So are moderates, like me, just cherry picking? I don't think we are and here's why...
There are two ways to read the Bible one as a law book and the other as a story. If you read it as a law book then all bits are as valid as each other and should not contradict each other. On the other hand if you read it like a story then characters and ways of doing things will change. For example, if I was to "read" the film the Matrix like a law book then I could say that the character Neo was a clueless, nervous computer programmer. I could prove this by playing the first 10 minutes of the film. If you have seen the film you'll know that this is true but only the start of Neo's journey where he ends up saving the world. The same is true of the Bible, which is the story of God's relationship with humanity.
In the Bible the climax of this story is Jesus and I call myself a follower of Jesus rather than a follower of the Bible. This doesn't mean that I ignore the Bible or cherry pick the nice bits rather it means that I read the Bible through the lens of Jesus. So, when I hear God promise Israel a king I think of Jesus as servant king rather than some all powerful ruler. When I see a Xn protesting about homosexuals being given to the right to a marriage ceremony I don't join them because I just can't see Jesus doing that. It means that I see Jesus Sermon on the Mount as more important than the rules in Leviticus given to Israel while they are in the desert. If two things in the Bible contradict or, something goes against my gut instinct of what is right, Jesus is who I turn to. Jesus the climax of the story of God and humanity.
Cherry picking and fence sitting I don't think I am. I just try to fight for the things that Jesus saw as important. Things that bring good news to the poor, things that release those who are captives help those who are blind see and end oppression. (Luke 4:18)
4 comments:
And the non-literalist tradition in Christianity stretches as far back as Augustine. Literalism is a new phenomenon, relatively speaking: a predominantly American phenomenon, bound up in the 19th century North-South political divide that manifests itself today in the blue state-red state divide.
Hey Arthur,
I guess I try to think not so much in terms of literal and non literal. I try to balance what's is actually in the text with it’s historical context, what the text might have meant to the original writer and readers and what prejudices I might bring to it. Sounds a bit messy but I like to think of it as reading intelligently. The Bible is 2000 year plus old documents. So anyone who thinks they can just pick up a small snippet and straight forwardly apply it to some 21st century issue is pretty naive.
Chris
I think there is a big difference between literalism and literary criticism. The first can result in the "naive application of a small snippet straight forwardly".
The second is the recognition that the text has a context and a literary form (eg prophecy, story, poem etc) that effects its interpretation and subsequent application. Literary criticism has a long history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism)
Interestingly, the NT writers often quote the OT in ways that seem completely out of context ... but they do so in the light of the revelation of Jesus ... they are followers of Jesus, not of the Bible :-)
Hey Mark,
Thanks for introducing the term "literary criticism" to the debate. I think often people either think people read the bible literalisticly or just metaphorically and any thing apart from that is cherry picking.
Thanks for posting!
Chris
Post a Comment