Nathan Key

The Casey Anthony trail that's going on here in Orlando got me thinking about my own internet search history.

Did you know that I spent the other night searching about honey, honey bees, beeswax, bumble bee queens, and sue bee honey? And it wasn't because I wanted to become a beekeeper. I just had some honey earlier in the evening and was suddenly interested in where it came from.

After exploring honey for a while, I wanted to learn more about honey bees which lead to an article on regular bees. This made me interested in queen bees and I thought- wow- I bet a bumblebee queen must be enormous! So, of course, I had to search for a *picture of a queen bumble bee.

*Don't do that without Google's safe search on, by the way.

Anyhow, all this made me think that there's gotta be someone really smart at Google or some research institute that is actually tracking search histories to see if there are common threads that most people explore whenever they get interested in a particular topic. This has a lot to do with Search Engine Optimization (SEO), but I think there is a much more important philosophical/psychological element as well.

Tracking what we search for and the way we look for new information may open a lot of doors in our understanding of how the human mind works and why we think in certain ways. So, someone get on that so that I can understand my fascination with random trivia in Wikipedia and the like.

This series is about the importance of the oral tradition and reading scripture out loud, with other people. I know, at first glance to be a very strange proposal. I mean, aren’t there more important things to discuss about scripture or about community than the importance of reading the bible, out loud together?

For a few years now, I’ve wrestled with that question.

I keep coming back to this topic over and over again and struck by its importance. I think it’s partly due to the environment I live in, here in the West. We have a very independent spirit about us which has contributed to our success. The individual spirit it’s crept into all sorts of areas of our life- our political structure, business practices, and most of all, our religious heritage. In fact, it took me a while to really pinpoint this missing element from my own life. I don’t claim to have it all resolved either. I’m really just hoping that this series will evoke some thoughts in others to see if this is truly a good idea, or merely a misaligned pattern drawn from my own, personal experience.

So, instead of jumping in with theory or praxis, I thought I might share a few stories- a few scenes as it were, to shed some light on my own experience over the past few years. These three scenes embody of what’s been nagging at me. Together (along with other scenes that I don’t have time for), they form an outline of a misalignment that I’ve sensed for the past few years. I hope that they will invite you into the discussion and spark some interest in you to explore this topic with me.

Scene One:

If you’ve attended an American church for any length of time, you’re probably familiar with a similar rendition of the following story:

As a small group bible study nears its end, during prayer request time, someone in the group lets everyone know that her computer died and she is looking into different options for replacement. She needs the group to pray about it because she isn’t certain how much money she has and which computer really meets her needs. She’d like a Mac, for after all it’s the computer that she likes the most, but she’s not certain that she wants it for the right reasons or if she can afford one at all.

Later, after a week of prayer and meditation, she returns and tells the group that while thinking through her decision, she turned to the book of Genesis and began reading about the garden and God’s command to eat of any tree in the forest (with one exception: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). She knew at that very moment that the decision was clear- God wanted her to get a PC. Why else would she be directed toward a passage about the “forbidden fruit” (which was obviously God’s symbol for the APPLE computer she was concerned about)? She thanks the group for their prayer and announces that the request has been answered- scripture has been used to clear up her issue about which computer she should purchase as a replacement.

Scene Two:

This story is actually true, (the former was a myth that I invented based on similar experience regarding individual interpretations of scripture).

The other week I was wondering around the bookstore when my eyes happened upon a display table filled with all sorts of different bibles. It seems that no matter who you are there is a bible tailor-made for your taste and style.

Traditional leather bibles, thump-able and what have you, stood out clearly on the table. But there were also women’s devotional bibles, teen devotional bibles, men’s bibles, and girl’s bibles. There were children’s bibles- with mostly pictures, and bibles that looked more like a journal than scripture. There were poetic interpretations and slang versions. There were big ones that called attention to themselves and some so small you could fit them in your pocket. There were bright colors, soft colors, hardbacks, paperbacks and every variety in-between.

