Next to godliness

My mom never got a dishwasher. That's because when we were kids she kept up with us by forcing us to wash dishes with her after dinner. That's how I taught her how to study scripture.

In Catholic grade school and on into my first year of high school I was learning about how the Bible isn't literally true, about how there are different kinds of literature in it, about how there wasn't really an Adam and Eve, etc. And over drying dishes mom wasn't buying it. Not the way the nuns taught her, apparently. Not that it mattered that my teacher was a priest. Apparently we can be heretics just as easily as anyone else. But I didn't give up on her and eventually she came around. She thanks me for it now.

Well apparently there are Muslim scholars that are applying the same type of tools to the Qur'ān that we Christians apply to the Bible. They held an annual conference this week at the University of Notre Dame. Nicholas Kristof writes about it in today's New York Times:

At Notre Dame, scholars analyzed ancient texts of the Koran that show signs of writing that was erased and rewritten. Other scholars challenged traditional interpretations of the Koran such as the notion that some other person (perhaps Judas or Peter) was transformed to look like Jesus and crucified in his place, while Jesus himself escaped to heaven. One scholar at the Notre Dame conference, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for safety, has raised eyebrows and hackles by suggesting that the “houri” promised to martyrs when they reach Heaven doesn’t actually mean “virgin” after all. He argues that instead it means “grapes,” and since conceptions of paradise involved bounteous fruit, that might make sense. But suicide bombers presumably would be in for a disappointment if they reached the pearly gates and were presented 72 grapes.

I have a feeling that suicide bombers aren't the only ones who might have problems with these scholars' work. They are having to have their conference at a Catholic university after all. They might find their audience even less receptive than my mom. Here's hoping they don't give up though. The hardest part is convincing people that scholarship doesn't take God or inspiration out of scripture.

And it's not like we Christians have had an easy time with it either. That creation museum in Northern Kentucky is still pretty new. And I hear of the occasional priest who still preaches a seven day creation. Maybe my mom was right about us priests after all.

3 comments:

Parris said...

It's my understanding that one can freely believe either the typical evolution story or the 7-day creation story as long as the following principles are believed:

1. God is behind the actions (not the result of random chance, like Dawkins and Hitchens think)

2. Adam and Eve had an original sin (necessary for the concept of salvation)

3. The human race descends from two parents, Adam and Eve (which is necessary for the concept of inheriting original sin)

4. That females are superior to males since the rib of a human is of a higher order than dirt.

Okay...that last one was just thrown in there to see who would bite. haha But is 1-3 correct?

U of L Catholic Campus Ministry said...

I think all four propositions are probably theologically valid ;-)

But while BELIEVING in a 7-day creation is ok, I would argue that PREACHING it is a different matter. I've run into enough Catholics who are convinced that they can't believe in evolution because of what they've been told in church to suspect that there are some priests out there who are not being honest about church teaching.

For the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to exclude Creationism as bad theology is no small thing. And it is far from the only example of the church embracing evolutionary science as the means by which God creates the universe. For a preacher to present a 7-day creation as equal to evolution in current church teaching would be to ignore his responsibility to speak for the church and not himself.

Parris said...

Interestingly enough, at a recent five-day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University (marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin) supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) were not allowed to present.

Overall, it seems that ID is trying to inject theology into science while Dawkins/Hitchens are trying to inject science into theology.

Maybe both should remain separate so we can appreciate the beauty of two sources of truth.

 
©2009 Lou's Canon | by TNB