Some Thoughts on Biblical Literalism
The Bible is the word of God for Christians the world over, but as a man of the faith David Bird writes about the need to supplement our readings of the Bible with a greater appreciation of our influences in reading it. 
David Bird
The Bible has been the single most influential text in Western history and, in spite of a century of intensive secularization, the last decade has seen its influence exerted into the public realm with renewed vigour. What the Bible says and how its followers interpret it is important, whether you are a believer or not. Personally, I am a believer. I have been a Christian throughout my adult life. I can’t count the number of intelligent, thoughtful people I have met who aren’t at all embarrassed to say that they believe in the Bible. Literally. Every jot and tittle. For those who have only heard Biblical literalism used as an insult, all it really means is that you take the most obvious reading of a text as its primary meaning. If it says this happened it means that it happened. If it says something is either good or bad, then it is either good or bad. But it’s been my observation that no one really does this. Every reader, every Christian, brings to the Bible a huge number of largely unexamined preconceptions. Both about God and about the text they are reading.
Now I am not here to attack Biblical literalism. In fact, if you consider the definition above, you’ll see that most people, Catholic, Protestant, even casual readers assume the Bible says what it means to say. The difference is the weight they give what they read in shaping their Christian walk. At the heart of literalism is a strict application of the traditional Protestant principle Sola Scriptura, “by scripture alone”. Those who don’t consider themselves literalists usually see their traditions, rituals, and clergy as also being authoritative. As being, in essence, counterweights to what they read in the Bible. What I want to do here is flag the obvious. And I know it’s obvious. Everyone has preconceptions. But because it’s obvious, it’s often given little consideration and left unexamined. The truth is that when many say that they believe the Bible is the absolute Word of God, what they really mean is that the doctrines and teachings of their church, their favourite radio ministry, or even the opinions of their girlfriends at Curves gym are the absolute Word of God. The truth is that we are just as prone to counterbalance the Word with our traditions, rituals, and the authority of our ministers as our mainstream brethren.
A couple of years ago I finished a study of dispensationalism. I mentioned this to a woman in my church, a woman who has taught many Bible studies, including a great deal on dispensationalism. But I had to explain to her what dispensationalism was. She understood it simply as what the Bible had to say on the subject and not as an “ism”. Actually, dispensationalism is a great example of the kind of preconceptions that I am talking about. It is a teaching that dates back only to the middle of the 19th century, but it has become the standard way of reading the Bible for a great many people. If you see anything about the “End Times” there is a good chance it comes at its subject matter from a dispensationalist viewpoint. It is a doctrine that restructures the Bible to point towards the return of Christ, which is fine, but in doing so makes a lot of claims that deserve to be examined more closely than they are. Dispensationalism is also an example of another problem in studying the Bible. We often approach our Bible in a way that favours breadth over depth. We build up great chain references on subjects, like prophecy, without considering the arguments these chains are meant to support. Dispensationalism gained a lot of its early support through the Scofield Reference Bible, which equips proponents with a mountain of scripture verses which overwhelm as much as convince. Remember, there is a difference between being able to reiterate a doctrine and understanding it.
Not long ago I was talking to someone about baptism. Baptism is an interesting topic when it comes to Biblical literalism. Many in the evangelical world are proudly literalist but deny that baptism plays any role in salvation; it is simply an outward witness of their conversion. Now there are scriptures that, read literally, plainly contradict this. Acts 2:38 and 22:16, Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21. When the Bible says that baptism washes away sins, you’d think a literalist wouldn’t assume it was talking metaphorically. We were talking about someone else’s ideas on when the church’s teachings on baptism changed from the rite playing a salvific role, as witnessed in scripture, to being only an outward sign. Both my friend and the man we were discussing were under the impression that most churches had, at some point, gone from teaching it did play a role, to teaching it didn’t. Neither was aware that most churches do, in fact, teach that baptism plays some role in our salvation (though they may understand it differently). Like the woman who taught dispensationalism, they were steeped in a tradition, even though they had rejected it.
Ideally, if it weren’t for our preconceptions we’d all come away from the Bible with the same understanding. Okay, that’s a little too optimistic. After two thousand years of Christian exegesis even those who have had no instruction come to the Bible with some expectations. Many of our churches were born of a desire to reinvigorate our spiritual lives, to try and live out our lives as though we were writing the 29th chapter of the book of Acts. Its given us a habit of focusing on the present and we’ve absorbed that sense of immediacy as a part of our church culture. We don’t put our actions or doctrines in any historical context, because we don’t retain any memory of our history. We think the church we go to is the church as its always been. When I started this article the intention was to write about hold a close reading of scripture, a literal reading, if you will, did not limit our choices in the way many critics, and proponents, would have you believe, but the more I considered it the more my focus changed. I have often heard ministers saying that the more they learn of the Bible, the less they know. When you’re young you’ve got it all figured out, but now that you’re older you begin to appreciate just how much bigger it is than you are. I am not in the habit of using my article at subter as a platform to talk to other Christians, but as a third of the world’s population are Christians its likely the many of our readers have some connection, however tenuous, to some church or other. When you study the Bible try to go beyond learning your own doctrine and dig deeper. If what you discover isn’t what you expected, find out why. Maybe it is time to reevaluate what you’ve been taught, or maybe you’ll gain an even greater appreciation for those who laid down the foundations you are growing on. After all, just because we can’t all be right, that doesn’t mean you’re the one that’s wrong. Sound doctrine will endure.
Other Posts
