“Religion of the Book” or “Religion of the Word”?
That is one of the divides emerging during the current Synod on the Bible being held at the Vatican. (The formal title of the meeting of some 250 bishops and sundry experts is the Synod on the Word, and it ends this Sunday after three weeks.) The issue of Catholics and Scripture is an excellent one, I think, as biblical illiteracy remains widespread (and that goes for sola Scriptura Protestants as much, if not more, than Catholics.) Catholic News Service has a nice backgrounder on Catholicism and bible study here. Yet in spite of the development from Pius XII and Divino Afflante Spiritu and then the Council’s Dei Verbum, and liturgical reform that greatly broadened the cycle of readings, Catholics still want and need to become more educated about the bible.
Will the synod foster this process? There have been many interesting interventions by each of the bishops (yes, the editing job is tedious, and that’s the current stage in the process), including Benedict XVI, who signaled one of the main themes, that of “healing” the rift between theology and exegesis–the latter having scrubbed scripture of the Divine. John Allen is in Rome and has daily coverage.
The argument that biblical exegesis has undermined belief seems to me to have more merit for some exegetes than it does for the faithful. I think Catholics want (and need) to learn more about the Bible as a text and as a source of faith–and that they are not mutually exclusive. But I think that will require a lot of work “on the ground” and outside the liturgical setting. So far, the synod’s emerging recommendations seem to focus on improving homilies (again, putting the responsibility and work solely on priests) and helping lectors deliver their “lines.” And focusing on Catholicism (Christianity) as a “Religion of the Word” rather than of “the Book,” not only serves to distinguish the church from Judaism or Islam, but seems to put such a strong emphasis on spirituality over the intellect as avenues to holiness.
There is also concern that, contra Dei Verbum, the bible is being put at the service of tradition, rather than playing in concert. (DV, 10) Lectio divina is a popular proposal, and who could argue? But I am a fan of small groups bible studies (the Little Rock program remains the best, and most popular) and I’d like to see the bishops get more practical, loosen the reins a bit.
There are many other themes, and counterarguments to my impressions. (Apropos, just noticed Robert Royal’s column at “The Catholic Thing” advocating a practice of biblical virtues rather than study of the bible.) But this is an important–very important–topic for the church, so I just wanted to open a thread for further thoughts.
Those who deny that God can intervene in the world–a notion that seems absurd if you believe in God–are not practising historical criticism but making philosophical claims. Those say that “modern man” cannot believe in the supernatural are, I think, just wrong as to the facts. Of course it is possible to say that those who believe in the supernatural are “pre-modern” by definition, but that is rather like saying that there are no black swans because swans are by definition white.
In general the answer to bad historical criticism is better historical criticism as M.J. Lagrange understood at the beginning of the last century. Pius XII was indeed heroic in endorsing this approach in Diuino Afflante Spiritu, if one considers the deficiencies of his predecessors in this matter.
In addition to comments I’ve made already. I think the synod wil provide some impetus to better preaching, encouragemen tof lectio divina and more scriptural study.
How great that impetus will be is another question in the world of dwindlin gclergy for a Eucharistic community.
How well priests who are stretched thin, say coverin gseveral parishes, wil improve their homilies is hard to figure.
Inside the Church, the importance of good exigesis, as Joe just mentioned, is vital.
Finally, if folk are moving away from the Church to a more simple evangelical view, how that challenge will be met by the synod strikes me as fuzzy at best.
Some self-disclosure: have a masters in theology and a masters in divinity. Also, one of my close friends is a contributor to the Little Rock Bible Study.
But, here are some comments:
a) have been very pleased with this synod – why? including significant number of women, other religious traditions, speakers have been allowed to raise issues and not follow a pre-ordained agenda, appears to be an effort to reach common ground that balances ecumenism, outreach, education, preaching, research;
b) support a clarification of Vatican II documents and the issue around we being the people of the Word (not book);
c) at the same time, my understanding and appreciation of scripture has been wide opened by studying the works of the Jesus Seminar (granted – very exegetical), Vermes (now Jewish scholar); and responses from T. Luke Johnson and N.T. Wright;
d) would strongly encourage a directive that enhances preaching – our clergy get little homletics; need to use video feedback; more of the approach that Bishop Untener had with small priest groups, sharing homilies, getting feedback from those of us asleep in the pews, etc.
