How to Increase Biblical Literacy without Creating Biblical Literalists — Part One
“Literalism”
by Steve Kindle
LITERALISM: Adherence to the literal representation of a statement or law. LITERALIST: A person who interprets texts literally.
From the very beginning of biblical interpretation, going way back to the rabbis and how the Torah was interpreted, down to our day, people have not agreed on how it should be done. Differing biblical interpretations have created denominations, destroyed others, split churches, created enemies within families and well beyond, and sent many to the martyrs’ fire. These are just some of the consequences of closely held ideas that resist all other possibilities.
There is, of course, no easy way to solve this dilemma. After years of teaching the Bible, I have noted one common
approach to the Bible that seems to me to be the cause of much trouble. If we could just get beyond this one assumption, we have the possibility of moving into a more hopeful future where differing opinions may not simply be tolerated but seen as opportunities for growth. What is this fundamental miscalculation? I am speaking of the literal approach to interpretation. Literalists do not, however, believe they are interpreting the Bible. They are merely delivering the plain meaning; at least plain to them. They are bewildered when disagreements arise. How could anyone not see the obvious in this or that text? This is know as surface reading, or unreflective thought. It assumes that the words on the page mean what the reader thinks they mean. These readers are unaware that they come to the text with certain assumptions about the world that affect what the words mean to them. Even people who come from the same family may find very different meanings from the same words due to their personal life-experiences. The is why men and women, Americans and Africans, the rich and poor, and the elite and oppressed see different things in the same text.
This has nothing to do with principles of interpretation, or what is known as hermeneutics. We’re not talking about differences in method. These are differences in worldviews. Well into the 20th century it was thought that to get to the heart of a text it was necessary to determine everything that led up to its composition. The backstory, as we think of it. Toward the middle of the century this all changed with the advent of postmodernism. Attention moved from what may lie behind the text to what we place in front of it: our peculiar meaning of words, our biases, our set of assumptions about life, our ideologies (inherited or well-earned). In other words, our life situations. Here is the beginning of why we take from the Bible such different interpretations.
Technically speaking, the Bible is mute; it says nothing. We say what the Bible says.
Another way of explaining this is to realize that the Bible is ink on a page that forms words. Any meaning we derive from these symbols is what we apply to them. We import the meaning we think we derive from it. Technically speaking, the Bible is mute; it says nothing. We say what the Bible says. In a Bible study I observed that there is no text in the Bible that is not interpreted as we read it; that doesn’t stand in need of interpretation. A class member challenged me: “I can think of a verse that needs no interpretation. ‘God is love.'” My response, “Share with the class what you mean by God and what you mean by love and we’ll see if we agree.” Naturally a vigorous discussion followed. No one fully agreed with another.
This is not to say that we derive no truth when we interpret. It is to say that our truths are always tentative, awaiting further insight. After all, humans are finite creatures. If truth is Absolute, then we will never capture the whole of it in our finite vessels. Humility in interpretation is the best defense against judgmentalism and literalistic thinking.
In Part Two, we will examine ways the Bible can be approached that don’t yield literalistic meanings.
POST SUMMARY: A literal reading of a biblical text is based on several ssumptions
1. That the meaning of a word is obvious because it is what it means to the literalist. There is no effort to think critically about the text. 2. We all come to the text with a host of differences in who we are that influence our interpretive outcomes. Literalists are unaware of most of these influences, so they discount them as contributing factors. 3. The Bible does not say or teach anything. We say what the Bible says; the Bible is mute and cannot speak for itself. Therefore, when a Literalist says, “The Bible says….” he or she is merely giving one’s interpretation.4. Until we recognize the relativity of all interpretations, we will be stuck in interpretation wars for the duration.