Literally
by Brian | November 29th, 2007 |In response to a recent post, Lyonside comments:
As a liberal Christian, I tend to get very archaeological/anthropological when talking about JudeoChristian scriptures, which really allows those who take the Bible literally and with a King James bent to shut me out.
Whenever I hear “Bible literalist” or “people who take the Bible literally” I bristle a little. To be fair, I’ve used those phrases myself. Often even. But when it gets down to it, that description is simply not accurate. Even individuals who believe in six-day creationism, a 40 day flood, the mass exodus out of Egypt, a physical resurrection, the divine inspiration of Scripture, and a very real second-coming of Christ; even they do not take the Bible literally.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 says:
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
No one today still believes that the sun literally rises nor that it literally sets. But I think we can agree that probably wasn’t even the intention of the author of Ecclesiastes. The Bible is a collection of many books, by many authors (all inspired by one God), written over a period of many centuries, if not millenia. There are histories, and genealogies, and lures and legends, and letters, and narratives, and poems, and songs. There are quotations and prophesies and stories and parables. But most importantly, they all speak to humanity’s ever-present longing for the Lord. The Bible, as a YoungLife leader once put it, is the redemptive history of God’s people.
An anti-gay Christian has no more claim to Bible literalism than a gay-inclusive Christian. All people interpret the Bible. Yes, we may differ in our interpretations or in our decisions over the genre of a particular passage. But at the end of the day, we–imperfect humans–are the ones ultimately making those distinctions. That is what Scripture and faith require of us.
I understand what is being implied by “Bible literalist” but at the same time, I am uncomfortable ceding authority to them. That perspective is no more literal than my own. And as I’ve said before, I let the fruits do the talking.
3 Responses to “Literally”
You are right - everyone interprets and takes some things more literally/seriously/directly than others.
But I’ve met too many people who don’t ADMIT that, and will argue “undisputable Word of God” for even the most problematic verses, translations, and interpretations. Which scares the pants off me, as I don’t know where to go from there.
But point noted, and I’ll be more explicit when this comes up again in my discussions (as I know it will).
By Lyonside on Nov 30, 2007
Interesting… I was having this discussion with a co-worker the other day.
What I don’t think the “literalists” understand is what, or who, exactly really is “the Word of God.”
John 1:1-3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”
The darkness has not understood it is so correct… The darkness, the mortality of humankind, messes up all the time and just never seems to “get it.”
That is where the “literalists” mess up: The don’t “get it” when it comes to knowing what, or who, is really the “Word of God.”
The Word of God isn’t the literal black and white (and sometimes red) ink splattered onto some pages of what we call the Bible. The Word of God is Christ Himself.
Even the Hebrew Scriptures back John up in the “he was with God since the beginning” in Genesis 1:26
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”
Who is the “us?” Who is the “our?” It is the Word of God: Christ.
By Matt on Nov 30, 2007
Thanks for joining me over here, Lyonside.
I think you know more than you are giving yourself credit for! Before one can even begin to have an meaningful conversation about faith, scripture, and identity, we have to be able to agree on some basic facts of reality.
Namely, the Bible had human authors. The Bible had human translators. And most importantly: Everyone interprets the Bible. You’re not being fair to yourself if you allow someone else to claim that he or she is following a “literal” interpretation while you are following a “relative”.
Maybe you could start by asking how that person makes sense of the above verse in Ecclesiates? Then move on to investigate how we know what is factual history, what is parabolic teaching, what is time sensitive advice, and what is timeless moral guidance.
“Context” doesn’t only mean the verses above and below but the time and the place in which they were conceived. I often find myself saying, “Taking the Bible seriously is not an abuse of scripture; rather, it demonstrates an immense respect for it.”
By Brian on Nov 30, 2007