That seems to me the best approach so that we avoid the extremes of bible literalism, evangelical literalism, fundamentalism, etc.
Great topic, David. An initial thought: I hope the bishops are sensitive to a couple of other trends, which I didn’t see reflected in the CNS summary of Cardinal Ouellet’s questions:
* There is an interdenominational aspect to Bible-reading in the US, and probably elsewhere. My experience of Catholics in the pews who take the Bible seriously is that many of them are involved in informal but vigorous Biblical discussion with Christians of other stripes, whether it be a spouse or other family member, friends, or taking part in a Bible-study group at a (usually Evangelical) church. Based on what I’ve observed, I think this is an important trend, and well worth studying.
There are many implications to this trend, but one that seems germane to the synod is that, if the bishops are making the assumption that they can control the way Catholics “consume” the Bible, they are very much mistaken. It’s a wider, multi-denominational world out here, and Bible study is one of the key areas where interdemoninational interaction is taking place. Istm that Catholics read the Bible in an “inter” as much as “intra” context.
* The impact of the mass media on impressions about the Bible is also important, istm. Whenever the mainstream media report on a discovery or development from the world of Biblical scholarship – e.g. the discovery of the since-discredited ossuary of “James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus” – it makes large impressions on people. It can shake (or confirm) their faith.
To offer a simple example thta combines these two points: every chain bookstore has a section on the Bible and religion. There are usually at least a couple of shelves of books about the Bible. Catholics who thirst for more information about the Bible browse these sections. But these sections typically are not organized by denomination, so the Catholic consumer may not know whether or not the book she is buying conforms with Catholic Biblical scholarship.
“d) would strongly encourage a directive that enhances preaching – our clergy get little homletics; need to use video feedback; more of the approach that Bishop Untener had with small priest groups, sharing homilies, getting feedback from those of us asleep in the pews, etc.”
I strongly agree, Bill. There is a guy in my parish who does public-speaking consulting with executives – teaches them to speak to boards, stock analysts, etc. He offered to videotape me. It was a revelation. I think there are probably guys like him who would be willing to donate their services, if the clergy are willing to take advantage of it.
“(again, putting the responsibility and work solely on priests)”
Ahem.
Actually, I agree this is a problem. Priests shouldn’t have to do all the preaching; and shouldn’t feel that they have to. Last time I checked, the Holy Spirit sends her gifts to the laity, and proclamation of the Good News is among them. Laypeople aren’t supposed to preach at mass, but they can offer reflections – and there are many, many other preaching opportunities.
And occasionally a deacon surfaces. :-)
Jim & Bill, thanks for the points, and I certainly defer to greater expertise (low threshold here) on this topic.
One thing, my comment about priest workload was not to say we don’t need better homilies with greater scriptural sophistication. We do, very much. But I’ve heard that priests are getting less scripture study in seminary today than decades ago, and again, I don’t think it should all be on them, or on the lectors, or on the homilies. Has to be brioader.
Also, the ecumenical part, esp in the US context with evangelicals, is huge. Growing up evangelical, we hosted or were part of near weekly home bible studies. Not always the most sophisticated, often just self-affirming apologetics. But it is often the only place Catholics can talk about the Bible, so they attneded then, and still do, in other places. I believe (Bill can correct me, perhaps) that Little Rock started where it did because Catholics were a minority in a Bible Belt state. Exegesis need not be apologetics (in the pejorative sense) but also ecumenism, mutual enrichment, and yes, affirmation of faith and tradition.
You are correct on the roots of the Little Rock Study Group – a southern catholic response to the Bible belt emphasis and approach to literal reading of the scripture. It also supported rural parishes that may have been pastor-less or had a circuit rider periodically.
