Hermenuetical Methods of Complete Absurdity (CH2PT2)

I think the last chapter at least confirmed that the Bible is not an easy book to read. Thus, we ought to be skeptical of the literalist claim, simply from that, but admittedly it is not defeated. What I want to consider now are some of the absurdities that have come from literalism when it comes to interpreting the Bible. To make it clear, what I hinted at in the previous section is that the literalist is bound to manufacture extra-biblical narratives that are destined to compete with the Bible as itself in an authoritative capacity. I think this tendency can be seen historically and theologically. In the end, what progressive fundamentalism offers is truly no different then any other of the manifestations of fundamentalism in the past.

The first hermenuetical absurdity is dispensationalism. Fundamentalists who studied the Bible during the Enlightenment faced a new challenge. Their Bible was being studied by those who did not subscribe to the same beliefs a they did, and their findings were gaining prominent appeal. A cursory view of the Bible reveals clear discrepancies that seem troubling to take in. We see a God in the first five books of the Bible causing plagues and earthquakes to swallow people up. We see him acting so harshly toward Moses, and yet he has no problem letting David be King after he killed Uriah. Moses cannot enter the Promise Land for a minor offense, but David is given a mere slap on the hand from Nathan for a very major offense. That is just but a mere example, there are so many of these that it becomes almost impossible to reconcile them all in a literal fashion. In the Prophets sin is said to be accounted for individually, but in the Torah sin is accounted for in one's family. Thus, we carry with us the sin of our parents as opposed to simply carrying with us our own sin. How can this be reconciled? Plus, we have the biggest discrepancy of all time in the Old Testament to the New Testament. How can we account for the fact that the Old Testament is part of the Christian canon and hold that God inspired the authors with correct meaning, if in fact the authors of the Old Testament had it wrong the whole time. Even in the New Testament we see precursors to the dispensationalist mentality, by calling the Law and the Scriptures (Old Testament) as a foreshadow of what would come about in the New Testament. But this idea is not explicit enough or clear enough to form an entire hermenuetical system out of it.

Dispensationalism is its own independent system that is imposed on the Biblical narrative to give it coherency under a literal paradigm. Basically, the system of dispensations works according to the various covenants God makes with man. Each covenant changes how God interacts with man. Thus, under one dispensation God might seem more harsh and violent, whereas in another God is more kind and forgiving. Dispensationalism reduces covenant thinking into contractual obligations which is a very attractive mindset for the fundamentalist who is predominately a legalist. God expects man to act a certain way according to the covenant and his reactions are based on that covenant when man breaks it. It is a simple cause and effect. Thus, God has always been the same give and take deity. He has always worked according to his preset plan of covenant. God is an exacting and precise God who outlines his expectations and makes clear the consequences, and when there is a violation it is not God who is acting of his own accord. It is simply a result of the broken covenant.

Dispensationalism has pretty much fizzled out since the arrival of a more modern and progressive fundamentalism, and rightly so. Even among Evangelicals the idea of an exacting and obliged deity who Himself is controlled by the dictum of a contract was too much to bear theologically. Critical analysis of the Bible has revealed that the various "images" of God can be accounted for culturally, historically, and environmentally, and in their context are not as harsh or as exacting as may seem. In fact, many fundamentalists have discovered that these cultural conditions demonstrate that God has always been a God of love and justice for the poor and disenfranchised in the Biblical narrative. I recognize this as a good direction for fundamentalists to be going, but unfortunately. I do not think it is sufficient.

Even though dispensationalism has for the most part been abandoned what is common among most fundamentalists today is the absurdity of harmonizing. Harmonization began at the earliest stages of Christianity. Early Christians simply could not understand why four Gospels were held to as sacred when the information contained in them could not be reconciled into a unified story. Believe it or not, but people who existed thousands of years ago were just as smart as we are today. Our technical knowledge has grown indubitably, but our intelligence is roughly the same. The things that were an intellectual burden thousands of years ago are still intellectual burdens today. Tatian wrote the first Gospel harmony that is dated around 160 AD, and it pertains the same fundamental flaw that all literalists struggle with throughout the ages.

Let's consider the women's reaction to Jesus' resurrection in Mark compared to the women's reaction in every other Gospel. In Mark the women are terrified and go home in fear, never telling anyone (Mark 16:8). Now look at their reaction in Matthew, probably the next Gospel to be written after Mark, the women are still afraid, but an angel tells them not to be afraid, so, in spite, of their fear they hurry to tell the disciples (Mat. 28:8). In Luke the women aren't afraid. They are pious. When they see the angel they bow to him. Then they go and tell all the disciples (Luke 24:9). John completely re-writes the story. There is no angel, or announcer. There is no group of women, just Mary Magdalene. There is no telling of Jesus' resurrection from the women to the disciples. Mary sees that Jesus' tomb has been robbed (so she thinks) and tells Peter. Peter is the one who discovers that Jesus has been raised (John 20:2).

