Well, it is very difficult for modern Christians to understand the Hebrew and early Christian perspective on Scripture, and for that matter on all things. They have been trained in the literary critical method. They have imbibed as a given the cynical, literalistic, rationalism of the historico-critical methods of Biblical interpretation. They have learned to look for the surface meaning and no other. Like the village idiot, who took apart the clock to discover time, then couldn't put it back together again, they dissect sacred Scripture looking for the 'true meaning' which they never find and then ridicule people, who through a mystical exegesis propose that they have found the true meaning. Alas, the gap between these two mindset, these two sets of assumptions, these two world views is practically unbridgeable. Two persons of these opposing mindsets may discuss Scripture endlessly, but they are like two tennis players attempting to play a game on adjacent courts.
The rationalistic, 'enlightenment' educated Protestant will see the burning bush and say, "It was a tree in the desert of Horeb that had bright red flowers on it, and in the radiating waves of heat in the desert, and being a bit light headed from hunger and heat exhaustion, Moses thought it was 'on fire' and he then had a 'mystical experience' which he interpreted as a revelation from God." If he does not take quite so extreme a literalistic, non miraculous interpretation he may say, "It was a bush. A bush is a bush."
In the meantime, in concert with the Fathers of the Church, the Hebrew wise men, the saints and mystics of the ages, the Catholic (or at least a certain kind of Catholic) will say, "Ah, the burning bush. It is not simply a burning bush. It is a miraculous moment. It is a divine revelation to humanity of more depth and wonder and meaning than we can articulate. It is the burning love of God. It is a the Holy Spirit fire. It is the Sacred Heart of Jesus--burning with an unquenchable fire--aflame always and yet never consuming the human heart. It is the Blessed Virgin Mary who was overshadowed by the burning love of the Holy Spirit, who became the mother of the burning babe while never having her virginity consumed. It is not just a burning bush it is the burning radiance of the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. It is the burning fire at the heart of the altar of God in heaven. It is the candle on the altar, the charcoal in the thurible, the blaze of the pillar of fire and the tongues of flame at Pentecost.
Or then you could just say it is a bush.
So the Catholic lives within a tradition that views all things in a radically different way from the ordinary rationalistic, enlightenment-educated man. Of course, there are many Catholics who do not view the world this way, and there are many non-Catholics who do. (I am using the terms in an open ended way to make a larger point) This more Catholic or perhaps 'poetic' way of viewing the Scriptures and all things is something which is difficult to explain. You either see it or you don't. Are we reading things back into Scripture which aren't there? Yes and no. We are aware that the writer of Exodus did not mean to record the story of the burning bush with an knowledge that he was pre-figuring the Immaculate Conception. However, we also believe that all things are woven together in the mysterious divine providence in deeper ways than we can see and with stranger patterns than we can understand.
We believe that when Adam and Eve first fell the Divine mind already foresaw the beauty of the second Adam and the second Eve. Therefore when the Lord revealed himself as 'I AM' at the burning bush we also see that he knew--even if the prophet did not--that the burning bush through which he was revealed was the implicit revelation of all truth and every aspect of truth for it was a revelation of himself. If this is so, then we are not reading anything back into the burning bush. Instead, as one looks through a gemstone and sees reflected and refracted there the whole surrounding world, we see through this story and every other the whole of God's mystery revealed.
23 comments:
Thank you, Father.
As we used to say when I was a Baptist, "It'll Preach, Brother!"
I think part of the problem in cases like these is that the modern ear hears "Look at the burning bush, and see the Blessed Mother there!" and commonly understands it as argumentative, as an attempt to prove something (in this case, probably something about the Blessed Mother's status, which brings a whole set of Protestant resistances into play). The Protestant (quite rightly) rejects such a proof as specious.
But these “poetic” readings aren't intended to serve the same purpose as the Protestant's historical-critical approach; they aren't usually argumentative, but illustrative. Catholics have other, prior reasons for seeing both the burning bush and the Blessed Virgin as revelations of God's grace. The focus of the “poetic” reading is on how these two previously-acknowledged revelations illuminate each other (in fact, interpenetrate each other) in the Exodus passage—a question for which historical-critical methods are seriously inadequate, by the way.
Until the Protestant understands the Catholic's objective, however, you're pretty much stuck talking past each other.
Peace,
--Peter
Insightful as always
I love the painting of Moses and the burning bush- who painted it?
