When I was in high school, I spent a couple years as a fundamentalist. To be honest, apart from the horror I caused my parents and the damage I did to my friendships with “unbelievers,” I am in many ways happy that I had this time. Not only did my close-minded bibliolatry (that is, worshiping the Bible) lead me to the kinds of probing questions that now drive my career in academic biblical studies (in many ways, I am often disproving assumptions I once ardently held), but it also gives me an “insider’s” point of reference for speaking of those we call fundies. One point that often confused me in those days was the need to read the Bible “literally.” My pastor mentioned that we need to read the Bible “literally” rather than “allegorically.” Apparently, “liberals” (i.e., any person who was not a fundamentalist) read the Bible “allegorically.”
Hmmm. I thought to myself: Maybe I misunderstand what an allegory is. Is it not a story in which each character, figure, or event could function as a representation of some abstract idea? Perhaps some “liberal” Christians read certain texts symbolically, such as the resurrection as a symbol of some kind of hope, rather than a historical reality. But allegorically? This is an allegorical interpretation:
The table made from acacia wood is the Holy Scripture composed out of the bold words and deeds of the holy fathers. . . . This [table] has length, because it suggests to us perseverance in religious undertakings; width, because it suggests the amplitude of charity; height, because it suggests the hope of the everlasting reward. (Bede, On the Tabernacle [Holder trans.], 21)
That didn’t seem to be what “liberals” were doing. Indeed, I left fundamentalism when I started studying the Bible academically as an undergraduate, and after making the shift, I have never taken a text “allegorically” that I didn’t think was supposed to be taking allegorically. Revelation, for example, has allegorical elements. Many parables are something close to allegories. But, after my transition, what set me apart from my fundamentalist brothers and sisters was my desire to locate the biblical texts within their own social, cultural, and historical environment. In Paul’s interpretation of the Greco-Roman “household code” in Ephesians, for example, I saw something quite revolutionary. Paul was not going to “rock the boat” and change the lingo for headship and submission in marriage, but instead he redefined it. What does it mean for a husband to be the “head” of his wife? To love her sacrificially . . . not to “tell her what to do” or “make the tough decisions” or “be the spiritual leader.” The verse 5:21 sets up the passage: Submit to one another. He doesn’t need to spend much time saying how wives submit to their husbands because this is an accepted cultural reality. He does spend some time, though, showing how being a “head” in marriage can actually mean submission. So, which reading is more “literal”? Mine? Or the endless horrid wedding sermons on this passage that talk about the husband being the “spiritual leader” of the household? Actually, I feel that my reading more accurately considers what the text “literally” meant for the author and his readers/hearers. My fundamentalist friends understand the “literal” meaning (or the “plain sense”) of the passage to be how these particular words sound today.
Whomever we decide is more “literal,” the fact remains that “literalness” is not the main distinguishing characteristic here. The main difference is how willing one is to contextualize the words of the Bible within their original situation. True, many fundamentalists work with the original context and do scholarship in this area, but usually (forgive me for my broad generalizations) with the intent of proving their understanding of the “literal” meaning is correct. So, let’s drop this whole litmus test of who “reads the Bible literally.” This is a remnant of the Protestants reacting against what they saw as convoluted allegorical interpretations of parts of the Roman Catholic Church of the time (something like what I quoted above) [Note: I'm not dissing Catholics here]. But the dichotomy has changed! I read literal texts literally. I read symbolic texts symbolically. I try to make sense of the evidence that we have as best I can, without trying to “prove” some particular doctrine. I’m not claiming that I am without an ideology or that I am some saintly or infallible interpreter of the biblical text. No, but I try to be willing to let the biblical text and its environs challenge my ideology, to let the text read me. And I think that’s the difference.
Permitting all goes as planned, I will be taking my third doctoral seminar next quarter while at Fuller for my MDiv. It is a class on the “History of New Testament Scholarship” taught by Donald Hagner. That’s why I’m thinking about interpretation these days. It strikes me that the study of the history of scholarship is the interpretation of interpretation. It is difficult to wrap my mind around how many interpretive layers we have to deal with to think about the Bible, in its many forms. I think we would all do well to remember just how much interpretation is going on and hope that it gives us a little humility as we try to be our own interpreters.
