A Brief Historical Interlude (CH4PT1)

When Galileo was on trial it was because the Church had read portions of the Bible which suggested that the earth was the center of the universe. The story of Joshua and the sun standing still is one such example. The church has read the Bible literally for pretty much through all of its existence. Literalism is perhaps the easiest of all meanings to derive from the text of the Bible. And as was argued earlier, it is really easy to understand something literally, supposedly. So for an organization which promotes itself to be a universal community of faith it has to be willing to appeal to the common man. So it makes sense that the literal meaning of Scripture has been the de facto method of interpretation throughout the ages, but this only makes sense practically. When we look into the essentials of inspiration we find that this has no grounding.

It is along these lines that I feel a historical survey is important to consider when it comes to understanding the Biblical narrative. Through this chapter we will see how important it is to have a wide open view of the Scriptures instead of a rigid narrow one. Before we can engage ourselves into this journey it is important to recognize that a real potential threat exists, and it is one that I cannot guarantee the outcome of. As I mentioned in the last chapter that once we abandon literalism any certainty of faith becomes nearly impossible, but it is even more dangerous then that. Once we accept symbolism into our faith narrative we also run a much higher risk of delusion. This may seem counter-intuitive to my goal. When I set out to explore Christianity, as a Christian, my goal was to follow the Biblical directive to keep a clear conscience, so that my faith would not be betrayed.

Literalism offered an intellectual escape clause to this end, and it provided perhaps the best means to obtain a religion, but as we looked deeper into its implications we had to abandon it. Literalism can only set up a false deity and a law which does not come by faith (Gal. 3:12). Thus, it does not mean that my conscience is betrayed by having to abandon literalism, in fact it is all the more cleared. By realizing the connections which existed between paganism and the literalists of the Biblical times I was more able to recognize how my own faith turned against me.

But I could not wrestle myself free from the impending doubt that had to be assuaged. The Bible was literally just like any other book. This fact had to be accepted, or else the idolatry of the Bible would take root once again. But to accept this threatened the very faith and experience I found in the Bible. How could the Bible remain Holy, if there was nothing special about it compared to other sacred texts? Suffice it to say, abandoning literalism was not necessarily a victory for me, nor was it a special insight. It gave me a sense of foreboding that faith just very well may be a completely contrived aspect of man's mental life. Literalism offered the chance to prove faith, in a sense. It was the best chance for faith, and it failed. This reality has to be accepted, because many fall away from the faith because of the inconsistencies, irregularities, and errors found in the Bible.

Now we can see why religion for the most part has advocated a literalist interpretation of their sacred texts. It gives the believers a kind of certainty that absolves the church of any real responsibility to educate their constituents, and it makes for a servile congregation. And the most important part of literalism is that it secures the power structure of religious authority that is currently in control. Pastors of churches feel a responsibility to tend and care for their flock, and this responsibility is an all too easy excuse to misuse one's power to ensure that the flock remains strong. It is natural for the shepherd to think that the success of the flock entails his control and power over the flock. For this reason, we might even consider the absence of literalism in an inspired text to be the very sign of its authenticity rather then the reverse.

Because of this tension between literalism and symbolism I think it is important to consider some historical narratives in the progression of faith to see how believers have connected and related to their holy texts. Do we have cause to consider that the absence of literalism is a sign of inspiration, rather then it being a sign for despair?

I - From The Jews To The Pews

The first part of the Christian Bible, which comprises about two thirds of our Bible, was written by Jews who lived hundreds and hundreds of years before the Jesus was born. They wrote their Bible and then had to live it out and interpret it in drastic changing cultural environment. The books written during times of prosperity and peace had to be interpreted in times of exile and war. Commands given to a people who ruled a land had to be interpreted by a people who had no land. Considering that Christians share such an essential aspect of their faith with another religion it seems pertinent to ask how this other religion interprets their Bible?

Surprisingly, Jews approach their Old Testament (*cough* I mean, "Torah") in quite a different way then just about all Christians. Does it not seem strange that two religions who share the same book as a sacred text have two completely different ways of interpreting this it? Granted Christians have a New Testament, or New Torah, and this ought to be factored in how Christians interpret the Bible as a whole, but the majority of the Christian Bible is technically Jewish, and from a perspective of the first century an argument could be made that the entire Bible is Jewish.

With literalism deconstructed we now have to take up the task of putting the pieces back together. As a cursory analog it seems beneficial to look into the Jewish religion to see how they interpret their Bible so that we might find possible collieries to build on. When we do this though we find a completely different method of interpretation then we would think from being exposed to how Christian interpret their Bible.

First off, I am being extremely liberal when I use terms like "bible", "testament", and "Torah". Technically, these terms are exclusive to their particular faiths, and they all have different meanings. A Jew would never consider his Torah a testament. Nor, can we as Christians call each testament of the Bible, a Torah. Christians have pretty much claimed exclusivity on the term "Bible", but I have used it to simply refer to a sacred text. These definitions are just as important for Jews as they are for Christians. So when we undertake as Christians to explore how Jews interpret the Old Testament, we have to realize that our first mistake is calling it the Old Testament.

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. But the word "Torah" can be used dynamically. It can refer to the Law AND the Prophets. It can refer to the first five books of the Bible, or it can refer to the Torah AND the Oral Torah.... Wait. What is the Oral Torah, again? That's right, fundamentalist Christians have little to no idea about the Oral Torah.

Imagine that you are a Jew living in exile. You want to be true to your God and your faith, but you are separated from the land you live in, and you must live and work with others who do not share the same faith as you. Clearly, a strict or literal adherence to the Torah is impossible. How could Jews be faithful if the Torah became meaningless? The Jews thousands of years ago faced in many ways the same problems we face today. They held in their hands an out-dated holy book that had no relevance to their current environment. They felt like many ancient spiritual followers that if their sacred scriptures were not literal then what good were they.

Thus, a brilliant idea was born. God gave to Moses two Torah's. A written Torah, and an Oral Torah. Moses wrote the Torah down to serve as a constant reference point, and he passed down a tradition orally on how to read it and interpret it for changing times. The Oral Torah was passed down from generation to generation preserving the accurate reading and application of the Torah, and each generation added its own unique and authoritative contribution. The priests and the scribes became the bearers of this tradition in the times of restoration. And it gave the Jewish people the means to hold unto their cherished belief in the Torah.

Thus, a literalist belief in the Torah was preserved in a rather symbolic manner. By the time of the first century it was the Pharisees who were responsible for carrying on the tradition of the Torah. And this irony had not gone unnoticed. By the time of Christ there were various strands of interpretation representing the Torah. In many ways first century Palestine was a hot bed of pluralism. Philo (though Philo was from Egypt) and Hillel had interpreted the Torah to be kind and beneficial to humanity. Hillel the Elder is a first century Pharisee who coined the phrase that the Law is summed up in love. Then there was Shammai who preferred a more traditionalist approach that favored the Torah as an authority and rule over man's actions. The Sadducees were commissioned by the Romans to tend to and be the administrators of the Temple cult. They were the strict literalists of the first century. They only held to the written Torah, as the first five books of the Bible. Then there were the apocalyptic communities like the Qumran. All these people co-existed in the same territory with little conflict. Of these groups it is the Pharisaical ones that are the most important, and in the first century the schools of Shammai and the schools of Hillel were the two competing houses. What becomes clear is that the New Testament clearly favors the school of Hillel. In particular Jesus' teachings almost exactly resemble the teachings of Hillel.

In a pre-critical society religious literalism is to be expected. In the pressures of extinction the Jews formulated a system to preserve their religious heritage, and that heritage included a literal interpretation of the Torah, and when that became impossible a method of integrating tradition into the literalism of the Torah became mainstream and widely accepted. By the time of Shammai, who was the stricter and more literal Pharisee the thesis of the Pharisaical movement had been accepted, namely that Oral Torah was given to Moses at the same time as the written Torah. What is important to note is that when literalism failed in reconstructionist Palestine it was symbolism that allowed the literal interpretation of the Torah to exist.

As we already have seen, in early Christianity it was realized how difficult a literal interpretation of the Gospels would be as coming from God. By the time the Gospels were canonized they had been harmonized and literalized to an extreme, and these efforts had failed. Origen provided a method of symbolic interpretation that allowed readers to see characters, events, and plots as spiritual narratives involving God and his Church. Regardless of which method was right, Origen provided a method that would stretch into the next millennium. Origen had no problem accepting that ever word of the Bible was literally put there by God, as long as the meaning of those words could be spiritually or symbolically interpreted. And regardless of which method was right, the Bible was cannonized nonetheless.

