Literal Confusion (CH3PT0)

I will try to avoid common hermeneutic pitfalls. But something needs to be addressed about the Bible that fundamentalists often hide behind, and it is a sham. Evangelicals and theologians alike are hesitant to engage in the debate or the establishing of a hermeneutical norm when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and the reasons for this are very insightful. It's not so important on how you read the Bible, but that you read the Bible as the Word of God. It is somewhat of an unspoken agreement that as long as Christians agree that the Bible is the Word of God then the hermenuetical problem will work itself out. But, it seems, there is always a revolt among fundamentalists against anyone who reads the Bible symbolically.

In the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy it warns believers of the possible threats that exist when we abandon Inerrancy. What are these threats? It never says. How are these threats manifested? It never says. Why do these threats exist? Again, it never says. Here is a quote of the statement for you to see, "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church."

What is more shocking in this statement though is the naive assertion that truth is relative. How do we judge what the Bible says of truth, if we do not have our own understanding of it before we read the Bible? There is a single truth, with various participators who gain varying insights and perspectives, but to

make an argument founded on the idea that our view of truth has to coincide with the Bible's view of truth is pure nonsense. This statement is metaphysically inverting the subjective and objective. The CSBI is trying to have its cake and eat it too. In claiming that Scripture is not relative to truth, but is its own standard of truth, it has essentially made the subjective interpretations of scripture an objective spiritual truth. To make such a statement only gives the impression that we are afraid of the weakness the Bible has to participate in truth. The only loss, or lapse, I see is adherence to this principle in that it betrays good conscience. If my view of truth cannot be reconciled to the Bible's version of truth then that ought to be an indicator that the Bible be abandoned, and not my view of truth. Aside from the fact that I take serious objection to the remark that I have my own view of truth, as though such a thing were an invention of my making. We may have our own relative understanding of truth, in that we strive to relate our understanding to the truth.  Authority is earned on this basis alone, in its relation to truth. Scripture flaunts a false authority if it tries to bypass this simple and conscientious requirement.

And the thing that makes it so confusing is that this is a statement born and bred under the auspicious agenda to “give the Bible its due” while sneaking in Biblical literalism. Don't you find it rather odd that we have to go to such lengths to ensure that a book is read literally? No one has to make any defense or claim that science needs to be read literally. Why? Because it is in the nature of science to speak clearly and simply so that our terms and definitions are accurately communicated and understood. The scientist relies on the information he shares to the public to be read literally, and so he ensures that his work is a unified consistent peice of work. Basically, we can trust its literal, because we never have to question that its literal. The same goes for math and history. It's only when you have to mount a defense for literalness that the claim for literalness seems suspicious.

But I should be generous in my critique of the CSBI. In reality it is a very progressive fundamentalist document, but it is in its attempt to be progressive that I find the central problem of literalism is manifested. In another portion of the CSBI it says, "The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g. the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself". Again, we see such relativistic thinking in order to establish some absolute authority which cannot be measured, verified, or questioned. And this statement is a statement of relativism in relation to truth. Now, I have no problem with the authority of Scripture, but this kind of language makes Biblical authority an impossible idea to understand. Adherents to this policy only have the option of living in fear of whether or not they even can understand the teaching of Scripture about itself if the phenomena of Scripture cannot provide a consistent narrative.

Consider what this statement is really saying, "Inerrancy means that the Bible is flawless even when we see flaws. It is true, even when we see untruth. It is authoritative, even when we doubt it." The CSBI touts the claim of inerrancy in Scripture. And I actually agree with the claim of inerrancy that there is truth in everything the Bible teaches. This is the most fundamental representation of inerrancy, anyways. But here is how the CSBI defines it. "inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions." Now an assertion can be many things. I can assert that my clock works because it is displaying the right time. And if I assert this at a time when my clock is in fact displaying the right time, then it would seem that my assertion is true, but the reality is that even a broke clock is right twice a day. So even though my assertion is technically right, my teaching is false. A teaching implies that an assertion is being interpreted accurately.

It is a minor point and one that perhaps the CSBI failed to recognize, but to claim that all the Bible's assertions are true is clear bald faced literalism. If fundamentalists want to be serious about their literalism they ought to embrace a passive literalism where the teaching of Scripture is allowed to speak for itself so that its believers can be overwhelmed by the information which makes the reality of literalism inescapable. Just as a scientist doesn't ever need to defend the literalism of his research papers, so ought Biblical literalists stand aloof when it comes to the reality of whether or not the accurate interpretation of Scripture is literal or symbolic.

To rise to the cause of literalism, to concoct a half-baked doctrine in order to seem impartial, but to hide literalism between the lines only weakens your position. I will expose the cardinal difficultly of the progressive fundamentalists at the end of this chapter, but for now it needs to be recognized what the rules of the game are shaping to be. Evangelical fundamentalists are playing a language game and they are hiding behind sophisticated arguments to sneak in all the principles of Biblical literalism by sounding as though they had no idea Biblical literalism was a possibility. They do not want to make it sound like you have to read the Bible a certain way in order to call it “the Word of God”, but their phrasing can only suggest this very outcome. It is obvious when you read their literature about Biblical interpretation. When they say things like we cannot judge the truth of scripture by the inconsistencies found in scripture, or that the phenomena of scripture cannot detract from the teaching in scripture it is clear baiting. They know the weaknesses of their argument and they want to lessen the impact of these weaknesses by making it sound as though they are the ones discovering them and accounting for their reality, but the simple fact is that if in their system the phenomena of Scripture is befuddled then what possible teaching of Scripture can be maintained? It is admirable that they are able to admit and recognize that the Bible has mistakes, discrepancies, and inconsistencies, but they are clearly not living up to the implications of this reality and are only using their view of the Bible as a sham to cover a potentially more dangerous threat, cognitive dissonance.

This is most clearly seen it the CSBI’s argument to “safeguard the truth of Scripture”. Truth can only be safeguarded by existing in relation to truth. Truth is never safeguarded when we make something a truth unto itself, in fact, that is the very definition of what destroys, corrupts, and threatens truth. To hedge in scripture only reveals your own insecurities in actually relating scripture to the truth. If you want to truly safeguard any truth then the only right thing to do is to examine it openly and freely without bias or presupposition to what your conclusions ought to look like. What the CSBI reveals to us is not that Biblical literalism is the preferred method of interpreting Scripture, but rather it is the easiest method in order to subvert the entire truth forming process.