• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'

S

Sniffles

Guest
The university student made the long walk to his prof's office with one complaint rolling over in his mind.

He couldn't understand why the professor seemed so obsessed with the Bible, constantly referring to it to illuminate the study of literature, said Dennis Cooley, who teaches English at the University of Manitoba.

"He said to me, 'Why are you always talking about the Bible? One of my other English professors does this too, and I just can't see those things. I don't know the Bible.'

"I said I sympathize with the way you must feel, but this book so informs the Western tradition that it's echoed in all kinds of books, including those written by people with no major religious belief."

The student is far from alone, and his frustration marks an accelerating cultural shift.

This Easter weekend, as Christians mark the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, more and more Canadians are in the dark when it comes to the major Biblical traditions that shape Western culture. Many of the expressions they use every day are drawn directly from the scriptures, though they don't know it, and the Western literary canon takes for granted that readers will know the Bible in detail.

For hundreds of years the Bible was the cultural reference point that everyone held in common, the imaginative framework or mythological universe, as Northrop Frye put it, for all of Western literature. Up to the 1960s, nearly everyone who could read had read part of the Bible. Not any more.


As weekly religious attendance has dropped in Canada from 60 per cent in 1945 to 21 per cent in 2005, the number of people who have ever read even a passage of the Bible is in steep decline. In Britain, the Guardian newspaper reported a Church of England survey found only 22 per cent of respondents knew that Easter celebrates Christ's resurrection.

It's a change Prof. Cooley, a teacher for more than 30 years, sees every day in his classroom. When he started his career there were typically several students from religious families who could catch Biblical references in texts. Now it's typically advanced students of literature who are best acquainted with scripture.

"That lack of knowledge means that when they read there are lots of things they don't see, that they can't see," Prof. Cooley said.


Richard Leggett, associate dean and professor of liturgical studies at the Vancouver School of Theology, said part of the reason is that Christian scriptures are increasingly excluded from public discourse.

"The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation," Prof. Leggett said. "You can have someone graduate university today who has never even looked at the Bible."

Prof. Leggett celebrates the opening of the literary canon to texts written by people other than the much criticized "dead white men," but he also laments what has been lost.

"The Bible lies behind so many things. In English many of our common idioms are taken directly from scripture, and people don't know that."

They include expressions such as "live by the sword, die by the sword," which refers to Christ's words to a disciple who took up arms to protect him, or "to wash one's hands" of a situation, which refers to Pontius Pilate's words to the mob baying for Christ's condemnation.


More pragmatically, he said, if people don't understand the Bible, or the Koran, they won't understand many of the sources of conflict in the contemporary world.

"It's no good to tee off on religion - and lots of people are reading the new God is dead movement - but for a significant portion of this world, religious ideas remain central to their understanding of themselves and their place in the world."

globeandmail.com: 'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Prof. Leggett celebrates the opening of the literary canon to texts written by people other than the much criticized "dead white men," but he also laments what has been lost.
Yes indeed: art and culture have never been more vibrant, or amazingly creative in the history of mankind.

The two most important miilestones in the English language are Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and yet we have "graduates" who've never glanced through either. But who gives a shit, as long as you've got a piece of paper officially certifying you as "educated".
 

kelric

Feline Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,169
MBTI Type
INtP
For hundreds of years the Bible was the cultural reference point that everyone held in common, the imaginative framework or mythological universe, as Northrop Frye put it, for all of Western literature. Up to the 1960s, nearly everyone who could read had read part of the Bible. Not any more.

This certainly may be true - but what makes you think that we have any obligation to ensure that it's true in the future (or, as you say, the present?). Unless you're speculating that knowledge of the Bible is prerequisite to the *ability* to create great works of art (which I would disagree with), seems to me that great art will still be made - it just won't be from the same base as much great art in the past was. I don't consider that necessarily a bad thing.

Clutching to institutions of the past simply because they were mainstays of culture in prior years seems counterproductive and restrictive to me. Not that things that are important to people should be jettisoned because they're not "new", but seeing moving away from such things doesn't seem inherently bad, either.

For the record... I'm one of the people you describe... I've never read the Bible - and have never had any desire to read it, either. I'm not religious, and my interests simply lie in other directions - so take that how you will :D. At the same time, I'm sure that there are books that I've read and liked that took inspiration (or simply paraphrased) parts of the Bible - but in that case, it's the components of the story that I liked - not the fact that they were Biblically inspired (and I'd suspect that most of the elements of stories in the Bible were taken from earlier traditions anyway).
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Well... it had a good run.

