'Tis the Season to Deconstruct Belief Paradigms

(fa-la-la-la-la....)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/what-didnt-happen-in-bethlehem.html?ref=contributors&gwh=8A554D59C49B4A120F86B731F3FF0A9C

            The three topics it is considered polite to avoid in a dinner conversation are money, politics, and religion. Sadly, those three topics not only intermingle so much that they become inextricable, they are often the most interesting sources of conversation, but it is also true that the conflict that tends to arise over those topics often becomes too emotional for a polite dinner. Religion, especially, is a very personal issue for many people, and directly insulting or demeaning a person’s religion goes beyond a faux pas and becomes a personal attack.  T. M. Luhrmann, in his article ‘Hark! The Herald Angels Didn’t Sing’ understands that the issue he is covering is a sticky one, and deftly avoids stepping on any toes by keeping his article academic in nature.

            The first indication of this comes in the first paragraph, with a very sophisticated diction choice. This pattern is continued through Luhrmann’s entire article, as he follows up ‘transom’ with ‘encyclical’ and ‘lacuna.’ The density of the words themselves give an indication of the level at which the article should be read- it is not a casual piece that demands an emotional response, but one that requires thought and consideration. Even if one were to try to craft a negative response, Luhrmann uses positive language when addressing both sides of the issue he is discussing. Rather than painting one side as right or wrong, he describes the more embellished and imaginative interpretation of the Bible as ‘enriched’ ‘effective’ and ‘compelling’- all with positive connotations. To the more literal interpretations, he is less generous, but because his article discusses why the more vivid experience is more appealing, it only makes sense. He still respects them, calling their objections ‘concerns’ instead of using a more pejorative term. Luhrmann’s choice of words when discussing the issue shows a clear desire to avoid conflict.

            He also makes his goal clear in the structure of his work. While the introduction is a lengthy one, not arriving at his thesis until the seventh paragraph when he explains that ‘anthropology offers some insight into why imaginatively enriching a text taken as literally true helps some Christians to hang on to God when they are surrounded by a secular world.’ The next two paragraphs even use ‘first’ and ‘second’ to introduce themselves as body paragraphs, both with two analytical guiding sentences at the beginning, and supporting quotes. The ‘claim, evidence, warrant’ format is clearly detectable, and it lends a sense of credence to his words.

            Luhrmann also has very clear explanations of his background information, providing details that are not only helpful to bring readers up to speed, but also prove he has a thorough knowledge of both sides of the issue. He opens with a quick Cliff’s Notes version of a book written by the Pope discussing the literal words of the Bible, and ‘that there was neither an ox nor a donkey in the stable where Jesus was born.’ Luhrmann expresses what would doubtless be the general response, a sarcastic ‘really’ before continuing his summary and explaining the Pope’s real message. He also includes quotes from his interviews with Evangelical leaders and followers alike, explaining their opinion of their personal connection with God, which he then uses to highlight his own point that adding personal details, regardless of their correctness, will make a religion more appealing. While he grants one side more effectiveness, he gives both arguments equal attention and comprehension, and passes those on to the reader, who is left to draw their own conclusion based on fact rather than an initial emotional response.

            The best way to avoid an outcry when discussing a loaded issue is to give each side an equal voice, and Luhrmann does an excellent job of giving both the literal and personal interpretations of the Bible their theological dignity. Nowhere does he try and determine whose interpretation of God is the correct one, instead choosing a more tangible discourse on which line of thought is most effective at pulling in and retaining members. While no article is truly unbiased, Luhrmann’s is, at the least, anti-inflammatory.