The Heresy of Literalism

I'm auditing a class at Murray State that examines early church history and "Alternative Christianities."  During the course of the class, students make presentations on an alternative.  I made one last week on Biblical Literalism as something differing from traditional Christianity.  This blog entry is based on that presentation.

---

There are obvious contradictions in scripture. There are contradictions in timing, placement and genealogies in the Old Testament.   A cursory comparison of the four Gospels shows a difference of opinion on when certain events took place in Jesus' ministry (or whether they occurred at all) and who was present.  At one point, Tatian tried to smooth over the differences in the Gospels by combining them into one account called the Diatessaron.  It was used for several decades in some churches, but eventually discarded as not being as good a witness as the "Four-square Gospels" and their differing points of view.

Pre-enlightenment critics noticed these inconsistencies.  When St. Jerome translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin in the 300s, he remarked that there appeared to be parts of the Gospels that might be original, and other parts that might be later add-ons.  It was apparent to him from the difference in Greek.  The church father Origen, commenting on these differences, pointed out that the purpose of scripture was spiritual instruction, not conveyance of facts, "The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in material falsehood."  Medieval interpreters believed that Scripture existed on four levels, the Plain, Allegorical, Tropological and Anagogical senses. (Too much detail to go into here.)  Considering this long tradition of more-than-literal interpretation, how did we get to statements of factual infallibility, such as the American 1978 Chicago Statement, which reads, "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit?"

It all started with Martin Luther and his doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Luther wanted to move authority back in the church to that of the early witness of scripture to combat the abuses he saw committed in the church in the name of tradition.  Luther was not a literalist - far from it - but the placement of scripture for the first time as the pre-eminent source of authority laid a basis for later development.  Moody and Darby in the 1800s contribute to this heightening, but it is not until the early 1900s that a true doctrine of scriptural infallibility emerges.

The term fundamentalist is a self-applied term that is derived from the collection of essays, The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth written between 1910 and 1915.  The first of the fundamentals is the literal inerrancy of scripture.  The formulation of a doctrine of textual inerrancy can be found here - it is a 20th-Century American innovation.

I maintain that Fundamentalists (abbreviated FD afterwards) and so-called Secular Humanists (abbreviated SH afterwards) have world views that are formed on the same Enlightenment foundations.  After some thought, I think there are five principles that FD and SH share in common:

1. There is a knowable, absolute truth.
2. Reality is factual, not narrative.
3. Everything can be distilled down to a Boolean (yes or no) argument.
4. Any answer can be discerned by a test.
5. There is only one valid Epistemology.

I believe that there is an absolute truth, and that truth is God.  However, I am convinced that human beings cannot encompass all of the truth of God.  Both FD and SH believe that humans can ultimately discern the full truth although they vary in their source of authority.

Both SH and FD look at the world as a series of facts.  Their versions of history look like a list of people, places and dates.  This ignores the way humanity has traditionally experienced reality - through the medium of story.  For both FD and SH, story has no value because it is not factually accurate.  For most of human history, story (which conveys our deepest values) has been more important than factual accuracy.  Jesus used parables to teach because he understood the power of story intrinsically, but I have heard people claim that the parables were actual, factual events that Jesus was relating.  To think in this way is to vastly reduce the power of the Bible to inspire and instruct.

There is no gray for either FD or SH.  Everything either works or does not, is true or is not, is always permissible or never permissible.

For both, all propositions can be reduced to a test that will determine the boolean answer.  The difference is the Epistemology (way of knowing.)  For SH, the Epistemology is the Scientific Method.  If it cannot be proven by scientific test, it is not true.  For FD, the test is the Bible.  If it exists in the Bible, it is true, otherwise it is false.

In short, the difference between Fundamentalism and Secular Humanism is the source from which they draw their truth.  Is it from observation or from a book?  Otherwise, their methods and assumptions are identical.  Of course, these two extremes are caricatures.  Most people who might fall into these groups are not that extreme.

