MATL - My Relationship with the Bible

Prompt:  When were you first introduced to the Bible? If it was as a child, how did your understanding of the Bible evolve throughout your life? Were there any points where your understanding was severely challenged, and what did you do about it? How do you approach the Bible? Does your approach differ according to the context? What are your biggest questions about the Bible? What parts of the Bible are the most difficult for you?

My parents read to us, and told us bedtime stories, since we were infants. I assume my earliest exposure to biblical stories came from these traditions with my parents- some assortment of Little Golden Books and personal narrative. My first clear recollection of a Bible comes from The Children's Bible in 365 Stories.  In addition to containing beautiful illustrations, the book neatly and fairly accurately summarizes the major points of the Bible in a child-friendly format. I used to read the book, cover to cover, like a novel. I remember being particularly enamored by the Old Testament stories…I suspect because that was where the women were.  This became a bigger issue for me later in life, but early on I was just interested in reading stories about people who might be like me. I was fascinated by the drawings of Delilah, Bathsheba, and Jezebel because of their beautiful costumes, but my teachers encouraged me to think about Sarah, Rachel, Leah, and Ruth. I was quite a bit older before I realized why.

My mother, who converted to Catholicism as an adult and after her marriage and first two children, insisted that all of her children understand, accept, and indeed, actually request to participate in the sacraments and refused to march us through according to the standardized guidelines. As such, I was a bit older than many other Catholics when I first received the sacrament of Eucharist and thus my memories of the event and the process are very clear.  My maternal grandparents (a Christian Scientist and a Baptist) presented me with my first Bible- a New American Bible edition emblazoned with "First Communion Bible."   In part due to my mother's diligence,  I realized that the interior looked different from the Bible we used in Religious Education and this was the first time I realized that the Word of God was, possibly, subjective.  We were not raised or educated to believe the Bible was a source of infallible doctrine for literal interpretation, so this realization of subjectivity did not cause a theological crisis, but because it occurred to me as a child it remained an enduring belief into adulthood, which later caused conflict with more conservative Christian perspectives.

Drawing  back to these roots- I encounter the Bible primarily as a human effort to document divine revelation, and I believe it is incomplete, and should absolutely be considered with an acceptance of historical context. I am most comfortable with the Bible as a historical narrative subjected to heavy and judicious editing and censorship. I do not take the Bible literally, although I generally accept the overall importance of the stories. I am not educated enough in Biblical scholarship to know which stories are allegorical and which (if any) are historical, but I would like to find out.  

My interest in reading and studying the Bible in a more disciplined sense renewed about the same time I started at Gonzaga, I encountered an art/journaling form called Illustrated Faith. As a scrapbooker, it appealed to my artistic side, and I thought it would help me embrace a more diligent Bible study method.  The Bibles used for this work are specially made with thicker paper and large margins. I wanted a Catholic version of this journaling Bible so I could follow along with the weekly readings. Everywhere I went, including Catholic book stores, I was met with confusion. "Catholics don't read the Bible like that," was the answer I heard again and again. I finally settled on an NIV with the Apocrypha at the end. I felt frustrated and discouraged that my efforts to expand on and grow my faith were being stymied. Why don't Catholics read the scripture?

I struggle the most with the New Testament excepting the Gospels. I particularly dislike Revelations because it reads like bad science fiction. The epistles are examples of why readers of the Bible must consider authorial intent and historical content to glean the best and truest meaning from the Word - the letters and testimonies are so specially and specifically written and targeted that they cannot retain context and true applicability for the modern reader without translation and interpretation. I enjoy the Old Testament as a passive listener because it is more interesting, and more lyrical so it makes for better music. I particularly love to sing songs drawn from Bible stories…the hymn "Here I am, Lord" reminds me of Samuel, sleeping in the temple and suddenly awakened by a call int he night.

MATL - Desolation and Discernment

Prompt: Reflect on your spiritual life. What particular prayer practices, disciplines, charitable works are you regularly involved in? What else contributes to your personal spirituality?

I attended a silent Montserrat retreat for the first time in January, and it rocked my spiritual world. For the first time since I was a young adult, I found myself equipped with completely novel tools designed to guide my spirituality and a new vocabulary to express my feelings.   In this particular case, I realized that 'silence' for me is actually sacred music, and the last five years of my life were a time of desolation. I knew that on an emotional level, but it manifested as being angry and lonely, blaming the emotion as a natural consequence of my circumstances.  What cannot be cured must be endured. Montserrat offered eight steps of the Spiritual Exercises, of which the reflection and discernment have been most helpful.

 I still listen to and sing liturgical music, which I find comforting, and it helps me set my mind towards prayer. I miss participating as a liturgist in Mass, but so far I have struggled with finding a parish where I feel 'at home.'  A single woman in her thirties is an odd-woman out at many of the local parishes- I'm too old for the 'youth' crowd at St. Al's, and I'm too young for Sacred Heart, and I'm lacking the requisite familial accouterments to fit in at the other choices up on the ‘Hill. This is an excuse, and I know it to be- but it remains a spiritual challenge for me.  The Ministry department at Gonzaga has worked diligently to welcome and embrace me and help me find a home. I'm so grateful to Michelle and Fr. Alan for their help, and to Cindy, for her everlasting patience with my questions.

