incongruously try to expose Western culture as being void of wholesome values. In some respects they reveal genuine corruption in the West. Nevertheless, they sometimes regard freedom of speech, especially because it may confront Islam, as one of those suspect values.

Even moderate, educated Muslims living in the West have been silent regarding anything pertaining to the Rushdie Affair, whether it is in defense of Rushdie or against him or even against the mindless, violent reactions that have taken the lives of innocent Muslims in Muslim protests worldwide. One exception to this is Irshad Manji, the author of The Trouble with Islam Today, who is calling for fellow Muslims in the West to denounce violence in the "good name of Allah and Islam." According to Ms. Manji, speaking out and taking advantage of their right to free speech is not being practiced by Muslim people even in the United States.

There are reasons for this devaluing of free and open dialogue that come from within Islam itself. Relatively speaking, within Islamic tradition there is less internal theological debate or tolerance of dissension than in Christian tradition. Because of this, it is of no surprise that there is a lesser regard for freedom of speech in the overall society. To be sure, in the Christian West you have a long tradition of vigorous theological debate within orthodox Christianity itself. This characteristic eventually would give license--and in some cases, legitimacy-- to even its detractors and help foster within society freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and also freedom of debate. Also, in Islam there is a propensity towards the merging of the state-- characterized by authorized force-- with Islam itself that results in forceful religious censorship.

In contrast to this propensity to merge Islam with the state, in the West you have had an evolving tradition of institutional separation of religion and state. This separation can be derived by implication from Christianity itself. On the one hand, it is true that within Christianity religion is thought to have relevance to the state. In terms of the Biblical record, it is asserted that the people of God have a duty to speak prophetically, yet respectfully, to the state in terms of values. However, by the time that the Christian Church is created, a growing institutional distinction is made between church and state. (Matthew 22: 21, Romans 13:1-7) Even though that separation has been blurred throughout history, currently here in the West we see that such a practice predominates.

What can we learn from all this regarding freedom of speech or the role of dialogue within society?

1.Sometimes we don't value something until it is being challenged, as in this case. The very overt assault on free speech that this case represents is unusual in the West, but it reminds us of the situation of hundreds of years ago, when free speech was not the norm. It was during that time people died to gain that right. That time may return.

2.Certainly we learn in the long run that the responsible employment of freedom of speech not only aids religion, but it also aids society. It is important not just for the individual or the minority group, but for the society in general. It brings forth new and profitable ideas that, in turn, cause good to come to the society.

3.Salman Rushdie chose to speak about religion. Likewise people of various faiths, instead of making criminal threats, have the recourse to speak out also.

4. People of faith in the West, including Christians, have not taken advantage of their right of free speech especially in resisting the Western trend to invalidate traditional, religious values. Battles can be won not by repression on the part of some nor self-censorship on the part of others, but rather by persuasion through dialogue.

5.Christians would do well to form civic alliances with moderate Muslims, who often come from repressive, non-democratic societies, in order to promote and impart values that have to do with civil discourse and freedom of speech. (from private correspondence with Robert Osburn, the director of the MacLaurin Institute.)

Unfortunately, people of faith have “bought into” the idea promoted by some that all religion should be private and that religious arguments have no right in the public arena. In the long run this does not work, and furthermore, when some are silenced, everyone suffers. Not only does this weaken society, it also weakens the right to free speech. The right to free speech implies that vigorous debate by all is good for a society. To ignore this right or to limit it unfairly means that eventually the whole society will suffer. That society will be deprived of the contribution of a whole segment of its population and the truths they may have. For a religion to ignore its own right to speak out on issues means that eventually its role in that society will be diminished and perhaps its very existence. Salman Rushdie is an atheist who has every right to satirize religion. Likewise religious people have every right to peacefully and civilly defend their religious ideas and promote them in the society at large.

Principles of dialogue in Florida

Respectful and vigorous dialogue. Freedom of speech. A plurality of voices. These are concepts that go to the heart of a mature, democratic, and healthy society. But what exactly are the parameters, the characteristics or principles that foster such a dialogue? And conversely, what will hinder or threaten it? These are some of the ideas that I want to explore in this blog.