Harmonization is the hermeneutical method to construct a story line where all these events could happen. Since, John seems the best place to start it is conceivable to think that Mary went to the tomb before all the other women and first thought the tomb was robbed. She went to tell Peter, never realizing he was raised. Since Peter discovered the resurrection he was never able to confirm it with Mary. So Mary went to the other women to tell them the bad news, but they were already on their way, and she figured that they should all see for themselves. Besides, maybe Peter went into the tomb and found that nothing had happened at all. After all, all she saw was that the stone had been removed. So she goes with the rest of the women and lo and behold an angel is there to tell them that Jesus has been raised from the dead. This angel appeared like a man, which angels can do, but we all know that it was really an angel. Mary's first impression is changed, and she learns that Jesus had actually risen from the dead! But now she is wondering about Peter. What happened to him? Did he realize the same thing as they are now realizing, and "got taken care of" by the Romans? All the sudden this good news seemed frightening. Mary realized that Peter may have in fact gone to tell someone about Jesus resurrection and been killed for it. So the women did the reasonable thing. They fled and hid. They soon realized as Peter did when the cock crowed that their fear was causing them to betray their Lord. Once they regrouped they realized that they ought to check on the disciples to make sure that they were okay. Peter had been trying to do the same with the women. He figured he go tell Mary the good news since she was the one who told him to check the tomb, but when he got to her house she wasn't there. He went to the other women's houses just to be sure, but in the hustle he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. By the time the women got to the disciples Peter was right behind them. He figured he should just tell someone! At first the disciples doubted what the women were saying. Since technically Peter came late into this conversation there is debate about whether or not all the disciples doubted. But one thing is for sure Peter went from there to show everyone the truth. He was so excited he ran, but one of the younger disciples outran him. And then from here this one story was neatly divided into four separate accounts that may seem conflicting, but in the end is harmonized.

Do you see the problem with harmonization? The Bible is not the Bible, but is a piecemeal to an actual Bible that we have to construct. Once this harmonization is achieved the meaning of the parts which construct the whole become irreversibly changed. When we read Mark, we do not read it for what Mark is saying or telling us about Jesus. We read it thinking that Mark is not telling us the whole story. We read Mark in a position of superiority over Mark. Mark no longer has authority for us. We have authority over Mark. The harmony becomes the authority, but in reality once this happens its no longer the Bible we care about, but the Bible that the Bible constructs for us. In this way the literalists to the atheists job by making the Bible obsolete for Christians today.

Harmonization is a natural response to the problem of literalism, but it has a fatal outcome. And one that was responded to even in the early stages of Christianity. Origen, who is considered as a theologian who solved the early problem biblical interpretation, taught that the grammatical interpretation of the Bible is inerrant, but that the meanings of the words were spiritual. Thus, the inconsistencies did not need resolving, because every person, thing, and event required a spiritual interpretation. Egypt was a symbol for worldly success and trusting in the strength of the world. Babylon was a symbol for the world as an enemy of God and faith, they were the pagan world. If two Gospel events were inconsistent it is only because each has a different spiritual meaning, and in this sense, there is no inconsistency at all.

And the final absurdity of the methods of literalism is what progressive fundamentalists are referring to as the intent of the author. Modern fundamentalists are becoming literary experts and this is a good thing, but more often then not it is simple confirmation bias. Academia is being used as staging ground to hide a much more profane agenda. The problem with this new development in fundamentalism is that when we look to literary categories as providing authoritative insight into scripture we are still inserting extra biblical narratives into our articles of faith. And here is why.

Science has many facets. But it is centered around the entire principle of experimentation and verifiable results. Progressive fundamentalists are influenced by science, just as everyone is today in our modern world, but the progressive fundamentalists are motivated to provide religious answers using scientific methods. One of the ways science is able to examine or inquire to un-observable phenomena is to create models. Cosmology is largely a model based area of science. There are very few experiments that can be done to prove what "kind" of universe exists. Given that we only have one universe we really only have competing models that correlate to the data we have collected. So models are constructs which are created in order to explain phenomena.

For instance, we know that when Paul wrote his letters he used common Roman letter writing forms. Understanding these forms can give us insights into Paul's writing and even possible meanings in the structure of his letters. But these understandings rely on a consistency between Paul's letters and Roman letter writing forms. This information does not come from Paul, nor does it come from the Bible. Nor is there a necessary claim for faith to hold that interpretations of inspired texts must correlate to literary criticisms. This claim only needs support when we seek to interpret such texts literally.

If we follow the reasoning of the author's intent as being the basis of correct meaning in the inspired texts then all believers would have to become scholars of history in order to faithfully read their scriptures, and while this has academic merit, it lacks spiritual integrity. The reality is that most believers will not accept the responsibility to independently research the historical underpinnings of what the author intended with their writing, and will instead rely on the research done by those who agree with the conclusions that they have already formed. Thus, Biblical interpretation will become a popularity contest. And a grab for power. Those with the most degrees, the highest positions in academia, and the most prolific list of published works will become the authorities on what God wants for His People. And while this may seem appealing it is a mere facade of true spirituality. No one should be responsible for mediating between us as individuals and God. Every Christian has access to the Bible, and is entitled to interpret it for themselves. This does not collapse the Bible to relativism, a responsible interpretation is still called for.