13 Comments
December 19, 2007 at 2:45 am
Very thoughtful reflection on your experience. I likewise grew up in a fundamentalist church and have come to appreciate the seriousness with which I was taught to approach Scripture. You are right that the “plain meaning” is key. We need to resist the temptation to shoehorn Scripture into a set of fundamentalist doctrines or liberal socio/political assertions and let it speak for itself.
I’ve read some of Hagner’s works and he’s quite good. I hope he’s as good in the classroom as he is on the page.
December 19, 2007 at 6:36 am
You might be interested in a related argument I posted earlier this week
December 19, 2007 at 8:53 am
Thanks, Pistol. I did focus on a fundamentalist reading here (Eph 5), but on the other end of things, I reflected some of the discussion from SBL on J. Denny Weaver’s book at SBL in another post.
Thanks for the link, Doug. I did see your post there and I was inspired by this whole inerrancy discussion in biblioblogging, but it was a little late and I didn’t read it closely when I got it. I was happy to give it another read. It’s another helpful reminder that the “literal” language has problems.
December 26, 2007 at 8:22 am
Interesting post (and blog, for that matter). I too came out of IFBdom and like you, value it for the perspective it has provided. I like what you say about letting the text change us . . . i think we forget that God’s word as a sword is not as a weapon for us to wield against others but as an instrument of grace to bring about his transforming work in our lives.
December 27, 2007 at 9:28 am
[...] humilty.How does our perspective change as we deconstruct, as we pull back the curtain. Patrick McCullough’s post illustrates this process. As he was willing to deconstruct some of the false certitudes of the [...]
December 27, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I wonder how Jesus viewed the words he spoke and the life he lived.
Did he view his message as fundamental to man’s salvation or did he intend for it to be de-constructed until it was acceptable in academic circles–pulled and tugged from its simple but live giving meaning for the benefit of those who feel free to smilingly demean others who view the scriptures from a fundamentalists perspective?
Today we see a drive to make the gospel of Jesus Christ relevant, acceptable to our culture, when in fact the gospel is intended to be the very culture in which a people live. How can one seek to make the word of God anything other than what it is, the word of life?
Of course, what I’ve written is, fundamental.
December 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thanks, dianne. I couldn’t agree more.
And thank you for your thoughts, Zevgoldman. I am certainly open to dialogue on my blog. I’d like to respond. First, I agree that the Gospel is not “acceptable to our culture.” To read the revolutionary message of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in today’s culture, one quickly realizes how unpopular his message is and always will be amidst those who have not been revolutionized by Jesus’ teaching. Please do not confuse my thoughts with those who wish to make the Gospel message “palatable” to our culture (though I’m not entirely against pointing out its relevance–note that I do not say make it relevant. I do not have to “make” it anything. It already is profoundly relevant.)
I would like to also respond to your question about how Jesus viewed his words and life. You have set up a false dichotomy here, an either/or that need not be. You have said that Jesus viewed his own words and life (of course, we cannot know his intent for sure) either “as fundamental to man’s salvation” (I assume you would also include the salvation of women here) or “to be de-constructed until it was acceptable in academic circles–pulled and tugged from its simple but live giving meaning for the benefit of those who feel free to smilingly demean others who view the scriptures from a fundamentalists perspective.” I think there are some other options.
Let me consider your latter option, because it seems that you are accusing me of such deconstruction. Please correct me if I’m wrong. First, as I suggested, I am not interested in making Jesus’ words “acceptable” for any circle, academic or otherwise. Secondly, I am not “smilingly demeaning” fundamentalists. True, I disagree with the fundamentalist perspective on the Bible, but I do not take joy in demeaning fundamentalists. I have many fundamentalist friends. As I said, I once was a fundamentalist. On the contrary, I am saddened by those who believe the Bible to be “simple.” There are some “simple” ideas in the Bible, but many texts are quite complicated (I don’t think Romans or Revelation is “easy”). A collection of texts so diverse, written over such a huge span of time, reflecting different historical situations can hardly be uncomplicated. I believe when people say the message of the Bible is simple, it demeans the tremendous work of God among the people of God over centuries. It does not recognize the rich depth of meaning that can be found within the texts. Finally, I would also challenge your suggestion that only fundamentalists can find life-giving meaning in Scripture.
