Unchurchy Concerns – Literalism

One issue that keeps coming to the fore is how we seem to be immersed in an understanding that the only way to read and interpret the Bible is through the inerrantist lens of literalism. Inerrancy is that idea that the Bible is one seamless whole and that as God’s word, every phrase has the same depth and authority over life. If it is God’s word, then it must be true in a literal sense, because God can’t lie.

I had a seminary student in my classes who entered with the notion that every one of Jesus’ parables were actual stories of particular people who had lived and experienced exactly what Jesus describes in each parable. Thus, if Jesus compares the Reign of God to a woman who lost a coin, cleaned her house to find it, and then called her friends to celebrate, that must have happened to the T. If Jesus told a story of a shepherd losing a sheep, it was not a general story, but a specifically true event. It Jesus spoke of a lost son who found himself slopping pigs, then Jesus was telling the facts of that event in the lives of that son, his father, and his elder brother.

What, then, do we do with the story of the prophet Nathan confronting King David with the story of a poor man with one sheep being oppressed by a wealthy man who takes that single sheep to feed a stranger who has come to him for hospitality? David considered that Nathan was indeed telling about an event that had transpired in the community around David. When David spoke out to condemn the man, Nathan responded with, “You are the man.” Suddenly, the truth in the story comes out, even though the story itself is revealed as a fabrication to hide the truth. It is a lie. It is, however, a lie that communicates truth in a way that David is able to see himself in a new light.

Nathan’s words are not to be taken literally. In fact, taking them literally was a trap for King David. The truth being communicated was not given by direct communication of truth. Truth was presented in a call for reflection, for looking at oneself in the mirror of the story. Truth was hidden in the question we bring to the text: how am I like these characters? That does not depend on a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation actually interferes with the truth being communicated.

We find another case among the prophets in which Micaiah tells a king what he wants to hear as though it were the message of Yahweh. Then the same king complains that Micaiah is not telling the truth, so then Micaiah tells the king the message Yahweh indeed has for him, one the king did not want to hear and for which he imprisons Micaiah. Truth is conveyed, though in a convoluted way. A lie is part of the process of communication. That requires we address the text in a different light than assuming that every phrase should be read as the literal truth. One phrase communicates a pure lie. Another tells the unwelcome truth.

Applying the same principles, there are different ways of reading other texts like Noah’s Ark, the story of Jonah, or the crossing of the Sea of Reeds without resorting to a forced literalism. The flood narrative is a theological response to flood narratives from Babylon. The story of Jonah can be easily read as a parable through which Israel can see itself in a mirror. The crossing of the Sea of Reeds does not require literal walls of water, as chariot wheels getting stuck in a mudflat is enough to stop an army from pursuing a people on foot. In fact, Exodus chapter 15 follows up this liberation by Yahweh with exclamations of how various nations of their future enemies heard of Yahweh’s great victory. Do we need to worry that what is reportedly a song sung spontaneously in the aftermath of that crossing reflects events that had not yet occurred? Only if we are forced to interpret the text literally.



— ©Copyright 2023, Christopher B. Harbin 



http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel Is Not Conservative

Image
Fundamentalism and conservativism are intrinsically averse to change. They are tied with conserving a status quo or moving back to a former era. They seek a safe place, a respite from change and transformation in the world around them. They are threatened by new ideas. They fear that the foundations on which they base their lives will be uprooted, causing their view of reality to fall apart. Growth depends on change. Life requires change. Survival depends on responding to changes in our environment. It requires new ideas. It requires new answers to old questions, as well as new questions with even newer answers. Jesus was by no means conservative. Jesus challenged the status quo. He fought against the groundwork of much of the religious thought around him, as well as the structures erected to empower its values. He called out those who benefited from social, religious, and political power. He demonstrated God's love, forgiveness and grace to those deemed una...
Read more

God in the Hands of Angry Sinners

Image
Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” set a very poor direction for much of Christianity in the Colonies. His Puritan tradition presented God as an essentially angry deity whose desire was to condemn and torture. Grace or mercy existed simply in regard to how long God waited until calling down judgment upon sinners. That is not good news. It never was. Such is not the message of Jesus whom the gospel writers claim as good news. They echo the words of the celestial messengers declaring Jesus’ birth as good news of great joy to all peoples. Rather than look to Jesus as the clearest example of God’s identity, character, and will, that tradition surrounding Edwards began with an altogether different understanding that could not account for what Jesus actually taught. The Puritan perspective began with angry sinners and projected that upon God. Anger begins with fear, uncertainty, discomfort, and the inability to control one’s environment, ot...
Read more

Our Language of Choice

Image
I woke up this morning and decided to be a woman. I really like the idea of earning less money on the job. I like the idea of being passed over for promotions. I like that I will be held more accountable for the care of my home and familial responsibilities than any of the men around me. I’m looking forward to having my expertise ignored. I like that I’ll more likely be treated as a lower-level assistant to male colleagues than an actual colleague. It should be a good experience to live as more of a target for domestic violence and abuse. It will be so freeing to let go of my bodily autonomy and place it in the hands of men who will not understand me. With so many voices in our society shifting back toward the attitudes of 70 years ago, I am really looking forward to setting aside all trappings of male privilege and power to live as a second class citizen whose voice and opinions are essentially irrelevant. Just look at all the advantages women have! They get t...
Read more