Is it responsible to say that God desires us to learn the correct interpretation of Scripture through what the author intended to write? While there are many insights to gain from the study of literary forms and criticisms a position of faith should only be concerned with what God has to say through the sacred text and there is no indication that knowledge of the authors intent leads to this. 

Why literalism makes sense

I have hinted at this throughout this book so far, and I want to make it clear as to what I mean by literal and symbolic. If you are going to read a book about history and I tell you that everything in this book is symbolic you would probably not get too far into it before you simply abandoned the reading. It would be pointless. Furthermore, if I handed you a hymnal and told you that everything in it is literal then you would probably not be too inspired by the songs to get through a few of them. Whether something is literal or symbolic changes our experience of the document, or media. A photograph of war captures a true to life moment of horror and dread. It's literalness is a good thing. A poem about the fragility of life can also capture the heights of human experience in reading it. This, too, is a good thing to read symbolically.

This is all taken from what is called the author's intent. Basically, if we look at a photograph of war and try to say how the images in it are only symbols of inner conflicts in man then we are missing the author's intent, or in this case the photographer's intent. The photographer took a real picture of real people, real tanks, and was a real event. To look at that picture and interpret its contents as symbolic would be to betray the author in a sense.

Here is where things get confusing. The Bible's inspiration is said to come from God. This creates a

subconscious conflict when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Because we can say that God's intent as the true author of the Bible was to speak through the author, thus his intent is also para-inspirational, or we can say that God's intent was to speak to me through the Bible in my own experience and narrative. Both possibilities have enormous paradigm shifts for the Christian. The reality is that there is no easy answer to this question. Was the Bible so magnificently written that God guided the authors to say exactly what he wanted them to say? Or was the Bible so magnificently written that no matter how God's truth can be plumbed from its pages it will reach us where we are at?

Many Christians might not even see the apparent conflict in these two assertions, but there is one, and most leaders might not be so kind as to point this out. The reality is that if we are going to lean on one source for Biblical interpretation it pretty much limits or shuts out the potential for the other. We either trust the Bible to speak into our lives as the Living Word of God, or we trust that God orchestrated the right meanings to exist in the authors of the Bible. One collapses into subjectivism and the other collapses into legalism. But, admittedly neither is a necessary outcome.

Literalism makes sense. The simple fact is that if I want to know what God expects of me it is so much easier to simply read a set of rules and arguments as to what this has to be. Just as the man who want to expand his knowledge of history is so much aided by literalism when it comes to writing history. There is a precision and exactness to a literal text that cannot be taken for granted, and it has to be considered seriously, because if there was a God who expects us to live up to His expectations then we would have good reasons to think that what comes from God would be a literal manifestation.

Politicians, leaders, and all kinds of rulers for all time and into the future will recognize the value of this argument. When you want people to be a certain kind of person telling them exactly and precisely what you want gets the job done more then not. Thus, it is entirely consistent with a God who wants us to follow his will. In our modern world there is perhaps a "literal bias" where the near scientific precision that can be applied to texts is best aided in literal documents. 

I personally, would love to know the will of God. I would be so elated and overjoyed to be able to have such an easy to understand document. Now it is often said how there is nothing easy about the Bible, referring to the difficulty in laying down our flesh and submitting our spirits to God, and while it may be true that in one sense, it should not be true in all senses. There is a trade off, and it is one that adds to the confusion which surrounds the Bible. If the Bible is going to be such a hard book to follow then it ought to be such an easy book to understand, and if it is going to be such a hard book to understand then it ought to be such an easy book to follow. Really, this goes back to the conflict between the two sides that I mentioned earlier. There is a dynamic and give and take between them that will be mentioned later in this book, but for now it is important to consider the either/or situation that exists between them.

The reason this is so, is because in our modern situation the experience Christians are having is that neither option is possible for them. The Bible is both difficult to understand AND difficult to follow and this is creating cognitive dissonance. The fundamentalists/literalists are free to hold to their position without cognitive dissonance if they are willing to let go of the correlating negation. Thus, they are free to believe that the Bible is easy to understand (literal) and that it is hard to follow, which seems to be their position. As long as they are willing to let go of the tenet that the Bible is hard to understand and easy to follow, with its subsequent interpretive predilections as well, such as letting the word of God speak to us in our immanent situation.

Here is the reason fundamentalists of today do not wish to abandon either position. When you claim that the Bible is trustworthy because God spoke through the authors what He wanted to say then you make the inspiration of the Bible contingent upon the academic discipline of historical criticism. Our interpretation of the Bible suddenly becomes an interpretation of history. Authorial intent is a component of history. It is not a piece of theological or spiritual information that can be assimilated on its own merits. Once, we beckon to what the author intended to say we have to submit ourselves to the authority of history as an academic discipline. 

