Us and Them

I got to thinking about that. Does the fact that Islamic theology considers scripture to be literally true (in some sense) mean that there is no exegetic disagreement among Muslims? Clearly not. So, what could it mean? Undoubtedly there are subtle differences in the ways Muslims, Christians and others understand the holy truth of their scriptures. But the politically-loaded term “fundamentalism” is too blunt an instrument to be useful in analyzing them.

Sometimes Christians speak of “fundamentalists” as if they were tacky residents of a theological trailer park; the implication is that fundamentalism is lowbrow, unanalytic and immature. But that is not really fair. There are interpretative disputes among “fundamentalists” as well, and do not all Christians believe that the Holy Bible is the Word of God, in some sense, in some way?

If Scripture has anything at all to do with the Word of God (and I believe it does!) then it is a human response to a spiritual experience. Our response is characterized by the limits of our human consciousness. When it comes to the Word of God, we’re fundamentally unable to know for sure whether we heard it right! It is impossible for anyone, anywhere, to correctly understand what a scriptural text says. In fact, the very idea of “correctness” or “incorrectness” is an artifact of the limited conceptual frameworks we human beings are forced to use, to try to make sense of things.

I got to thinking about that, and I realized something hopeful. If Scripture is an encounter with the Word of God that can never be fully or correctly understood, then it follows that all Scripture is true — and anything can be scripture!

What’s so hopeful about that? Why, it is nothing but a grand liberation! Not only does it mean that we can be open to hearing God’s Word in any text, in any medium, in any moment — it also compels us to realize that there are no infidels! With people ready to spread ruin and war over issues of people’s Creeds, I think this is a pretty important message to be spreading.

The dictionary definition of “infidel” is, simply, “one who has no religious faith” or (and I think this is the more common sense) “one who is an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion.” But its Indo-European roots come from words meaning “to await trustingly”. Other words that stem from the same root are abode, abide, confide, by way of the Latin fidere, “to trust”. It seems that our rejection of “infidels” has less to do with their ideas and more to do with their “otherness”: an infidel, when it comes right down to it, is a person we don’t trust.

And as Lao Tzu puts it: “He who does not trust enough will not be trusted.”

— Lindy Davies, February, 2003

* By Dr. Whitney Azoy, in the Bangor Daily News.