I'm not the first to notice the similarities between Fundamentalism and a exclusively rationalist scientific view.  Theologian Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse has remarked that literalism is to be regarded as "the bastard child of science and religion."  It seems like the elevation of a text, even the Bible, to such a high level borders on Idolatry.  The Bible consists of the Word of God as inspired in the Gospel Writers, but is not the Word in the highest sense.  According to John, Jesus is the Word.  The Bible points to God, but is not divine itself.  To maintain the divinity of scripture stretches the place of the Bible so much that it begins to obscure other parts of the Gospel witness, most notably the role of the Holy Spirit in the church.  In 1980 the pastoral theologian Urban T. Holmes observed flatly that "Literalism is a modern heresy-perhaps the only heresy invented in modern times."

There are many responses to literalism. Marcus Borg  in The Heart of Christianity asserts that there is an "Earlier" and an "Emerging" understanding of scripture.   I don't buy that.  The Christianity that Borg identifies as "earlier" follows a literal interpretation and is a new heresy - one with a less than century of pedigree.  To turn to an interpretation that is more narrative-based and respects pre-enlightenment exegesis is not something new emerging, but instead a return to a more traditional interpretation.

Dr. Kevin Lewis writes, “The combative answer: there are better, more legitimate, less blasphemous ways than (literalism) to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word is to be affirmed without the heresy of divinizing each word of Scripture as though it fell from heaven a perfect expression of the mind of God. The drive for certainty in a skeptical age is more dangerous to our faith than we might suppose. It leads away from "faith" to a calculating "belief" not satisfied with the promises of God but restless to prove, verify, and guarantee those promises with scientific precision.”

David+

---

This blog entry is available as an audio item on the AskThePriest Podcast.

Comments

[Jared Cramer]

Thanks for the thought provoking comments. One of the key theological problems, for me, is the way that literalism has a tendency to devolve into bibliolatry.

[*Christopher]

Fr. David,

This is an excellent piece. You have identified two points I've often spouted off without backing them up: literalism is a product of the Enlightenment such that fundamentalism is quite modern and that sola Scriptura was mistaken in its ends (Trent was correct to be wary).

Note that this need not just be applied to Holy Writ, there are folks who read dogma and patristics through this lens as well, such that "Father" and "Son" mean G-d is male, masculine, etc.

[Jennifer]

I just happened to stumble across your blog site, and I must say that I disagree. I may or may not agree that fundamentalism or literalism is a product of enlightenment ideas, but thats beside the point. Where I have trouble accepting your argument is my conscience as a Christian. How can one accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (literally, God-breathed) but not accept every word of it as literal truth? It is only confusing to argue that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God but not agree that it is absolute truth. To regard the Bible in this "absolutist" way is not commiting idolatry, it is accepting God's Word as God's Word. The way He meant it to be. If we, as the body of Christ, de-value God's Word by not believing in its literal and absolute truth, then we have lost our foundation for ministry. Why should we preach the Word then, or live according to its decrees, or furthermore, even believe in the literal death and resurrection of Christ? In my opinion, to throw out the God-breathed truth of the Bible is to throw out a huge part of real Christianity. Unfortunately, I believe it is the cause of many of the watered-down churches we have today, and I don't believe it is bringing glory to God.

[FrSimmons]

So you are willing to accept that the earth is flat (multiple references to the four corners of the earth) that the stars are placed on a dome above the sky that has salt water outside of it, and that God creates rain by opening sluice gates in said dome? (Creation and Noah stories)You accept that mountains burst into song and that trees clap their hands? (Is 55:12) You think when Jesus tells a parable, he is actually relaying the story of something that actually happened, rather than using fiction to make a religious point?

How do you explain differences in timing and geography between the four Gospels? If scripture was dictated directly by God, would it not be a singular account instead of four differing ones?

You are welcome to such opinions, but they are recent notions, completely unknown to Christians for most of our history. Until recently, Christianity never made the claim that God dictated scripture directly to humanity. In fact, one of our historical criticisms of Islam has been the idea that Holy Scripture (The Koran in this case) is dictated by God.

