The New Testament has been always used to justify conflicts, poverty, and inequality.
Also it does not speak about the age of the Internet and globalization.
If not, maybe, for Matthew (28:18-20): “And Jesus came and said to them: -All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…”
But is The New Testament diverse enough?
I would highlight a few points:
- It fails to reflect the diversified structures of society.
- It misrepresents the poor.
- Diverse people, like in the Jean-Paul Sartre famous sentence, are depicted as hell. (1)
- There is no attention to fashion as the social mean for multi-culturalism.
- The minorities are not portrayed in a positive light.
- Stereotypes of Jews are reinforced, confirming the appearance, values, and behaviors of the people of that time.
- The NT accepts the power relations between actors and does not expose the political and social injustices.
- It justifies the actions and behaviors of those in power with the fantastic story of the resurrection.
- It is not about truth-telling, and it is not addicted to factual accuracy, checking, and rechecking.
- It does not create an environment where everyone is free to admit and correct mistakes.
- Stories are incomplete and significant facts are suppressed.
- There is no space for valid and reasonable disagreement.
- It does not talk about humanity and solidarity. Rich people are demonized and described with pejorative terms.
- It is not open-minded and thoughtful.
(1) Jean-Paul Sartre: “Hell is other people.” Huis Clos, 1943.
Those who still remember the good old days of Fascism in Italy, are well informed of the few words such as “typical.”
There is a typical approach to reality and it is the only reality given: it’s the idea of including or involving people belonging to different social and ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations.
A politically correct way is to say that schools, institutions, and society should be mostly black or Hispanic. Even tho 100 percent is, really, black or Hispanic.
A typical statement is: Africa is an extremely diverse area.
Does it give the impression that it is all garbage?
Do you think it is all garbage?
I can only speak personally of course but attempts to make the NT relevant and applicable to the modern day are of no interest to me at all. On the contrary it is the text’s “alienness” to modern thought that is its very source of interest.
Consider that most all of the traditional doctrines of Christianity formed in a concept system radically different from our post-enlightenment views. What happened is that these views were redefined as our conceptual framework shifted, apparently mostly unconsciously.
To give a specific example most believers today who accept the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” think in terms of a “miracle” of genetics. And that’s because moderns are trained to require an explanation consisting of a description of the processes involved in the thing being explained. But when the ancients asked for an explanation they expected a story, A True Story. And the quality of a story is that it can be both literal and figurative, categories moderns tend to see as distinct and even antagonistic. A True Story was a story that not only actually happened but very importantly also had meaning. They were not blind to the allegorical and metaphoric aspects of the Virgin Birth but also took it quite literally. It is we moderns who who forced by our presuppositions to make a false choice.
But there are consequences. Can it be said that a modern believer in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth really believes in the same doctrine as the first century believer? Can these concepts be adapted without being destroyed?
Anyway this is my itch to scratch. Aren’t you glad you asked?
Anything taken away from its original context bears different meanings.
In fact, like in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the very attempt to measure things conflicts with the measurement itself.
And I would go further: the reader might choose some meaning or another, but the idea, in itself, is empty.
The conclusion is, therefore, that there is nothing to preserve. And there’s no need to do that.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)