In the following video:
Bishop Barron on Violence in the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0
Bishop Barron offers a way for Christians to grapple with the problem of violence in their Bible, where God repeatedly directs his "chosen people" to engage in genocide after genocide, as if "morality" and "genocide" are not always mutually exclusive ideas, much in the same way that St. Augustine advocated the use of torture and persecution as the preferred method for forcing wayward sinners to accept his own brand of God and religion. In doing so, we see how a religious "bias" can ultimately help us rationalize anything we want it to, including torture, murder, war, and basically any grand scale act of evil we wish to revel in for the sake of our sacred gods. Barron, for example, is perfectly willing to rationalize the violence in the Bible in ways that allow the Bible to conform to his own sense of morality, but seems to ignore that everyone else uses exactly the same kinds of "rationalizations" to defend their own use of violence for their "beliefs" - from political to theistic to economic to atheistic - that he uses to defend his "Christianity."
Some Christians actually believe, frighteningly enough, that maybe, just maybe, genocide is not always a "bad" thing. Maybe, in other words, genocide could be a "good" thing, if it's something "God" wants, or it's committed in the service of furthering "God's plan." In fact, St. Augustine defended the use of torture as being permissible when it was performed in the service of forcing people to accept his own brand of God, while condemning it whenever it was applied in defensive of those who resisted accepting Augustine's ideas about God. I agree with Barron when he claims that this is "ipso facto" incorrect. But there isn't anything in the Bible that clearly leads us to see that violence is something God does not very much enjoy, and wish for his chidlren to engage in as much as He does. On the contrary, from the flood to genocides to plagues and famines to the crucifixion, violence seems to be the preferred means by which God treats humanity the way Ike treated Tina Turner! In fact, even when Jesus makes comments about the evil of "living by the sword," he also claims to come not in peace, "but to bring the sword." And this is why there is an ever present ambiguity at the very heart of Christianity and the Bible.
This, then, is how even the murder of Isaac at the hands of his father Abraham could be construed by Christians as a "murder" (or in that case, "attempted murder") that's nevertheless "moral," since it was done with as much obedience to God as Christians burning witches and heretics, or the Nazi's murdering Jews during WW II was done in "obedience" to Hitler - a man who ruled Germany, in the language of both King David and later the Christian monarchs of medieval Europe, essentially by the "divine right of kings."
It is also why even the Devil can quote the Bible, because the Bible is rife with examples that can be used to support every virtue just as much as has always been used to support every vice Christian leaders have ever wished to engage in, and every altruism as much as every act of unimaginable evil. And this is especially true when one is willing to apply any number of different 'interpretive methods' as a means of simply relativizing morality through a 'transubstantiation" of scriptural meanings, from a literal meaning to a metaphorical one.
First, Barron relies on his "confirmation bias," and that of his audience, to argue that "the best theologians" argued agaisnt simply jettisoning the god of the Old Testament as a genocidal tyrant, and embracing the god of the New Testament as a kinder gentler one. Instead, as Origen of Alexandria argued, Barron says "we must read the entire Bible from the standpoint of the last book of the Bible." Specifically, Barron wants us to interpret all violence in the Bible solely through the "lens" of the 5th chapter in Revelations, where a scroll is seen with 7 seals, with that scroll representing the whole of divine revelation.
"So who can unlock or unseal this scroll?" Barron asks. Only "a little lamb, who's been slain; a figure of utter weakness and mildness, who alone is able to open the scroll." As Barron continues, "So the only standpoint anyone should try to read the Bible, is from the standpoint of Christ slain, the lamb of god murdered, who takes away sins of the world through his suffering."
Of course there is nothing in the bible that tells us that this is how we should ultimately interpret all of the violence in the bible, but that doesn't prevent Catholics from believing Barron nevertheless. Nor do Christians have any problems with the fact that God used the murder of his "only son," at the hands of humanity, to forgive that same humanity for the petty larceny committed by Adam and Eve.
