text stringlengths 59 1.12k |
|---|
awakening from below." The first is initiated by God, the second by mankind. An "awakening from above" is spectacular, supernatural, an event that bursts through the chains of causality that |
at other times bind the natural world. An "awakening from below" has no such grandeur. It is a gesture that is human, all too human. Yet there is another difference |
between them, in the opposite direction. An "awakening from above" may change nature, but it does not, in and of itself, change human nature. In it, no human effort has |
been expended. Those to whom it happens are passive. While it lasts, it is overwhelming; but only while it lasts. Thereafter, people revert to what they were. An "awakening from |
below", by contrast, leaves a permanent mark. Because human beings have taken the initiative, something in them changes. Their horizons of possibility have been expanded. They now know they are |
capable of great things, and because they did so once, they are aware that they can do so again. An awakening from above temporarily transforms the external world; an awakening |
from below permanently transforms our internal world. The first changes the universe; the second changes us. Two Examples. The first: Before and after the division of the Red Sea, the |
Israelites were confronted by enemies: before, by the Egyptians, after by the Amalekites. The difference is total. Before the Red Sea, the Israelites were commanded to do nothing: Stand still |
and you will see the deliverance God will bring you today ... God will fight for you; you need only be still. (14:13-14). Facing the Amalekites, however, the Israelites themselves |
had to fight: Moses said to Joshua, 'Choose men and go out and fight the Amalekites (17:9). The first was an "awakening from above", the second an "awakening from below." |
The difference was palpable. Within three days after the division of the Sea, the greatest of all miracles, the Israelites began complaining again (no water, no food). But after the |
war against the Amalekites, the Israelites never again complained when facing conflict (the sole exception - when the spies returned and the people lost heart - was when they relied |
on hearsay testimony, not on the immediate prospect of battle itself). The battles fought for us do not change us; the battles we fight, do. The second example: Mount Sinai |
and the Tabernacle. The Torah speaks about these two revelations of "God's glory" in almost identical terms: The glory of God settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud |
covered the mountain, and on the seventh day God called to Moses from within the cloud. Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of God filled |
the tabernacle. The difference between them was that the sanctity of Mount Sinai was momentary, while that of the tabernacle was permanent (at least, until the Temple was built, centuries |
later). The revelation at Sinai was an "awakening from above". It was initiated by God. So overwhelming was it that the people said to Moses, "Let God not speak to |
us any more, for if He does, we will die" (20:16). By contrast, the tabernacle involved human labour. The Israelites made it; they prepared the structured space the Divine presence |
would eventually fill. Forty days after the revelation at Sinai, the Israelites made a Golden Calf. But after constructing the sanctuary they made no more idols - at least until |
they entered the land. That is the difference between the things that are done for us and the things we have a share in doing ourselves. The former change us |
for a moment, the latter for a lifetime. There was one other difference between the first tablets and the second. According to tradition, when Moses was given the first tablets, |
he was given only Torah shebikhtav, the "written Torah". At the time of the second tablets, he was given Torah she-be'al peh, the Oral Torah as well: "R. Jochanan said: |
God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of the Oral Law, as it says : "For by the mouth of these words I have made a covenant |
with you and with Israel" (Ex. 34:27). The difference between the Written and Oral Torah is profound. The first is the word of God, with no human contribution. The second |
is a partnership - the word of God as interpreted by the mind of man. The following are two of several remarkable passages to this effect: R. Judah said in |
the name of Shmuel: Three thousand traditional laws were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. They said to Joshua: "Ask" (through ruach hakodesh, the holy spirit). Joshua replied, |
"It is not in heaven." They said to Samuel, "Ask." He replied, "These are the commandments - implying that no prophet has the right to introduce anything new." (B.T. Temurah |
16a) "If a thousand prophets of the stature of Elijah and Elisha were to give one interpretation of a verse, and one thousand and one sages were to offer a |
different interpretation, we follow the majority: the law is in accordance with the thousand-and-one sages and not in accordance with the thousand prophets." (Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishneh, Introduction) Any |
attempt to reduce the Oral Torah to the Written - by relying on prophecy or Divine communication - mistakes its essential nature as the collaborative partnership between God and man, |
