From time to time I get recipes from Poland; sometimes the dish is something traditional, sometimes something newly-created. Invariably the next stage involves translating the recipes into English. And most of the time this presents not only a linguistic challenge but a ‘substantial’ one too. Or to put it in clearer terms, I have to find substances – ingredients – available locally to substitute for those in the recipe that cannot be bought here. Generally speaking, if I want to use a Polish recipe, I have to ‘interpret’ it using local produce. And sometimes the only way is by trial and error. On the other hand, the appreciation and admiration from my friends of the final outcome are always very satisfying.
In Buckie alone there are several different Christian churches. In Elgin there’s a dozen of them. Around the world there are thousands. Each has a specific, sometimes very distinctive, character. All the churches claim to have derived their distinctiveness from the Bible, and to follow the Good Book faithfully. An obvious assumption is that the other groups are at best less faithful, at worst plainly wrong. Thankfully most of the Christian churches in this country have abandoned open hostilities and have opted for cooperation; however, an undertone of derogation is embedded and irremovable by definition. If not, sticking to their guns would be rather pointless.
Such great diversity and division within Christendom is neither exclusive nor unique. We can see something similar within Judaism and Islam. In fact, every movement – religious or not, yet based on books considered holy or foundational – faces the same dilemma: interpretation. Recently Adolf Hitler’s infamous manifesto ‘Mein Kampf’ has been re-published in Germany with comments and interpretations – a veritable Bible of Fascism. The whole print run sold out within hours. I’m certain this publication is about to open up a great deal of discussion on Hitler’s legacy, discussion which is likely to be all the more intense as ‘Mein Kampf’ been pretty much illegal in Germany for decades. Islamic fundamentalism, recently grabbing the headlines, is a different incarnation of the same dilemma: which interpretation of the written word is the correct one.
If we leave ideological bias aside for a moment, the answer to such a question must be: none. With such a statement, as a Catholic priest I’m getting myself into hot water. But, as I said, if we take into consideration the Bible outwith a certain ideological framework, many different interpretations are possible, can sound plausible, and can seem coherent. Because each interpretation is created within a certain mindset, a framework of ideas, beliefs and convictions sometimes imperceptibly but always strongly influences a particular interpretation. We can perceive such an interpretation framework in today’s first reading. In the gospel, Jesus presents his manifesto based on the prophecy of Isaiah. It’s his framework within which his future words and actions are to be interpreted. It is so different from what the common expectation of the Messiah was, that conflict seems to be inevitable. And, as we know, that conflict ended badly, with false accusations of Jesus followed by his crucifixion.
Living in such a diverse society as we do requires a great deal of flexibility. It comes out of understanding that not everyone shares our own particular beliefs, convictions or traditions, and that some people can deem them misplaced, or wrong, or silly, or whatever. Your spiritual framework can – and hopefully does – work for you; but that doesn’t mean that it should be forced upon other people. What is good for you might not look like that to others. There’s a quotation by George Bernard Shaw that I really love: Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.