Freedom of creative social adjustment.

President George W. Bush's second inaugural address, January 20, 2005, stirred considerable discussion, recognizing as many do that the freedoms he proclaims for "the darkest corners of the world" may well prove an illusory goal. Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard and author of FREEDOM IN THE MAKING OF WESTERN CULTURE, argued in a New York Times op-ed essay (January 22, 2005) that the Al Qaeda attack on America was not an attack on freedom but "was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism." Getting a clear focus on what exactly is at issue here requires understanding where freedoms really reside, and how we with a shared agenda might best proceed in dealing with the foundational causes of religious and cultural fanaticism.

Freedom in the modern liberal sense, according to Patterson, "emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice." This is the version that informs the American judicial system and is--again, according to Patterson--the freedom envisioned by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries. This is not, however, the only freedom that many Americans now champion. The second freedom, privatized freedom, is largely "a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world." It celebrates independence and autonomy, one's personal influence and power and both socioeconomic and geographic mobility. "The genius of President Bush," according to Patterson, "is that he has acquired an exquisite grasp of this development in American political culture, and he can play both versions of freedom to his advantage."

The point of conflict with religious and cultural fanatics similarly eludes simple characterization. For those informed by religion that supports modern values of civil liberties, political participation and social justice, scriptural usages are likely to follow the critical scientific methods that readily compare and contrast cultures past and present, allowing thereby a measured and consciously creative adaptation. The contrary may well be the case with those seeking privatized freedoms, measured by the acquisition of influence and radical personal socioeconomic advantage. This version of freedom is less concerned about the fine points of critical religious discourse, favoring instead selective usage of texts to support private gain. In this case, scripture is a wellspring of opportunity to inspire and sanction, when employed skillfully to the advantage of the interpreter.

Modern critical biblical theologians must recognize the challenge that faces them when confronting the tsunamis of religious and cultural fanaticism. There is no dearth of such opportunism in the history of any religion. Critical biblical theologians must learn not only to show another way, which accords more with the modern versions of freedom based on civil liberties and social justice, but also to promote this more reasonable reading of scripture, which can otherwise easily carry the force of destruction of our social systems. Agendas that serve to substitute personal advantage for civil rights and social justice need to be recognized for what they are, especially when the scriptures are used wrongfully toward that end.

The current issue of BTB presents a variety of topical studies that exemplify this critical, cross-cultural approach to understanding scripture. Douglas E. Oakman's study, Culture, Society, and Embedded Religion in Antiquity, serves as an example of how religion worked in antiquity and how it is creatively adjusted to modern sensibilities. Distinguishing emic (insider) from etic (critical) views of a religion makes possible a more objective interaction that can liberate the reader from an absolutist mindset, which otherwise is subject to opportunistic abuse.

Sean P. Kealy's study, Change and the Gospels, further underscores the fact of and need for change in the course of interpreting the evangelists' messages. By recognizing the fluidity of the evangelical messages, interpreters can take more responsibility for adapting the message for reasonable contemporary usage.

Mark T. Finney, in Christ Crucified and the Inversion of Roman Imperial Ideology in 1 Corinthians, identifies imperial religious and social factors in the ancient world that governed ideologies and helped shape the Pauline response. The point may be inferred that what contextualized the writing of scriptural texts needs to be recognized in their interpretation with due regard to the limitations of their primary meanings.

Charles H. Miller carefully evaluates the translation--which typically carries the force of an interpretation or misinterpretation--of the Vatican document, THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. It is interesting to note that even translators convey messages that need critical assessment lest the misinterpretation of the translator is given unrecognized weight to the detriment of those seeking enlightenment from responsible sources.

While politics and religion are separable in a secular state, the influence of religions as instruments for control and denial of rights remains real for those so disposed. Terrorists who usurp religious symbols in their pursuit of destructive control should not be fought with a naive abuse of religion and scriptures for another in-group's advantage. Freedom in creative adjustment, in the terminology of Karl Polanyi (see Douglas Oakman's citation), does improve the chances for the advancement of social justice and recognition of civil liberties in societies open to such informed choices.