Hence, the problems with literalism were already known by the time of canonization and it did not hinder the process at all. The canonizers knew that the Bible contained unique and exclusive propositions to each narrative that did not provide a consistent and coherently unified whole, intellectually speaking, but the Bible was canonized nonetheless. This leads to a few historical conclusions.

The first is that the Bible was merely canonized as a political move in order to give power to the Church that was having to compete for power with ever new and changing government powers. The second is that this happened because the canonizers were symbolists. They saw no threat to their religion or to their Bible by solidifying "literalism" as long as it could be partnered with symbolism. Or there is a third possibility where they believed that the literalness of each piece added to the canon did not conflict with what the spiritual interpretation of what "a book from God" renders. Thus, literalism could never encapsulate something truly inspiring.

It does not seem likely that we ought to abandon literalism, simply because the Bible was canonized with that it in mind. It also does not seem likely to think that God's people were simply pawns of a social and cultural system. Perhaps, canonization could be traced to political factors, but that does not seem to negate any belief that this book came from God. Thus, it seems that the best and most comprehensive historical evaluation of the Bible is to accept that symbolism and literalism were equally important to the earliest believers in the Bible. The relationship between these two is hard to define for us two thousand years later, because we live in an entirely different world. It does not seem sufficient to simply disregard literalism for our own day.

The Curse of The Bible (CH3PT4/5)

The first Christians were Jews. This is a historical fact. At one point a small sect within Judaism wanted to separate itself from the exclusivity of the Jewish religion and have table fellowship with Gentiles. They wanted to practice their faith in clear violation of the Jewish Law. At that point they could no longer be Jewish. What we call the Bible, was pretty much the same for the first century Jews as well. They had the Old Testament, but by then it was canonized and it was a norm for all Jews. It was called, "The Law".

Just as the word "bible" is widely diverse today, the term "the Law" was widely diverse in the first century. Today we put our hand on the Bible, when we swear an oath in court. Why do we do this? I can't say completely, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with any belief that the church has on the Bible. In some homes the Bible is displayed prominently as though it were a decoration. And that is all it really is. I'm not sure why we use the Bible as living decor, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with what the church believes about the Bible. When we want to express the seriousness of our claim we will call it the "gospel truth". Of course, there is no mention of "gospel truth" in the Bible, and it is unclear how this phrase relates to the Bible. But it certainly adds to the diversity in which we think about our Bible in culture.

Jews believed that the Law was given by God. The mechanism of inspiration can be debated over, but the property of inspiration remains the same for both Jews and Christians when it comes to their Bibles, and the Jews believed that their Bible was inspired. The Law was given by God. So it seems a very pertinent question to consider, especially in the review of literalism and symbolism. How were first century Jews, who believed in an inspired text, able to literally defy their Bible in order to develop their spirituality in a new direction and yet retain that Bible in their belief system?

Christians of the first century could have easily just abandoned the Bible. It was clear that they did not believe that they had to follow the Law. (Acts 15:28,29 Gal. 2:25). But what was the reason to keep the Old Testament in the corpus of Christian scripture? After all, had not Christians of the first century heard the argument that if you are not going to follow all the Bible then why follow any of it? The only reason that these Christians were able to retain their belief and devotion to the Old Testament is because they saw their scriptures symbolically, and not literally. If the first century Christians were literalists then we would simply not have a Christianity today.

But there is more then just this simple fact. For all intents and purposes it seems that the writings of the New Testament hold in contempt those who would attempt to claim that literal interpretations of the Old Testament applied to this New Testament Church. In Galatians Paul instructs Christians who feel that they have to read the Old Testament literally that we are free because of faith (Gal. 5:6). The conflict arose that Christians should be circumcised. This makes sense, of course, because it is what the Old Testament says, but Paul makes sure to put the kibosh of this line of thinking and even calls it sin to think this way, "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough" (Gal. 5:9). He even tells those who would read the Bible literally to emasculate themselves (Gal. 5:12)! What does Paul do? He interprets the Old Testament symbolically, "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'." (Gal. 5:14).