where revelation meets interpretation. Thus, the difference between the two precisely mirrors that between the first and second tablets. The first were Divine, the second the result of Divine-human collaboration. |
This helps us understand a glorious ambiguity. The Torah says that at Sinai the Israelites heard a "great voice velo yasaf" (Deut. 5:18). Two contradictory interpretations are given of this |
phrase. One reads it as "a great voice that was never heard again", the other as "a great voice that did not cease" - i.e. a voice that was always |
heard again. Both are true. The first refers to the Written Torah, given once and never to be repeated. The second applies to the Oral Torah, whose study has never |
ceased. It also helps us understand why it was only after the second tablets, not the first, that "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of |
Testimony in his hands, he was unaware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with God" (34:29). Receiving the first tablets, Moses was passive. Therefore, nothing in him |
changed. For the second, he was active. He had a share in the making. He carved the stone on which the words were to be engraved. That is why he |
became a different person. His face shone. In Judaism, the natural is greater than the supernatural in the sense that an "awakening from below" is more powerful in transforming us, |
and longer-lasting in its effects, than is an "awakening from above." That was why the second tablets survived intact while the first did not. Divine intervention changes nature, but it |
LABELING AND RATING SYSTEMS An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections or in resources accessible through the library. The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library. Likewise, prov... |
by the library. Labeling and rating systems present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles. Labels on library materials may be viewpoint-neutral directional aids designed to save the time of users, or they may be attempts to prejudice or discourage users or restrict their access to materials. When... |
opposes labeling as a means of predisposing people’s attitudes toward library materials. Prejudicial labels are designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment that the content, language, or themes of the material, or the background or views of the creator(s) of the material, render it inappropriate or offensive... |
or prohibit users or certain groups of users from accessing the material. Such labels sometimes are used to place materials in restricted locations where access depends on staff intervention. Viewpoint-neutral directional aids facilitate access by making it easier for users to locate materials. The materials are housed... |
the directional aids at their own discretion. Directional aids can have the effect of prejudicial labels when their implementation becomes proscriptive rather than descriptive. When directional aids are used to forbid access or to suggest moral or doctrinal endorsement, the effect is the same as prejudicial labeling. M... |
regarding the organizations’ opinions of the contents and suitability or appropriate age for use of certain books, films, recordings, Web sites, games, or other materials. The adoption, enforcement, or endorsement of any of these rating systems by a library violates the Library Bill of Rights. When requested, librarian... |
library policy may be unconstitutional. If labeling or rating systems are mandated by law, the library should seek legal advice regarding the law’s applicability to library operations. Libraries sometimes acquire resources that include ratings as part of their packaging. Librarians should not endorse the inclusion of s... |
holder—could constitute expurgation. In addition, the inclusion of ratings on bibliographic records in library catalogs is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Prejudicial labeling and ratings presuppose the existence of individuals or groups with wisdom to determine by authority what is appropriate or inappropri... |
examine. The American Library Association affirms the rights of individuals to form their own opinions about resources they choose to read or view. Adopted July 13, 1951, by the ALA Council; amended June 25, 1971; July 1, 1981; June 26,1990; January 19, 2005; July 15, 2009. |
Although Tunisia has enacted several laws pertaining to environmental protection, enforcement of environmental legislation has not been consistent until recently, due both to the lack of staff and resources. In |
addition, the legal instruments available in the past were not highly effective. The creation of the National Environmental Protection Agency (ANPE) in 1988, however, led to the development of a |
National Action Plan for the Environment (NAPE), which attempts to draw together existing environmental legislation and programs and to provide a strategy for natural resource conservation, pollution control and land-use |
management. To that end, article 8 of Air Pollution and Noise Emissions Law No. 88-91 dictates that any industrial, agricultural or commercial establishment as well as any individual or corporate |
entity carrying out activity that may cause pollution to the environment, is obliged to eliminate or to reduce discharges and, eventually, to recycle rejected matter. The ANPE may initiate legal |
