Reclaiming Scripture (from the literalists) - Part I

Christian conservatives often claim that the Bible should be understood literally. Interestingly, so do some people who loathe Christianity as an exploitive, backwards, morally bankrupt religion. For an excellent example, please examine this decidedly un-evangelical website's take on "literal" accounts of slavery in the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

As this website correctly points out, Exodus and Leviticus regulate things like selling one's daughter into slavery, as well as the conditions under which a slave owner may keep a freed slave's wife and children. The New Testament also contains some uncomfortable statements about slavery, such as Ephesians 6:5, which orders slaves to obey their masters.

But nobody has ever taken THESE passages literally, right? Well, uh, actually ....

In pre-civil war theological journals, Southern theologians and slavery apologists cited just these passages as proof that God did, in fact, sanction slavery. Those who opposed slavery were simply placing their own opinions before the inspired word of God. But not these Southerner Biblical scholars! They believed in the literal Bible, written just as God intended it, and would defend it to the death.

I will assume that most people agree that these slavery apologists misinterpreted the Bible. I would also point out, however, that they did an excellent job of taking it literally. My just-beginning study of Paul's letters has turned up some other things that we don't tend to understand literally:

• Paul makes constant reference to his belief that the end of the age would come within his lifetime. For just a few relevant examples, see I Corinth. 10:11 and I Corinthians 15:51. Generally, Paul believed that Jesus would return within his lifetime. If the Bible must be take literally, we should reject it as false. After all, the Left Behind books are still fiction, not history.
• Do you think men disgrace themselves by praying with hats on, or that women should only pray if they are wearing a veil? If you don't, you do not believe in the literal word of God -- at least not in I Corinth. 11: 4-5
• A few verses later, I Corinth. 11: 14 points out that men disgrace themselves by wearing their hair long. If you are a literalist, please hurry to condemn any long-haired members of Christian rock bands. Also, please find and destroy all those paintings of Jesus with long, flowing locks. They make him look like a sinner.
• Guys, did you happen to get circumcised when you were born? Time to worry! -- at least if you take literally, and out of context, Galatians 5:2: "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

Look for more such examples as the semester goes on.

Additionally, some groups that mainline evangelicals consider cults base their beliefs around a literal reading of one scripture or another. Snake handlers, for example take literally Mark 16:17-20, which says that the followers of Jesus will be able to handle snakes without being harmed.

My point is this: No one -- at least no one except short-haired, uncircumcised, snake-handling, slavery-supporting men with veiled wives -- takes all of scripture literally. Faced with a scripture whose literal meaning they do not accept, the "literalists" I know tend to say that such passages must be interpreted in light of the entire body of scripture.

In that case, though, they're NOT TAKING THE WHOLE BIBLE LITERALLY. Instead, these "literalists" are privileging one verse to make clear that another is not literal. The real debate, then, is about what parts of the Bible are the keys to to interpreting the rest of it.

Since most Christians view Jesus as divine, I'll stick with his words: Care for the poor, love your neighbors, love your enemies, refrain from judging, and love God with all your hearts.

That's the stuff I take literally.