Christian Faith is not about belief in a book - It is about belief in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is a witness to that person, but not that person. To elevate the Bible as the Word of God to the same status as the actual Word, Jesus Himself, is in my opinion no better than fashioning a golden calf.

That does not mean that the Bible cannot be our primary source of authority. It attests to the Word in Jesus Christ through the witness of the Gospel writers. However, we need to acknowledge that the authors, no matter how inspired, were human beings and subject to their human culture and beliefs. We need to engage the scripture on a deeper level than a simplistic reading that does not take into account the culture it was written in, the translational problems that exist, and the culture we are reading it in.

David+

[Toby]

David,

I understand your position, but I must disagree with your assumption that God could not do the things that are discribed in scripture; that is what you are saying. I do agree that the bible should not be held equal to God but scripture is very clear that it is the word of God and therefore should be read with reverence, humility, and obedience. I also do not agree that there are mistakes in scripture. Scripture must be interprited by scripture. If your interprit scripture with reason, then reason becomes your final authority. If you interprit scripture with science, then science is your altimate authority. Most of the issues that you raised with concern to "mistakes" can be very easily cleared up with just a little of time and effort in the scripture. I would suggest that you seek out Dr. Grudem at Pheniox Seminary and author of Systematic Theology. I certain that you will be quite surprised at what you might be enlightened to. That is of course if you haven't already decided that your right. blessings

[frsimmons]

I would submit that it is simply impossible for a person to interpret scripture "neutrally." While you and I would probably both interpret scripture to see slavery as wrong, a cogent defense from scripture was made by antebellum slave owners. While you and I would probably say that home mortgages are OK for a Christian to have, for 1500 years almost all Christian authorities said that ANY lending at interest was wrong.

We always read scripture through the lens of our culture and experience. Reason helps us get around these cultural blinders. To say that your interpretation is "neutral" is simply to insist that your cultural assumptions are correct - even if they kill the spirit of the scripture.

I use the word "contradictions." A "mistake" would indicate that Scripture is by nature a scientific, unitive whole, rather than a collection of divinely-inspired texts. That is a relatively new ad unorthodox way of thinking about scripture. Even the word "Bible" means "Library." If God had desired a unitive whole without contradictions, we would have only had one Gospel account.

Narrative, by it's nature, can be true DESPITE contradictions.

David+

[James]

One of the many problems with not taking Scripture literally is that it can therefore not act as our authority and therefore Christ has no way to exercise His authority over us as a church apart from direct revelation. Who then is receiving this direct revelation? Churches that believe in the fallibility of scripture would have us believe that councils and synods decide what is true revelation and then relay it to the lay people. No thank you. Scripture is my authority because it is breathed out by God Himself and I trust Him. If we have to put our trust in human institutions and organizations to hear from God then we're in trouble. If you see inconsistencies and contradiction in the Bible, it's because you want to see them. Because God isn't sovereign in your life and possibly because you are not born again and thus do not have the Holy Spirit to guide you. You need to repent of your misleading and heretical teaching and trust Christ. I'm afraid for you if you continue to steer people down this path of demoting God's Holy Word to just cute stories written by ignorant half breeds who had no concept of reality.

[frsimmons]

James,

I agree that scripture is authoritative and divinely inspirited, but the question always is, which scriptures? You seem to assume that the Bible as we know it always existed, but we know that which books made it in and which were left out were decisions made by the church. The canon of scripture was not decided for hundreds of years after Christ, and even now there is division over the status of the Apocrypha, which was a part of everyone's Bible until Martin Luther unilaterally removed it for protestants.

Therefore, claiming that "The Bible" always trumps decisions of the church is an contradiction, since the composition of the Bible WAS a decision made by the church (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

If you wish to follow a literalist approach, that's your right, but understand that it's a completely new idea in the 20th Century and does not reflect the way people viewed scripture in previous times, including the time of Jesus. Indeed, literalism's complete mistrust of the Holy Spirit in the process of interpretation is what is heretical.

