I get why people are wanting to point out that "the Bible" has lots to say about predatory lending practices and the need to forgive debts. Trust me, I get it. A few things to keep in mind, though:
The impulse to point this out seems to be coming from the desire to show that Christians who are opposed to the forgiveness of student debts are cherry picking in terms of what texts they're paying attention to and what texts they're choosing to ignore.
And I suppose that this is a reasonable thing to point out. But it's also important to recognize that the principle "the Bible says X and therefore that's what I do (or don't do)" is also never consistently applied. Readers always gravitate toward what fits their ideologies.
Take the bit about forgiving debts from the tweet above. Why uphold this as authoritative when you're not going to do the same thing with, say, instructions on how to treat your slaves?
Again, I get where people are coming from. It's a good thing to point out hypocrisy. But "surprise, many biblical authors condemn predatory lending practices and also advocate forgiveness of debts" isn't going to land the way that you hope.
In fact, what this type of rhetoric actually does is reinforce the harmful idea that 2,000+ year old texts should have a say in how laws are made and enforced. It's a dangerous road, and one that we should be avoiding at all costs.
And for the record, I was thrilled to hear the student loan forgiveness announcement. But this is a wonderful step in the right direction regardless of whether "the Bible" agrees. Thanks for reading.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bible Twitter is abuzz lately about a new "translation" of the New Testament. Its creators call it "The Pure Word." This is a snippet from their website about what readers can expect. Here are a few thoughts. I'll start with a positive.
As the John 3:16 example makes clear, these "translators" are not interested in seeking a "word for word" correspondence between English and Greek. And that's a good thing. "Word for word" translations treat texts as messages to be decoded. And that's not how language works.
Most English translations render the verb πιστεύω as "believe" or something similar. Readers do well to realize that this verb doesn't mean "believe" in the way that English speakers today would define. There's a LOT more to it!
I've decided to start a podcast on open heart surgery. My PhD is in early Christianity, but I should be fine because I have a heart and am also really interested in the topic.
And you should know that on my podcast I will be critiquing research on open heart surgery and offering alternatives. If any cardiovascular surgeons say I’m not qualified, they’re just appealing to authority.
If anyone thinks that this sounds like a bad idea, please remember three things:
1) I have a PhD 2) I have a heart 3) I am passionate about hearts
Seven of my ten years of graduate training in religious studies were at @MarquetteU. And the Jesuit approach to theology and scholarship in the @MarquetteTheo department shaped how I think about academic discourse. 1/?
@MarquetteU@MarquetteTheo One of the ground rules for Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises is the presupposition of charity. In short: when approaching discussion, assume that your interlocutor seeks true understanding, and assume that they come to the table with good intentions. 2/?
@MarquetteU@MarquetteTheo The way that this generally plays out in my own scholarship is that I tend to approach books/articles with the goal of finding what’s good and “correct." Acknowledge what’s wrong, of course, but seek to identify what the author has done well. 3/?