Symbols and Biblical Literalism
I came across this section recently in Sallie McFague’s Metaphorical Theology that caught my attention. She writes -
But there is, I believe, an even deeper reason why religious literalism runs rampant in our time. It is not only that many people have lost the practice of religious contemplation and prayer, which alone is sufficient to keep literalism at bay, or that positivistic scientism has injected a narrow view of truth into our culture. While both are true, it is also the case that we do not see the things of this world as standing for something else; they are simply what they are. A symbolic sensibility, on the contrary, sees multilayered realities, with the literal level suggestive of meanings beyond itself. While it may have been more justified for people in earlier times to be biblical literalists since they were less conscious of relativity, as symbolic thinkers, they were not literalists… The claim can be made that our time is more literalistic than any other time in history. Not only were double, triple, and more meanings once seen in Scripture (and Scripture considered richer as a consequence), but our notion of history as the recording of “facts” is alien to the biblical consciousness.
So many of us so-called postmoderns are reacting to the flatness of scripture. We are presented with a truncated and stripped version of the bible that we are told holds meaning merely because it happened. That historical veracity was clung to as the central tenet of our faith until one day when we realized what a hollow construction that belief represented. Some of us walked away from the faith. Others took a fleeting glance back at tradition and discovered there a rich and multifaceted faith seeped in imaginative interpretation and symbolic understandings of truth. Our faith revived and we cherish scripture now more than we ever did before.
And we were called heretics. Accused of throwing out the bible and being enamoured with the new. Labelled as self-centered and rebellious. We were told to save our faith by returning to the flat and the hollow. And when we refused we were cast out as unbelievers.
Aren’t the vicissitudes of history great?
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Yeah, gotta love “postmodernist.” I’d never heard the word until a fundamentalist called me that, and I’m thinking: Gee, here I’m in a club that I didn’t even know that I’d joined! Where’s my issue of PostModernist Weekly?
A lot of right wing argumentation, whether political or religious, seems to come down to name calling. What amazes me is that the pejorative labels work so effectively. So, for example, for the time being, we get to call ourselves “progressives” – but only until the next Rush Limbaugh comes along and makes Pavlovian associations with the term until it’s as namby pamby “waffling” and “tax and spend” a term as “liberal.”
Paul Martin says, “A lot of right wing argumentation, whether political or religious, seems to come down to name calling.” He’s probably right (pardon the pun)…
…but isn’t that also what is being done by his use of the term “right wing”? One must assume that such a generalized term is used here precisely because of its loaded negative connotations, not because it imparts any clearly defined meaning. HIs argument would work equally well without the adjective-cum-invective. Certainly “left wing” is often used equally pejoratively as a label (perhaps by those who might think pejoratively of Sallie McFague as a “liberal feminist” “theologian”). Sauce for the goose…
Good blog.
Sometimes happening matters, as I guess you’d agree Julie. Other times, maybe not so much. But I’m with you on the multilayered and symbolic meaning of scripture, and of truth in general.
When I see someone use the word literalism and its variants that many times in a single paragraph, I wonder how they have been wounded. And also, I wonder to whom they are referring with that term. Are they thinking of literalists like the ones I knew in a fundamentalist (Bob Jones-ey) context? Or are they referring to anyone who dares to actually believe the words of the Nicene Creed in anything *other than* (as in: in addition to) a symbolic sense? I encountered many people in the Episcopal Church (you can buy their books) who would apply the pejorative term “literalist” or its cousin “fundamentalist” to the latter group of people, and that’s both ignorant and unfair.
On the topic of multilayered meanings in both scripture and nature, are you familiar with the writings of Jonathan Edwards on the topic?
Literalists in this context was referring more to the historical approach to scripture since the Enlightenment. Encompassing many of the protestant critiques of Catholicism, literalism was at first a needed correction that went too far. While this passage includes current day fundamentalists, it is directed at all protestants that restrict their view of scripture and God based on hyper-usage of early enlightenment ideas.
Well,I am a little tired, and all the “names” seem a bit name calling at the end of it. But what came “whooshing” to my mind after reading all of this albeit quickly (the grand I’m trying to get to sleep is upstairs chatting away. . .)is II Timothy 3:16-17. That’s where we should be hanging our hats.