These days, we have other popular ways of learning about the world.

science_shirt_front_thumb.png
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
This certainly may be true - but what makes you think that we have any obligation to ensure that it's true in the future (or, as you say, the present?). Unless you're speculating that knowledge of the Bible is prerequisite to the *ability* to create great works of art (which I would disagree with), seems to me that great art will still be made - it just won't be from the same base as much great art in the past was. I don't consider that necessarily a bad thing.

Even when speaking outside of a Biblical context, a strong religious and spiritual base was at the heart of cultural achievement. Culture after all derives from "cult". And the Christian religion in particular was able to draw upon the richness of the heritages of other cultures into itself, ie inculturation.

Clutching to institutions of the past simply because they were mainstays of culture in prior years seems counterproductive and restrictive to me.

In order to actually have a geniune cultural heritage, you need to have some sense of contunity with the past heritage; even when you disregard certain elements of it as you move along down through history.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
The Bible informs the Western world so well only because Christianity adopted Greek ideals, which became status quo for the West :p
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
The Bible informs the Western world so well only because Christianity adopted Greek ideals, which became status quo for the West :p

Christianity engaged with Greek philosophy, it didn't just whole-heartedly accepts its precepts without question. Not all Christians took as far as Tertullian for example("What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem"), but you find this in St. Augustine.

Scholars have even noted how St. Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of Christianity and Aristotelianism produced a rather original philosophical approach in itself.

Yes Greek ideals are a major foundation for Western culture, but that doesn't negate the Christian influence. In fact it was Christianity that took Greek ideals to new heights.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
well I'm saying they're functions that have mirrored in each in time as influences on the West.... 2 require reads for the longest time were Aristotle and the bible, and that's for good reason!
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
well I'm saying they're functions that have mirrored in each in time as influences on the West.... 2 require reads for the longest time were Aristotle and the bible, and that's for good reason!

Of course. The lack of a proper Classical/Liberal Arts education is a real sad state of affairs now. Although luckily, one can just go to the local bookstore and obtain copies of these books for themselves.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Even when speaking outside of a Biblical context, a strong religious and spiritual base was at the heart of cultural achievement. Culture after all derives from "cult". And the Christian religion in particular was able to draw upon the richness of the heritages of other cultures into itself, ie inculturation.



In order to actually have a geniune cultural heritage, you need to have some sense of contunity with the past heritage; even when you disregard certain elements of it as you move along down through history.

I'd agree with you that the Bible has been extraordinarily influential in literature and art, and so it's definitely useful to study it from a literary standpoint.

However, I don't really understand your statement that "a strong religious base is at the heart of cultural development." Are you saying that a strong religious base is necessary for any art or culture of value to develop in any context, or merely that it has been a crucial part of Western cultural development?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Are you saying that a strong religious base is necessary for any art or culture of value to develop in any context, or merely that it has been a crucial part of Western cultural development?
No it's true of any culture. The greatest works of art produced within history were usually of a religious nature, even when they served secondary political motives. When a ruler wanted to demostrate his greatness and power for eternity, he usually enshrined his legacy by building massive temples, churches, or other places of worship.

Of course this was not just true for rulers, but even communities themselves. Polish immigrants in Amercia were determined to build grand cathedrals, much to the irritation of Irish and German Catholics.

Yet building such grand cathedrals and so forth had an important social function, since it binds people together as a community in the service of a collective goal. That an ordinary villager can feel a sense of pride in a cathedral that his community has built over a period of 100 years or more is a valuable social glue, and that has all sorts of benefits in terms of the obligation that people feel in looking after each other.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Couldn't all of these great works of art and positive effects on the community occur in a secular context?

Great art is going to be made by great artists anyway; the fact that much of it was directed toward religious ends is simply a function of the popular religious attitudes of the time in which it was created. Leaders can organize the common people into all kinds of positive community service projects, with or without religious context. How about getting the people together to build a great library, which could stand for hundreds of years and offer both boundless educational opportunities and the same social glue of which you speak?

Correlation doesn't prove causation, so I don't see how you can assert that great art cannot be created without religion, even though it's been a part of lots of great art in the past.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP

Can't say I'm too surprised by the article. The reason, for example, that most British people do not realise Easter "celebrates" the resurrection of Jesus (real or not) is that they do not consider it relevant to them, and are not brought up to do so.

If one could find a section in the Bible to recommend which store would have the cheapest chocolate eggs, it would be much more popular.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
I'd agree with you that the Bible has been extraordinarily influential in literature and art, and so it's definitely useful to study it from a literary standpoint.