One in particular caught my eye. It seemed to sum up the entire experience. It was the Solo Bible Devotional from Eugene Peterson. Now, while the Solo Bible Devotional isn’t actually a bible (it’s a collection of scripture and thoughts from Peterson and spaces for self-reflection), it captured my attention because it seemed to be encouraging each person to create their own unique experience.

“You can do it!” It called to me. “This bible and you are all you need to begin your solo journey in Christ.”

Scene Three:

During the past few years, I’ve been admiring the work of musicians who have invited their fan base to remix or reinterpret songs. Radiohead, Ben Folds, Phoenix, and 3Eb (among others) have all made their contributions in one form or another. I’ve blogged about each of them in the past because in a way, it represents the practical outworking of the postmodern “Death of the Author” doctrine that’s been broadcast by art critics and university professors. The artist’s invitation to the public to reinterpret a song is a way that they create a unique experience for each listener.

It’s a similar concept that video game designers use when introducing a “sandbox” map or character that can be customized by players.

Perhaps this idea is represented in its finest form within the work of the folks over at Auto-Tune the News. You don’t need to look much further than their site to know that reinventing arbitrary videos can make them even more fantastic than they were to begin with. In fact, many of these remixes are much more famous than the original content.

Three scenes:

1. A girl who knows that the scripture has authority over her purchasing decisions
2. The solo bible devotional, inviting us on our own unique journey
3. The 'death of the author' and a culture that embraces and encourages personal interpretation

These (and others like them) represent the cultural underpinnings that I live in. Perhaps you, too, have experienced stories like these in your own life. Over the next few posts, I hope to explore exactly why I feel that reinstituting the oral tradition and community reading are so vitally important for us today.

I hope you'll join me, too, or this will be a fairly contradictory exercise.

I've got this fantastic idea for a blog series that I've been milling over in my head for years now. I want to write a series on the lost art of reading biblical narrative and scripture together. Reading, out loud, together with others is how the majority of people throughout the course of history have taken in spiritual guidance.

In modern times, we've got access to books of all kinds as well as digital media that has put scripture into the hands of laypeople and allowed us to have individualized reading plans and devotion. I think this is mainly a good thing, but I wonder if we're missing something by leaving behind the legacy of corporate reading and community interpretation.

Anyone want to join me for the series?

"What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself, the land contend with the sea? ls there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?"

- Private Witt (The Thin Red Line)

* * *

This opening line of questions frames the entire experience of 'The Thin Red Line' and makes me wonder if the movie is really about WWII or if it's much deeper and more meaningful than the story of American soldiers taking an island in the South Pacific.

Of course, these thoughts comes not only from watching the film but also reading through The Thin Red Line (Philosophers on Film). Between the two, I'm blown away that a movie has this much potential meaning packed into it. I say potential meaning because I'm taking away insights cast through the filter of a bunch of philosophers who had nothing to do with the film itself. They may be far off course from the original intent of the film. In fact, there's a good chance that the director didn't have much more in mind than making a movie about war. But whatever the case, this film has given an awful lot of philosophical and religious fodder to academics, and I'm enjoying the experience of borrowing the ideas of other people and wrestling with thoughts that are much bigger than my own.

A question that's bugged philosophers for some time is 'why is there something rather than nothing?' This is a difficult question because there IS something, and so we can't even begin to fathom that there could be a situation where there is nothing.

But why?

Why do we exist?

Why does God exist?

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

I've been listening to Herbert Dreyfus' lecture series on Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard on the way to work over the past few weeks. He's quite a good lecturer and I'm not only intrigued by his insights into the content of Kierkegaard's most famous work, I'm also blown away by a few aspects of the lecture that seem to be present in front of me in my every day life.

I want to give additional time to these ideas and mill them over in my mind for a bit, but I also feel the need to write some of them down lest I forget them.