I mentioned ministering with youth and young adults in my introduction.  Although this idea is very scary for me, I am beginning to suspect that part of the reason I was called to Gonzaga is to continue that ministry in some way. I've spent time volunteering with UMin, which is currently my only overtly charitable work. I shall decline to explore some of the family charity I've engaged in for the past five years at this time.

 Knowledge, learning, and the encouragement to actively engage with the world in order to grow and understand are essential to my emotional and spiritual well-being. I did not realize how mind-hungry I was for knowledge "for its own sake" until I enrolled in classes again. I enjoy debate and research, and I thrive on the rabbit holes that come from reading new materials and ideas. I get lost in discovering the answer to questions. It would have been simple to enroll in the Org/Leadership program here- just "check the box" as it were, for the sake of a degree on my wall. I am thankful that life nudged me to take the risk of a more robust and intellectual degree path, and I am so blessed with the luxury to engage in education purely to satisfy my own curiosity. I think this must be another kind of spirituality…the spirituality of the intellect.

MATL- Who's the Boss?

Prompt: Please reflect on the following questions: Who has religious authority in Chrisianity? Why? When is authority good? When is authority bad? How does one distinguish between good and bad exercises of authority?

Religious authority in "Christianity" is too broad to define in anything but the vague answer of "God." Christianity assumes that there is a God, and that God reveals himself and his divine purpose to us through the aspect of the Trinity: It comes OF God, FROM Christ, THROUGH the Holy Spirit, and so God is the authority on Christianity.  Of course, as humans with brains and free will, we then reflect on these revelations and draw meanings and interpretations of these ideas and use that to create our beliefs. Authority, then, is the 'control' to monitor these interpretations and judge which are good and worthy, and which are misleading or perhaps even of sinister intent and influence.

In the Catholic Church, then, the 'authority' is first the Pope, and then the hierarchical structure of the Church. I am not particularly well versed in the authority structures of protestant religions, but I think the Church of Latter Day Saints places great emphasis on the writings and teachings of Brigham Young, and many protestant organizations rely on a system of Elders to govern and lead the churches.

To neatly draw boundaries of 'good' and 'bad' authority seems pretty trivial, but I suppose 'good' authorities are those that encourage careful and deliberate evaluation of revelations, that shepherd good intellectual practices and behaviors, and that encourage constant evaluation of the reflections for context and applicability. I think 'bad' authorities are those that are reactionary, driven by fear or a desire to control the ideas and reflections of others, even when those controls are with the best of intent. The difference becomes blurry when an authority figure must evaluate the reflection of a particular bit of theology and finds it contradictory to long-standing accepted dogma: if the authority allows all reflections to pass through, then there is no measurement of 'truth' or 'right'. If the authority rejects all non-conforming reflections, there is a risk that a truth or 'rightness' will be passed over.

I think this dilemma underscores the importance of empowering all people with critical thinking abilities as children, and nurturing that development of skills throughout our lives. Ideally, we would not need an authority if we trusted the ability of any human to experience revelations of God, from Christ, and reflect on them through the Holy Spirit.  Ideally, the authority is each person to themselves.

Of course, this is very idealistic- perhaps the Church should consider a democratic interpretation of authority.

MATL - The Nature of Theological Questions

Prompt: Which questions would say are theological and which are not? How would you identify what you consider to be a theological question? Does the question need to inquire into the divine nature to be theological? For example, would a question regarding the nature of the human person be theological? If so, why? If not, why not?

Alister McGrath writes that theology is "think(ing) systematically about the fundamental ideas of Christianity.  It is intellectual reflection on the act, content, and implications of the Christian faith."   Asking theological questions, then, means asking questions that seek to increase the understanding of a particular aspect of a Christian faith, and to increase understanding about why Christian faiths embrace certain ideas. [1]   McGrath also emphasizes, in summarizing Augustine of Hippo's major contribution to theology, that reason is a helpful tool in theology, but must be used critically.  This refers to critical thinking, rather than criticism of the material. Critically evaluating divine revelations (using human reason, to paraphrase Thomas Aquinas) means exploring and expanding on the revelation in a way that solves a problem, answers a question, or contributes to the larger field of theology in a substantial and meaningful way. 

Critical thinking encourages students to ask meaningful questions designed to resolve problems, regardless of their discipline.[2] When applied to theology, this means good theological questions are asked with a clear purpose or intent. It is not sufficient to explore an idea 'just because' it sounds interesting or challenging to the questioner- rather, it should serve a higher purpose  in contributing to the overall clarity or applicability of a faith- it may contribute to or challenge doctrine. In Christian theology, then, theological questions should contribute to a deeper and more profound understanding of what it is to be Christian, and why.  To again draw from McGrath's works, if the Apostle's Creed is a useful vehicle for outlining the major tenants of Christianity, good theological questions likely explore the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or some combination thereof. This may include topics of grace, of holy unity, of the trinity, or the applicability of these mysteries into the lives of humans. 

