Don't Play Poker With Augustine.

The second book of Augustine's On Christian Teaching goes on to discuss the way signs should be interpreted and to help clarify many issues of scripture through numerous examples. From the perspective a someone who believes in God, and especially a Christian God, Augistine's insight is flawless and absolute. However, similar to the way in which he believes that you should "know the answer" before reading or investigating scripture (understand that it promotes Christian ideas), every argument or idea that Augustine throws down basically boils down to "cause God said so". While people, especially teenagers, often hate this sort of trump card logic, it poses no problem to people of faith--its a bullet-proof shield of faith (which to me is actually pretty impressive and admirable becase it requires a great amount of faith that many people wouldn't be able to come up with). I was so impressed that I decided to look for some kind of fault and hypocrisy within Augistine's words. While he covers his bases well, extremely well, I did find one idea that did bother me. He discusses at one point that "faith" is a gift from God and that some people are more deserving than others. But if this is the case why do concepts like conversion and missionaries exist? Assuming that Christians follow God's will it would seem that either God has giving the gift to whom he feels deserves it and thus there is no reason to convert others or that faith is in fact not a gift. Other than that, however, Augustine is pretty thorough in his insight (which is why I created this flow chart as a visual aid...)

Saint Augustine gives answers and problems.

In On Christian Teaching, Saint Augustine provides insight in the form of a double edged sword (or maybe a sword with foam on one side and razor sharp steel on the other). His ideas on interpreting religious texts is quite helpful for those within the faith of that text but can be somewhat problematic (though insightful) for those who are analyzing the text (as non-believers). Augustine spends a great deal of time focusing on ambiguity. He references both the ambiguity of various translations of text from older/different languages as well as the ambiguity of signs in texts (whether they can or should be taken metaphorically or literally). His advice on which translations should be used is helpful for all: "We should aim either to acquire a knowledge of the languages from which the Latin scripture derives or to use the version of those who keep excessively close to the literal meaning." While this applies universally to readers of scripture, it also creates a somewhat elitist structure to understanding religious texts. Whereas with some disciplines there are certain theorems or formulas or themes that can be used to address unfamiliar concepts and derive meaning, with religion, according to Augustine, the way to understand religious texts, and especially the signs and ambiguity within, is to become completely knowledgeable in "the complete canon of scripture"--which is a pretty hefty list. In other words, Augustine is stating that understanding of signs/ambiguity in religious texts must come from contextual clues (not necessarily in the same text but in texts that are part of the canon) and that we must provide the context with our own knowledge. Because of this, it seems that a relatively small group of people will be able to completely comprehend the subtleties of religious text. A dedicated believer in a religion would likely become well versed in the complete canon, as would a someone who's occupation or main field of interest was in religious studies, but for perhaps the average believer and certainly the average non-believer, Augustine's method of understanding is likely beyond the realm of possibility. Thus, for us taking intro religious studies, it is almost essential that we have the instruction of a well-versed religious studies professor so that we may have a tie to this "complete canon of scripture" and a better (and non-face value) understanding of the Psalms.

Does it matter if you're in or out?

When we discussed the way we can use the Psalms to discover different aspects of religion than those presented in texts like the Bible (and essentially the analogy to pop songs vs. the constitution), I connected it with the song we watched in class--the adaptation of the Psalm in Christian rock form--and it got me thinking. When I was in high school I played in a rock band. The bass player's dad was a pasture at a church and he let us use a room upstairs for rehearsal space (hence our name The Upstares). Other than the bass player none of the other guys in our group went to that church or were even religious. Because we played there so much we eventually got invited to jam with the church rock band that played on Sunday nights for a youth worship gathering called "Xtreme" (there was a second word that I can't remember). For the service only Christian songs were played. I remember while I was playing there I always felt a little weird that I didn't believe in God and yet I was standing there singing backup vocals about Jesus and soloing over tunes about God. After our discussions in this class I've come to think of this music experience as a symbol of this church and Christianity in general. In thinking through that lens, I wonder if its at all problematic that I was part of a symbol that I myself didn't believe in and normally wouldn't stand for. Does my playing for a Christian assembly as a non-Christian de-stabilize or corrupt the power of that symbol? I suppose if know one else knew it would only matter to me but if it were public that I didn't believe in God I wonder how the audience would have perceived it.

Barrow Shmarrow

Psalm 18 barrows certain elements and ideas of God from different religions. For example imagery from pre-Israelite mythology (i.e. seismic events) and Canaanite mythology (cherubs) are used. While some may argue that this is problematic and potentially hypocritical, I feel that it is something so common in religions that it is perhaps inherently embedded within religion. In almost any religion you can find something that has been borrowed or adapted from another group or religion. A clear example of this is the choice of dates in Christian holidays. Christmas, which marks the birth of Christ, is celebrated on December 25. It is clear from contextual clues that Christ could not have been born in winter and it has been theorized that December 25 was chosen as the date because a pagan religious cult of sun-worshipers celebrated December 25 as the birthday of the sun, and as they were the largest rivals to Christianity, choosing Christmas on the same day would "ease" the process of conversion. Borrowing ideas from other religions is not hypocritical or problematic, it just marks a progression of ideas and beliefs--similar to the progression of mound making we studied before (conical --> effigy, etc.). 

Psalm 18 also projects God as an aid/instrument of war. I believe that this is actually a more scary thought for those who are saying God is on their side than for those who are not. When stating that God hears one's call and will answer it, the stakes for that battle are raised a considerable amount. For example, if a group that did not believe God was involved with their wars lost a battle/war, that's all that that would mean--they lost. If a group that believes God will aid them in war and they lose, they then must consider several possibilities: a.) their God has forsaken them b.) they are no longer worthy of God's aid or have done something to offend that God or c.) their God was not strong enough to defeat the other side's God. All of these scenarios, I feel, are much more scary than just thinking you lost a battle because you were outnumbered or were poorly supplied. 

The consequence of interpretation.

As discussed in class on Wednesday, Psalms and other religious texts and scripture have been able to survive generations and even centuries by the idea of interpretation. Where once a verse or chapter was framed in a historical context, referring to something that actually happened, subsequent generations have taken the same words and applied symbols to them. In doing so people have been able to make the ideas presented in religious texts eternal. They take something specific and make them more into themes that can often be generalized and made versatile for many different occasions.

Psalm 44 is a great example of how text written about a certain event can be interpreted and generalized into something different, and what consequences that may cause. The narrator of the psalm refers to a "time of yore" when God disposed of nations and then, apparently, to the present when God has "neglected and disgraced" them, and let their enemies gain victory. Yet despite of this neglect they stayed true to God and are waiting for him to rise again to help them. The actual event the "time of yore" alludes to is the "conquest of the land of Canaan in Joshua's time". A present day religion could easily interpret this idea of a victory long ago and a subsequent defeat of the present to pretty much any war or conflict that they have had or are having. This may include anything from the Crusades to the modern turmoil in the middle east. What I find particularly interesting about the possible interpretations is the consequence it may have. If a religion believes that in victory or defeat they are doing the right thing by sticking to their beliefs and thus to the fight, it makes perfect since that conflict between religions is so common and lasts so long. If they are victorious its because God helped them, and if they are suffering in defeat its because God is in a sense challenging them and soon he will rise again to help.

A matter of quotation

When looking at both versions of Psalm 2 (Alter's version and the version from the Bay Psalm Book) many subtle differences can be found, but do little to change the meaning. On the other hand, I believe, one big difference effects the entire meaning of the psalm. The difference I am referring to is the presence of quotation marks in Alter's version and the lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm version. This particularly effects the meaning of the third verse. In Alter's version, it would seem that the quotes imply that the narrater is referring to what was said by the "nations" and "people" of verse one. However, the lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm version would makes it seem that the verse three is the voice of the narrator himself. 

When viewed through the lens of an early American time period, this lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm Book allows for a very bold and different reading/context for Psalm 2. When this book was published (1640), there was a great deal of religious tension, especially between pilgrims and England (which became the reason why many fled to the new world). In this context it makes sense that the narrator would proclaim: "Let us asunder break their bands, their cords bee from us throwne"--he/she could easily be referring to those in England responsible for their religious persecution. This statement, when perceived as the narrator's voice, would also parallel the reaction of the Lord, as conveyed by the narrator: "Who sits in heav'n shall laugh; the lord will mock them; then will he speak to them in his ire, and wrath: and vex them suddenlie" as well as "Thou shalt them break as Potters sherds and crush with yron rod". 

Link: The Bay Psalm Book online

Consumerism: A religion?

After discussing the role of religion, and the subsequent lack of religion, within our modern culture at places like Target and the Home Depot, I began thinking again about Geertz's definition of religion (which I've included below) and thought that consumerism might fit pretty well. However stereotypical this may be, I immediately pictured the shoppers at a ritzy mall (i.e. Woodfield or Geneva Commons, if you are familiar with the Chicago land area) as a model for comparison to Geertz's definition. 