Opposed to what most fundamentalists think it was this literalism pattern that the author of 1 Timothy says is "contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10). Later in 1 Timothy the author expounds further and lists some other things contrary to "sound doctrine". They are an overemphasis on "words" and "controversy" and those who use "godliness" as a means for profit (6:4-5). 2 Timothy tells us that sound doctrine is encapsulated in "faith and love" and that it conforms to the teaching of Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13). But Titus gives us the greatest insight into "sound doctrine" when it says that those who oppose it are of the "circumcision group" (Titus 1:9-10). The Circumcision group here are the group of pharisaic Jews who in Acts 15 were trying to get Gentile Christians to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law. They were the literalists of that time.

But that is not all Paul has to say against those who read the Bible literally. He actually curses those who obey the law, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (Gal. 3:10). Observing the law means reading the Bible of the first century literally. Imagine if a pastor went up to a pulpit in any Evangelical church and said, "All who rely on reading the Bible literally are under a curse!" Why would Paul use such drastic language?

Paul sees something in Biblical literalism that I do not think the Church has fully realized in its two thousand years of existence. It is embodied in the book of Colossians, "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!'?" (Col. 2:20-21). In this pericope, the author of Colossians is grouping the Jewish law with all other pagan rituals, "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:14). And it is here that the true danger of Biblical literalism is exposed.

When we read the Bible literally what ends up happening is that the Bible takes the place of God in our lives. The Bible becomes an idol! This was seen above when we saw some of the hermeneutical absurdities of literalism, and how in every case the Bible was elevated to a point of near absolute un-interpretative-ability. The only possible way to interpret the Bible in such a way would be to establish some mediating devices, like dispensationalism, harmonies, or authorial intent. And though we can see how ridiculous it is to engage in these activities as an expression of faith, what becomes terrifying is when we see how we are elevating something to divine status.

V - The Errancy of Inerrancy

But shouldn't God's word be elevated to divine status, if we claim that the Bible is inspired? This is

definitely a valid claim, but is it one that necessitates literalism? Hence, do we elevate the Bible as divine by reading every word as though it were grammatically represented by the words or God, or do we elevate the Bible as divine by making it the center of our lives? I think we have come far enough in this book to suggest that the former is but a mere superficial representation of inspiration, while the latter is a truer representation of what it means for a text to be inspired. Now, these two are not mutually exclusive, but they are different from one another. It could be, and most likely is, the case that people who have made the Bible the center of their lives feel that this means that the Bible is grammatically representative of the words of God. This being the case, from all the information we have studied thus far, it is prudent and wise to consider that there is a very real possibility for the Bible to be the center of a persons life, and for there to be no grammatical representation of the words in the Bible as the Word of God.

Thus, there is no de facto mode of interpreting inspired texts as literal. It is doubtful if there is any de facto method to interpret an inspired text, that will have to be explored later. What is important to realize is that because this is so, the claim of inerrancy is utterly devoid of meaning. Whether or not the Bible has errors, is erroneous, because our belief in an inspired text should not compel us to make assertions concerning what the literal meaning of a text is as it concerns our faith. It should not compel us to make any literal assertions what-so-ever. Even in the CSBI itself, this is realized when they say how inerrancy is not disproven by any errors believed to exist in the Bible. This is what is says in article 13, "We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations". It says it right there, "Inerrancy is not negated by falsehoods". 

The fact of the matter is that the Bible has errors. Scholars have known this since the dawn of reading the Bible began. They harmonized and synthesized as many combinations as possible to form whatever structure they could to eliminate those errors, but their process only revealed the existence of the errors, it did not eliminate anything. If our belief in inerrancy allows for these errors to exist, then what is the point of inerrancy, except to create cognitive dissonance?

With literalism out of the way, it now seems like Christianity is open to a very serious attack. And rightly so. If we remove the privileged status of a literal word of God from our devotion of faith then what is left of our faith that is any different than any other religion? Here's where the bricks fall on our head...

When a literalist considers the religions of the world he figures that the founders of that particular faith could not have possibly been writing the words of God, because only the God of the Bible did that. So this means that the founders would have had to of written down their own thoughts on a piece of paper thinking that this would be something God would say. It is then to the advantage of such founders to say that the words of this "holy book" were symbolic. He would want his message to be understood "spiritually" so that any burden of consistency and unity could be displaced unto the foundations of faith that the founder established through his own narrative.