Our Bible ceases to have its authority unto itself. Some fundamentalists get around this dilemma by only focusing on textual criticisms of the Bible. Thus, what is authoritative about the author's intent can only come from the text of the Bible itself. This seems a prudent choice, but in reality is just as flawed. It touts the air of intellectualism, but it is limited in its critical approach. The reason for this is that the Christian is not free to remove authorial intent from its critical context. If he is the one submitting that God inspired the authors of the Bible to give right meaning then he has to be willing to use every critical tool available to understand what this authorial intent is. So the fundamentalist is necessarily obliged to add to his canon of scripture an extra-biblical narrative as normative for his faith.

The sound of this is sacrilegious, and most fundamentalists are not cognizant of this reality. Why? Because they find a perfect substitution for this intellectual burden. They hunker down, become rigid and legalistic in their interpretation. Instead of defending their literalism by submitting their faith to the annuls of history, they overcompensate by becoming legalistic in what the Bible demands of them. They fall back into a "God knows best" rhetoric that insulates them from the flaws of their literalistic thinking. 

Consider such a passage as Deuteronomy 22, where it instructs rapists to marry their rape victims if they were not pledged to be married. Now in a patriarchal society where women were seen as property, such a command can be seen to have social merit, albeit its clear affront to women's rights. A "tainted" woman had no value in society, which is why families sought to pledge their daughters at such a young age, because a woman pledged who was raped could still be married or the family could be compensated. It was entirely transactional. There is simply no way we could think of this passage as representing eternal truth. The idea is abhorrent. In a free society there is no possible circumstance that could ever give light to a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist. 

Now the literalist can appeal to history, as I have done, but in doing so he must continually add appendages to his canon of scripture, which we have established is untenable as well. Or he can hunker down and claim that God knew what he was doing when he spoke through the authors and that he knew what was truly in the hearts of all women and all men. He would probably even delude himself into thinking that justice could still be and ought to be served upon the rapist and that the woman's fidelity to her new husband need not prevent or inhibit the serving of justice. Thus, his only appeal to scripture is legalism.

The other side of the coin, is that all Christians are called to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit. Even Christians who all but deny that the Holy Spirit is involved in the lives of Christians today have to admit to a small degree that the Holy Spirit guides our lives, and this means that he is able to guide our reading of the Bible, as well. To recognize this point puts all Christians on a level to agree to the fact that the Bible speaks to us where we are at, and that this is not dependent upon what an author intended.

So there is a conflict in the Church today between how the Bible is to be read, and there is great confusion over this matter. The Christian is supposed to approach the Bible as though it comes from God. This could mean one of two things, but not both at the same time, and choosing one seems to eliminate very real experiences which most Christians ought to have. There is literally confusion which abounds.

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. 

What Can We Even Say? (CH2PT4)

Here are some other portions of Scripture which for the most part their literal meaning in completely ignored in today's Christian world...

Leviticus 19:19 - " 'Keep my decrees. " 'Do not mate different kinds of animals. " 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Luke 14:26 - "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

1 Timothy 2:9-15 - I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Romans 13:1-2, 4 - Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

No one thinks slavery is a natural state. No one thinks women ought to be silent in church and not able to teach men, and no one thinks that the government rules by divine right. No one thinks that rape victims should be forced to marry their violators, nor does anyone think that a woman is defiled because she was raped. And no one thinks that we should hate people to be Christ's disciple. These ideas have simply passed and have been left behind in a bygone world. Good riddance. But what does that mean for the Bible?

What happens when a literal reading of the Bible is harmful for the church? We came to the conclusion at the start of this chapter that if the Bible had to be discarded then there could be no future of Christianity as we know it, or as a thriving prosperous religion. Christianity can survive with just a Christ figure, but in order to grow, to become a healthy vital religion the Bible is essential. But what does it say if we cling to this book, not because it has no value, but in spite of the fact that it is killing us. What if people and Christians can't follow Christ because of the Bible? What if the Bible is actually an enemy of Christianity?

To stand among our secular peers and suggest that misogyny, racism, and feudalism are God's chosen and divine forms of social interaction is to completely abandon our mind to the developments of the twentieth century and the Enlightenment. Not only would we be the sort mocked and ridiculed, but we would be the sort feared and shunned because of what manifestations our potential insanity can take. And this is the ultimate rub. Society would be right to do it!!! At no time in history can we say with such clarity that such a religion deserves to be ousted from the public arena.

At its inception, Christianity stood at the forefront of religious persecution in the face of tyranny and oppression. We fought and persevered to make sure that place could be established where people were free to practice their religion, and we were the ideal, the exemplar of that movement. Now look at us. We are now its embarrassment. We are the fool standing on the street corner yelling at those who pass by, and when someone is kind enough to point out that no one is listening, we are the insolent bastard who claims that it's a free country and we can do what we want. Oh, how we have lost our way.

All these problems in the Bible exist in the New Testament. They are stock and trade Christian verses and teachings through and through. I used clear examples which really cannot be argued against from a literal position on the Bible. You can be a consistent literalist and be a misogynist, a racist, and a totalitarian and have the virtue of the fact that you are a literalist.

