With the Bible read through in full swing, I figured I should do a post about taking the Bible literally.
Generally speaking, Christians are categorised into groups, according to how similar they are in their beliefs. These classifications can come in different forms, for example the terms idealsists; preterists; futurists and historicists would be used to categorise Christians according to their understanding of prophecy.
Classification of people is almost always an exercise in stereotyping, whether intended or not, and you’re bound to find people who don’t really fit any group, or are vague enough to fit into any group, some people can be very precise about their beliefs, some of which will fit them firmly into one camp, and others that will put them firmly into another camp. This said, let me start with the
stereotyping classification. 😉
Christianity is broken down into two major camps Catholic and Protestant. (This is a serious simplification, so if you’re orthodox don’t get upset.) The orthodox denominations bear enough similarity to Catholicism for us to include them together for our purposes here. Catholics (and the others I’ve unfairly bundled in with them) believe the Bible and Tradition serve as the two great pillars on which to build their faith and doctrine. Protestants on the other hand grew out of the reformation which had the principle of sola scriptura, or the Bible only. For this discussion I’m going to focus on the second group, and their classification, so I get to my actual topic before you get bored and go elsewhere.
Evangelical protestantism can be classified basically into fundamentalists and liberals (you also get progressive Christianity, which seems to be quite liberal). Both of these terms are swear words, if you say them to the wrong person. Some people don’t want to be called liberal, due to political overtones, even if their religious views are liberal. Some people who hold very fundamentalist views don’t want the title as it conjures up images of people taking their religion so far as to stoning others, or stuff like that.
In general, these two groups are often defined according to how literally they take the Bible. You wouldn’t really think of a theistic evolutionist as a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists generally take a hard line on things like anti-smoking, pro-life, six day creation, homosexuality, tattoos, and so on, because this is how they understand the Bible and there’s no compromise. This is the group I need to focus on, since people often straw man them due to the idea that they take the Bible literally.
Nobody, not even that nutty crowd of us who believe in keeping the Sabbath, takes everything in the Bible literally. Normally, a contextual reason will be given for not taking something literally, and sometimes a bad reason is given. The point is, most Christians who would be classified as Fundamentalists don’t believe in stoning people to death, or smashing Iraqi children into rocks head first. They have quite good reasons for not believing these thing to be virtuous.
There are times when the Bible is simply reporting a human’s belief at the time. Times when someone’s emotions are expressed as they plead with God, and their own ideas will dominate and God’s opinions on the matter aren’t clear, a good example is Job and his friends, who stumble through the story with no knowledge of the devil’s role, or what is really happening. There are also times when words come directly from God and seem to be scientifically incorrect, yet can normally be explained within the context of people’s understanding, thus God isn’t overly interested in taxonomy, so may classify things according to how they are understood and linguistic categorisation, not directly according to a modern scientific taxonomical system.
When God speaks on issues of morality, then we need to think quite carefully. Food; shaving; planting; cattle breeding; clothing etc, all need to be examined in line of purpose and context. Questions need to be asked: why did God have this law? Does the New Covenant mitigate it? Often the second question here is not asked sincerely, and people will write off Old Testament stuff as Old/Mosaic Covenant without giving it much thought. Laws on things like food; tattoos; beard trimming and hair care; fabric mixing; crop sowing; livestock breeding and land management all probably had reasons motivating them.
I was once told that the reasons for God having laws against eating certain foods are completely irrelevant to the discussion as to whether they still stand or not, because they are Old Testament, and Old Covenant. Somehow this person defended corporal punishment because of reasons they saw as still being valid, and wasn’t just willing to rule it out as Old Testament. The point here isn’t to convince you corporal punishment and eating pork or lobster are wrong, it’s to show how easy it is to apply different reasoning to different things in the Bible to support our own biases. This is one reason we need to acknowledge that none of us take the Bible literally and check to see if the validity of our interpretations is correct, before running off and condemning everyone else.
Taking everything in the Bible literally could lead to a seriously distorted view of the world, serious self mutilation or any number of problematic things, and thus we should read our Bibles with care, and in prayer.
What do you think? What have I missed? Who did I upset?