proceedings against violators or reach a compromise with the polluting entity. Legislation pertaining to environmental protection includes the Wildlife Protection Law No. 88-20; the Water Pollution Law No. 75-16; and |
the Marine Pollution Law No. 75-16. In addition, Tunisia is a member of ISO. In June, 1997, the Technical Committee for the Elaboration of Standards adopted the ISO 14,000 Series |
relating to industrial atmospheric emission standards. Tunisia has entered into several international conventions and agreements dealing with environmental problems and aspects, including: - Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, |
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, and on Their Destruction; - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; - Convention for the |
Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution; - Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water; and - International Convention Relating to Intervention on |
The word “hermeneutic” is often used to refer to a method or style of interpretation commonly associated with the interpretation of Scripture. No doubt there are any number of hermeneutical methods a person can use when approaching Scripture: hermeneutic of |
rationalism, historical critical method, hermeneutic of trust, etc. Any person can, regardless of personal belief, approach Scripture using any hermeneutic they see fit to use. However, not ever hermeneutic is equal and not ever hermeneutic is useful in fostering spiritual |
growth and developing a deeper relationship with Christ. The Catholic Church has never accepted many of the modern critical methods and hermeneutics used in biblical interpretation and biblical criticism in their totality; She has found them time and time again |
useful but inadequate in being able to give a complete interpretation of Scripture, for it is that each has their own pitfalls and stumbling blocks, which more often results in an emptying of meaning from Scripture than in a richer |
understanding of Scripture. Many of these modern critical methods fall under what scholars have named a hermeneutic of suspicion. In short, a hermeneutic of suspicion operates from the mindset that Scripture cannot be trusted in its current form. That the |
modern mind cannot and does not have access to the meaning of Scripture without first running it through certain textual and analytical filters. A hermeneutic of suspicion encourages the reader to suspect the credibility of Scripture and those who interpret |
Scripture operating from a different hermeneutic. A hermeneutic of suspicion stands contrary to what Dei Verbum, the document from Vatican II on divine revelation, states: “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that |
the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation . . . The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels |
. . . told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of |
Nazareth (xxi). In other words, both Vatican II and Pope Benedict XVI are promoting and encouraging faithful readers of Scripture to approach the text first with a hermeneutic of trust. Something the church has always encouraged, as it states in |
Psalm 4 to "put your trust in the Lord" (RSVCE). Further, it often benefits the believer to first believe and trust Scripture so that later the believer might understand what it is he or she believes. Saint Augustine said it |
best when he preached in a sermon: “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe” (CCC 158). In the early church, biblical interpretation was done differently than how it is done in most present day |
critical settings. It is not that the early church was uncritical in their approach to Scripture, it was that the early Church was critical about Scripture in a different manner than most modern critical methods. The ancient method included and |
exemplified a hermeneutic of trust, and interpretation was done according to the rule of faith (the Creed). The historical critical method and other hermeneutics of suspicion do not acknowledge the rule of faith when interpreting Scripture. The early Church sought |
Christ in Scripture and were less concerned with authorship of the Gospels, the dates the texts were written and under what political hermeneutic the Gospel writers wrote, because the early Church trusted the texts and those who vouched for the |
authenticity of those texts. Unfortunately, the hermeneutic of suspicion is a method firmly entrenched in the minds of many scholars, students, church goers and the American public mind. It is a methodology taught and widely used in Universities of both |
secular and religious natures, high school, and in bible studies of nearly ever denomination. Priests and Deacons even preach the hermeneutic of suspicion from the pulpit at Sunday mass. To the unbeliever, a hermeneutic of trust is an unacceptable mode |
of operation towards Scripture. But what about the believer? What happens to a believer who uses solely a hermeneutic of suspicion when reading Scripture? How do you engage a believing Catholic in dialogue who approaches Scripture with a hermeneutic of |
suspicion? What do we do with these suspicious believers? There are three basic approaches in speaking with a believing Catholic who operates from a hermeneutic of suspicion. The first approach is direct and can be summed up in saying “Because |