But even using Barron's lens to interpret violence in the Bible does not clear up the ambiguous nature of the Bible's continual use of violence, especially since we are so fallible and flawed in our human nature. But this is as simply ignored by Barron as it is overlooked by his audience. But any Christian who hears Barron say as much, is somehow convinced by his rather meaningless answer, that he has answered such objections clearly and definitively, even as the rational atheist is left scratching their head and wondering what the hell that even means.
Barron goes on to say, "if we read the Bible where we see god as capricious and cruel ... if you conclude that that Bible wants us to be violent, "you have ipso facto misread it." Tell that to the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the witch burning and killing of heretics, the divine justifications for slavery, the fact that Christians are always the ones willing to jump into foxholes, and all those who see Jesus's return in terms of a fiery Armageddon. Hell, tell that to God, who drowned everyone on the planet and rather than simply turning the other cheek on Adam& Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, "willed" instead that his only son Jesus be violently tortured and killed by sinful human beings.
Of course, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that actually states that Barron's "ipso facto" conclusion is in fact the right one, especially when you consider that God chose to use violence as the necessary vehicle of human salvation, when He could've simply used any infinite number of other non-violent methods to do so. And had God indeed used a "non-violent" method of forgiving humanity, not only would the pogroms agaisnt the Jews by Christians over the last two thousand years perhaps never have taken place, but the message of the how God dislikes violence would be much more clear, and less dependent upon the need of someone like Barron to explain it all to us. But alas, God works in mysterious ways, which fortunately provides Barron with employment, and a soap box upon which to practice his sophistry for Christ.
Instead, Barron's whole argument only forces people to have to depend necessarily upon a man-made Church to offer ever more clever ways of rationalizing the violence in their Bible as being anything but a glorification of violence itself. That every "apologist" for every "belief" has always done the very same thing that Barron is doing, never deters Christians from being fully convinced that their own "beliefs" are, throughout the whole of human history, the one unique exception to the rule.
Barron then asks, "then how do we read these passages where god seems violent and cruel?"
Easy, Barron assure us, just "read them as an allegorical, and metaphorical struggle," with Israel standing "for love and compassion," and the enemies of Israel - from the Amalekites, Philistines, Assyrians, and Babylonians, to Greeks and Romans - "stand for all things that stand athwart God's purposes." For Barron, wiping out these other nations means simply, metaphorically speaking, that "we should fight evil all the way down... and not by half measure."
But again, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that informs the reader that they should, necessarily, understand such passages in a purely metaphorical or allegorical sense. Barron just does so, not only to assure humanity we need Catholic priests to explain it all to us, but also in order to get his Bible and his religion to conform to his own sense of morality. And he does this, while pretending that his morality is actually just an extension of his Christianity, from which all morality and truth necessarily emanates and depends.
Hence, Barron's interpretation only helps to secure his job by requiring people to come to him, or some other priest, to give them the "right" way of "interpreting" passages that, on their face, seem only to condone or even glorify genocide. Luckily, we have priests like Barron to "rationalize" such passages to conform to his sense of "morality," that he then conflates with his Christianity, so we can have the right "metaphorical" understanding of such glorious bloodletting for God.
The most notorious passage Barron points out, is the one to Saul to put a "ban on them," that is, "to kill every man, woman, and child" of the Amalekites. But Saul doesn't follow the example of Abraham and kill them all, opting instead to displease God by keeping Agag, the King of the Amalekites, alive. Samuel, however, abrades Saul for this, and, following in the footsteps of Moses (who, after receiving the Ten Commandments which included "thou shalt not kill," slaughtered half of his followers anyway for worshiping the Golden Calf) hacks Agag to pieces.
Again, lucky for Christians, Barron is here to explain that this murderous act of savagery is not what it so clearly appears to be. No, no, no no! It's something entirely different! Praise Jesus!
Barron explains that all of this must be understood metaphorically, even though there's nothing in the Bible that actually tells us this is how we should interpret it. He claims this, even though the Church claims to be the only one that is allowed to ever offer such metaphorical interpretations, while denouncing all other "metaphorical interpretations" - especially ones that may only present the Catholic Church as being the Serpent in the Garden of Eden - as clearly incorrect. How convenient.
