A needed critique of bible-based traditions.

Seeking to understand the biblical traditions moral force presents challenges that moderns are likely to find highly perplexing. Time warp is only one aspect of the problem. Language, context, values represent further gaps in the sequencing between the tradition and its current applications. Peter Steinfels' recent book, A PEOPLE ADRIFT. THE CRISIS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA (Simon & Schuster, 2003) is only the tip of the iceberg in the tug-of-war today between radical religious leaders and civil libertarians. Steinfels cites the foundational rationale for the emergence of radical religious politics:

   At present, the Catholic Church's official stances on sexual
   morality and on the role of women constitute a form of
   Catholic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a modern
   phenomenon. It is a defensive reaction to threatening
   change. It reflects the rear--and by no means a groundless
   one--that a whole tradition might be swept away or drastically
   denatured unless protected by an unambiguous line
   or a nonnegotiable principle [305].

The question is, from where does this unambiguous line or nonnegotiable principle derive its content? The answer to this question may be less traditional than political in character.

This is true of any effort to pinpoint a particular tradition within the community of moral theologians. Louis E. Newman, in AN INTRODUCTION TO JEWISH ETHICS (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005) explains why constructing a putative Jewish ethical tradition is, at best, elusive:

   Every Jewish ethicist who studies the complete heritage of
   Jewish reflection on any moral question must construct a
   tradition ... either explicitly or implicitly. The heritage of
   Jewish thought is simply too vast and encompasses too
   many divergent perspectives to be reduced to a single,
   internally consistent view. All the pieces do not fit so neatly
   into a single jigsaw puzzle.... Constructing a Jewish
   view ... is possible only when the contemporary Jewish
   ethicist carefully selects, weighs, interprets and applies the
   many voices to be found within the Jewish heritage [176].

Not all interpreters of the scriptural tradition(s) seem ready to accept these limitations in the pursuit of norms for behavior in modern society. Limitations in formulating authoritative norms correlate with modern thinkers' awareness of free choice:

   The age of exploration expanded the intellectual horizons of
   Europeans even as it forced them to alter their geographical
   image of the globe. [T]he implication of these changes were
   far reaching and complex. Individualism and universalism
   became the hallmarks of modern thought. The concept of
   individual rights grew from the notion that individuals in a
   state of nature are free and autonomous and cede authority
   over their lives to others, if at all, only by an act of free will.
   Moreover, if humans are distinguished by reason above all
   else, then all other distinctions of religious affiliation,
   national origin, and ultimately of race and gender, must be
   less important than what human beings share by virtue of
   their being rational creatures [131].

Resetting the moral compass from the rule of revealed truths set in the fathomless past to the rule of reason based in the scientific present has punctuated the agenda of modern moralists and exegetes alike. Truths held sacred vary fundamentally from context to context. Ours today address a world of scientific exploration more handily than they do ancient Chinese secrets, whose lure largely derives from a mystical attachment to the past as somehow pristine and authoritative.

The politics of authority haunt traditionalists of any stripe. Institutionalized knowledge safeguards vested interests as much today as in the past. In the name of tradition, authorities lay claim to the power to manage with mantras of expansive truth and clarity seldom attained in the profane world of experimental science. Is this an operational asset needed to offset the limits of human reason, or a ruse to assure human institutions of continued existence at any price? Or, perhaps, a blending of the two?

Today, perhaps more than ever before, religionists feel the tension between institutional faith and civil liberties. Each comes with its own history and its own set of benefits. It is for the astute critic to sort these out and present them in a meaningful and productive set of guidelines for living in the complexities of the modern world. If religion is left to its institutional authorities, it will succeed in supporting the institutional status quo. If civil liberties are left to popular votes, they can similarly founder on the rocks of majoritarian advantage. Who can find the way that utilizes the best of tradition and the best of scientific awareness in a creative dynamism for modern living?

Critical scholarship aims to shed light on the foundational traditions that lend ballast to the present. Often, critical scholarship sees these foundations in a new light. In that case, as the axiom puts it, "Know the law, and the law will set you free." If you learn what the sources of tradition really meant and the range of their reasonable application, you'll be set free from contaminants or misinterpretations along the way. Perhaps here is the role of critical biblical theologians. Theirs is the task of unmasking interpretive agendas by illuminating the purpose of the laws within the scriptural tradition. They may not thereby create new agendas in the present, but they can and should disabuse present traditionalists of their misuses of the traditions upon which they stand.

It has been the practice of the editors of BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN to publish current studies in the biblical tradition that can and will help reshape the ways in which that tradition comes through to contemporary religionists. No one study sets the agendas for present polity, but each in its way helps those in the present who are committed to honoring Scripture by careful use.

The present issue includes articles drawn from diverse sources. Nozomi Miura, a religion teacher in Japan, evaluates and classifies the personification of wisdom in A Topology of Personified Wisdom Hymns. This informative study helps modern people understand the practice and venue within the biblical wisdom tradition that creatively ascribes personality to abstract qualities. In a society marked by the belief that all good and evil are products of causative personalities, the Wisdom literature "focuses on human life--how to cope with life, how to assure well-being, or how to master one's life--in the union of religion and ethics." The study helps readers of the Gospel of John to locate its use of personification within its scriptural symbolic milieu.

Randall Otto, a doctoral graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary in the Reformed tradition, based in Philadelphia, exposes the use and misuse of biblical eschatology in his historically conscious study, Dealing with Delay: A Critique of Christian Coping. Otto provides a critique of what he argues is an inappropriate use of biblical eschatology: "The fundamental problem with [present-day] eschatology is that it has dehistoricized and atemporalized the New Testament data. Eschatological claims require historical validation to be considered true."

In Overvaluing the Stigma: An Example of Self-Stigmatization in the Jesus Movement (Q 14:26-27; 17:33), Carlos J. Gil Arbiol, a doctoral graduate of the University of Deusto in Spain, argues that a social-science model of "self-stigmatization" can "explain the states through which, first, a charismatic leader unmasks social interests, legitimizes and establishes a 'new' social structure by taking on negative values or behavior, overturning them into positive."

Zeba Crook, a doctoral graduate of the University of St. Michael's College in Toronto, provides BTB readers with BTB Readers Guide: Loyalty. In this panoramic gathering of evidence, he helps modern readers identify the socially-based character of loyalty in the ancient Mediterranean world, touching on issues of honor and shame, the social institution of kinship, the time-orientation of people in collectivist societies, and the relations between ancient Mediterranean people and their gods and/or philosophical teachers.

Taken together, these critical studies exemplify the principle that critical studies of biblical sources can and do set the direction for traditions that endure into the present. Attention to their proper contextual meanings is needed as a corrective in the use of these traditions in modern-day societies.