I just returned from an on-campus lecture given by the noted contemporary historian and religious scholar Karen Armstrong, who has recently published books such as A History of God, among many others. She was giving a lecture about what is termed the "Axial Age," which includes the first millenium B.C. (before Christ). She said she's been doing research on the period since about 2000, and during the lecture briefly outlined her thesis for a book coming out around April. She claims that this time period, more than any other, was the time when all the major foundations for religiousity in the modern sense (i.e. monotheism and individuality) were put in place and first beginning to be put into practice. However, she doesn't only talk about about Israel and the greater Middle East--the location we often associate with religion--because this only includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She also takes into consideration three other large regions of the world, namely around India, where religions such as Hinduism are rooted, East Asia, which gave rise to Buddhism, Daoism, etc., and also Greece, which while it does not fit into the "religiousity" category in the sense that any kind of monotheism of individuality was necessarily "practiced" or re-considered, critical changes took place in the region that are common with all areas of the world during this time.
Ok, I sound like I'm writing a term paper now, but here's the point:
In her lecture, Armstrong was making quite an interesting argument that what was critically common about this era along with the emergence of the great religions of today, is that preceding each movement, was a detraction from violence, and above all, a teaching of compassion. After all, isn't it compassion that is the greatest lesson of all and is consistently woven into all of the teachings of the Book--including the Torah, Bible, and Quran? It is the teaching of the Buddha's "Golden Rule--do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you." Even in discussing the Axial Age in Greece, Armstrong was able to hold her argument consistent; while the Greeks certainly did not move away from violence (rather they instituted war and battle into nearly all aspects of their society), at the same time they were able to teach compassion in their great epic Tragedies, which all citizens--even prisoners--were required to attend. They were taught to cry for others together, to share their tears of compassion, much like Achilles wept when King Prias traveled to his camp to beg for the return of his dead son, Hector's body.
In a time and place where it seems as if religion is sometimes the major destructive force in the world, it is comforting and refreshing to hear this other perspective--this assurance that religion is not the problem, but rather our abuse of it is. However, at the same time, I can't help feel the sense that even Armstrong is making quite a political argument. And if she is on the stage denouncing the practice of using religion as a political justification couldn't one argue that she is doing the same? While I would like to believe that Armstrong's view is the one shared by most people, wouldn't the political and religious fanatics simply discount her argument just as she invalidates theirs?
Though these questions trouble me, I did greatly appreciate her response to a question asked by a member of the audience. A man inquired whether she herself believed in a literal translation of the Prophetic texts (Torah, Bible, Quran) or whether they were intended to be more metaphorical. She responded by tracing back to the fact that during the time of the prophets (how ever many you may happen to believe ever existed), when none of the scripture was ever even written down. In fact it wasn't until Guttenberg's printing press that the Bible was even well circulated and the masses of people even became literate. Rather the stories of the Bible were told, and people sat and listened to these teachings in groups. Likewise, the Quran, in it's opening lines, begins with the command--"Recite..." and the words of Allah follow as spoken by Muhammad. So instead of a bunch of theologians sitting around scribbling notes in texts and arguing over the tense of verbs and the literalism of "God's hands" or "wine" or "jihad," people experienced the teachings of God in different ways. They listened, recited, and spoke--experiences completely different than reading. Just think, when one attends a live concert of Aerosmith (ok, bad example, but I used to love them), it is most certainly different than reading the lyrics on a printed page. Additionally, if we are to consider the words of God to be "greater" than us, as in the Muslim call to prayer in which they repeat "Allahu akbar," meaning "God is greater," then the device of language diminishes and becomes seemingly trivial. Though we may use language to help convey the wisdom of God, it cannot possibly encapsulate Him perfectly. So to focus on whether literalism is essential or metaphorical meanings are more important is to draw away from the main point which is at hand. And that is trying to become close to God, to realize compassion, and to relinquish that which is the cause of our and our brother's pain and suffering.
posted by Katie Warren @ 5:05 PM
0 comments
