BIBLE SUNDAY July 16th 2006
Taking the Bible seriously... but not literally
INTRODUCTION
Isn't it amazing how a single phrase can change one's thinking entirely? It was March 1992 and I was a first-year mature student at Otago University. ('Mature' is a euphemism for old and nervous in this context.) The subject was Church History 101 and we were being taught by two of New Zealand's outstanding church historians: Peter Matheson and John Broadbent. The topic under scrutiny was The Early Church. And then it happened! A phrase was dropped into the lecture and the ripples have continued ever since:
'The Gospel authors were writing theology not history'.
Suddenly, decades of a strongly literalistic view of scripture splintered - or rather were bull-dozed down - as I began to realize that the Gospels were not twentieth-century history, as I had understood history, but the God-talk/the theology of those early faith communities. They were not chronological accounts of 'the life and times of Jesus Christ' as I had understood history - nor were they meant to be. What I had been trying to do for over two decades was to apply a twentieth-century interpretation of history to first and second century texts and, understandably, they did not fit. I had been taking them literally - at face value, asking the wrong questions and not even considering the theology and the context and the realities of life for those first faith communities for whom the Gospels were written.
Did this 'revelation' destroy my faith? Not at all-- it revitalized it! Suddenly I was looking at the message beneath or behind the story. The situation in life, the setting or context (Sitz im Leben in academic terms) became vitally important. It was as if I was reading the Bible again for the first time.
WHY HAD I BEEN A FUNDAMENTALIST?
Let me backtrack a little. Although I had been brought up a Methodist, by my early teens I had ceased to attend church regularly - a common enough story - then as a young immigrant in NZ I was invited along to a Pentecostal fundamentalist church... It was fantastic. This was the 'swinging sixties' - The Beatles, Flower People, the Jesus Marches. To be really radical, one became a spirit-filled born-again Christian.
'One Way' was the slogan. The only way. And the only way to understand scripture was to take it literally. 'If God said, I believe it. that settles it' was the bumper sticker and the song. Life was crystal clear, or black and white - whatever - it was dazzling simple and explosively transforming.
For almost twenty-five years this belief system sustained, nourished and challenged me. But during the last years of that quarter-of-a-century experience I had begun to read more widely, to interact with people who still called themselves 'Christian' but who saw scripture very, very differently. I began to doubt. I wanted to love God not only with my heart and soul but also my mind - and that's where.the Pentecostal Church for me had its limitations. I felt as if I was in religious prison
The decision to move to Dunedin from Christchurch and begin formal theological study at the so-called 'hot-bed of liberalism' aka Knox College, is another story in itself but the journey was taken and I (and my husband of 33 years) have never looked back.
WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon. It is not a return to what the early church believed! Here is the Wikipedia definition: 'Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.'
And it is that first statement of belief: the inerrancy of the Bible - part of which is having to take the bible literally - which has caused so many Christians to exit mainline churches in recent years. It's rather like Alice in Wonderland being asked to believe in too many impossible things before breakfast.
SO WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?
The alternative is to realize that scripture is made up of many forms or genres of writing: poetry, letters, proverbs, parables, apocalyptic imagery as well as historical narrative and genealogies - but to take them all as literal is an abuse of scripture. Neil Broom who writes for an evangelical magazine called Reality says: 'One must never assume that a literal rendering of Scripture is the only faithful interpretation.'
Marcus Borg, whose writings I admire a great deal, uses three adjectives to describe another way of interpreting scripture: historical, metaphorical and sacramental.
Historical means that we read scripture knowing that it is the history of two communities: ancient Israel and the early Christian movement and their relationship with and response to God. It was written by human beings for human beings telling of their encounters with God. It was not 'automatic writing' as described in Neville Shute's novel, No Highway.
Metaphorical is 'more than literal' - the message is more, much more, than the words used to describe it. Take for example the story of Jonah. The literal, historical story, the one that captures people's attention is that of a man and a fish. How tragic! Literalistic Commentaries spend pages explaining how it is possible that one can be swallowed by a large fish and survive - but is that really what Jonah is all about? NO! The story of the Book of Jonah is the story of God's love and compassion and mercy being extended far beyond the borders and confines of Israel - even into the heart of enemy territory. It is a story Israel told against itself. I'm constantly surprised it's even in the Bible!
Sacramental is the means by which God is mediated to us. In Borg's words, 'A sacrament is a vehicle or vessel of the sacred'. Through the pages of the Bible we can 'meet with God'. But literalism is not the only way to understand and interpret scripture. We have other lenses through which to look and encounter God. We can also encounter God in nature and in moments of 'epiphany'.
CONCLUSION
It is possible to take the bible very, very seriously and yet not literally. Literalism is a reduction of God's Word, not a magnifying of it. Literalism becomes more a task of trying to prove that the Bible is historically accurate rather than taking heed of the message it is trying to convey. The journey from literalism to metapho.r and sacrament is never easy. It is a painful process of unlearning and relearning. Eventually. though, maybe we can echo the eloquent words of TS Eliot in 'Little Gidding' from The Four Quartets:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Books I found helpful: The Heart of Christianity and Reading the Bible Again for the First TIme, both by Marcus Borg. They can be ordered through Epworth Books: NZ freephone 0800 755 355 Email:
CLICK HERE to return to Worship page
| 
