A few days ago I was asked a straightforward and seemingly simple question.
“Do you read the Bible literally?”
I honestly wasn’t sure how to respond. I stammered my way through an answer that I wouldn’t be able to repeat. I wish I had said, “Yes, the Bible is a book that I, literally, read.” Unfortunately, I’m not that quick or witty. I’ve since had some time to reflect on the question and formulate a few (hopefully) coherent thoughts.
First, I wrestle with the question itself, because the simplicity of the question seems to assume a simple answer, either “yes” or “no”. However, it’s not that simple. Take Revelation for instance. There are some who claim that Revelation should be read literally, seeing in it a prophecy of how things will play out in the end of time. Yet, their reading of Revelation is anything but literal. When John sees a Lamb who was slain (Rev 5:6), most people don’t take this literally, but see it as a figurative representation of Jesus. But only a few chapters later, when people are marked by the beast (Rev 13:16) or when mutant locusts (helicopters, to the literalist, Rev 9:7-10) show up, many claim that these should be taken literally. It seems a bit inconsistent to read the Lamb as figurative, but see the locusts and mark of the beast as literal. If I choose to read the locusts and mark of the beast as figurative, then am I no longer reading the Bible literally?
Another reason I have a hard time with this question is that it is usually used as a litmus test for where one lands on the Christian spectrum. If I say I read it literally, then I am conservative. If I say that I don’t read it literally, then I am liberal/progressive/emergent. But even this is a false dichotomy. In fact, I’ve noticed that both conservatives and liberals (loosely defined) are sloppy in their reading of the Bible literally. For many conservative folks, a literal reading of the Bible leads to a young-earth understanding of creation, substitutionary atonement as the only way to think about the cross, and a premillenial reading of Revelation. From the liberal camp, conservatives are often looked down upon for this “faulty” reading of Scripture.
Yet, I have heard numerous arguments from progressive Christians along this general path; “The Bible never specifically says anything about blank but it does set forth this principle which applies to blank. Therefore, the commonly believed assumptions about blank are not what we thought.” Let me explain a bit more clearly.
I’ve heard some people note that the Bible never expressly condemns pre-marital sex. It never uses that phrasing or terminology, rather using the general term “sexual immorality.” Since the Bible never specifically condemns pre-marital sex and emphasizes commitment, fidelity, and love, then pre-marital sex should be considered a possibility for those who approach it with the aforementioned virtues. This is an uber-literalism that narrowly defines the world with one to one correspondences. I know I’m supposed to speak with love and grace, but this interpretation is dumb. It’s a bad way to read Scripture and ultimately justifies what people want to believe.
So do I read the Bible literally? I try to when it seems the Bible wants to be taken literally. Sometimes I read the Bible figuratively. When God is compared to a rock, or a refuge, or light, I don’t suddenly imagine God as that exact thing. Rather, I let my imagination get to work, to dwell with that metaphor or simile and explore the ways it might reveal to me new aspects of God’s character. And this is ultimately what it comes down to for me. I’m afraid that a strict literal reading of everything in Scripture or a one to one correspondence of every word in Scripture malnourishes our imaginations. When our imaginations are malnourished, we lose our ability to see, understand, and step into the vastness of God’s story.
4 Comments
Leave your reply.