Excellent piece, Father. And one which is going to help me a great deal in my ecumenical work, as you've articulated clearly something I've been trying to pull together for a long time.
I don't know about the States but, here in England (as you probably know), the Anglican and Catholic hierarchies seem to equate 'ecumenical' with 'heterodox', so the 'ecumenical' priest for the diocese is usually a sort of tree-hugging, rainbow-loving, crypto-Buddhist.
It's as if they understand the 'Enlightenment Problem', but then go to the other extreme and assume the most barking of their clergy is, in fact, a mystic, and therefore well-suited to ecumenism. As if 'beardy-wierdieness' is a sign of profound spiritual enlightement which is a counter-equivalent to THE Enlightenment, when in fact, as you say, they're playing on different tennis courts (with their imaginary opponent!). That is, they seem to miss the synthesis you highlight so well.
At root, it seems that the problem is based in the Protestant/secular passion for an 'aut-aut', and thereby assuming that one wing is always better than two, rather than the 'et-et' of 'two wings on which the human spirit rises to know the truth about itself': Faith and reason.
This is beautiful, Father. It is a great blessing to have the Scriptures opened in this way.
I am about to begin a Theology degree next October, and I fear that all the Biblical Study will be based in the Historical-Critical, and there will be no room for any allegorical or typological interpretation. Do you have any ideas about how such interpretations could be introduced to a cynical scholarly community without them reacting scornfully?
Thank you again.
Wow Father Dwight, your pre-Christmas mini crisis of confidence and subsequent rest have done wonders as we can all see you powering on all 6 holy cylinders since your return. Delighted that you are to keep blogging, you're an inspiration to us all (even those that may not want to acknowledge it, at first anyway!). All the very best for your ministry in 2011.
@PiaPoi
It's always hard in that environment because, even there, 'reason' is often simply personal prejudice.
I think they would find it hard calling our Holy Father an amateur, and his method is well balanced.
See Scott Hahn's, Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, as a good introduction to what Benedict sees as the value - and limits (weaknesses) - of the historico-critical method, if you haven't read it already.
Also, a few Evangelicals who've become Catholics comment that the Anglican Biblical scholar, NT Wright, was a definite stepping-stone on their path to Rome.
In many cases, it's looking at the Jewish roots of Christianity which supports the typological viewpoint, and sways towards the Catholic interpretation of the New Testament and the Church.
See Taylor Marshall's, The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity:
http://tinyurl.com/334qb88
and his website about it:
http://crucifiedrabbi.com
Hope that helps...
@Peter Brown
I like your comment, 'they aren't usually argumentative, but illustrative'.
It puts me in mind of the emphasis they have on a 'weapon' (bible-'bashing') view of scripture predominantly from their favourite verse which supposedly defends sola scriptura: 2 Tim. 3.16. Whereas, if I understand correctly, don't we see it as the Word of God: as revelation of the divine and something precious, like the delicate unfolding of a rose?
This is one of the elements I'm unsure about in a lot of the current ex-Protestant apologetics: what I call the 'proof-text shoot-out', as in the old Westerns. If we don't believe in sola scriptura, why don't we just leave it there, and move on? Is it merely our attempt to be 'relevant' to Evangelicals, in the same way they try to be 'relevant' to the prevailing culture?
What do you think? I'd like to hear...
"the Burning Bush was a foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (it burned with the fire of divine love, but yet was not consumed)"
I'm reminded of a bit from a recent poem by Pavel Chichikov, the Marriage:
"Look now in the monstrance of the Virgin’s womb
Where the sinless child is burning
Even through her sinless skin"
Father, I was quite wrong! You're not reading SOMEthing back into scripture; you're reading EVERYthing back into scripture!
The problem then is, if the Burning Bush, for example, prefigures/illustrates/demonstrates/illuminates so many different things (depending apparently upon one's spiritual focus at the time of contemplation) how is it possible to pick on one in particular, as you did, and argue that this is what is represented here? If a sign can stand for everything then it weakens the argument of someone who claims that it has a particular meaning.
Vic, Peter Brown's comment pretty much sums it up. I was never using Burning Bush = Mary as some sort of proof text, but indicating that every aspect of the mystery of Redemption is woven through the typology of the OT, and that it is no surprise, therefore, that Mary is there too.
"The burning bush which was on fire but not consumed points to the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception." (Your words from our 'Pious Opinions?' discussion.)
