The other memorable point for me today was when, in class (yes, I do things like this in class) I compared Paul (as in Paul, the writer of books of the Bible) to Jennifer Aniston--the commercial in which she notes to her boyfriend in that goofy-looking movie, "I don't want you to do the dishes, I want you to want to do the dishes." My point being that it seemed that Paul wanted believers to want to do good, and not merely be constrained by laws to do so, and the ritualistic laws he was describing seemed to epitomize carrying out the line of the law without the embracement of the spirit of doing what was right.
Good news: they haven't kicked me out yet.
Something to ponder: In many ways, poor Paul was in the same predicament as a modern-day police officer (or even a teacher). He did want believers to do good based on their own desires, but perhaps he (like we with our students or an officer with citizens) knew they wouldn't and thus had to impose upon them some ritualistic laws. (Plus, they probably feel ritualistic to us, but were nothing when compared to Old Testament rituals and laws.) A friend of mine, who is a minister, likened Biblical laws to rules we have for our babies and toddlers. They, too, want to do right, if only to please us, but they must learn to do so. They don't want to stick their forks into the outlet in order to get a shock -- maybe they just want to see sparks! Or maybe they just want to see what will happen and enjoy the surprise. But we've already gone through the ritual of plugging up the outlets with those plastic things from Wal-Mart. Even so, we let them get within a few feet and yell, "No-no!" They panic and cry at the time, but eventually learn the reason behind the rule/law. I prefer to think of Paul's situation from our perspective as teachers. What happens when we make revision "optional"? Some students do revise anyway, but many who would have revised and improved their work if MADE to do so, do not when it's optional. Or maybe they choose not to revise the first essay but then do revise the next assignment because they know it's right, useful, etc. Anyway, I am no expert in theology, but that's my defense of poor Paul. I do believe that many people embraced the spirit of what was right in spite of the laws -- and the rest had to learn how to do right "just because." I do applaud your analogy, though -- I would never have thought to compare Paul with Jennifer Aniston, though in one of Kamholtz's classes I compared a character from one of Shakespeare's plays to Leslie Neilson in "Airplane." It would be funnier if I could remember the character or even the play!
ReplyDeleteYes, I was dissing Jennifer Aniston but not Paul as I could understand his impulse to be concerned that ritualistic adherence to laws could represent only a temporary compliance, and that chaos was not necessarily far behind if that were the case. I couldn't help think of Aniston though--who really wants to do the dishes???
ReplyDeleteAlong those pop culture lines, the whole chaos thing reminds me of the Jeff Goldbloom character in the first (and best) Jurassic Park movie. Remember his wacky scientist who studied "chaos theory"? At least his character lived to see the sequel. Methinks we watch too much TV and movies!
ReplyDeleteI think we're on the same page; I was also comparing something in one of the texts to the Goldblum line about how "nature will find a way"--maybe I should be comparing this stuff to, I don't know, Foucault?
ReplyDelete