Your phrase "Just Cute Stories" illustrates the point that all of us as moderns are told that "story" is less important than "fact." This comes from the enlightenment, not from Christianity. The fact that Jesus used "Cute Stories" (Parables) to convey his deepest teachings should give us pause when we condemn the value of narrative and instead insist on a literalistic view of scripture.

My trust is in Jesus Christ, of whom the Bible is a witness. But the Bible is NOT God.

David+

[Becky Robbins-Penniman]

David-
Phyllis Tickle, in her book "The Great Emergence," argues that the days of sola Sciptura are coming to an end. At a conference in Memphis this past December, she gave over 44 examples of how Christians (in many of those cases, including Fundamentalists) have ceased to follow the literal demands and teachings that can be found in the Bible.

Prior to sola Scriptura was "sola Ecclesia" (remember "outside the church there is no salvation"?). Again, according to Tickle, after 500 years of sola Scriptura, we are emerging into a new era - and we do not yet know what it will look like. Because we don't know, those who are frightened of what might come next will want to shore up the certainties they have found in the current expression of sola Scriptura, which promises security and certainty. That is to be expected, and she reminds us to have the deepest respect for those who are part of this effort. Their quest for faith is real and passionate, and, for them, life-giving.

Which brings me to the hardest part of the discussion on this blog for me. Admittedly, I am someone who completely agrees with your analysis. What deflates me (the opposite of being "inspired") is the judgmental approach of some of those who disagree. I don't mind the allegations of heresy; today's heresy often turns into tomorrow's doctrine. But for any of the responders to your blog to question your faith, to assert (with authority!) that you are bereft of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is so much sadder than the disagreement itself. To such as those I can say only that there IS one verse in the Bible that I do try to take very literally: Luke 6:37. I often fail, and am probably doing so now.

Peace,
Becky+

[Mbasa]

Practically, literalism does not work. Most "bible-believing" christians tend to interpret the same verse a thousand different ways. I am an
African who grew up being told tales and fables to enforce certain values and morals. I have never questioned the truths carried by those stories. I take the bible in the same spirit. It does carry historical truths but most importantly for me, it also carries spirtual truths. Since having this truth, my faith has become much stronger as I do not carry the burden of justifying or explaining every thing that is written in the bible

[Dan Martin]

David,

I just came across your post from a long and convoluted chain of others, so I'm glad to see the discussion is at least (sort of) active. I've blogged fairly extensively about the issue of the inspiration of scripture from my own frustrations at an Evangelical, American perspective, and I would welcome your comments/engagement (there's a whole heading of "Biblical Inspiration" on my blog at http://nailtothedoor.blogspot.com).

Particularly in response to several of the commenters above, I would submit that the very application of the term "Word of God" to the whole of the canon is, itself, an error. Contrary to the usual fundamentalist claims, the biblical authors never make such a sweeping claim. There is much within scripture that IS represented as God's word (in particular Jesus' own words in the gospels, and the "thus saith the LORD" parts of the prophets) and these ought to be taken with divine weight. But to apply such a label to the entirety of the canon is inappropriate, unproductive, and most of all, extrabiblical.

I appreciate your adding your historical perspective to this debate. Peace!

Dan

[Leana]

I've noticed that this thread started a few years ago, but I can't help (I have little self control in the face of militant ignorance!) but respond with disbelief at the inane circuitous reasoning that literalists use to justify there erroneous interpretations of scripture. It amazes me that literalists will often say that because someone does not believe in the scriptures the way that they do, that the one who does not conform to the ignorance of literalism is therefore not saved and not born again. This is just plain hogwash. Literalists for some reason do not seem capable of the fundamental insight that all interpretation of scripture on the part of anyone is totally dependent upon the myopic, narrow and limited understanding of the one who is reading and seeking to understand the scriptures. And here we are all in the same boat. No one, and least of all the literalists, have a clear and absolute understanding of the Word of God. To any literalist out there who thinks otherwise, and who simplistically believes that they understand the Word of God, take a look at Isaiah 55. Perhaps God had the literalists in mind when he inspired the author (authors?) of Isaiah to write these words.