Jim – I did not mean to exclude deacons, etc. Actually, I wish non-ordained were allowed to preach at times if they have the background, skill, and experience. You are correct – seminaries have less and less time to teach scripture, preaching, etc. The candidates are less and less educated in areas such as philosophy, writing skills, etc. and seminaries have focused on basic education, theological foundations (some candidates are not born catholic), need to be bilingual. All this takes away from a scriptural foundation and linking that to the signs of the times and preaching.
Bill DeHaas called for “more of the approach that Bishop Untener had with small priest groups.” That approach was described in a N.Y. Times story (May 6, 2000) by Peter Steinfels:
I strongly agree that bible study and discussion groups can create the biblical culture within which biblical preaching and the liturgical use of Scripture can breathe and flourish. Scriptural anemia is one of the main defects of Catholic preaching. Let the Scriptures free, let the minds of the faithful free, let their gifts of interpretation free, and the Church will be a happier place.
I teach a course on Scripture in a Catholic high school. As someone whose daily work it is to try to improve biblical literacy I appreciate much of what has been said at the synod. I wonder if there is any chance the American bishops will reconsider their near unanimous decision last November to approve a national curriculum framework for high school catechesis that reduces the systematic study of scripture to a single semester over the four years of high school. I know that many high school religion teachers are concerned about what the new curriculum framework will do to our efforts to improve students’ understanding of scripture. It is hard enough to walk students through the whole Old Testament in a semester. I can’t imagine trying to cover the entire Bible in that same amount of time. Unfortunately that is what the new curriculum framework, which is to be implemented over the next couple of years, mandates.
David Tenney, many thanks for this information. I would have to agree with you about the shortened scripture study requirement. One theme that emerged from people in the field I interviewed about Catholics and the bible is that more needs to be done at the high school (or before) and college level so that all the weight of “remedial” learning is not put on the homily or even a parish bible group, if one exists.
Any idea of the rationale behind the bishops’ decision? Pressure to teach other topics? Lack of interest from students? Parents?
Thanks.
David Tenney, is there an outline or summary of the bishops’ national curriculum that we can take a look at?
Is it possible that most bishops themselves have little knowledge of the Bible? The impression one gets from homilies is that is the case with many of the homilists. I wonder how many Catholic high schools have a faculty member who has a background in Scripture?
The Catholic News Service piece neatly elides the disastrous period of decline in Catholic study of the Bible from the death of Leo XIII (1902) to the publication of Diuino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. As for Richard Simon, also mentioned, he was a pioneer in critical study of the Bible, but he was expelled from the Oratorians and his books were burnt because he ventured to say much that is now generally accepted. His aim was to defend orthodoxy against Spinoza and against the Calvinists. Finally who is there who says that Raymond Brown, that most balanced of critics, is controversial?
Here’s the link for the Curriculum Framework:
http://www.usccb.org/education/framework.pdf
Scripture is to be covered during the first semester of high school under the title “The Revelation of Jesus Christ in Scripture.” In addition to reducing the overall time spent systematically studying scripture, I think the way Scripture is employed in the framework will lead to some backsliding on how we approach the Old Testament. In recent decades there has been a very important movement in Catholic biblical studies to appreciate the Hebrew Scriptures on their own terms rather than seeing them merely as a preamble to the really important part of the Bible. Now of course we still believe that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God’s revelation and that the other parts of revelation can ultimately be understood in their fullness only in and through him. However, it is also true that it is only when we take God’s covenant with Israel seriously in its own right and own its own terms that we can then understand correctly who Jesus was, what he taught, and the significance of his extension of God’s covenant ad gentes. Unfortunately the title of this course and its placement in the curriculum suggests that the Old Testament will not be taught with this emerging appreciation.
You will note that there is an elective option for a second semester of Scripture during Junior or Senior year. Two points about this:
1) These electives are not chosen by students or even necessarily by the school itself. A diocese may mandate which electives are to be taught in its schools.
2) Notice also that there is only room in the curriculum for two electives and the extra semester of Scripture is left competing with important topics such as Church History, Catholic Social Teaching (“Living as a Disciple of Jesus Christ in Society”), and “Ecumenical and Interreligious Issues”. I believe most schools/dioceses will opt to skip the scriptural elective (scripture at least having been touched on already) in favor of subjects that have not been mentioned at all earlier in the first six semesters of the curriculum.