What bothers me particularly about literalism, is that it is always a lie. Always. This is extreme, but anyone claiming to read the Bible literally is either lying or not very self-aware. Heck, no one even takes all of the Bible seriously. No one. You either admit that or you just don’t talk about the parts of the Bible that you ignore.
It’s the hypocrisy of calling me a liberal for just owning up to what we are all doing that irritates me.
Isn’t it a matter of genre and context, among other things? Wouldn’t you agree that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally? Like the commands to care for the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked?
In my experience, except for the very extreme fringe of fundamentalism, there aren’t many true “literalists” nor are there many “liberals” or “anti-literalists” who actually don’t take significant portions of scripture quite literally themselves. The whole “literalism” argument can be a red herring, when the argument is really one of genre, context and intent, and which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally (even if they also have other, multilayered meanings and applications) vs. which were never meant to be taken literally.
Karl – most people I encounter, just average evangelicals not necessarily fundamentalists, use the term “literal” to imply that there are no such things as genre, context, and intent. They assume that there is no such thing as biblical interpretation because we can all just come at the text and understand the words on the page as they are written – nothing needs interpreted, nothing needs to be understood in light of culture. To even begin to discuss cultural context implies that one is throwing out the truth of scripture. I’ve heard people say that that whole “no jew or greek” passage means that there is no such thing as culture so we shouldn’t bother trying to understand the bible in its cultural context – the words in english mean exactly the same thing to us as they meant when they were written. Of course they don’t take parts of the bible literally themselves (sell all you have and give it to the poor for example), but that doesn’t sway their hard stance on literalism.
So I can be dismissed as a heretic and relativist if I say that women can speak in church or question the historical veracity (although not spiritual truth) of say the book of Job.
Julie, I have encountered that mindset, but primarily in the Bob Jones-esque setting of the private fundy Baptist school I attended K-12. Not so much in evangelical circles, although I am sure ymmv in evangelicalism and I believe you when you say that’s what you have experienced.
When pressed on that issue and after a bit of explanation, most evangelicals I’ve known who lean that way pretty quickly acknowledge that ok, it really is a matter of determining which passages in question are meant to apply literally and universally, vs. which aren’t. It seems like those folks who wouldn’t admit this would have a hard time sticking to that position when you point out they probably don’t wear head coverings, abstain from wearing jewelry, etc. Just as the self-avowed anti-literalists and uber-contextualists have a hard time sticking to their hardline anti-literal position when it’s pointed out that they do take some parts of the Bible very literally and universally, such as commands to feed the hungry and care for the poor and love your neighbor.
Honestly I’ve had a very very hard time getting evangelicals to admit any such thing. Occassionally I will get a theological answer of “oh that was a different dispensation”, but that’s as close as they will come to admitting historical context. Generally in attempting to show they their interpretation is well, a interpretation, they sidetrack the conversation to tell me how much I must hate God and desire to live a sinful lifestyle because I think the bible can be interpreted… That kinda derails any conversation.
Weird. One of my pet peeves is when people conflate evangelicalism and fundamentalism, but I also know the conservative wing of evangelicalism is pretty fundamentalisic (i.e. has more in common with Bob Jones than it does with progressive or even mainstream evangelicalism). Sounds like you’ve had some pretty unfortunate experiences. I’d consider the mindset you describe (sticking to their literalist guns even when gently challenged re. the cultural context of prohibitions on jewelry, mandatory head coverings etc.) as much more characteristic of fundamentalism than of evangelicalism.
However, I’m not at all surprised if someone experiences push-back within evangelical circles if they are seeking to contextualize something that many evangelicals don’t think of as being contextually limited. And yeah, the average evangelical in the pew is often going to skip the nuanced discussion and go straight to its being a matter of obeying biblical authority. Bummer that we are all so hard headed.
You do agree, I suppose, that in some cases an over-contextualization can occur? Certainly not by you
but that there are, in some circles, those who would explain away any uncomfortable or unpopular Biblical demand by relativizing it to the time and place of the Biblical writing? (like the untrue but popular story that there was a gate called the needle’s eye outside Jerusalem that camels could squeeze through if they got down on their knees. Or like the de-mythologizing of the bible that goes on in some mainline circles, where all supernatural events are explained away as a literary product of a superstitious ancient culture). My bet is that your evangelical acquaintances are so afraid of this danger that they are over-reacting too far in the other way. Ignorantly fearful of giving away the farm if they make the slightest admission that context and genre might be relevant.