The Worse Extreme (CH3PT3)

Thus far, we have considered two extremes, or poles, that exist in the realm of Biblical interpretation the literal and the symbolic. Currently it is the position of this book that the literal pole is preferred by most Christians and churches. Though I have not advocated the other pole as a valid form of Biblical interpretation it has been my position in this chapter to show the problems which exist for clinging to the pole of literalism. I find that this is particularly important in today's environment because for all intents and purposes both Christians and atheists claim that if the Bible cannot be read literally then why read any of it.

It is under these two poles that we come to navigate our journey through Biblical interpretation, and it is reminiscent of an old tale of Odysseus who is sailing his ship through troubled waters. One one side there is a mighty storm and on the other there are rocky cliffs. Aristotle references this work in his Nichomandean Ethics, "Hold the ship out beyond that surf and spray." This advice is telling Odysseus to keep away from the storm for that is the worse extreme.

Thus, in navigating our own murky waters it is important to recognize the worse extreme. For the Christian the worse extreme is hypocrisy. Specifically, the yeast of the Pharisees is identified as legalism (Luke 12:1 Mat. 23:23-33). In Jesus' day it was the Sadducees who mostly opposed Jesus. They were the fundamentalists of his day. They only adhered to the first five books of the Bible and claimed that the Prophets were later additions and because of this were not inspired by God. They also ran the Temple. When Jesus overturned the money changing tables he was overturning the whole Sadducean system. In the New Testament Jesus often refers to the Pharisees as being the ones worthy of his ire, but the reality is that it was truly the Sadducees who were the enemy of Jesus.

Here is why. When you follow the opposite pole of literalism and interpret the Bible symbolically the threat which needs managed is the danger of delusion. You can trick yourself or be tricked very easily when you loose sight of the constants or norms of interpretation. No one simple reads the Bible for what they want. Everyone, even those who adhere to a spiritual interpretation follow some guideline on how this is done. Thus, it is unfair to claim that if the Bible is not read literally then the reader is simply picking and choosing arbitrarily what they want. Thus, the symbolist is guilty of an honest mistake, if he be guilty.

But the literalist is making a far bigger mistake. He is a hypocrite. He is trying to defend and promote the holiness and authority of God's Word by creating mediators between man and the Word. Thus, in making God Holy, they separate God from man, which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible is supposed to do. This is Neo-Platonism applied to the Biblical narrative. In Neo-Platonic thinking the Idea was so far removed from human understanding that demigods and partial deities had to stand between us as God in order for us to even attempt to know God. Thus, in knowing the demigods we can come to know God. Though, fundamentalists do not claim such a status of holiness for their sacred text, in that it is far removed from human understanding, their behavior suggests that this does not matter, the results are the same.

So in order to avoid the greater risk to my faith, I think it is wiser to avoid literalism rather then embrace it until this is proved false. The danger of literalism to me seems far more dangerous then the danger of symbolism.

So if we are going to propose that an accurate interpretation of the Bible is possibly not literal then we need to account for why God would inspire a sacred text, but make it difficult to understand. A symbolic text takes greater interpretive effort to apply to the text. And a symbolic interpretation does not remove some of the same threats that apply to many of the ones we saw in a literal paradigm. For instance, when we read the Bible symbolically we are still tied to a mediator in some degree, but the mediator does not stand above the Scripture, between God and man, such as the pastor of a Church or a well-educated theologian or Biblical scholar. The mediator stands below scripture between the Bible and every other book ever written, and to all of God's general revelation found in Creation. A symbolic reading typically focuses on a matrix or principle congruent to the establishment and flourishing of faith that guides the interpretive process.

So when we considered the ease of a literal Bible it became easy to understand why God would want a literal Bible to exist. The task of discovering the matrix which accurately applied to the Bible to produce a correct interpretation, seems an impossible task, but the God of a literal Bible seemed to be such a God who expected people to follow his will. The God of a symbolic Bible might have a different disposition toward his followers. I have to say that just as much as I desire to know the will of God, I also desire the freedom and peace of God. To have the freedom to interpret the Bible according to my own life and to have the peace that God is with me as I search for Him is a satisfying and rewarding spirituality. The Literalness of the Bible may make it easier to understand the will of God, but the Symbolic-ness of the Bible makes it easier to rest in the freedom and peace that God offers us 

So in the poles between literalism and symbolism we have two very different paradigms. We have a God who has a will and whose will is perfect. Thus, God always gets what he wants. So if God wants something a certain way, then we must provide it. And we have a God who is free, and as such his freedom is perfect. Thus, God cannot be bound to one single representation, which is why freedom is not a positive description. So God's freedom is honored only in the act of honesty, integrity, responsibility, and our own autonomy. Being true to ourselves is being true to our God.

Between these poles, the God which exists on the extreme of one pole does not exclude the God which exists on the other, but not visa versa. Thus, a person can be completely on the extreme of the symbolic pole, and still believe God has a will for us to follow. But when a person is at the other pole they cannot grant man the freedom he finds in the essence of God. So even if both poles are wrong, and we grant that symbolic interpretations are dangerous to understanding the Bible, we still have to say that literalism is more dangerous then symbolism.

I remember when I was first saved and I was so eager to learn what the will of God was for my life. But what I was eager for was an abdication of responsibility. I wanted a sure thing. I wanted a contract that I could levy against my God in order to control the outcome of my life. It is such an easy deception, because our hearts can never admit it. I truly loved my God and I was truly a devote and passionate Christian. I read my Bible vigorously and studied it as a plan for my life. I sought God in prayer and believed that I could intuit his will for me through these divine communications. I remember looking for the literal in the Bible. I remember the harmonizing I would have to do and all the mental gymnastics that would have to be preformed in order to read the Bible literally so I could simply understand what God's will for me was.

If I was going to be honest with myself, when I decided to come back to the Lord I could not let my desire to know the will of God cause me to loose sight of my faith. I had to accept that literalism was not the de facto method of interpretation when it came to understanding what the Bible meant. This was a necessary concession of faith, because as an inspired work preference could not be given to either one, since both could be represented as coming from God.