Bible Question (short): Authority, without literalism? |
Question (full): Bible Literalism? One of the beautiful things about Christ's incarnation is that God tangably entered history. "God with us." But history is complicated, and simplistic readings of the Bible fail to honour the text. I love the Bible, and meet God in the text. But I think its authority does not require literalism. There is metaphor, poetry, symbol. The complicated part is that there is also history. Gretchin Hull has a good book about gender and the bible, and she notes that the bible is sometimes an "accurate description of a falsehood." And even the most literal interpretations surely take some account of context. Look at the Old Testament battles for Canaan, where God tells the army to massacre the entire population ---- The idea is to maintain purity of the faith instead of mingling with pagan cultures. (Deut 20:16-18) But that certainly looks like genocide, from today's standpoint. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fullfill it --- that not the slightest stroke of the pen would be removed from the law (Matthew 5:18). Do we keep all the Old Testament laws? But do we consider ourselves to be honouring Jesus' words? How can we read the sacred text in a way that is thoughtful, takes account of context, and simultaneously honours the scripture as authoritative? |