But why is that a virtue again? Why do we automatically assume that we ought to read the Bible literally again? Maybe you hold to a somewhat progressive view and you allow for modifications of the text when clear pressure or inconsistency exists, but you are still holding to this system that the Bible is a book which ought to be read literally. How you reconcile yourself to the misinterpretations of the past which led to outright atrocities, I do not know. How you amend yourself to the fact that God would have had to literally deceive the Jews so that the Christians could get the right interpretation of the Old Testament baffles my mind, but if you are fine with it, then I have to wonder if you actually have an equilibrium in your conscience.

I think it is at least prudent at this point to consider that literalism just might be the entirely wrong standpoint to approach the Bible with. Okay, maybe that is too much, but let's look at the merits of literalism on its own standing and see if it is worthwhile venture. This is at least merited, and if literalism cannot stand as a good tool to use in our understanding of the Bible then we will have to ask if the Bible is worth even having in the Christian faith. The Bible clearly cannot stand the test of literalism, but can literalism stand the test of Christianity? 

Why do we believe this? (CH2PT3)

I became motivated to do a study on Hell. I couldn't believe what I found. What I find so interesting about the topic of hell these days is that just about every church has a position on it and even preaches from the pulpit how important belief in hell really is, but for the most part hellfire and damnation preaching as completely faded from our modern religious environment. Apparently only belief in hell is now important and whether or not you are actually afraid of it is another issue. But there is a clear neurosis in Christianity concerning the issue of hell, and for all the attention it receives, I was surprised as just how little the Bible actually teaches about it.

The word "hell" only exists 14 times in the New Testament. Out of those, 12 are found in the Gospels. The Gospels, which came twenty to thirty years after the Epistles were written, contain the information which largely contributes to our understanding of hell. Paul never mentions it. In the book of Acts it is non-existent. If Jesus preached about hell it was a message that was not carried on by his first believers. And in the book of John, the fourth Gospel, the word "hell" is absent as well. There is also the literal fact that the word “hell” is not actually translated from the word found in our available manuscripts.

Hell is itself an insertion into the Bible. The word for “hell” is Gehenna. Gehenna actually means “Valley of Hinnom”. It is an actual place located just outside of Jerusalem. So when Jesus is speaking of hell, he is actually speaking of the Valley of Hinnom. Now it can simply mean that this valley came to be the symbolic representation of a spiritual reality called hell. But that is not literalism. 

These realities are facts. We cannot get around them. Anyone who wants to take seriously the reality of hell must face the fact of how little the Bible actually speaks about it. In the three Gospels in which "hell" is mentioned, Mark speaks of it three times. In all three the meaning is the same: it is better to cut off a part of your body that causes sin then to go to hell (Mark 9:43,45,47). Matthew mentions it seven times, the most for any Gospel writer. Three of those mentions mirror Marks original statements (Mat. 5:29,30 18:9). Matthew also says that if you don't forgive you are in danger of hell (Mat. 5:22). He says that hell will destroy the soul (Mat. 10:28). And the two remaining verses refer to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees as being worthy of hell (Mat. 23:15,33). Luke only mentions hell, twice. In one of those mentions Luke repeats Matthews teaching that hell will destroy the soul (Luke 12:5). And in the last mention hell is used in a parable (Luke 16:23).

If we gather these findings what we have are five unique teachings in the entire body of the New Testament concerning the reality of hell, and here they are:

1. It is better to cut off a piece of your body that causes sin then to be sent to hell.

2. If you don't forgive someone who wrongs you then you are in danger of hell.

3. Hell destroys the soul.

4. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees is worthy of hell.

5. Hell is a place of torment.

Out of these five teachings only two of them are descriptive, meaning that there is more in the Bible

warning about what sends us to hell then there is telling us what hell is like. And we have two conflicting descriptions. So the scant evidence we have which describes hell is not consistent. If hell destroys the soul then it would seem that there would not be torment. In this conflict we have two mentions of hell destroying the soul and only one mention of hell as a place of torment. Luke 16 is our pericope of interest, which is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

In this parable a rich man is sent to hell and calls out to Abraham for relief. All he asks for is a glass of water to relieve his suffering, but Abraham cannot help him. Now if we are going to read this parable literally, and not pick and choose which is important and not important about this story. Hence, if we are going to be serious about the reality of hell then we have to consider certain problems that exist in the parable in reference to hell.

The first problem is that there is no mention of eternity in this parable. The rich man is in torment that is for sure, but there is no mention that his torment will be for eternity. This seems a trivial matter, because the parable does go to great lengths to ensure that one cannot cross from one side to another, from the side of peace where the righteous are to the side of torment where the sinners are. But this only ensures that for the amount of time a sinner is in hell he is unable to cross over from one side to another. Now this problem can be solved by looking at other references to hell that do tell us hell lasts for eternity.

The second problem is that there is no mention of God. The rich man does not call out to God for relief from his torment. He calls out to Abraham. There is one major problem with this. Hell is a place of judgment. It is God who judges people and sends them to hell. If anyone were to cry out for relief they would cry out to God. Abraham was the one called out to because Abraham looked after the righteous in the place of the dead. It was a place called Abraham's bosom, and it was the place for Abraham's children. Now this problem can be resolved if we find supporting evidence to suggest that hell exists and is inhabited before the judgement of God. But once the judgement happens people leave the place of the dead and the righteous go to be with God in heaven, or the New Earth, and the sinners get thrown into hell.

