THERE’S A BETTER WAY THAN BIBLICAL LITERALISM
Scriptural liberty is a Baptist freedom of giving others the right to interpret scripture according to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, scriptural liberty implies that there is more than one way to interpret any particular passage of scripture. It implies that there isn’t a “right” way and all others are wrong. Scriptural liberty affirms for Baptists that the Bible is authoritative and that followers of Jesus are compelled to turn to the Bible as a source of authority. Baptists are not biblicists: we do not worship the Bible nor is the Bible our sole source of authority. Baptists have always trusted one’s individual experience with God as authoritative and also one’s community and tradition of faith.
Scriptural liberty is a cherished liberty to Baptists because there is no single doctrinal interpretation of scripture to which all Baptists must ascribe. Unfortunately, in today’s world, many Baptists call themselves literalists in interpreting scripture.
In fact, almost no one interprets the Bible literally. If someone tells you, “I interpret the Bible literally. I believe every word to be God’s final unaltered Word,” they probably don’t really believe that. Ask them if they believe that slavery is fundamentally evil. If they agree that it is, then they aren’t literalists because the Bible never condemns the institution of slavery (Colossians 3:22; 4:1).
Ask them if they believe in divorce in special circumstances. Many literalists have changed their position on divorce because many literalists are now divorced! Again, Jesus leaves no room for divorce. They aren’t literalists.
Ask them if they believe women should have braided hair or wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes (I Timothy 2:9-15). Both appear to be condemned in this passage.
Ask them if they believe in drinking wine. Talk to them about Jesus’ miracle at Cana or when Paul wrote Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (I Timothy 5:23). For that matter, ask them if they believe wine has curative powers.
Ask them if they believe Hitler and Nazi Germany represented a government instituted by God. Then read them Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed…” (Romans 13:1ff) Tell that to Dietrich Bonhoeffer!
Ask them if they believe that marriage is God’s preferred and blessed arrangement. Read Paul’s message to them, “those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you tha…The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, and how to please her husband…So then he who marries his fiancé does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (I Corinthians 7:28b; 32b-34,38) Remaining single and singly devoted to the Gospel is Paul’s preferred and blessed human arrangement. Marriage is a distraction, in Paul’s thinking.
Ask them if men with long hair degrade themselves, as Paul states to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 11:14). Ask if women should cover their heads and if not, they should cut off their hair? (I Corinthians 11:6).
They aren’t pure literalists. They are selective literalists. They are convenient literalists. They are literalists when it serves their cause. And even if they are pure literalists, literalism is an interpretation of scripture. It is a way to interpret scripture. Thankfully, it isn’t the only way.
The problem with biblical literalism is that it misunderstands Scripture. I completely understand why people are drawn to literalism. Many people are already overwhelmed and stressed out by life. They want short-cuts. They look to religion to ease the load, not make it harder. They are perfectly willing to accept some things as “givens” without having to think about it. Baptist liberties are no short-cut. Beyond a doubt, these liberties place significant responsibilities upon us. With freedom comes responsibility. Those who cherish Baptist liberties are not looking for easy compromises or short-cuts. They want to think for themselves. They want to interpret scripture their own way. They want to shape their own faith. They want to relate to God directly and probe the spiritual depths without yielding to an intermediater. Literalism keeps it superficial and makes it simple. “It is just what it says it is.” Many are willing to compromise scriptural liberty for a little superficial ease.
Yet, the Bible is filled with allegorical language, with poetic language, with symbolic language. It is filled with stories, parables, illustrations. The story of the Good Samaritan didn’t literally happen. At least, it’s told that way. It’s a parable that Jesus created in his mind to make a deeper spiritual point. Even literalists agree.
When Jesus said, “You must be born again,” wise Nicodemus looked at Jesus with literal, concrete thinking as if Jesus must be crazy. Jesus was urging him to think allegorically. No, not literally re-enter your mother’s womb, but be born again symbolically, be born again spiritually. In John’s Gospel, Jesus said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the Bread of Life,” and other such expressions, all meant to be symbolic.
When Jesus told his first disciples, “Follow me and I will make you fishers of men,” even a literalist concedes that the disciples won’t go about with a fishing line and hook in their hands. It’s symbolic language. But literalists will only dip one toe in the deep waters of allegory before they withdraw.
Symbolic or allegorical language is the deepest form of language. If you interpret words literally, you miss the deeper meaning. Scripture becomes holy when you probe its depth. If you stay with its literal meaning, you remain on the surface. Jesus scholar Marcus Borg states, “Metaphorical language is intrinsically nonliteral
…it has more than one nuance or resonance of meaning…metaphors can be profoundly true, even though they are not literally true” (p. 41, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Harper).
Literalism treats the scripture as if it’s wooden, stiff or rigid. Those who interpret scripture contextually and allegorically allow the scripture to breathe, to have life. In allegory, I might read scripture one day and it speaks to me in a certain way, but tomorrow, in a different way. My faith is stretched and my conclusions become less brittle.
