How to Increase Biblical Literacy without Creating Biblical Literalists—Part Two
It is not uncommon for someone to begin reading the Bible and take everything quite literally, or at least think it should be taken literally. If, for instance, people read that the world was created in six days, or that Jesus ascended into heaven, it’s normal to suppose that this is what is to be believed. And on that basis, they either go with the literal sense, or they reject the whole thing as not credible. Literalism produces this two-fold result. Surely there must be a way to avoid this double bind. There is, and it’s called critical thinking.
Let’s remind ourselves that criticism is not necessarily negative. Movie critics might give a movie
a favorable review or pan it. It all depends on the result of the analysis. The same is true of biblical criticism. The issue is not to find fault with a text, but to determine the best interpretation. In some cases, it might be best understood literally; in others, not. The point is that the outcome is not left at the literal understanding unless it is warranted.
We could go through the history of biblical interpretation from its earliest attempts, and what we would find is that there has never been an acceptable method that became uniform throughout the church. There never will be and there never can be. As explained in Part One, humanity’s situations in life are so diverse that we aren’t easily able to appreciate another’s point of view, nor are we inclined to do so. So, what is a serious-minded person to do?
Taking the Bible seriously is to treat it as we would any information that comes our way. We evaluate it on the basis of the evidence. There are generally three sources used to evaluate biblical texts. These are tradition, reason, and human experience.
Tradition, because the church has thought about most everything in the Bible coming now on 2,000 years. Interpreters have included some of the greatest minds of any era including Augustine, Aquinas, and Newton. We ignore their wisdom at our peril. Reason, because the Bible is not self-explanatory; we are compelled to sort it out. Experience, because human experience, according to the biblical witness itself, is essential for understanding who we are and who God is. The author of Ecclesiastes uses both his reason and experience to produce this treatise on life “under the sun.”
Let’s look at two examples of how this can be done. The first is the six days of creation. In a prescientific age, believing in the literalness of this was not a problem. As late as 1650 CE, Bishop Ussher put the date of the initiation of creation around 9 am on October 23, 4004 BCE. We have learned much about the beginning of our universe since then. Literalists shun any science that contradicts the Bible, so they dismiss claims from reason thinking that if the Bible is wrong in one part it cannot be relied upon at any part. But our task is not to defend the Bible, but to learn from it. Better put, our task is not to defend a conclusion, but to come to thoughtful conclusions.
The fact that the literal interpretation fails in light of reason in this case doesn’t in any way affect the truth or untruth of the Bible. Why? Because the literal understanding fails to comprehend the totality of the evidence. The Bible isn’t wrong here; the interpretation is. Without going into great detail (check any recent commentary on Genesis), the Hebrew syntax displays the poetic form of Chapter 1 of Genesis. Anyone familiar with poetry knows not to objectify it by literalizing it. This, coupled with the comparison of other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories, display Genesis 1 as a carefully crafted episode that makes at least two claims. That the creation is not composed of myriad gods that demand our worship (sun, moon, stars), thus confronting the various mythologies of the time, and that humans are here due to the generosity of God, not the duplicitous actions of warring gods.
Given this, there is no reason to take the chapter literally. There is no reason to claim the Bible is mistaken, either. No, creation was not a six-day event. Not only is the universe over 18 billion years old, it is still in creation mode as it ceaselessly expands. Genesis 1 does not contradict this for a scientific explanation was not its intention. One great truth emerges if we let it: The universe is no accident; it is the intention of God.
In Part Three, we will look at another example of how a literal interpretation distorts a texts true meaning as we look at the ascension of Jesus to heaven.
POST SUMMARY: How to avoid the literalist double bind
1. Literalism produces a double result, either forcing a reader to take everything at face value, or reject it all together.2. Taking the Bible seriously involves moving beyond the surface reading and looking critcally at the text.3. The six days of creation in Genesis 1 cannot be literally true. But in its poetry, truth emerges that literalism destroys.4. The fact that the literal interpretation fails in light of reason in this case doesn’t in any way affect the truth or untruth of the Bible. Why? Because the literal understanding fails to comprehend the totality of the evidence.
