October 8, 2005
Organized Religion and Bible Stories
Another quote from Nock, from his autobiography:
The history of organised Christianity is the most depressing study I ever undertook, and also one of the most interesting. I came away from it with the firm conviction that the prodigious evils which spot this record can all be traced to the attempt to organise and institutionalise something which is in its nature incapable of beling successfully either organised or institutionalised. I can find no respectable evidence that Jesus ever contemplated either; the sort of things commonly alleged as evidence would not be substantial enough to send a pickpocket to gaol. By all that is known of Jesus, He appears to have been as sound and simon-pure an individualist as Lao-Tsze. His teaching seems to have been purely individualistic in its intent. One would say He had no idea whatever of its being formulated into an institutional charter, or a doctrinal hurdle to be go over by those desirous of being called by His Name.
I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, so feel free to toss points of scripture at me to show me where this idea might be wrong. One of the biggest problems I have with Christianity is that it doesn't seem to be what Jesus intended. From what I have read of the Bible, I always got the impression that Jesus himself would be very surprised to head back to our planet and find that the religion was centered on him.
In following with my commitment to teaching classical studies, I've been reading Bible stories to the kids. Or rather, trying to. I was hesitant to start in the first place, but several friends advised me to just do it, and treat it as I would a Greek myth. Good advice, I thought. Why be afraid? Let's just do it.
Ah, but Bible stories are not written like Greek myths. Greek myths name the gods. They are treated as characters in a story. In Bible stories, God is not named. He's "God," and that's the end of it. Or "Our Lord." I know that many Christians do not refer to God by any name, but I never before realized just how powerful the act of not naming him is. It is extremely difficult to read these stories to the kids, without feeling that I need to stop, explain, reword, and in some places, vent. The Garden of Eden? That was rough. Cain and Abel? We haven't read any Bible stories since that one. Mom had to take time to recuperate.
The venting is not good. The kids don't need this from Mom, not at their ages. I want them to know the Bible, because it is such an important, foundational work. I want them to understand it through my teaching, but not through my baggage. This is a tough one.
I often run across Christians who worry about reading Greek myths to their kids, because they don't want them exposed to, and perhaps become enamored of, false gods before knowing their true god. I've been reading Greek myths to my little Pagan kids for months now, and their reactions have been very interesting. They are not becoming enamored of the Greek gods; they see them as capricious, vengeful, sometimes outright mean. They see clearly that in these stories the gods are playing with humans, directing them for their own aims. I didn't teach them that, they understood it on their own.
Pretty smart, these kids are. And pretty unnerving, when, to be honest, Mom doesn't have this whole god thing worked out herself.
If you're wondering, we're not raising them to a specific religion. We're raising them with our values of right and wrong, and with our basic Pagan outlook, but beyond that we want them to use their brains and their hearts and decide for themselves. (We are, however, deliberately raising them to a specific political philosophy. Heh.)
Posted by lynx at 9:39 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
On Being Superfluous
Yes, it's Nock week at the ol' One Sixteenth. Chew on this one:
So when it comes to all, I doubt that a study of translations has enough carrying-power to encourage much hope of a "return to the classics." I do not find this altogether lamentable, however, because I am by no means sure that a return to the classics, even if it were practicable, would be desirable. I am not sure that the post-revolutionary frame of mind is so awry, not sure that any more should be done with education, properly so called, than is being done; or that the final end and aim of education, --the ability to see things as they are,-- should any longer be taken into account. The question at issue, obviously, is whether the educable person can any longer be regarded as a social asset; or, indeed, whether in time past his value as a social asset has not been overestimated. ... In a society essentially neolithic, as ours unquestionably is at the moment, --whatever one may hold its evolutionary possibilities to be,-- there can be no place found for an educable person but such as a trainable person could fill quite as well or even better; he becomes a superfluous man; and the more thoroughly his ability to see things as they are is cultivated, the more his superfluity is enhanced.
Certainly, in most social circles being highly educated is not necessarily an asset. I think he's wrong, though, about the educated person being superfluous in our society. If society is neolithic and largely uneducable, and only the educable/educated ones will be able to "see things as they are," aren't those people the ones who will be the leaders? The changers? Isn't that, to a large degree, how it's always been?
Earlier in the book Nock makes the distinction between education and training. He feels that his education was purely formative, and those with a formative education are able to turn their hands to anything. Someone who is instead trained can fulfill certain roles in society and industry, but cannot necessarily step outside of those roles. Well then, won't a classical, formative education, an education that prepares the student to "see things as they are," be a safeguard against becoming superfluous? I can understand how and why he would feel so. In actuality, though, such a person would be essential, desperately needed.
Posted by lynx at 8:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack