Framing History
As a follow up to recent posts about a priori assumptions and the like, I wanted to add some rambling thoughts (emphasis on rambling) about framing stories and history. So while I get annoyed by assumptions when they are used to exclude possibilities, they do serve a purpose in providing us with a lens through which we understand history. We need such lenses as we look back and try to understand the past - in fact those lenses are unavoidable. We create frame stories in order to tell the story of history - they give us frames of reference, help us make sense of the world, allow us to create meaning out of history, and help us tell better stories.
So for example in high school I took a class called World Area Topics in which we studied the rise and fall of dictators through history. That was the framework within which we approached world history. In college I had a class called Revolutionary Europe - basically European history through the lens of acts of violence and sex scandals (fun stuff). Similarly an overview of American History textbooks from the past 100 years will demonstrate the evolving nature of frame stories. From morality based (Washington and the cherry tree), to imperialist (go Manifest Destiny), to anti-communist (we have always been a Christian nation…) the way history is taught reveals the assumptions and lenses of the storyteller. These framestories aren’t wrong or bad (usually), they just are. The issues arise when one or the other is assumed to be the only valid or true way of telling the story.
The stakes of course get higher when the frame stories of the Bible and church history are revealed (or attempted to be revealed). I’ve been taught church history though the lens of missions, evangelicalism, and as church vs. empire. Each hold truth, but not the sum of the truth. So the other night Mike and I got into a um, argument, about the centrality and importance of the framestory of the Jewish canon (so if you ever wonder what married nerds argue about…). It of course brought up more questions than answers. As I see it, those that developed the biblical canon did so because they desired to promote a certain framestory. The selection of books, the editing of sources, the very understanding of history all came from a certain perspective and were meant to convey particular meaning at the time. This is the Bible we have today - in accepting it as such are we in fact accepting the primacy of the historical lens of a particular people at a particular moment in time (as much as we can understand it of course)? What does that mean for the applicability of scripture? As one who is also unwilling to reject God’s role in the process, I still wonder to what extent “inspired” extends to. I could believe that God actively placed each book there in it’s current form for timeless application. Or I could believe that God guided the process to provide the most flexible and evolving source of knowledge possible. Or a million other options.
So while I understand the need for functional framestories, I appreciate the ability to acknowledge multiple possibilities. The faith factor complicates things from time to time. To accept default framestories can be difficult and can cloud understanding. But I guess that’s part of the balance between faith and doubt.
Julie Clawson
October 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The whole concept of framestories is fascinating. Another thing to consider in placement of the books. It only affects a couple books, but it could make a difference.
For example, I’m studying Ruth at a Jewish college and learned that it’s placed after Proverbs as an example of the women described in Proverbs 31. Most Christian circles place it after Judges to be more or less chronological. The Jewish order gives an additional meaning to the text, but should we consider that the divine intention?
October 10th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I think I’d have to agree with you (with apologies to you husband) that “the very understanding of history all came from a certain perspective and were meant to convey particular meaning at the time.” What I hear echoing in your article is, in light of that, does it change scriptures relevance or truth for us today? I was brought up to believe that every jot and tittle was inspired, true, unchanging throughout all time. To question even the smallest detail (never mind that women in our church no longer wore head coverings as prescribed in scripture) was to dive off a theological cliff the likes of which would make the recent fall in the markets seem like child’s play.
For me now, on the other side of that free fall, it comes down to “can I accept mystery?” Can I be okay with buying into the overall message of scripture (an ongoing process of interp but lately seems to me to be: love the Lord and neighbor as myself) and yet allow space for questions? Big questions the likes of which I dare not even suggest here! There is great comfort in thinking that we know everything–just ask Adam and Eve or the congregation I grew up with. It is much more difficult to wrestle with God. Perhaps this is the faith-doubt struggle you mention. From my experience it seems God likes the wrestling. At this stage in my life I’ve decided to humor Him (her, whatever)
October 10th, 2008 at 4:43 am
I chuckled at the “married nerds” line. I love having those late-night discussions with my wife about various esoteric theological or philosophical issues. Even better are the “nerdy parents” conversations with our six-year-old about the theology of redemption in Lego Star Wars.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I wonder if part of the genius of God’s gift of the Bible (a book written over the course of centuries from various different viewpoints) is that it does not give us one particular framework, but gives us one story from many different viewpoints. I know that these books were chosen and developed into a canon at a certain period of time, but by the same token many different people at many different places had already accepted these texts as sacred.
The tension that exists within the text of scripture helps me to see that there are framing stories that influence the way the story is told, but over all there is one great story of the love and grace of God for his messed up people.