In accepting the Christian belief that God is the Creator of all things, it is impossible to ask theological questions that do not inquire into the divine. God is in all things, therefore all questions can, ultimately, be theological. The intent and purpose of the questioner determines whether or not the answer to the question is explored within the framework of theology or another discipline, but the lack of theological exploration does not negate its existence- it may simply be left for another questioner to explore.

1. (McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004, preface, page xii)

2. Problem, as used here, may mean conflict or issue, but may also mean topic, questions of a profound nature, puzzle or intellectual quandary, or a divine mystery.  Problems are troublesome and disruptive, even if just to the emotional state of the thinker. 

MATL - A Theological Question

Prompt: When have you felt particularly gripped by a theological question? How did it come up?Did you reach a solution? Did you find yourself still grappling with similar questions?

The re-translation of the English version of the Roman Missal, released and implemented beginning with Advent of 2011, posed a major liturgical theological question for me.  The purpose of the re-translation was to emphasize the importance of ‘most accurate or literal translation possible’ of the original Latin. This decree stated that the vernacular translations should contain no paraphrasing or adaptation of the phrases.  The reissue created changes most visibly within the Mass, such as using "And with your spirit," rather than "also with you" as a responsorial to an offering of peace, or altering the order and content of the Gloria, "Peace to God's People on Earth," becoming "and on Earth, peace to men of Good Will."

During the Second Vatican Council, much discussion was devoted to vernacular language. The purpose of allowing the business and teachings of the Church to occur in vernacular language was to deepen the connection and spirituality of the congregation to the various liturgies they engaged with. There was wide recognition that Latin had long-since ceased to be a primary language in the world- both in terms of commerce and diplomacy.  The Church also recognized its global presence, including areas like Asia and South America, where Latin was not as accessible.  While rote memorization of the "mass parts" or even the Mass itself was certainly possible for Catholics, maintaining the daily operations of the Church in Latin outside of arenas where Latin was a viable and fluent language actually created barriers between the congregation and the Church.  Accepting vernacular translations in no way diminished the tradition of Latin, but embraced the current world content as a new way to reach out and engage with the faithful and, perhaps, to evangelize more effectively.

As anyone who speaks more than one language knows, part of the art of translation resides in translating the intent and content of the words, rather than just the literal translation.  The retranslations are awkward and cumbersome to fluent English speakers- the words lack cadence and flow, and create illogical sentence structures. They are not "good" translations by the standards of any English-speaking individual, however 'literally accurate' they might be.  Indeed, because they are so awkward and illogical, I think the translation actually diminishes the truth of the rite- it creates a barrier between the congregation and the Word.

I struggled, and still struggle, with the intent of the translations. It seems to undo the good works of the Second Vatican- I trend I also see echoed in the calls for a return to more conservative "traditional" (read: pre Second Vatican, post Council of Trent) ideas and standards for the Church. Obviously, as a woman, I feel this would undo what little progress towards integration of women leadership in the Church we have made, and indeed threatens to relegate women to the periphery of the faith. Changing the translations is just the first step of acquiescing to those who are fearful of change.

I have not resolved this theological question. I am open to learning more about doctrine and tradition, but for now, I still quietly say: Peace be with you…and also with you.

MATL - Define Theology

Prompt: Imagine you are invited to write an entry in a an encyclopedia for "theology." You are limited to 300 words.

Theology (Greek: theo; 'god' + logos 'reason or plan'). Theology is the systematic study of the fundamental ideas of a faith and the outcomes of those reflections.[1] It is most commonly associated with Christianity, although some efforts have been made to explore and develop a theology of other religions.  Originating with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, theology was originally used to describe and evaluate the mythical or divine.  Eventually, the word was adopted by early Christian thinkers as an expression for their efforts to intellectually evaluate and reflect on God (now a monotheistic concept) and to develop the fundamental concepts of the Christian faith.[2] These concepts may form the doctrines of belief systems and influence or guide the progression of the faith through history.  Theology is also a means of interpreting or clarifying the tenants or truths of a faith through the lens of other scholastic or cultural tools (ancilla thologiae.)[3] Today, theology is typically considered an academic field of study, applicable both to efforts of studying Christianity and as a basis for scholars interested in the detailed study of disciplines such as Western history, literature, or art.   Like many large scholarly fields, there are many areas of specialization within theology, including focus on God, the Trinity, the world, the concepts of salvation or the study of end times.[4]

1: McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004.

2: Neville, Robert Cummings. "Theology." Encyclopedia of Science and Religions. 2003.

3: McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004.

4: Thielicke, Helmut. "Theology." Encyclopedia Britannica.