While there are several disadvantages and even 'evils' of social media, one cannot ignore some of its blessings. Family members far-flung in our global village would have lived in isolation or with little communication with one another, had it not been for social media such as Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram which provide great platforms to connect and knit families together. Whatsapp group chat is one such platform. My family on my mother's side has a group named after our rather impressive grandfather, with 38 members in it covering 3 generations. It was great excitement the first three days of being part of the group as I got to 'see' nephews and nieces whom I had never met in real life. But as the sun never sets on the global village, the notifications came in regularly 24 X7. Being new to the WhatsApp group feature, and not knowing how one could turn off notifications, one morning at 2:45 am, I sadly left the group. However, whenever there is an important theme being discussed, group members would share with non-members to keep us abreast of the family dasein.
On a Saturday morning, even as I was 'video calling' my sister, she kept disappearing and reappearing, only to let me know that she was, even at that moment, part of a very important discussion on the family group. Ambidexterity aside, on asking, she said that they were having a heated discussion on LGBTQ rights to adopt children. On the one hand were the evangelical right brandishing Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and Leviticus 18 & 20 while on the other hand were those who were arguing for equality for the LGBTQ community. The discussion had progressed from quoting scriptural texts to debating how 'scripture' should be understood and appropriated for our time and generation. And more precisely, how is it authoritative for our lives today? Hearing about the discussion provoked several thoughts within me and not being part of the group, I thought I will write it out as a blog post, and maybe in the process, discover for myself, how scripture and its authority be understood in our age.
The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' have been used within different religious traditions, I would argue, to primarily distinguish people based on their understanding and acceptance of scripture. A conservative is one for whom the scripture is a text that is entirely given by God and therefore must be literally followed. While on the other hand, the liberals range from those who deny its historicity to those who affirm its historicality, interestingly, with both of them loosening the text's authority for our present lives. However, it must be said that no one is a complete conservative or a liberal. Conservatives, still have their preferences and unique 'take' on scripture, which will inevitably make them prioritize some parts of scripture over others. Equally, the liberals too can be passionate about and champions of some cause, thus, validating some scripture over others. So irrespective of if one is a conservative or a liberal, the question still remains - how should we understand scripture and its authority today?
Scriptural texts have been understood to have their origins in God and as divinely given, and hence it is claimed to be authoritative. While the historical reliability of scriptural texts can be proved to some extent, it would be hard if not impossible to prove the 'divine origins' or 'revelation' of any religious text and therefore must be relegated to the domain of faith. However, what can be proved and stated confidently is that the final form of revelation as scripture has a 'textual structure'. In other words, all scriptures are texts. So leaving aside inspiration, revelation and divine origin for a moment, we can have a reasonable discussion on texts and their authority over human communities.
Scriptural texts are not the only texts that have authority over human communities. Constitutions and laws too are texts that have authority in the public space, and academic texts in educational institutions. So, what makes certain texts authoritative? But before we answer this question, we must be clear what we are presupposing when we talk about the authority of texts. We are presupposing a living historical community of humans that directly or indirectly give their consent for a certain text to be instituted as authoritative. I can imagine the text that Moses brought to the community of Israel in the wilderness and instituted it to be commandments that are to be followed and obeyed. Similarly, the Prophet Mohammad brings the Quran text to his people as an authoritative text. Buddha's words, Krishna's words, Mahavira's words, Guru Nanak's words, and many other important people's words have been brought to living communities of people and instituted as authoritative texts. And most importantly, the living community accepts the text's authority and gives its consent to be subjected to its injunctions, in other words, 'to live by it'.
We need to push this line of thinking further to uncover what influences the historical living community to accept and give consent to these texts to become authoritative. If it was merely coerced by someone in authority, then either positively (through obedience) or negatively (through disobedience) its authority would still not have been established, because, inherently the text is not accepted by the community. Although an external facade of obedience or disobedience is maintained, there is no respect for the text. On the other hand, many texts, even those that may have at one point had scriptural authority, have been merely ignored with no one taking any notice of it. In the history of Israel, we do know of times when such was the case for the texts instituted by Moses. The book of the law was lying in the temple 'without authority' during the reign of king Josiah, who finds it during the spring cleaning of the temple and once again institutes it to his living community.