According to Dreyfus, Kierkegaard's makes an interesting differentiation between the Universal Ethic (a Greek ideal) and the "Suspension of the Ethical" for those who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment (a Judeo-Christian ideal). The reason this concept stuck out to me, personally, is that living here in the West, I've grown up in a culture that straddles these two concepts. We value both conformity and individuality simultaneously.

I heard a joke a few years ago that summarizes this experience pretty well (I think I saw it on a t-shirt): "I want to be different, just like everybody else."

We live within this duality in a lot of different arenas- one that's specific to my experience is my religious/spiritual life. Over the past few years I've attended "Christian" conferences, events, or church services where the speakers have made a very strong argument for Absolute Truth and Absolute Ethics (which is more Greek/Rational) even in the midst of our Judeo Christian tradition (which is based on Revelation/Subjectivity).

Now, I know that comment regarding absolute truth and relativism is sure to get a lot of resistance, so let me clarify it a bit more before I'm pounced upon for abandoning my faith. Kierkegaard reestablished a very clear historical perspective that the concept of Absolute Truth and Rationality are Greek- not Christian. It's Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Greek Philosophers) who responsible for the idea of a Universal Ethic. Now, it's true that their influence permeated Western Christianity to the point where Augustine, Kant, Dante and other Christian philosophers all adopted a very Absolutist attitude. And with that sort of thinking affecting early church reasoning and writing, it's also true that we've been impacted (in the West) to the point where we don't have a clear understanding of the original Judea-Christian ethic, which was very personal and subjective. But there are still small semblances that remain, even with our viewpoint washed thoroughly with the Socratic Method.

For those of us who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment to God, there are instances when we may be called to do something very personal to our own experience rather than the requirement of all. We ask “what is God's will for MY life” rather than merely His plan for the Church/collective; a hint that we care about the very personal/subjective nature of our relationship with God. And there are even times when we may find ourselves being required to do what which is "outside" of the Universal Ethic. One instance that Kierkegaard explores in Fear and Trembling is where God requires Abraham to murder (sacrifice) his son- a universally unethical, immoral act which would be sin for him to enact in any situation other than the one he's presented with.

Luckily, we know the end of the story- God provided an alternative sacrifice (a ram) in Isaac's stead. So, for us, it's a little easier to rationalize the instance. He wasn't really forced to act out the murder/sacrifice. But for Abraham, trekking up the mountain with his boy by his side, wrestling with the knowledge that he was about to kill the offspring who had been promised to him- there was a clear problem. Although the Universal Ethic says that it's wrong to kill- especially wrong to kill your children, God had revealed an instruction that usurped the Ethical. And in Abraham's Unconditional Commitment to God, he was ready to do the unthinkable. And this was accounted as Faith.

That said, it's actually Revelation rather than Rationality that we adhere to as the Ultimate Right for the Judeo-Christian Ethic. The problem for us is that it's a rather difficult concept to reconcile with the claims of "Absolute Truth" that are proclaimed by most prominent Christian leaders in the world today. They seem contradictory. And they are. They are birthed out of two traditions that have shaped our thinking here in the West.

The only way I can even come close to reconciling the two is in this:

It seems that the only exception to the Universal Ethic is when Revelation clearly counters it. But Revelation never comes from the individual. It always comes from outside of the individual- either from God or from the consensus of many individuals. This said, individually perpetuated murder is still Universally Wrong. If God clearly commands a death, perhaps it could be said that the individual is no longer driving the choice- it's being delivered to the individual from an outside force greater than the individual. So, Abraham in this case would not be violating the Universal Ethic of self/individually perpetuated murder. Likewise, an individual jailor who flips the switch on an electric chair is not a murderer even though a prisoner dies by his hand for a jury of peers may come to consensus that the person's life should be taken. This Revelation or outside opinion has not violated the Universal Ethic, but enhanced it and made the way for exceptions.

I don't know that this is what Kierkegaard has in mind. He believed that it's an individual's unconditional commitment to God (or to ideals) that allows faith to suspend the ethical. But I think my way is a better reconciliation of these two ideals.

I live in the paradox, as Kierkegaard did, and I want it both ways.