I will begin with a recent incident that occurred the week of June 10, 2007, just this last week. County officials in Broward County, Florida were threatening to stop broadcasting hurricane warnings on a certain radio station simply because the station carried controversial speakers such as Rush Limbaugh.

What ideas or principles of dialogue and free speech are involved in this event? (I will give my answer at the end of today's blog.)

According to one newspaper, one county commissioner cited Rush Limbaugh and the radio station, WIOD, for being “out of step” with the majority of the residents of the county. Here is an account of what ensued in yet another newspaper, The Miami Herald, written by Amy Sherman, dated June 13, 2007 :

“If it truly wants to be Broward County's official hurricane radio station, here's what WIOD (610 AM) needs to do:

“Fire Rush Limbaugh.

“At least that's the stand taken by Commissioner Stacy Ritter, who was able to prevent the county from renewing its hurricane information partnership with WIOD because the station carries the conservative icon's syndicated show.

“Ritter pointed out that the majority of the nine county commissioners -- all of whom are Democrats -- are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Limbaugh and other conservative hosts carried by WIOD.”

The following is my exchange of views with the Broward County Commissioners:

I wrote all nine members reminding them that the constitution defines censorship as something that the government must not do. In effect, such censorship would result if they withdrew their use of this station strictly based on the content of his speech. Here is what I said to them:

“You are out of step with constitutional, national, and historical values if you move to censor Rush Limbaugh. At some point good government must be above politics and respect the freedom of mass media, journalism, etc. I hope you will make the right decision. The nation is watching.”

Surprisingly, five wrote back. (And even more surprisingly, most were genuinely personal, not just a prepared public relations text.) Most of them wanted me to know that they were going to base their vote on which station had the largest audience and not the content of the speech on that station.

“Good for them,” I thought.

One of the commissioners, Vice Mayor Lois Wexler urged me to write all of the commissioners, something that I had already done. Here are excerpts from my last reply to her:

Dear Commissioner Wexler,

In my letters... I applauded [the other commissioners], as I applaud you, for approaching your decision from a rational basis.

In my comments to them I said:

...Good government must be based first and foremost on rational decisions and not be first and foremost an extension of raw politics. Leave that for the campaigns.

...The genius of our way of governing (two or more parties, three branches of government, freedom of speech, etc.) is that there will be more than one voice, more than one opinion, and therefore, many checks and balances.

As you well know, Ms. Wexler, our constitution defines censorship as something that a government [unfortunately] can do and consequently proscribes it. Therefore the one societal entity that must be very careful about stifling speech is the government. Government is held to those standards, not a particular radio station. From your remarks, I surmise that you are aware of this and therefore I am very glad to know about your sensitivity to this issue.

As you can see, much more is at stake here than just reaching the largest audience. However, that is an important, rational fact to consider and a good place to begin.

Best of luck to you and the other public servants as you make your decisions.

Sincerely,

Michael O'Connor

What is the principle that becomes the focus of today's blog entry?

Healthy communication thrives on a plurality of voices. No one person has all of the answers. We need to hear from everyone. In a democratic society we agree that through a peaceful process we will come to a joint agreement on how one governs and who that will be. Suppressing those voices, either directly or indirectly, is not the answer.

One last thought: Calling people names doesn't help the conversation either. Such disrespect was shown by several of the interlocutors: According to the newspaper, Commissioner Ritter coyly called Rush Limbaugh “out of step” with the majority of the constituents. Another newspaper peeled off the sugarcoating and implied that he was regarded by some as a “gasbag.” Rush Limbaugh in turn called the commissioners “idiots.”

The question is: Are we as citizens just playing power politics or are we learning something constructive in the process?

-

The purpose of this blog

In case you are wondering: the purpose of this blog is to take up the topic of dialogue and explore it in all of its facets. I hope to connect with a wide audience of readers who also are concerned about promoting the virtue of open dialogue and debate in today's society. I will from time to time focus on the current state of affairs at today's universities, but not limit my comments just to that venue. For instance, I will also look into how this topic is being treated from social, political, and religious points of view.

I hope to be of benefit to my readers, but I also hope to benefit from my readers. So, let the journey of dialogue begin!