Thus it appears that an authoritative person's recommendation along with the living community's consent is essential for any text to become authoritative. Now, why would a living community give consent for any text to be authoritative over them? Not because they have been coerced to do so, but rather because primarily the text authentically addresses them and their historical situation. It is a text that speaks to them. It is a text that has something important inscribed in it to say to a community of people. The community recognizes the importance of what the text says and then agrees for it to be instituted as authoritative and have rule over their lives. Without this process taking place, either directly or indirectly, or representatively, there is no way for a text to become authoritative and gain prominence in a community. The text has something powerfully relevant to say to the community. I claim that this same process happens even today in our own lives. The real authoritative texts that govern us and our lives, coming either from the government, or from the doctors, or from our place of work, or even from the religious institutions we are associated with, all of them have something important to say to us and we recognize its importance and value and allow ourselves (by giving consent) to come under its authority. I can think of prescription-texts, work contract-texts, and many other kinds of texts that we submit to because we recognize that they have something to say to us, specifically to our life and situation. We submit to the tax-text of our country (some may argue that our submission is coerced!) but of course, not to the tax-text of another country where we are not residents and obligated to pay tax. As the other text does not speak to our historical situation.
Once instituted as authoritative, these texts begin to have a life of their own and their power increases with each 'reading' and 'interpretation'. In other words, they become scripture for that historical community. These texts get passed on from one generation to another, and it is presupposed that its authority will continue to hold sway. However, as communities move over time, their situation changes, and sometimes, at least a part of the authoritative-text stops speaking to the new community's context and situation. The values, living conditions, and social structures change, including a change in the language itself. It is the mismatch between the injunction of the text and the life of the living community that births the conservatives and the liberals, where one seeks to affirm the scriptures blindly even often without complete understanding, and the other seeks to disrobe the text of its authority. Inversely, if there are conservatives and liberals, then, one can confidently conclude that a mismatch is already at play. So the debate in my family WhatsApp group confirms the mismatch between text and community.
So how should a contemporary community respond to historically authoritative texts that have stopped speaking to the current context of the community? While the conservative and liberal views are two kinds of response, I would like to propose a third way forward, and I want to state it as - reinterpret to reappropriate to reinstitute. No text is set in stone. Texts are symbols and hence, have to be interpreted through reading. The first step for a text to become authoritative is for it to be read by a living community. Secondly, even as it reads, the community must make sense of or reinterpret the text for its situation and context. Some texts can be so far away from the current context of the community that they fail to be embodied, and take the status of legends, myths and fantasies, unable to be realised by the living community that reads it. Thirdly, those texts that are able to be reinterpreted and continue to make sense of the life of the living community that reads it should be reappropriated into community life. What does this mean? It is like establishing a stairway, like Jacob's ladder, between the lived world of the community and the world of the text so that the community members can walk back and forth between these worlds. On the one hand, the world imagined by the text reaches to embrace the community, while on the other hand, the community reaches out to embrace and live within the imagined world of the text. That is why the consent of the living community is at the heart of instituting a text as authoritative. Once the text is reinterpreted and reappropriated, then it is reinstituted as authoritative over the community. This reinstitution through 'consent giving' is accomplished through the communication lines and the power structures that hold the community together. This instituting can then be even formalized so that it becomes a legal text with consequence for those who disobey it.
One could say that if an ancient text successfully goes this process in a living community, then that text gets the status of scripture. These scriptural texts possess inherent semantic density, or weightiness whose articulations have the power to overcome the distance of time. They have survived the test of time by constantly being renewed through reinterpretation and reappropriated by consequent living communities who are historically cut off and distanced from the text's 'divine origin'. Every generation needs a prophet or a king like Josiah, who will renew the authority of the text by reinterpreting it so that it addresses the living community in their lived world. Once the living community sees itself addressed by the renewed and reinterpreted text, it is able to reappropriate it unto itself. It is able to 'see' itself through the reinterpreted text and give consent to it to have authority over their lives. It is this giving of consent, that I am calling as the 'instituting' of authoritative texts. I know I have been talking about community, but this act of reinterpretation to reappropriation to reinstitution can be done individually as well and often it is done by powerful leaders on behalf of the community and then the community follows the example set by the leader and reinstitute the texts on to themselves.
One way of looking at the debate between the conservatives and the liberals is that the very presence of conservatives and liberals prove the text's weightiness and that the text had not fallen by the wayside of history. And if the text is indeed weight-worthy, then, it should not be quickly discarded. Discarding only begs for new texts and the same cycle will continue for every text. Therefore, maybe this middle path of reinterpretation, reappropriation and reinstitution could be explored so that the renewed text says words of comfort, encouragement, direction, and injunctions to our present lives and community.
If a text has prevailed through history and has been renewed from generation to generation, and has seasoned the storms of time, then, of course, it is a special text, perhaps, a scriptural text. And perhaps, its power to prevail comes from its divine origin. Perhaps, it is because it is indeed the word of God that it has been able to continue to speak to communities over time. And who are we to claim otherwise?
So what does this understanding of scripture mean for the LGBTQ debate? Well, why don't you try and work out the third way for it!