I have a lot more to say about the curriculum framework (as do almost all the Catholic high school religion teachers that I know). Unfortunately it has gotten very little attention even though it is going to fundamentally alter the way religious education is going to proceed in Catholic high schools and even parishes. Based on a conversation that several other religion department chairs and I had with a representative from the USCCB’s Committee on Catechesis (which produced the document), I think the framework was premised on several incorrect assumptions about Catholic high schools in the United States. Perhaps one of the main contributors to this blog could open a thread on this topic.
Pope benedict equates theology with Biblical exegesis. Whatever happened to Tradition?
David Gibson wrote:
“Any idea of the rationale behind the bishops’ decision? Pressure to teach other topics? Lack of interest from students? Parents?”
The idea for a nationally standardized curriculum framework actually came from the religion textbook publishers who felt that they were having a hard time maintaining so many different high school titles. The publishers suggested to the bishops that it would be much easier for them if there were a standardized sequence and content to the religion curriculum as there is in Catholic grade schools.
Now as for why they chose to cut the scriptural component, I’m not really sure. When I presented my concerns about how little space was devoted to scripture in the new curriculum framework the representative from the Committee for Catechesis told me that the bishops were hoping that scripture would be integrated throughout the whole curriculum. I replied that while I am certainly in favor of a much more robust integration of scripture throughout the high school religion curriculum (and in fact have worked for this at my own school), my experience has been that when students encounter scripture largely through discussions of other topics without an adequate prior systematic overview, they often walk away with a distorted understanding of scripture and a tendency to prooftext. The bishops’ representative did not have a response to this.
One other point I forgot to mention on the optional second semester of scripture that is available as an elective in the curriculum framework: The elective is meant to be an overview of all of scripture. So rather than a semester studying the Old Testament followed by a semester studying the New Testament (which is the curriculum at most Catholic high schools of which I am aware) the best a student could hope for under the new curriculum would be two classes, separated by several years, in which the entire bible was covered in a single semester.
David Tenney
How much time would you say the average bishop has spent studying Scripture? From what you say about the standardized curriculum one might draw a conclusion. Of course trumpeting the virtues of one-issue voting is much easier than studying almost anything.
Ms. Olivier – here is a link to what B16 actually said on the floor of the synod:
Shortcut to: http://ncrcafe.org/node/2191
He actually advocates a both/and approach – exegesis + tradition. That is why he defines us as a people of the word (not literally of the book). His approach leaves room for the historical-critical scientific approach that is then informed by tradition. He does raise the issue of getting exegetes and theologians to play together.
It seems we are forgetting that the Bible came out of tradition, too. I know as a formerly Methodist believer (11 yrs ago now), my own Biblical background was fairly weak. It was coming to the Catholic Church that awakened my sense of needing to study, study, study–which I did, including the wonderful experience of having a small group Bible study (organized by my second parish–a small town parish) in my own home where the faith-sharing was intense. This particular study used the “Come and See” series out of Steubenville–much different than my “liberal” home Church–which I loved. It was then emphasis for writing (I’m a writer) during Lectio Divina–which was then published and won a “Best Christian Poetry Book” award, because by this time I was also doing “the hours” so I re-wrote the Psalms in haiku format at the suggestion of the Director of Liturgy at the Cathedral. All has gone on from there, with much of my writing poetical reflections on Biblical passages–and an ever-deepening love for scripture–both Newer and Older Testaments. I like to emphasize that we ARE “People of the Book” to the Muslims, who don’t even acknowledge all the Bible–but we are believers in the risen Lord–who is the Word. Let us not take back or rescind that which we
are most clearly–believers in the Sonship of Jesus Christ. If it weren’t for that, we’d be Jewish, and we aren’t Jews, either (in spite of Who Jesus Christ was and the foundational ramifications of the entire Word, who WAS “in the beginning”. (John 1:1)
Excuse me, I used a small “t” in tradition, instead of the capital “T”–which was the correct way to write that sentence.