Going back to the root of your question (Jesus’ intent in his life and teachings), you did leave one important option out. I believe that Jesus intended for his hearers to change their lives and model his teaching as his disciples (e.g., Mt 7:24). There are others, of course. I don’t think we should break it down to either a simple fundamentalist reading or some “destructive” academic reading. Nuances abound.
December 28, 2007 at 5:30 pm
In some areas of current Christian thought the idea exists that Jesus was a radical and his message is revolutionary. I submit that either aspect of the idea is not only incorrect but dangerous in both a spiritual and a physical sense.
Jesus Christ represents for us the perfect example of Godly obedience and service. Whereas, Adam was both a radical and a revolutionary through his rejection of God’s established order for mankind.
To present Jesus as a radical may be edgy but it fails to demonstrate Jesus as the norm that God desires of his creation. And, the very use of the terms radical and revolutionary in reference to Jesus is provocative to many Christians, primarily the young, and to the world.
This occurs because each term denotes disobedience, though not all Christians embrace the terms in that fashion, but many do. However, to the world these terms clearly define a person for whom disobedience is his primary human action.
The Jesus who was hanged on the cross for my sins wasn’t disobedient. He was the example to a radical, revolutionary,disobedient world of perfect Godly obedience.
Jesus’ life was simple in comparison to the lives that people from most Western societies currently live. And, his message is more simple than was his life. It matters not the time span during which the scriptures were written or the complexity of the syntax of the times or the author, the written word is inspired of God–so inspired that it cleaves the heart of the most uneducated or handened man from his sins.
Man is not enticed to salvation through the education or learnedness of a speaker. Rather he is called by the Holy Spirit to a redeeming experience with the Son of God.
It is this redeeming experience that I find devalued and questioned by many of my brothers who have achieved advanced degrees from some of our most esteemed seminaries and universities where the deconstruction of the message of salvation is practiced by some professors of questionable character.
Don’t imagine that I only endorse a man, a bible, a large mule and a dusty road. If such is the case I accept the mininster as he is but if he sets in an office papered with multiple advanced degrees and he proclaims that man is saved only through the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ he is a well educated man who has held to the simple truth of Jesus’ words.
Your words about the rich depth of meaning of the texts is illustrative of a barb by which some of us become hooked. The literary and poetic beauty of the scriptures is truly awe inspiring and complex–well worth the time spent in their study when they speak to the heart. None the less the beauty and complexity of the texts can become more than they are–a diversion from the simple fundamental message of salvation, if they are mined for meaning, texture or substance that springs from the mind and not the Word.
You may assume from my word usage that I am somewhat older than you. If so you are correct. I have had the opportunity to see many waves of gospel wash over the body of Christ and each wave vanished in the rising tide of a new wave. Each vanquished wave carried with it the unsecured hopes of people who’s trust was set on the sands of the complex instead of the solid rock. Today’s wave is something for another time.
December 28, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Dear zevgoldman, as I mentioned, I am interested in dialogue. I am not, however, interested in ad hominem arguments. You suggest that I am wrong because I am young. When we focus on someone’s characteristics rather than their argument, we can find faults anywhere. As a young person can be characterized as foolish and naive, an old person could be seen as stubborn and stuck in their ways. I make no such assumptions about you either way. Your age is irrelevant to the argument. You suggest that professors who disagree with you have “questionable characters” and that I am using the term “revolutionary” because I’m enticed by its “edginess.” On the former, I will simply repeat my distaste for ad hominem arguments. On the latter, I will just let you know that you are wrong.
I don’t care whether I’m “edgy.” You think revolutionary means disobedient. Here too, you are technically incorrect. The term refers to “newness” or “change.” I agree that Jesus was completely obedient to God. I think it is his obedience to God that is revolutionary, that is, it is a marked change from the way of the “world.”
In your first comment, you mentioned that people “smilingly demean” fundamentalists. Well, it seems that you have demeaned your opponents with your focus on their character and youth. If you wish to continue responding here, I ask you to refrain from doing so. Please focus on making a good argument. Thank you.
December 29, 2007 at 7:10 am
If you would re-read my post you will find that it doesn’t address you. It addresses a present day current of thought in the Christian world that I feel is misguided. And, I addressed a particular source from which that current emanates. Furthermore, your age was never addressed. But, having had worked for years in youth ministry I found young people very sensitive to the matter. So, your response wasn’t surprising.