Thus, when we remove literalism out of the way we open Christianity up to being just another religion open to the same criticisms that all other religions are open to. And we invalidate our own doubt concerning the authority of other spiritual beliefs on the lives of the believers of those separate faiths. When we can't hide behind the walls of spiritual certainty we have to admit that the source of our faith very well may be just like everyone else.

What is a testimony for our faith is not how certain we are of the literalness of our sacred text, but of how devoted we remain to our own particular faith while claiming no unique advantage to our beliefs over others. When we have every reason to be a Christian it seems that faith only means the obedience of the commands which is clearly outlined, but when every reason to be a Christian is no different then the reason to be anything else then faith becomes a means of spiritual identity and significance. Literalism is so dangerous because it distorts faith, our God, and our Bible which invites us to experience the Gospel. The threat of a wide open Christianity is that it is wide open for attack, but the great hope for this is that it is also wide open for reconciling.

Quakers: Just Like Ever Other Christian

… But maybe that is a good thing?

Last week I attended the North West Yearly Meeting for Friends which is an

Evangelical division of the Quaker/Friends denomination. Recently, I have been persuaded by Quakers and have been thinking that they are a different breed of Christian, a more humble and a more willing kind of Christian to discuss and dialogue. Do not get me wrong, I am not looking for a perfect Church, a perfect denomination, or a perfect representation of Jesus. I get that we are all flawed and are all poor examples in one way or another. I had hoped that Quakers might be a bit different then what my general experience of Christianity has been, but at the end of the day Quakers are really just like ever other Christian. Here’s why…

The issue before the NWYM was the issue of human sexuality. This is an issue that all Evangelical Churches are facing, and it is one that will not go away until we get it right. There is a right outcome for this issue which is just, moral, and faithful to a God who creates us as His children, and this outcome is to affirm LGBT persons and to see them as no different then the traditional heterosexual persons whom

Christianity currently favors. This is a difficult conclusion for Christians to accept as many people relate to their faith differently, and many “feel” threatened or “attacked” if this issue is to be given a platform for consideration. Progress happens slowly when you have to appeal to the consensus of lesser minds. And I do say that rather matter of fact-ly, because in their hearts they have a big and deep love for their God. They are simply used to a certain way things ought to be. Unity of spirit means being able to find a way for issues of conscience and issues of authority to coexist with one another, and for mutual dialogue to occur between those who have placed their stake.

A year ago, or so, one of the churches involved in the NWYM came out as affirming LGBT persons. This clashed with the current Faith and Practice language which prohibits it as sexually immoral. Some called for this church to leave the NWYM. Some called for a revision of the Faith and Practice. Since Quakers tend to err on the side of grace it was believed that the best course would be to see if a revision could be made to the Faith and Practice that was more tempered with grace.

A year passes and this year the revision is presented to the NWYM and in my personal opinion it was a great example of creativity and integrity. It preserved the old way of still presenting homosexuality as a distortion of God’s creation (which it is in a matter of fact sense), and it did away with language that overtly suggested condemnation, like sin and immorality. Thus it was neither affirming for LGBT or condemning. It was in a sense, neutral and matter of fact. Its positive contribution was to promote sexual wholeness in Christ. So in a sense, it was perfect because diplomatically neither side was getting what they wanted, and both sides could be happy that the other side was unhappy.

The revision failed miserably. And it is unclear why. This is the problem I have with

most Christians. They are simply not smart enough to understand the mechanisms in play. In a zero sum game either those who oppose LGBT or those who affirm LGBT will be left at the end making the decisions and deciding the policy. It is clear that there is a zero sum game between LGBT inclusion and exclusion. Those who want to include feel threatened by those who want to exclude, and those who want to exclude also feel threatened by those who want to include. Thus, to avoid a zero sum game, a non-zero sum solution must present itself.