the Church says so.” The other two approaches are geared more at demonstrating that the believing Catholic who approaches Scripture with suspicion often approaches Scripture with faulty logic. The first approach “Because the Church says so.” is and should be |
a sufficient reason as to why a Catholic should approach Scripture with trust. Though it is a sufficient reason it is not an adequate answer for the suspicious believer, and this approach is often best saved for a person who |
is trying to follow the Church’s teachings to the letter, but those people usually already trust Scripture and the Church. Too often a person who is already suspicious of Scripture will stop listening if they encounter the ‘because the church |
says so” answer because by virtue of not trusting Scripture this leads the suspicious believer to an inability to trust the party, namely the Church, who vouches for the accuracy of Scripture. In other words, to not trust Scripture is |
to not trust the Church and is akin to saying that the Church herself is untruthful and untrustworthy. This second approach aims at showing the suspicious believer that believing in Christ, His Church, and approaching Scripture with suspicion does not |
follow logically if a person is trying to grow in holiness. One of the goals of every believer is to grow closer to Christ. Some Saints would even say the Christian is to have the same mind as Christ. Undoubtedly |
the suspicious believer will agree that the Christian is supposed to grow closer to God and Christ. They will also normally agree that Scripture is a good means to grow closer in their relationship with Christ. This is where their |
logic begins to falter. One can begin by asking “What kind of relationship can you have with another person if you are always and already suspicious of the other person?” I have never met anyone who, when asked this question, |
has replied, “strong and healthy” to the kind of relationship that can be had when entered into with suspicion. This is because a strong and healthy relationship cannot be built upon suspicion. The relationship nurtured on suspicion is a relationship |
that is strained, tense, stressed and worrisome. It is like the wife who perpetually believes her husband is having an affair and is in bed with everyone except herself. To live in a relationship built upon suspicion is unhealthy in |
many areas of a person’s life and will likely end in a separation of the two parties because suspicion does not foster the growth of a close relationship. As it is, Scripture reiterates the point that it is necessary to |
trust God and that to not trust God, His Word and those who speak on His behalf results in disaster: e.g. "Because you did not trust in me, to show my holiness before the eyes of the Israelites, therefore you |
shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them" (RSVCE, Num. 20:21) The third approach also explores how the logic of the suspicious believer is fickle. No doubt, the suspicious believer will also normally agree that |
every believer can grow closer to God and Christ by conversing with Scripture. Here their logic falters again. Like with relationships, the question arises, “What kind of conversation can a person enter into with another person when one is already |
suspicious of the other person and one is suspect of the conversation that will follow before the conversation even begins?” I asked this very question to a group of graduate students in theology, and it was unanimous; they all agreed |
that to enter into a conversation with suspicion is to have a conversation that is hindered, hard going, awkward, embarrassing, and sometimes the whole conversation is dismissed. The students even shared personal stories of calls home and parents suspecting that |
their child was calling only to ask for money and how the suspicion of the parent not only hindered the conversation but also resulted in the child feeling insulted and betrayed because their parents did not trust them. When asked |
“What kind of conversation can we have with Scripture if we enter into that conversation already suspicious of that conversation we are about to have?” some of the students held that the Bible was exempt from the above approach. As |
it was, many of these students had Scripture professors who approached Scripture with suspicion and had passed on that suspicion to their students. So it was no surprise that the rules changed when applied to Scripture. This was a problem. |
For by being unable to converse freely, fully, and openly with Scripture and being only able to approach Scripture with suspicion turns Scripture into a kind of supermarket tabloid fit with aliens, biblical doomsday prophecy, and Bigfoot’s baby. Scripture becomes |
a book of hearsay akin to hearing a story from a friend who heard it from a friend who knows a fellow who says it’s true. Further by conversing suspiciously with Scripture, Scripture resembles a fisherman’s story about the ‘big |
one’ that got away. Where on the fisher’s first telling, the fish is a reasonable size about ‘ye big’ as he would demonstrate with his hands spread apart. While on the fisher’s last telling of the story, the fisher, equipped |
only with a rod and reel in a 8-foot skiff, with his wits alone to protect him, fights Moby Dick himself long through the night and into the wee hours of the morning until the fish finally tires and surfaces |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.