I was not disappointed— we heard short synopses of the Romans in 200 AD, Celtics in the 700s, Italy Germany Alabama New England in 2010. A brief survey to be certain, but a peek at a few moments in time across two millenniums offered a sacred centering.
When I returned home I shared my fulfillment with my husband.
“So, I doubt the Spanish Inquisition was included”, he mused.
“No, but the Celtics were.”
“And the crusades?”
“Well, no but the history of indulgences was”
“Clearly a Protestant church would need to include that,” he responded.
Oh right, good point. How does my husband know more about ‘my’ religion’s history than I? And was I insufficiently skeptical of everything I had heard that morning? I thought I knew a reasonable amount about my religious community of which I had been a member since birth
As with most historical teaching, mine has been colored by learning it from within. Just as Southerners may get one perspective of the Civil War and Northerners another, or European Americans one view of settling the United States and American Indians quite a different perspective, so do we each take our own slant on our history by learning it from within. I notice this even when I listen to the BBC and hear their perspective on American news stories. Intentional or not we are all biased in our historical view of our own culture.
Yet perhaps this biased perspective is nowhere more apparent than in our religions. How often the passion and fervor of faith makes it more difficult to have a civil conversation over the history of a religion. Wouldn’t we all benefit by hearing how our faith is viewed by others of differing faiths?
No comments :
Post a Comment