The third problem is that Abraham calls the rich man, "son". This word in the Greek is indicative of a personal and intimate familial relation. It is not a general word for "child" or "youngster". In using this word Abraham is all but saying that this rich man deserves to be in Abraham's bosom. Remember why it is called "Abraham's bosom". To call this man his "son" indicates that a mistake has been made. But this could only be seen as a mistake if we assume that what this man deserved was the punishment of hell. This problem can be resolved if we find evidence that suggests undeserving people will be sent to hell, or if we find that evidence that suggests another use for punishment in the place of the dead.

In the Bible the after-life is not such an easy thing to piece together. How do you distinguish between Sheol, Hades, or Abraham's bosom? I feel confident in asserting that in the first century Jews were just as confused about the after-life as we are today, but in there literature there were common themes that became adapted into the Gospel literature. There was a place of the dead, and it separated the wicked from the righteous. The wicked were punished in the place of the dead for a rehabilitative purpose. People were purified through torment and then allowed to live in peace. Or they were tormented and then annihilated. Or they were simply annihilated. The New Testament affirms this place of the dead in both the Gospels (Mat. 16:18) and in Revelation (Rev. 1:18). The place of the dead is where people wait to be judged by God. We also have evidence which suggest rehabilitation is possible in the place of the dead. Paul mentions those who are baptized for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. And Peter mentions those in the place of the dead who were preached at by Jesus when he went into the under world (1 Peter 3:19). Now, Peter's reference is directly connected to those who died in the flood and this serves his point of tying in the flood with Christ's baptism, as in saying that God's act of redemption undoes the punishment of the flood. Thus, we can speculate that if Jesus went to preach to those in the place of the dead to win them over to Christ then why would he stop? After all, would this not be one of the reasons the Bible says that Jesus and the church holds the keys to Hades?

So while, I do not think after-life redemption is an actual teaching in the New Testament, in that we do not have enough evidence to suggest that this is a normative belief. I do think that we can consider it as a real possibility. Thus, since it is possible for after-life redemption to exist then it must also be possible that what Luke 16 is really referring to are the conditions that exist in an place of the dead where redemption is possible. This idea resolves all the problems found in Luke 16, and would also remove it from the list of the 5 teachings found in the Gospels concerning hell, which would mean that the only descriptor we have of hell is for annihilation.

But it is not as simple as that. In reality there are only two verses in the Bible that support the traditional claim that hell is a place for eternal conscious torment (ECT). What is most striking about this fact is that these additional descriptors do not in fact mention the word "hell". By this mere fact alone, it seems convincing that when the New Testament was written the authors felt most comfortable identifying hell as annihilation then as ECT. Given that the only direct mentions of hell that we have describe it as annihilation, and the ones that describe it as ECT are indirect at best, as you will see. This doesn't tell us what is right or wrong about hell, but it is significant. And it is important to note that the teaching about hell being annihilation only rests on two verses as well. I believe that the evidence will show that a comparison between the two will make the teachings about hell being annihilation to be more direct and clear, while the teachings about Hell being ECT are more vague and indirect.

In Matthew 25 there is a parable about the sheep and the goats. The meaning is clear the sheep go to eternal life to live in the Kingdom of God forever, and the goats go to eternal punishment (Mat. 25:46). Now what seems clear is that in this case, the word eternity is applied to both in the same sense. Hence, the duration of eternal life is the same as the duration of eternal punishment. But in a technical fashion the word punishment does not preclude execution, though I admit that this is a weak analogy. Often times the common use of the word punishment refers to some form of conscious torment. Thus, I concede that a prima facie reading of Matthew 25 is more supportive of ECT then annihilation, but at the same time a prima facie reading of Matthew's and Mark's "soul destroying" supports annihilation rather then ECT. I have heard others say that a soul's destruction would last for eternity, since the soul is an eternal being. This is just as much speculation as referring to eternal punishment as annihilation.

But there is one thing that is certain. When Jesus is actually teaches about hell he speaks of the soul's destruction and when he wants to speak about ECT he has to use indirect parables which do not really make it clear if it is ECT that is being taught.

In Revelation 20:10 we are told that Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and they suffer torment forever and ever. These are the only people that the Bible says suffer this fate. So if we are going to read the Bible literally then we are only permitted to believe that in reality only three people suffer the fate of hell that traditional fundamentalists believe in. The Bible never says that others who are thrown into hell suffer the fate of these three people and there are are at least two other references to people being thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15 21:8). None of those verses make descriptions for ECT. Now it is reasonable to conclude that since Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet are being tormented for all eternity then so would everyone else thrown into the lake of fire, but if the Bible can provide evidence for why these three are given such treatment in hell then we could reasonably assume that hell could be something else for everyone other then these three.