This revision was a non-zero sum solution. The only reason to dismiss it would be to

prefer a zero sum game as opposed to a non-zero sum game. Or, the solution provided to achieve non-zero sumness seems less beneficial then the outcome which could happen from remaining in a zero sum game. Typically, if a person thinks he can win he is less likely to compromise. But the problem now is that no one has won. And the non-zero sum solution was shot down. Here is the rub. There is no chance for a zero sum game to actually happen, or the zero sum game that will play out cannot possibly meet the expectations of any single party. Those on one side who want to simply cut themselves off from the other side will not ever convince the controlling members that a zero sum game is more profitable. And the controlling members will not apply the rules in a zero sum fashion. Thus, we are in a disastrous stalemate. The only way to achieve non-zero sumness is through dishonesty.

Those who complained that the proposed revision was too unclear were being dishonest in that what they really wanted was something clear enough to cut out people from their group, and those who are now entrusted with “enforcing” the Faith and Practice must now be dishonest in not doing anything about what Faith and Practice is telling them. Both sides have to now be mutually dishonest in order to achieve their goals.

This lack of strategy on the part of all parties involved is disheartening, but it is not entirely without precedent. It simply means that Quakers are like every other Christian group who cannot maintain a vision for who they are supposed to be. The leadership should have never let the old statement stand as a possible outcome if the revision was rejected. It should have been an either-or outcome where either the revision is accepted, or the statement “we are not united on this” is added to the current statement. It is incredibly unwise to move forward with a revision if it is not agreed upon that the current statement is insufficient.

It was a strategic error for the conservatives who want to cut out members from

the group to hide behind a seeming “unclarity” for the revision, because now they are unhappy participants on all fronts. They were not happy with the revision, and now they are not happy that the revision was rejected. This error was shared with the liberals who wanted to pass the revision. They equally protested the revision arguing that it did not affirm LGBT persons, and they protested when the revision was rejected knowing that no official LGBT discrimination would happen to them.

It is unfortunate that a church has to sit in limbo because no agreement could be reached on this matter. It is unfortunate that the leadership now has to accept the burden of being dishonest, and that the conservatives and liberals now have to be dishonest as well. This is the kind of Christianity that made me become an atheist. This is the kind of faith that turns good people into supporters of dishonesty and manipulation. The revision may not have been the ideal of good and honest behavior, but it was a hope. It was a hope that people were willing to lay down their arms and begin building once again.

But this is what Christianity has become on an institutional level. I wish it was the other way around, but the God’s honest truth is that good faithful people have become sucked into a culture war that is controlled by political and corporate powers. This issue has been high-jacked by a cult of personality and all the while those truly benefiting are those in power. When a Christian ministry that helps children announced that they were changing their policy on hiring homosexuals they lost tons of money in pledges. This is not simply an issue of how to read the Bible. This is an issue with dollar signs.

So Quakers are just like every other Christian, but is that such a bad thing? We would like some “hedge” of protection upon the namesake of Christianity to show some kind of protection from beyond. But the reality is that when put in a corner we respond just the same. I only hope that we find out who and how we got here before it is too late. I have good reasons to think that this hope is well suited.

I did see things that gave me hope. The superintendent said that Jesus did not have a conventional Father and that we should open up the Gospel to as many people as possible. I saw conservatives desiring unity so much that they were willing to keep discussing the issue until unity could be reached. I saw liberals desiring unity so much that they wanted to do the same. I saw people listening to each other. I saw people talking about this issue that I have not seen in an Evangelical setting. I saw a leadership that was open and honest. I saw a willingness to take time and be patient as long as needed to stand together.

I did not see the right answers, the right attitudes, or the right strategies. There was nothing right about it. All parties involved essentially messed up, made essential mistakes that basically ruined the success for the proposed initiative, or for any future resolution to this problem. But in the midst of this, I still saw a basic commitment to one another. It was wrong, but maybe it was the right kind of wrong. The kind of wrong you want to be, if you must be wrong.

There is a modern drive to make religion into this ideological institution, and this goes both ways. But there is wisdom, humility, and courage in a devotion to

something which is at times silly, futile, weak, or dumb. There becomes this overriding desire to stick it out with one another. It is not because we have such a great rationale or system of belief that makes all others pale in comparison to ours. It is that we have decided to stay together regardless of the circumstances. It is perhaps the highest Christian ideal that should stand above all others, and it is what I saw at this Yearly Meeting. It is called Brotherhood. It may not make sense, and it may cause us to look dumb from time to time, but Quakers have it. And I do not see that as a bad thing. 

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. 

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.