That's a pretty definitive statement for something that isn't a proof text!
flyingvic:
Corrie Ten Boom used to minister to people with evil spirits. She decided to study as much as she could about the subject of demons, until she heard a word from the Lord. He said: "Don't study evil, study Me!" Her legacy is worldwide.
Have you said the prayer I suggested, to Jesus Christ, requesting His permission, if it is His will for you, to know His Mother more deeply and closely? If not, why not?
We won't be tested on dogmatic comprehension on Judgment Day. Even if someone could give you the best intellectual explanation going, it would be imperfect. God has ordained it that knowledge on earth is flawed. These are, after all, just shadowlands.
I Cor 12-13
12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known. 13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.
Say the prayer .............have a bit of faith exercised whilst you're praying too.
PS. God bless.
PPS. Someone told me I sounded bossy? Can you believe that!!
I think the problem the Protestant is having with your reading is a legimate one,
If I stated that Obama was was forshadowed by in the Bible by King Ahab because he was responsible for the sacrifice of countless children (abortion funding), you would balk. If you listen to many End Times preachers or extreme Pentecostals (the Bible must always be reinterpreted by how the spirit moves you) or Prosperity Bible preachers, you heard interpretations that would make the most extreme Montanists blush.
Typology is good as is Pentecostalism. But as early Christians discovered, it can lead to chaos and heresy if it is not read in community and according to Tradition.
*That's* what your Protestant friend needs to understand. You aren't making this thing up. You can go to the early Christians and find readings that conform to your interpretation. They could interpret scriptures far better than us, since they either sat at the feet of one of the apostles, or sat at the feet of someone who did and they would not need to get Biblical commentaries to find out what early Jews and Christians thought or lived since they knew it first hand.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that Catholics, like Orthodox, generally don't read scripture in one definitive way. Like the Creeds, the Church Fathers specify the bounds of orthodox readings, but there's plenty of room within those bounds to read the scriptures in many different ways.
Re: reading everything into it
Well, Scripture is all linked. The ancient Jews certainly believed that, and later writers were even self-aware about it. So it shouldn't be surprising that various things that happened have more application than just the literal meaning.
Even Protestants who don't believe much in typology experience this. If you read about David sinning with Bathsheba and then repenting, and you see something of yourself in the story, that's what is supposed to happen. In that passage, David stands for David, and he stands for Bob who stole a glance at the cute babe his best friend married. God designed it that way.
So yeah, it doesn't much bother me if David sometimes stands for Judas betraying Jesus, or ministers selling out their parishioners, or what have you.
I've never thought about the burning bush being an image of the Virgin Mary but I do like it. Thank you very much for posting it.
Incidentally I was in St. Catherine in Egypt only a couple of months ago and saw what is purported to be the burning bush (or its descendant).
Hi, Shadowlands; thank you for your love and concern. In truth, in my participation in all these posts concerning the BVM my personal faith is not really the issue - for one thing, no-one here knows what it is because I have never actually revealed it...
The issue for me is the one I complained about when I first read Fr Z's riposte to that departing Roman Catholic, namely, that I do not believe human logic should be applied to those things that are more God's business than ours. Meaning?
When Fr L and I crossed swords (quite gently!) in the 'Pious Opinions?' blog, he wrote; "For the Immaculate Conception we point to the word rendered 'full of grace' from the story of the Annuciation. The Angel Gabriel recognizes and affirms her status as 'full of grace'. If 'full' then there is nothing lacking, and the Blessed Virgin is immaculate. It only remains to ask when that perfection began, and we conclude that it must have begun when she began i.e. at her conception."
To me that is a perfect example of what I mean. Grace is - by everyone's belief - the gift of God. We may recognise that gift in someone else, as the angel did in Mary; we may wonder at the perfection of that gift in someone else, as generations of Christians have wondered at and been humbled by the perfection of God's gift in Mary; we may praise God for Mary's humility, her obedience, her courage, her suffering - and for all the other qualities of motherhood which she brought to the task of raising the infant Jesus; but to come to such a firm conclusion about the precise moment when God *must* have given his gift of grace to Mary that this deduction by human logic can be raised to the status of necessary belief...? No. For me that is to allow human logic to proceed in its own sinful pride a step too far.