I think its even more useful to study it in order to understand history, for the same reasons that history itself is important to know. A major problem is that its virtually impossible to teach it in K-12 without a bunch of parents believing that a teacher is attempting to either convert their kids or undermine their religious beliefs.

I agree that religion is not strictly necessary for art or advanced culture to develop; for many of the ancient greek city-states, religion was usually a secondary concern (at best) in the realms of art, literature, and philosophy...though it could very plausibly be argued that religion provides a common frame of reference that would otherwise be missing in large societies without mass-media capabilities.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Couldn't all of these great works of art and positive effects on the community occur in a secular context?

Only for so long. As the religious influence within society declines, so then does the art.

Leaders can organize the common people into all kinds of positive community service projects, with or without religious context.
History proves otherwise. The only forms of community service that have stood the test of time have been those of more religious inspiration. Secular-based projects usually do not last more than a generation or so.

Let's also remember that a strong sense of community based upon a strong religious conviction and connection among its members. Even in secular-based contexts this is referred to as "Civil Religion". This helps explain why even secular movements often had to try to co-op traditional religious beliefs and practices towards their own ends.

Michael Burleigh has written two very good studies on this: Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and Politics in Europe from the French Revolution to the Great War and Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and Politics, from the Great War to the War on Terror.

Few examples: the secular Risorgimento actually tried to protray its leader Garibaldi as a Christ-like figure coming to save Italy's soul.

There's also the more famous examples of how the Communists protrayed their great leaders in religious-like manners. The Russian emigre philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev noted how Bolshevism was largely a perversion of traditional Russian religiousity.

Then there were the de-Christianization attempts made by the Jacobins during the French Revolution. Yet what they tried to replace it with was some vague cult of the Supreme Being, with vestiges of Greeco-Roman paganism.

So like it or not, religion is an important part of social organization and function. As far as secularism goes, the issue becomes one between an authentic religious base for society or one based upon "Ersatz religions" as Eric Voegelin termed them. Much of the 19th and 20th centuries show that such Ersatz foundations do not provide mucn of a secure base for social and cultural vibrancy.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Really? How so?

With religion, you have something aspiring man's talents towards to the highest heavens. Without that, what do you have? Nothing really, but petty self-absorption. Great art is like a water spring: eternal but always fresh.

The grandeur of Classical, Medieval, Renaisance, Baroque, Neo-Classical, Romantic, etc. art will stand for generations to come because it sought to give expression to such eternal themes. But in order to do that, one must first believe in eternity to begin with.

Modern and Post-modern art is largely obsessed with narcissistic themes, which by it's very nature limits its value. One precept of Modernist art was even that art didn't have to be beautiful to have value, as long as it gave the artist self-expression or whatnot.

And that's the constrast between great art influenced by religion and shitty art inspired by irreligion: religion forces people to seek value in something greater then themselves - the greatest thing in the whole COSMOS in fact!
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Artistic and cultural output suffered in the Dark Ages, when religion dominated all aspects of life. Art became "Christianized".

When the secular Renaissance came about, it flourished.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Artistic and cultural output suffered in the Dark Ages, when religion dominated all aspects of life. Art became "Christianized".

The very notion of a "Dark Age" has actually been discarded by scholars for at least 50-100 years now. The "Dark Ages" were a very rich era in terms of culture.

One recent work dealing with this topic is Julia M. H. Smith's Europe after Rome: A New Cultural History 500-1000. Of course this is only one among many many many MANY other sources one can consult.

There's also Peter Brown, who has written much about Late Antiquity and notes that the early Medieval period was far more vibrant an age than previously thought.

Just for fun, here's his remarks about one lasting legacy of the "Dark Ages" which still effects us to this day:
"The Roman world still speaks to us. But we must remember that it speaks to us now only through books whose shapes came into being through the silent labor of generations of "technicians of the world" - lawyers, bureaucrats, and monks - in the centuries of Dark Age Christian Europe."
--The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 pg. 23

Yes you heard it, the book as we know it today was developed by Christian scribes during the "Dark Ages". On a related note I should mention that the practice of putting spaces between words was also developed during this period by Irish monks.

Much has also been written about the great Renaisance of the 12-13th centuries.

When the secular Renaissance came about, it flourished.

It'd be more accurate to describe the Renaissance as "anti-Clerical" which is not the same thing as secular. Need we forget that the Papacy was the greatest parton for artworks during this time, which was a bone of contention with the more austere Protestant reformers.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
All I know is that I'm annoyed as Hell when my literature teachers keep telling me to pick up on all the religious symbolism when nobody ever taught me any.
 
Top