Having written about reading the Bible from the standpoint of Euro-Americans and other ethnic/racial groups in the U.S.A., I would like now to invite you to consider the reading of the Bible from the standpoint of the original inhabitants of the this land, i.e. Native Americans. One can ask if our Native American sisters and brothers are capable of contributing anything worthwhile to the reading and interpretation of Scripture. My response to that would be that the question itself is condescending and paternalistic. To assume that only one cultural/ethnic/racial group can generate anything of value to the study of this sacred text is not only arrogant, but also presumptuous.
George E. Tinker, who has served as Professor of Cross-Cultural Ministries at The Iliff School of Theology informs us that Native American reading of the Bible presents an interesting challenge to the predominant Eurocentric tradition of biblical scholarship. He states that Western biblical scholarship has long struggled with the task of accurately and adequately translating a text from one language to the other. He adds, furthermore, that since languages are never simply codes for one another, there are always things that one can say in one language that may not be able to be said at all in another language. More recently, Prof. Tinker says, scholars have begun to understand that their task also includes the greater difficulty of translating from one culture to another. The failure to understand this, as he so correctly points out, caused Christian missionaries to function genocidally with respect to Native American cultures.
There are at least three ways in which a Native American reading of the Bible will differ from Euro-American interpretations. They are as follows:
1. The theological function of the Old Testament in a Native American context will differ. Native American Christians would claim their own histories, cultural traditions, narratives, and traditional ceremonies to be an appropriate traditional covenant (Old Testament, if you will) to their communities.
2. The socio-political context of Native American peoples generate interpretations that are particularly Native American in terms of outlook and life-application.
3. The discrete cultural particularities, informs us Prof. Tinker, generate normatively divergent readings of the Bible.
There is some dysfunction in the relationship between a Native American biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) and the other biblical hermeneutics that we have previously considered. An example of this would be that the Native American community would consider the Bible (especially the Old Testament) to be the imposition of a foreign history. Subsequently, in order for the biblical message to be relevant and viable for their community, the Scriptures have to reappropiated, recontextualized, and reread in the light of Native American existential reality.
Robert Warrior, author of "Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians," indicates that the Israelite conquest of Canaan has little affinity with the Native American experience. On the contrary, he says, the closest analogy to Native American history in the Old Testament seems to be the experience of the Canaanites, dispossessed of their land, and annihilated by a foreign invader. Warrior adds that in Native American eyes, the liberation of Israel is linked to the conquest and destruction of the Canaanites .
Norman Gottwald,, author of The Tribes of Yahweh, under an obvious influence of Marxism, argues for a "peasant revolt," paradigm for interpreting the same event. This paradigm is also problematic for the Native American community, because of its emphasis on egalitarianism. It is also problematic because of the Marxist inclination to overlook or deny cultural distinctions in favor of an imposed, classless social homogenization which is antithetical to Native American social thought.
The notion of the reign (or kingdom, for those used to more traditional language) of God in Native American biblical hermeneutic is also different than that in the Western reading and interpretation of Scripture. The Western biblical hermeneutic emphasizes chronological time, whereas the Native American hermeneutic emphasizes space. The question for those used to a Euro-American hermeneutic would be "when will the kingdom of God come?", whereas for the Native American outlook it is a question of "where?' Tinker points out that because of their spatial orientation, Native American religious thought begins with some sense of creation.
An important historical point for our consideration is that as Prof. Tinker points out, Native American communities in North America had a healthy and responsible relationship with God as Creator long before they even heard the Christian message of the Gospel. This poses a problem for those Christians who will deny this on the basis of their belief that the entirety of divine truth is enclosed in the Christian religion and in its sacred book, i.e. the Bible. This writer (yours truly) believes that this attitude is reflective of Christian imperialism. To judge the truth or non-truth of any faith community strictly on the basis of Scripture is to place limitations on God's power to reveal Godself to humankind. This, of course, results in tampering with the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty, i.e. that God can do whatever God wants, whenever God wants, and however God wants.
In this posting, we have been exposed to just some of the peculiarities of a Native American biblical hermeneutic. There are more, but for the sake of time and space, I will invite you (the reader) to engage with us on the little that has been said. How would you as a non-Native American evaluate their reading and interpretation of the Bible? Do you believe that their biblical hermeneutic is inferior to yours, and if so, why? Your input will be very well received. I look forward to it.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment