Complaint: Applying the Past to Us

On Votaries, I complain about chronocentrism here and here. A later post will complain about forcing contemporary morals back onto fairy tales. 

I feel the same about religious texts--and always have. 

That is, I learned early on at church that resisting "what does this scripture mean to you" lessons put me at odds with a great many people though not, thankfully, my parents. In fairness, it was a standard approach, not just in churches but at school. The "what does this passage from Shakespeare tell us about the modern world" was in vogue (proving that culture doesn't occur in compartments: trends are trends). 

I despised it. I still (mostly) do. For one, it inevitably took the scriptures (and Shakespeare) out of context. Scriptures were often so entirely shorn of their original meaning when I was a teen and in my early twenties, I wasn't sure why reading the scriptures mattered. One could do the same with a cereal box. I felt the same way when I encountered similar approaches in school. Why are we reading Shakespeare? Wouldn't something with fewer footnotes be easier--since we clearly don't care what Shakespeare actually meant?

Shawn and his dad challenging Ray Wise.

But the primary reason for my resistance is that the application-approach seemed (and still often seems) so entirely disrespectful to the past. I found myself in the curious position of showing more respect to, say, Noah, despite my doubts about his existence, than the die-hard/everything-really-really-happened believers. I was willing to allow for what I didn't know. I was also willing to allow for the existence of the person as well as the tale tellers, the collectors, and writers. I was willing to allow for the supernatural element. I was willing to allow that something happened to someone.

What I couldn't accept was the idea that Noah only ever existed to make a point--reducing the individual to a use. I didn't see Noah as a mirror to whatever I might be thinking that day. Poor guy. Why should he simply be grist in my ego mill? 

The "what matters is what it does for us" attitude has, of course, become immensely popular in the past few years on both the left and the right. It is easy to criticize the academic left's worship of theory (use) at the expense of historical knowledge and context and respect for the individual (since idiosyncratic individuals get in the way of slathered-on theories)--but the right should keep in mind: Some of us heard it at church or at relatively conservative schools first. It appears to be a human failing, not a political one.

Cosby again! After all, he treats Noah like a real guy--who would complain a lot: