Tonight, I'm going to revisit a blog I posted on my myspace. The original audience, in general, was not as receptive to my thoughts as I had hoped. Recreational theology isn't as much fun as it sounds, I suppose. Or maybe it is, and that's my problem. Either way, here goes:

Sometime in the last decade, a poll was taken among Christian groups to determine how many Christians are actual believers, and how many are simply believers in name only. The questionnaire was a simple one, consisting of four questions. Time has stolen away the name of the poll and half of those questions from memory, but one that stuck in my mind was the question of whether one believes in a literal interpretation of the bible. This, apparently, is one of the qualifications of a true Christian.

There are very few Christians who readily admit that they do not adhere to a perfectly literal interpretation of the bible, at least outside of the prophetic verses. I for one cringe when I hear such a claim; such is the power of tradition over believers. I cringe, yes, but it is true. I do not believe in a perfectly literal interpretation of the bible. And I would wager that you do not either, even if you dont realize it.

For example, if you claim that the bible is wholly literal, do you always wear white, every second of every day? You should; Ecclesiastes says so. Have you plucked out your own offending eye? I find it hard to believe that anyone can live among society and say that they have never once looked at a woman the wrong way. Even so, since "all have sinned," everyone has something to gouge out, I suppose. This next verse will be my last example, firstly, because three is enough to discount a wholly literal bible (in that case, one would be enough); secondly, because this example lends itself to the kind of commentary needed to express my point. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says that, in order to be a believer, in order to be His disciple, you have to hate your mother, father, brothers and sisters. Since the earliest days of Christianity we have believed corporately that this means that our love for others should seem as hate in comparison to our love for Christ. A literal interpretation of this verse makes a lie of Romans 12:10 and especially I John 3:15, or vice-versa. At the same time, if a group of "Christians" did spring up with a doctrine of brotherly hate, it would be very hard to dispel their favored verses with a literal interpretation and no contradiction. The argument could extend into days and the brotherly hate crowd would only need to restate their literal interpretation of Luke 14:26.

But even when not taken to such extremes, biblical literalism causes adherents to perform some interesting theological back flips. In a debate, I suggested that II Timothy 2:12 (NIV), which says: "If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us" My point to was that we have two choices, acceptance of Christ, which will land us in Heaven, or rejection of Christ, which will land us in Hell. My "opponent" in the debate insisted that, because there was no or between the verses, Christ could allow us to reign with him while simultaneously disowning us, because each believer has, at some point in their life (even if very young) not been a believer. This is the kind of rabid literalism that scares me the most.

Some might think that my claim is a slippery slope into atheism. Not so. I never claimed that the bible isn't true; I only said it isn't a wholly literal work. Many believers, and this is especially true of Calvinists, treat scripture as a lawyer treats a legal document. They focus on technicalities of the language and hold Jesus, Paul, John and the rest hostage to their exact wording. They practice an interpretation that, if used in everyday conversation, would be absurd. Imagine telling someone: "I'm starving" only to have them believe that you hadn't eaten in days or weeks. The next time you saw that person, I suspect you'd watch your words carefully. Biblical authors, if given the chance to look at future interpretations of their own words would probably do the same.

The bible is the Word of God, not the words of God. Its overall meaning is the message that God wanted to deliver to the world, not the technical insinuations that arise from a literal interpretation. Such an interpretation leads to legalism and contradictions.

Original Publication: August 27, 2006; 7:59PM