Was Isaiah full of grace when he offered himself in his vision to the service of God in prophecy? He was cleansed, we are told, by the touch of burning coals upon his lips; but how much grace was given to him before he offerred himself, and how much after? Answer: we don't know and we don't need to know. It is sufficient for us to know that he gave himself to God's service in faith and fear and trembling - and was equipped by God for the wonderful task of prophecy he was called to fulfil.
I know Fr L won't agree with me because he's not allowed to(!); but this business of 'a blessed devotion or a compulsory dogma' is one of the reasons that I'm not a Roman Christian.
Bless you!
Hi flyingvic.
I think we would all agree with grace being a gift from God, but maybe we would disagree about what 'gift' means?
Most of my Protestant friends talk about grace as if it's a spiritual 'gift', like one receives at Christmas, or on one's birthday. It's a sort of faculty or ability given to them to do something they couldn't do before, like a new screwdriver.
However, as far as I understand it, grace, in the Catholic sense, isn't so much like an add-on tool to your toolset for being a better (behaved) Christian, but the very life of God entering one's soul, which thereby sanctifies us.
Therefore, with our Blessed Mother, it wasn't merely a functional thing - that she behaved differently in a recognisable way - but that God's life had entered her fully and superabundantly.
One could say grace is God's presence, rather than a present, and the change it effects is metaphysical rather than simply behavioural or instrumental. It's not something given to merely bring about an effect or human end, but God sharing His divine life through deification or theosis, and by which we enter more into that divine life God wants for us.
If I'm wrong on this Fr L, please correct me, as I want to learn what's right!
flyingvic:
In the spirit of ecumenism, I leave this thread with some wise words (not mine obviously). They were spoken by your gaffer (boss), the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2008.
"Bernardette's neighbours and teachers and parish clergy knew all they thought they needed to know about the Mother of God - and they needed to be surprised by this inarticulate, powerless, marginal teenager who had leapt up in the joy of recognition to meet Mary as her mother, her sister, bearer of her Lord and Redeemer.........Our prayer here must be that, renewed and surprised in this holy place, we may be given the overshadowing strength of the Spirit to carry Jesus wherever we go, in the hope that joy will leap from heart to heart in all our human encounters. And that we may also be given courage to look and listen for that joy in our own depths when the clarity of the good news seems far away and the sky is cloudy."
Hi there, Shadowlands.
Nice quotation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury can, at times say some beautiful things.
However, he just isn't like a Holy Father. Most Anglican Clergy are autonomous, and have no interest in him whatsoever, and are somewhat embarrassed by him. He is, exactly like you say, 'a boss'. A manager, and not a father.
Likewise, most people only quote him to shore-up their argument, because he's said something they agree with, not because they believe his words have value in themselves. He's right only when he agrees with them.
But, as Chesterton said, ‘We do not want a religion which is right where we are right. We want a religion which is right where we are wrong.’, and that's the Catholic Church...
Paul, I'm afraid that you're contradicting yourself. If Anglican clergy are, as you aver, autonomous, then they they do not, by definition, have either a boss or a manager.
What they do have in Archbishop Rowan is a Father, one who gives to his children in the C of E good, prayerful and wise advice.
How many of us as we were growing up were given just such good advice by our earthly father - and ignored it to our cost?
Hi, flyingvic.
Thanks for your reply.
I was being careful to qualify, 'most', but also 'boss', by putting it in quotes, too.
I'm an ex-Anglican, and I can honestly say you're the first Anglican (clergy or lay) I've come across who's portrayed the Archbishop of Canterbury as you have, even as far back as Runcie.
And so, to be frank, I'm finding it hard to take your second paragraph seriously.
I suppose the thing about our Holy Father, is that it's not his 'advice', and that's why we take it seriously. And so, as you intimate, we really do ignore that 'advice' at our peril, because it's not his. The Holy Father, in his role as Holy Father defined in the Cathechism, is infallible, unlike human fathers.
Can you give an affirmative answer to the question, 'Do you believe, hand-on-heart, that +Rowan is correct on the issues of Sharia Law, Women priests, and homosexualism, and to ignore him is at your peril?'.
If not, then I think my point stands, because there isn't any Deposit of Faith 'behind' +Rowan of which he is the chief guardian. If yes, then I'd say it was 'Mottramism' http://tinyurl.com/mqbtg7 and not faith.
The reason being, that it seems to me that your view of +Rowan, as expressed, is the erroneous view most Protestants have about what our notion of infallibility means, and rightly, they condemn it.
Post a Comment