Why God chose NOT to simply say what he meant, through these biblical authors, is simply proof that "god works in mysterious ways," even when God knows full well it will only add to the confusion that he allegedly wrote the Bible to clear up in the first place. Talk about a brilliant plan!
According to Barron's way of looking at it, however, God apparently wrote the Bible in such an ambiguous way, via the biblical authors, specifically so it would be just confusing enough for people to have to depend necessarily upon a Church that, like the Sanhedrin, would be in charge of telling everyone what it all really means. And the world would necessarily need to depend upon that church to explain such ambiguities, regardless of how many children that church knowing raped or molested over the decades. Again, how fortunate for those who's jobs and power depend upon people "believing" this, as the necessary means of "understanding" their faith in anything and everything, especially themselves.
Barron transforms all of these purely evil deeds, and makes them moral guideposts, by recasting them from literal interpretations to purely metaphorical and allegorical stories about "good" battling "evil." In this way, two thousand years from now, Christians can read of the Nazi's killing Jews during WW II, and similarly recast such genocide from the literal evil of history that it was, into the metaphorical contest between God and the minions of the Devil. Of course, it would then be up to the interpreter to decide which was which, metaphorically speaking, and why. But not to worry, for there is sure to be another Bishop Barron around at that time who will be only too willing to explain it all, using any mixture of the "four senses" of biblical interpretation that Barron uses today to rationalize the genocides of the Old Testament.
And in perhaps the greatest twist of Orwellian irony, Barron goes on to say that "Israel is a warlike people, so that their authors would therefore use warlike metaphors to describe God's powers."
Wait, what?
So, on the one hand, Barron already claimed in this video that, "metaphorically speaking," we should think "Israel stands for love and compassion," while on the other hand, Barron says we should, at the same time, understand that Israel was literally a "warlike people," who were simply using "war like metaphors" to represent God's love and mercy. Confused yet?
Does this mean that Israel did not literally engage in genocide for God? If they did not, why then does Barron call them "a warlike people"? And if they did, how can Barron so easily convince his audience to simply think of such genocide as nothing more than a metaphor, so we can see Israel as really representing "love and compassion," rather than being as murderous as Attila the Hun?
Hence, Barron says the best way to understand the violence in the Bible is to think of Israel, not as the "warlike people" they really were, but as being a metaphor for "love and compassion."
This is like arguing Charles Manson should be understood metaphorically as a Captain Kangaroo, that the cross should be understood as metaphor for a comfy chair, and that Christ crucified should be understood as a metaphor for a party pinata!
All of this only illustrates the ability of charlatans like Barron to use whatever "interpretive method" is needed for him to pull the god of "love and compassion" from out of religions hat of violence and genocide, so that every act of bloodshed becomes a perfectly acceptable metaphor for teaching children of all ages, about God's mercy and morality. ISIS would be proud.
Barron does this by offering "strategies" for understanding the "layered senses" in which the bible should be interpreted, with the Church always having the final say in which interpretation is necessarily the "right one." For Barron there are Four Senses of Scripture: the literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. And it's probably safe to assume that if none of these allows Barron to square some biblical story of bloodletting with his own sense of a "moral" and "compassionate" God, than he'll gladly find another "sense" that will.
Barron then simply uses whichever of these "senses" is needed to interpret the Bible in a way that conforms to his own sense of morality, and convinces the greatest number of his audience of his "knowledge" of God, while at the same time suggesting that he is doing nothing of the sort. Rather than simply using whatever interpretive method allows him to see the Bible in a way that confirms the bias he begins with, in other words, he is simply interpreting the bible in the "right way," in accord with the "true" nature of a "compassionate, loving, god" - as anyone truly listening to his explanation can so plainly see (Yes, that's sarcasm.)
Barron concludes with, "read the bible through that lens" (here, the literal "lens" Barron is referring to is Rev. Chap 5, but metaphorically, he means "whatever biblical passage works to square all of the worst stories of the Bible with only the best ideas about God") " and you'll read it right."
And that, my friends, is how a Catholic priest teaches everyone in the world to rationalize any act of violence and evil into whatever gumdrops and rainbows they desire!
Comments
Post a Comment