In Revelation 20:10 it uses a very specific formula, "They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Now most Westerners wouldn't notice, but the phrase "day and night" is unique in the Jewish calendar because Jews measure time from night to day. Thus, we are not exactly looking at what can be called a sequential or temporal paradigm. The first, "day and night" reference is in the book of Genesis after the flood. It marks the unveiling of God's New World to Noah. In the Old World the earth was covered by a canopy which made it impossible for the inhabitants of this world to see the sun or the moon and thus to measure day from night. So a reference to "day and night" in the Jewish mind was not necessarily to refer to a sequential order of time, but rather to refer to an unveiling of New Power that governed Reality. The Old Powers, Satan, the Anti-Christ, and the false prophet were responsible for all our torment on earth. Satan was our accuser. The Anti-Christ was our deceiver. And the false prophet was our corrupter. Thus, it is fitting that to recognize that in this Reality governed by the Power of God these three are the ones who will suffer and be tormented rather then the other way around. Their existence is unique in the Biblical narrative, thus we can easily conceive that their punishment will be unique, too. But that is not all. The word used in "forever and ever" can also simply mean the passing from one age to another. It does not necessarily bear the marks of being infinite duration. Thus, I think a fair rendering of Revelation 20:10 could say, "The tormentors, who tormented us, will be tormented in the passing of the age to the Reality powered by God."

Now there is one last reference worthy of note, and it is one from the Old Testament. This reference in the Old Testament is not one concerning hell, but one concerning judgment. But it is a very fitting verse, because in many ways it makes the ideas about hell in the New Testament seem justified or grounded in the Old Testament. The verse is Isaiah 66:24, "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." This verse speaks of an unquenchable fire, which when applied is the same fire in the lake of fire. It is mentioned other times in the New Testament as an eternal fire, both in Matthew 18:8 when Jesus says to cut off your hand and in Matthew 25 in the parable of the sheep and goats.

Now when a fire is done or quenched what is left is ash. Thus, a quenchable fire always leaves remains. There is always something left over. If we imagine an eternal soul being burned by a quenchable fire it is very easy to think of that soul burning for all eternity. The fire would literally have an endless fuel source. But the image presented to us in the Bible of "eternal fire" is not one of a fire that can be fueled infinitely. But it is a special fire. A fire that can completely consume that which it burns. It is unquenchable. Meaning that there is nothing left. There are no remains. This image of a fire is different. It would also be able to completely extinguish an eternal soul. The soul would not be an endless fuel source, because this would be a fire that needs no fuel source. The soul would simply vanish, or be annihilated in such a fire.

So if we include the other verses mentioned which give us a wider exposure to what is commonly thought to be teachings on hell we have...

6. Hell is eternal punishment.

7. Hell is eternal conscious torment.

8. Hellfire is unquenchable

All 8 of these teachings are not consistent with one another. The last three give us some good descriptions of hell, but are only gained through non-literal means. In the Bible there are only three literal people who experience ECT. 

Now, I have given you my interpretations of the corpus of Biblical evidence that exists for the reality of hell, but here is the rub. This is not a literal interpretation. I have taken some privileges. In Matthew 25 the literal understanding does lead us to conclude ECT, and also in Revelation 20:10. I think it is persuasive to give priority to verses which for all intents and purpose seem to be more direct and clear then verses which seem to be vague and indirect, but I cannot say that this denotes literalism. In fact, it seems to be only useful once we abandon literalism. Just the same, Hell as ECT represents a departure from literalism as well.

The reality is that literalism does not help us determine the reality of hell. It gives us two very real possibilities, and we have to use our own intuition from there. But if we are to use our own intuition then what is the point of literalism? If literalism cannot provide a unified, consistent, and singular picture of reality then do we have the right to promote it?

In one case, our literal understanding of the Bible provides no justification for a very common and popular act of the Church, and in another case a literal reading of the Bible provides no solution to a very real problem in the Church. 

Why Homosexuality Is Not A Sin

This response will not deal with the Bible. It will not address the historical or orthodox teachings. This response is purely a theological argument. Theologies can be wrong, and they can venture into the strange and unusual without proper guidance. Pure theology is impersonal and non-inspirational, but theology is not a useless tool. Combined with our human existence, theology can provide a powerful instrument in helping us understand the boundaries and limits of religious devotion, and it can help translate religious dialogue to a new age.

The reason homosexuality is not a sin is a simple one. It would be immoral if it were. Now, it may just be that God still demands that homosexuality be a sin, at which point it will have to be fairly evaluated if we are to choose between saying homosexuality is a sin and be immoral, or choose morality and believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Whether or not your religious devotion can handle either one, it will be up to the one who receives this argument. But the reality of this choice is absolute. It is my intention to only argue that this is the only choice that exists for us. I take the affirmative stance that homosexuality is not a sin, because it conforms to my moral sentiments, and I accept the burden of what this might mean for my religious devotion, but I make this stance, because I am convinced that this is the only choice that can possible exist between the option of whether or not to affirm homosexuality. Thus, I state quite clearly and confidently that I am not willing to be immoral in order to fulfill religious duty.

