Religion and Theology

An Analysis of Stephen Stein s  America s Bible Canon, Commentary, and Community
Stephen Stein s  America s Bible  discusses the expansion of what he refers to as the  bible category  in America (169). Stein argues that the expansion of the category is a result of a scriptualizing process, which involves (1) the specification of a canon, (2) commentary on this canon, and the (3) communal acceptance of this commentary (182). He divides his discussion into four parts, which traces the expansion and evolution of the bible category in American culture. In line with this, the following discussion extrapolates on Stephen Stein s observations and arguments as it is presented in the above mentioned text.
 
It is important to note at the onset the foundational assumptions of Stein s discussion. Although Stein does not explicitly provide a specific philosophical perspective that underlies his discussion, it is apparent that he adheres to a social constructivist framework. The framework conceives the concept  social  as  a phenomenon that involves   a plurality of human agents whose actions or plans are somehow mutually related  (Collins 5). Social constructivism assumes that reality is an amalgamation of social facts (Collins 14). Social facts here refer to concepts generated  by social consensus, by description, or by conceptualization  (Collins 14). Due to the collective s role in the process of generating social facts and hence social reality, one may infer that the creation process is embedded with power relations. Such is the case since the acceptance of a fact requires collective agreement regarding both its meaning and its object. Such being the case, reality thereby is a product of beliefs created and propagated by institutions of power. Within this context, social institutions are human inventions. Their existence requires collective human effort in terms of collectively believing that these institutions exist, have certain tasks to perform, are authorized and justified to perform them, and individuals within the social sphere or within these institutions are warranted in believing them. Human inventions thereby become the basis for the formation of certain beliefs. In addition, human inventions are also the basis for the expansion of the meanings associated to the fundamental concepts or objects in a particular social institution.

In the case of Stein s discussion, he emphasizes the different aspects involved in the expansion of the concept  bible  in the Christian religion. The review of literature in his article shows that the continuous expansions of the meanings associated with the concept  bible  may be traced to its association with other American cultural concepts whose evolution and redefinition relied on the  bible  to gain its own credence. He states,  In America the category  bible  enjoys a privileged cultural position   It appears that the term  bible  has lost all specificity of reference. You may choose to call anything a  bible  if you imply that it contains authoritative, necessary, and inclusive information or guidance  (Stein 169). In the American culture, the objects associated to the concept  bible  have thereby expanded beyond the term s original referent in the Catholic religion. This manifests not only the Catholic religion s great influence in American culture but also American culture s reinterpretation of the elements within the Catholic religion. In line with this, Stein claims that his discussion aims to perform the following task,

To explore the ways in which American have created their own bibles through the process of manipulating the canon of sacred scriptures or writing commentary on it. In doing so, they have also contributed directly to the fortunes of particular religious communities and indirectly to the expansion and transformation of the category  bible.  (169)

Re-translating his specified aim within the context of social constructivism, Stein s article thereby traces the evolution and expansion of a social fact, that being the authoritative character of the bible, in American culture. In addition, he also traces how the evolution and expansion of this social fact affected other religious institutions as can be seen in his emphasis on the role of the authoritative character of the Christian Bible to the Mormons, the Shakers, and the Seventh-Day Adventists to name a few of the religions he specified in his analysis.

Within the text, Stein implicitly specifies that in order to understand the expansion of the bible category it is necessary to consider the manner in which it has been assessed in scholarly literature. The assessment of the bible category, according to Stein, has undergone the initial emphasis on the object s history followed by its comparison with other objects in its category (170-183). This observation is based on his review of the literature regarding the Bible from 1985 until the year of the article s publication. He points out several observations from the development in the literature regarding the Bible. First, initial discussions of the Bible s content focused on its role in American culture (Stein 170). He states that the initial texts regarding the Bible assume that  The Bible  has been nearly omnipresent  in this nation s history  (Stein 170). Second, later discussions regarding the Bible focused on its role in a religious community (Stein 171). He notes that these texts focus on the  Critical role played by religious communities in the construction and reception of scriptures  (Stein 171). The discussion of the bible category in literature thereby showed a shift of focus from a singular object, that being the Christian Bible, to the category of the initial object, that being the scripture category. It is important to note that there is a distinction between the bible category and the scripture category. In the article, he adheres to Wilfred Smith s contextual definition of a scripture that claims

Being scripture is not a quality inherent in a given text, or type of text, so much as it is an interactive relation between that text and a community of persons. In other words, we need a religious community in order to have scripture. Smith maintains that scripture is a bilateral term, one that necessarily involves a relationship. Scripture is scripture only insofar as it is recognized and understood as such by a given community. Texts without such an interactive group are mere texts, ancient texts perhaps, or even modern texts, but not scripture. (Stein 171)

In Stein s discussion, the bible category exists as a social construct within American culture whereas the scripture exists as a social construct that is applicable to all religions within different cultures. In other words, one may state that the bible category is in itself an object within the scripture category. Such is the case since the expansion of the former required the actualization of the scriptualizing process, which entails the association of authority to a religious institution by means of its members  acceptance of its beliefs. He notes the role of the scriptualizing process in the growth of the Mormon religion and the decline of the Shakers (Stein 173-174).

Within this context, Stein s discussion emphasizes the role of individuals in creating and maintaining a specific religious belief. He observes that in order to create and strengthen a religious institution, it is necessary to include a  canon, commentary, and community  (Stein 182). In the case of the religious institutions that developed from the bible category, the canon is the Christian Bible, the commentary is given by those who participate in the new religion, and the community reinforces the social beliefs heralded by the commentators in the new religion.

Stein s discussion manifests the social character of religious institutions as well as religious beliefs. He shows that ultimately the similarity of all religious institutions lie in their dependence on their community. In this sense, the differences in the various Churches can be accounted for in terms of each religious institution s construction of its institutional beliefs and truths.  Using Searle s logical structure of institutional reality, that is,  We accept, acknowledge, recognize, go along with, etc., that (S has power (S does A))  or its abbreviated form  We accept (S has power (S does A)) (111).The power of S is dependent on the function of S within the institution. In this sense, the interpretation of a biblical text within each religious institution ought to be understood to be dependent on its function within the institution. If such is the case, it follows that any interpretation of the Biblical text stands in relation to the institution in which the text is understood or interpreted. The reason for this lies in the dependence of meanings within the spheres of power in which such meanings are generated.

At first glance, such an account for the formation of religious beliefs and religious truths becomes problematic for religious institutions since it contradicts the universal aspect of such beliefs. However, as Hermans notes, the social construction of meanings should not be seen as enabling the dogmatic characterization of religious beliefs (114). According to Hermans,  Social constructionism is useful because it stresses the transforming power of dialogue  (I)t opens a dialogue between differing religious voices within society  (114). Stein s discussion thereby not only allows one to have a deeper understanding of the biblical category in American culture since it also allows us to have a deeper understanding of the communal aspect that unites all religious institutions. Religion thereby is not merely a dialogue with the divine since it is also a dialogue between men.