It is clear that within the consumer society there is an established order (classism) that guides a large portion of our actions and feelings toward life and other individuals. This would be Geertz's "general order of existence". However, if we push further, other aspects of a consumerism can fit fairly well into the rest of the definition. The "powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations" would be the foundations of consumerism: the desire to buy more and more goods. This impulse is more substantial (and possible) in some, just as there are varying degrees of faith within religion. The idea that these moods and motivations are clothed in an "aura of factuality" is apparent in the social hierarchy that is created through consumerism. An individual of "high class", who drives a nice car and wears expensive designer clothing, will often feel superior to others. Similarly, by associating this individual as "high class", the society recognizes the hierarchy as well. As a by-product of this individual's strong "faith" in consumerism, several symbols emerge that mark this faith. A nice car, a big house, and expensive clothing are all clear symbols of a consumeristic faith. The last aspect of Geertz's definition, the "uniquely realistic" part, fits nicely with the fact that a large part of the world is not consumeristic (or at least not to the same degree as our culture). Wether this is a result of government (i.e. Communism) or a lack of opportunity (i.e. third world countries), a relatively small group of cultures in the world buy goods with the same fervor that we do. Though it may or may not be a stretch to think of consumerism as a religion, it definitely is an interesting concept, and one with some legitimate connections to how we think and define religion. 

A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

A spiritual sandwich with a hungry eye...

As discussed by Birmingham and Eisenberg, the effigy mounds can be seen as the symbolic representation the spirits/animals in this society's idea of a three part world--upperworld and lowerworld (both water and earth). Various animals correspond to these distinct parts, such as the thunderbird shaped mounds representing the upperworld. This idea is also reaffirmed by the same type of upper/lower world representation and animal symbols present in the pottery of this period. With regards to Geertz, this three-part system is the "general order of existence" of the people in this culture. 

While the structure of this "order of existence" may be fairly self-explanatory, what raises a few questions in my mind is the symbols themselves. We believe that they represent animals of the different layers or domains of the earth, but a key element of a symbol is the idea that someone else will perceive and recognize it. Who is the "audience" of this cultures symbols? With the conical mounds it could have been said that anyone who viewed the large land mass would realize that it was a marker (potentially for both a group's territory and their dead). However, the effigy mounds, while still large land masses, also have the large-scale image component. One would think that if the image was meant for other humans to see, the animal would have been represented vertically like a statue. Instead the images are horizontal, and often only clearly viewed from an arial vantage point or on a map. I feel that this component to the symbol suggests that the audience for these images is one that is non-human. Of the three levels (sky, land and water), humans (at this point in time) occupied just the land and the people in this culture have found deities or spirits in the other two--water spirits that go under ground via bodies of water and more cosmic or heavenly spirits that reside above (i.e. the thunderbird and celestial bodies). These other two levels would have the only practical vantage points for viewing the horizontally oriented images. Because of this, I feel that it is possible to conclude that the symbols in some respects were meant to be viewed by the spirits of this time, whether they had to look up or look down. 

Turn the other prescription pad...

It is well known that the Catholic Church condemns abortion, sterilization and the use of contraceptives. This belief is evident in the ERD's (ethical religious directives) of Catholic hospital systems, prescribing which practices and procedures are allowed and which are sinful. While abortion and sterilization are weighty and significant procedures, contraception is not only simple and cheap, it is extremely common in today's society. This posses a problem for all the men and women, wishing to acquire birth control of some kind, who find themselves within the catholic healthcare system. It also creates a problem for many of the non-Catholic physicians and health care providers working in the Catholic healthcare system as a notable amount of their business deals with contraception on some level.

For some, this is just the way it is but others have managed to find a way around this conflict of interests. A certain catholic hospital system in Central Illinois has created a loop-hole of sorts in the way that they deal with patients asking for contraceptives. If a person walks into a medical office and wants contraceptives, the system now says that the physician or healthcare provider can give it to them as long as they write the prescription on a different pad than the standard one and they say that they are writing it from "their private practice". 

If we take a minute to think about this, what this rule really says is this: "You [physician/healthcare provider] are in our Catholic health care system and must conform to our values and morals when practicing medicine--which means no contraceptives. However, if you really would like to, you can just use a different piece of paper and we will just look away and ignore the fact that we think you are sinning." 

This poses a fundamental problem that I feel many religions are facing today. The world is changing quicker than ever in both beliefs and technologies and it can be very difficult to continue living by doctrines of the past while keeping up with the present. This example of "turning a blind eye" to the hypocritical practices within the Catholic healthcare system marks a way of dealing with this problem by not dealing with it. It may preserve the system's integrity on the surface, but I feel that a large deterioration of faith reverberates below.