God is the Good. In ancient philosophy this question was asked of the Greek

philosophers, because even in the distant past people still struggled with aspects of religious devotion, and these philosophers were asked, “Is God good, because He does good things, or is He good because He makes it so?” This question was designed to be crafty and deceptive. If God is good because he does good things then the moral law is higher than God, and we do not need Him, but if God is good because he makes it so then morality is capricious. God could feasibly make murder and rape good and right, and we would simply have to accept it. The solution discovered by Plato is that God is the Good. God is the source of goodness.

Thus, it is important for any religious follower to understand what this means. There can be no separate moral order for the religious and non-religious. All are subject to the same moral standard. What is wrong for one person is wrong for another. There can be no morality exclusive to special revelation. It is, and can only be a part of God’s general revelation in Nature and Humanity. Now, there are spiritual virtues which can be taught and included in special revelation, like the fruits of the Spirit, and so forth, but in principle if an act or lifestyle is going to receive condemnation by God in all its totality then there must be a moral reason to do so.

This conclusion is easy enough to deduce without appeals to history or dogma. If God were to provide universal condemnations for non-moral reasons then we would have no reason to understand or accept any order issued by such a God. Consider two people groups. God tells people group 1 that all red heads are going to Hell. Unfortunately, within this people group there are some red heads, thus they have to be kicked out of the group. They tell people group 2 what God has told them. When they hear this, they scratch their heads, because they tell people group 1 that God told them that red heads are definitely in, but yellow skinned people are certainly out. How does one adjudicate between these people groups?

There is no realistic answer to this question, which is why realistically speaking, religious duty has always been seen as an extension of ones religious devotion. Failure to conform to religious duty may not get you all those gems you want in your crown, but it is not a conclusive reason to think that a person, act, or lifestyle is condemned by God. Thus, indictments contained in special revelation can only relate to spiritual virtues, and those which correlate to actual moral condemnations are in themselves already condemned.

Thus, it is no surprise to see in many religions a condemnation of immoral behavior, but this is not something we need religion to reveal to us. However, when we see a condemnation of something that is non-moral then our interest must be piqued, for now we have to consider whether or not such a thing is worthy of condemnation. And again, there is an easy enough reason to see why this should be. Consider, again, two people groups. People group 1 receives a revelation from God that Jews from people group 2 are condemned. Thus, they go to tell people group 2 that the Jews contained in their group stand condemned. Again, how does one adjudicate, when universal non-moral condemnations become possible within ones scope of religious devotion?

Not all sin need be associated with morality, but all sin is a condemnation of God. God can condemn rock-n-roll for non-moral reasons. If rock-n-roll worships the Devil then there is a non-moral reason not to do it, and to think that it is a sin, but this condemnation is not universal. It is conditional. It stands to reason that if rock-n-roll stops worshiping the devil, then there would be no reason to think that it would still be condemned by God. So it is only sin that we believe is universally condemnable by God that we must find a moral reason for its condemnation. By extension, if something lacks moral condemnation then it cannot possess a universal reason for it to be condemned by God. God is not capricious. God is not arbitrary. God is the Good.

So special revelation is allowed to consider many things as sinful, or condemned by God, without suggesting that everything considered as such must be worthy of a universal moral condemnation. God created humanity with a moral order, and this is just as much a part of engaging in special revelation as anything else. To worship God with our whole being we must engage in all scripture with our full moral awareness and sensibilities. Devotion to special revelation is furthermore neither threatened, nor diminished when one concludes that a scriptural condemnation of something is not a moral indictment. One can easily conclude that such a condemnation was a conditional one, which is just as authoritative and deliberate.

There is no moral reason to condemn homosexuality. The main reason homosexuality is morally sanctioned is because it is victimless and because it is mutually beneficial to those who practice it. These considerations are made without the need to appeal to natural order or law. They are basic to our volitional nature and are thusly, superior to any other moral evaluation that can be made. The first two, questions that all moral codes must answer before it can be introduced to any other moral synthesis is if it will violate another person’s ability to make moral choices, and if it will enhance your own ability to make future moral choices. So even if homosexuality stands as an anomaly, or aberration, in relation to the natural order it is not being destructive to such an order, nor is it causing anyone else to be self-destructive.

So while homosexuality may not enjoy the full benefits that the natural order of human sexuality offers, it does enjoy, without diminishment, the primary resource offered to us because of our sexuality, and that is intimacy. For all intents and purposes there is no reason to think that homosexuals have a diminished capacity to be intimate with one another, if there were then we would have good reason to think that it was actually immoral, but we do not. So there is no moral reason to condemn homosexuality.

My choice may be different from your choice, but my argument is a good one. Its reasoning is sound. You can either have a capricious God or a relative religion. You cannot have a God who is the Good and a religion that never changes at the same time. I have chosen a non-capricious God who is the source of all goodness. Your choice may be different than mine, but the logic of your choice cannot be different. For me, God is more important then my religious duty or the perception of my religion. I stand for a God who is the source of all goodness that is equally and reasonably administered to all people fairly and justly. I cannot call homosexuality a sin, simply because I cannot find any moral reason to do so, nor can I find any conditional reason that might warrant it. What will become of my religious devotion will have to be figured our later, that seems to be much less of a problem then a capricious God.