Dear All:
I just have a few comments concerning the recent lines about
Christianity and the Bible. In particular, I'd like to comment--or
respond--to parts of Libby's recent post (I've taken the liberty of
inserting A, B, & C; the post included more than is repeated below).
This is simply a message to continue the dialgue, not to point
fingers, i.e., blame.
Libby's comments include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Whilst I find it hard to believe that people take the creation
story literally (though I know that some do) I find it alsmost harder
to believe that people who criticise such beliefs expect documents
written between 4,000 and 2,000 years ago to be a reliable reflection
of how we should live life today. How could they???? I believe that
parts of the Bible provide extraordinarily fine messages about good,
just, peaceful, loving ways to live, but to expect it all to be
brilliant is just ludicrous.
B) What other documents do we expect to survive such trauma and still
speak to present generations?
C) I reckon we'd all think it was pretty silly to try to accept and
live totally by a comprehensive set of dictums from Shakespeare or
Chaucer's times - and that was only a few hundred years ago.
Libby
______________________________________________________________________
With regards to A, it may be diffciult for some of us to believe that
individuals take "the Creation Story" literally. At the same time,
it may be difficult for some of us to believe that others take
"monetarist policy, "fiscal restraint", or "complete employment"
literally (related to Libby's point C). So often, we create "stories"
as a means of suggesting worthwile goals--or processes by which we
can attain those goals--either to justify our positions, teach future
generations (hard) lessons learned, etcetera. For those using the
Bible (or any other document/text/oral heritage) as a parable or
suggested means of behaviour (I'm moving out of the "literal
interpretation" view now), these stories remind us of what is
important. Perhaps the reason we still debate--or debate them even
more--is precisely because the context has altered. Our view(s) of
culture, nature, environment, social systems (whatever terms we use)
have shifted due to our inter-relations within and across geographic,
spiritual, cultural, political boundaries. As such, we continually
alter our cultural perspectives and beliefs. The extent to which we
adjust them is dependent upon our "stories" and symbols (figuratively
or literally). Perhaps, they're an expression of our attempts at
(re)contructing our origin stories.
Ecofeminism, particularly the branch of spiritual ecofeminsim, speaks
to the role of creation stories and origin stories. Some suggestions
are that the Bible does indeed create a patriarchal construction of
the environment, and it simultaneously writes women out of the
land/seascapes of the planet. On the other hand, we continue
arguments about the role of women WITHIN this framework--both because
the "traditioanl" views retain such a strong hold, OR because
they require some form of reinterpretation. This fits w/ Libby's
argument about some parts of the Bible being "useful." However, what
is useful for one person may not be for another. Such conflicts
should not necessarily mean the topic, e.g., Christianity or the
Bible, is worthless, but rather that we need to discuss these
issues. We need to work out what and why some views, beliefs and
practices ARE more "sustainable" in our CURRENT local,
regional, national, and international ecological climate. This is
not easy, but it is, to some extent, what many ecofeminists suggest
needs to occur. Donna Haraway, for instance, suggests we should
become more comfortable with such interpretive "tensions" precisely
because we cannot create a single, universal explanation for ALL
situations. This certainly challenges any form of LITERAL
interpretation of ANY text. Or rather, it challenges the
idea that ALL people MUST follow the SAME beliefs. (Some previous
ECOFEM discussions have already covered this).
With regard to B above, many documents--or beliefs/practices passed
through oral narratives--have retained a stronghold in cultures for
millennia. Cultures around the world have their own creation
stories, some of them seemingly incredible precursors to the biblical
story and others distinctly different, yet almost every culture HAS a
story. It has some way of expressing the connections between
environment and culture, suggesting useful and approriate practices
for inter-relating. Perhaps the question now is which stories are
useful for our current ecological context, a context wherein greater
and greater species extinctions, habitat destruction, and
transboundary challenges affect us as a "global village." Does this
context require a singular, universal belief structure? Or, can we
feel more comfortable with local belief systems helping to steer the
ecological movements towards living WITHIN the ecological parameters
rather than OUTSIDE them? There does not seem to be a singular
knowledge or worldview, so how do we make decisions about what is
appropriate--and what we should believe--with regard to "the
environment"?
Learning from the past and living for the future requires us to
address difficult issues, topics, and questions. It necessitates our
personal and societal reflexivity. These are characteristics our
species has had diffciulty with in the past, but this does not make
it impossible. Interpretation(s) of symbols, including text, is the
way we determine what is important and how to express that
significance. Let's not fix the blame; let's fix the (ever
new and challenging?) problems.
Looking forward to continued discussions,
Stefanie
************************************
Stefanie S. Rixecker
Department of Resource Management
Lincoln University, Canterbury
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************