When I read scripture contextually, I respect the authority of scripture and I respect that the inspiration of scripture was in the author’s inspiration to speak to his situation with God’s truth. You first have to understand the context and then interpret its meaning for our time. The author’s context is of critical importance. Disrespect scripture’s context and you miss scripture’s meaning.
Allow me to use Jesus’ teaching on divorce as an example. Divorce was lop-sided in favor of the husband in first century Judaism. That was the nature of their patriarchal society in the first century. The man could dismiss his wife in front of male witnesses and the marriage was over. It was his privilege alone. Once divorced, the wife lost her place, lost her children, lost her wealth. She was a marked and shamed woman. Once you know this context and then read Jesus’ statement on divorce, you realize that he is essentially making divorce egalitarian by removing the man’s exclusive rights. And he is protecting women by refusing to allow them to be consigned to destitution or something worse.
Once we realize this, we see that Jesus’ teaching on divorce is punitive toward men and their exclusive privilege. It could be read as an advocacy of married women. Literalists miss this point and traditionally have piled guilt on persons who have been divorced, even when in abusive marriages. Now, to finish the work of contextual interpretation, we have to bring what we learn from Jesus’ context into our own day. No one desires divorce. Everyone is sad when divorce occurs. But when it occurs, it must be fair to women and men. It must offer an equal distribution of wealth. It must offer equal access to children for husbands and wives. This is one interpretation of Jesus’ intent in this passage.
Finally, those who interpret scripture contextually aren’t worried about the question, “Did this really happen?” The answer hardly matters. The real question is, “Is it true? Does it offer truth to me?” I couldn’t care less whether the story of Noah and the flood happened or whether it is an allegory. Either way, there is truth to the story of Noah for me and for my life. The same is true for the seven-day story of creation in Genesis or for the second story of creation in Genesis of Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Let me offer an illustration. Simon Peter’s call to become a disciple is told in all four Gospels (Matthew 4:18-20, Mark 1:16-19, Luke 5:1ff., and John 1:35ff.), and there are three remarkably different versions of the story. Only Matthew and Mark tell essentially the same story. The literal interpreter of scripture believes that all four of these are historical accounts of Simon Peter’s story and thus they are left with the spiritually vacuous task for “harmonizing” these stories. Essentially, they force them together, even when, as in this case, they state contradictory facts. The contextual interpreter doesn’t read these as historical accounts but as accounts that offer truth for us. The different versions stand on their own. Matthew and Mark might be characterized as the “blind faith – drop everything and go” version. And some people have made turn-around, unplanned decisions of faith. Luke’s version is filled with wonders and miracles. Jesus first heals Peter’s mother-in-law, he then listens to Jesus teach using his boat as his platform, and finally Jesus directs him to bring in the largest catch of his career. Then, the invitation to discipleship is extended. Some people come to faith this way, through signs and wonders, through spiritual experiences. Finally, John’s version is different in that Simon Peter and the others aren’t called fishermen. It states, at least in Andrew’s case, the he is a follower of John the Baptist. Here it is the strong recommendation of John the Baptist and his brother Andrew that causes Peter to respond. Thus, it is the recommendation or testimony of others that brings his response. The contextual interpreter has all these wonderful learnings just from Peter’s stories of becoming a disciple: for some it is an immediate “blind faith” decision, for others it is the result of spiritual experience and signs and wonders, and for others it is the recommendation or testimony of trusted guides.
The Bible wasn’t written as a history book. It is a story of God acting in human history. It wasn’t written to be a newspaper account, however biased or unbiased newspaper accounting may be! It is a story of spiritual truths. Obviously, some things did literally happen. Historical events are described throughout the Bible. But that isn’t the point. The point is that if I believe the Bible has special authority and inspiration, then what is its message to me?
Some things in the Bible are unfortunate. It’s unfortunate that the author of the Gospel of John keeps referring to “the Jews” as if Jesus wasn’t a Jew or as if the Roman crucifixion could be blamed on “the Jews” as a people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s unfortunate that we misunderstand the nature of Jewish rabbinical teaching and see Jesus and the Pharisees as opposed to each other rather than engaged in the practice of assertive religious debate that occurred among all Jewish teachers. Their conversations became heated because they were single-mindedly in pursuit of wisdom. The Pharisees were Jesus’ teachers. Whether or not Paul wrote these words, it is unfortunate that the Bible states that women should be silent in front of men because Paul himself didn’t practice that.
The Bible comes alive when interpreted with allegory and in context. It requires more work than simply accepting each word as literally true. But it becomes the difference between staying on the surface or probing the depth.
Scriptural liberty is compromised by biblical literalists. Whatever the Bible literally says cuts off discussion. Scriptural liberty is built upon the premise that mine might not be the only way to view a text, or that my conclusion might not be the only possible outcome. As an advocate of scriptural liberty, I have to allow for a variety of interpretations, voices, and responses to Scripture
– Stephen Jones
Posted by Timothy R. Butler on Jun 16, 2008 at 22:20:49 | Article Path: Home: About: THERE’S A BETTER WAY THAN BIBLICAL LITERALISM