I for one believe that we need all the help we can get from every form of textual criticism available to us. The Word of God is, for me, a doorway into the Mystery of God and into Jesus, the only Son of God. And I believe that every word of the Word is true, and that literalists have no appreciation for the meaning of the word “true”, other than to apply the canons of contemporary scientific truth to the inspired texts. What remarkable obtuseness! And to say that all scripture is literally true, because it says in the scriptures that all scripture is inspired is merely to “beg the question”.

I apologize for my little diatribe. Thanks for letting me ramble on.

Leana

[D]

What is clearly being presented here is philosophy not Scripture.
Questions about literalism should be answered from the source we, as Christians, claim to believe in...namely, the Scriptures and not our own reasoning.
If a portion of Scripture is written poetically (i.e. "The 4 corners of the Earth), then OBVIOUSLY it is not meant to be taken literally. However there are things that were written in the Bible that only recently (last 1 or 2 centuries)show it to be literal (i.e. the "vault" of the earth, the dome above the sky [in a closed universe system], etc.).

King David makes it clear that God values His word above His very Name:
"...thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2b
Do we dare do any less?

[Stephen Link]

I would describe myself as someone who grew up knowing nothing but the literalism viewpoint. I am moving in the direction where David+ is but I'm not all the way there yet.

Having said all that I would also argue that the idea of the Earth having 4 corners being "OBVIOUSLY" poetic is only obvious from where we stand in the 21st century. There was a time when a flat earth view was embraced and I would not be at all surprised to find someone from that time period using OT verses about the 4 corners of the Earth to back up those claims.

Assuming David+ still looks in on this comment thread I would be interested in getting his thoughts on how does one know when to stop saying "this is parable" and start saying "this is fact". It is this uncertainty which keeps me from fully embracing his viewpoint. While I appreciate the idea that not everything in scripture is to be taken as scientific fact I also worry about coming to a place where we begin questioning, and then denying, Christ's miracles and resurrection.

[FrSimmons]

Stephen,

First of all, I would say there is nothing wrong with "Questioning" Jesus' miracles, if by that you mean having intellectual doubt. Our faith has nothing to fear from questioning if it is based on truth. Faith is not predicated on a removal of doubt, but a continuation of relationship DESPITE doubts.

I happen to believe that Christ worked actual, real miracles. Did they all happen exactly as scripture records? I don't know. But what he did was not what was unusual. Other Jewish (and pagan) miracle workers of the time were attested to have similar powers, with a few exceptions. We find his miraculous powers to be what stands out, but that's only from a modern, scientific perspective.

What stood out was the WAY he used his miracles. He healed Cannanites and prostitutes, and he performed miracles through his disciples (feeding the 5k.) He was the walking embodiment of compassion and modeled his community on it.

Therefore, I think basing on his faith on the content or veracity of the miracles is a pretty modernist way of going at it. Instead, it should be about the person performing them.

[Warren Eckels]

"Secular Humanism" and "scientific method" are not one and the same. In science, replicable observations are considered true. For example, when/if cold fusion becomes part of scientific reality, it will be heralded by an article in one journal that describes precisely how other scientists can replicate the experiment and confirmed by others.

The existence of any aspects of a God that cannot be measured or observed by any practitioner using a given procedure is not compatible with the scientific method. That does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that God cannot be observed by procedures that can be replicated and that yield the same results, or at least results within a margin of error.

It's no innovation to Christian theology to suggest that God cannot be measured. It's almost given that each person experiences God in his or her own way: fear-and-trembling, ravishing love, a nagging conscience or the still, small voice.

Science simply refuses to pretend that it can observe God. Individual scientists may well be atheist, agnostic, or faithful; none of them expect (at least before a Rapture or a traditional Judgment Day) to be able to resort to direct and repeatable observation to prove God's existence.

(Of course, it may well be that scientists do their part to bring about God's kingdom, as described in Isaiah 65:20. Perhaps the religious authorities did their part by leaving the scientists alone, preserving what knowledge they did or translating it from other sources, or leavening their consciences with a hint of what's right and what's wrong)

"“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
will be considered accursed."