If adherence to your individual dogma is required to post to your blog I will not further violate your wishes.
Thank you for your time.
December 29, 2007 at 8:46 am
zevgoldman, I fear you’ve misunderstood me. Let me clarify. I certainly do not wish everyone hold to my “dogma” (how boring that would be) but would appreciate if they (as I said) “make a good argument” rather than focus on the personal characteristics of those who disagree with them.
You did not explicitly say “you are too young to understand.” And I did not say that you explicitly stated as much. Rather I said that you “suggested” this. I was thinking of the definition of that term, “to bring before a person’s mind indirectly or without plain expression.”
You say “your age was never addressed,” but I would differ with you here. You said in your earlier post, “You may assume from my word usage that I am somewhat older than you.” You have mentioned me twice here: (1) you are suggesting that I might make “assumptions” about your age from your post (I did not) and (2) that you are older than me. You then speak of “tides” of opinions rising and falling, which you have had the opportunity to witness because of your age. The implication here is that my point of view is one of these rising tides that will fall.
Further, I’m not sure how your words wouldn’t apply to mine. I spoke of Jesus’ message as being revolutionary. You responded by speaking of the dangers of calling Jesus a revolutionary. Again, you did not explicitly state that I am “guilty of a dangerous trend” but you’ve implied as much. You’ve mentioned “a present day current of thought” that seems to be replying to what I have said (and thus including me in this current of thought).
Finally, let me be a little more clear about my “youth.” I am closer to 30 than high school. Your reference to your “youth ministry” experience and not being “surprised” at my response seems a little misplaced. I don’t imagine you’ve had many 30 year olds in your youth ministry.
In your last response, you have again made an assumption about my “youth.” You say that “young people” are “very sensitive” on the matter of “age.” You suggest that I exhibited such sensitivity in my response. Yes, I am sensitive, but not about age. If you read my comment, I think you will see that my main concern is that you refrain from ad hominem arguments. I am sensitive to such arguments because I feel they are uncivil and unproductive. As I stated before, age is irrelevant to me here. I’m interested in a good argument.
Now, this discussion is getting a little too far from the topic at hand and I may delete it because of its distance from this particular post.
January 1, 2008 at 3:24 am
I think the question about how to read the Bible is very important (obviously!). The answer, I think, is trying to discern the purpose of the author and how the message might have been received by its intended audience. These things are notoriously difficult, as has been made more than clear in the last 50 years or so. However, it is highly doubtful that any writers of the Bible intended to write history as we know it, theology as we know it, or pure guidebooks for evangelism, missions, etc. We may be able to distill history, theology, data for evangelism and missions, etc from the Bible, but to assume that the authors intended these things is amiss.
Generally, it seems to me, that the authors of the Bible (especially the NT) were addressing issues of some sort when writing and understanding these issues can help us comprehend the text of the Bible itself. While a statement may seem historical, theological, etc, it is better to understand its rhetorical force and its place in the larger argument of a particular author than to form propositions based on it.
The wrench in the machine comes when it appears that the earliest reception of the text is actually as history, theology, etc. However, our earliest clear examples of said reception generally date 50+ years after the penning of the documents of the NT (I don’t know as much about the OT in this regard). Thus, we have no access to how the original audience may have received the texts of the Bible. I believe that we can assume that the issues that the authors were hoping to address (factions in 1 Cor, “Judaizers” in Gal, etc) would be clear enough to the communities who were dealing with these very problems.
All of that to say this: generally reading the Bible “literally” means not doing what I just outlined. “Literally” usually means mining the texts for historical and theological propositions. Such actions rip texts from their contexts, usually impose anachronistic constructs on top of them, and generally do a disservice to the message of the gospel.
January 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Thanks for the comment, Matt. On your last paragraph there… I think this is the definition of “literally” that I’m trying to challenge. I think it is commonly used to mean what you describe, but I think this is a misuse of the word. I guess I’m trying to say that when a fundamentalist asks me whether I read the Bible “literally,” I would need them to define “literal.” Because if we understand the word “literal,” well, literally… then it means something different than they think it does. I believe modern biblical scholars do indeed read the Bible literally (as the dictionary defines it).