Everyday, on my way to work, I walk by a car with a bumper sticker that reads, "Michael the Archangel protects Us from Satan." And everyday, I’m back in the metaphysical bleachers, watching Satan do his free-floating shuffle-step, his burnt-yellow eyes looking for an opening past the big angel. And when it comes, slipping by like grease, or shooting by Michael’s great white wings and leaving a black spot of suet and mayhem at the door of someone’s day. But in an instant Michael springs up, spear in hand, three bounding leaps and he’s back in front of the arch-demon, shield up, twice determined, back in control. Oh, and such daily battles, an endless bloodless war, out there beyond these mere mortal dimensions.
And if only we could grasp the truth of metaphor,
this wouldn’t be unreasonable language to help describe instances of evil. If we could, imagine.
But this is our modern problem, our hangover: the keg of Scientific Method long tapped, the many draughts of spiritual materialism downed before grey dawn, our Christian heads aching and pounding, now thinking that a literal reading must be the only true reading, a fundamental reading, an inerrant, authoritative, infallible, inspired reading.
And in the empirical fog surrounding our Thomas Nelsons and Scofields, our imagination sputters out leaving us self-condemned by literalism’s stasis. In this exegetical irony we bind ourselves to errancy and ignorance.
Certainly a literal reading, what pre-Enlightenment folk called a "plain reading," is often a true reading. But many times a literal reading is an inferior reading or simply a nonsensical reading.
Biblical writers’ understanding of the nature of reality could not be more removed from our own. And too, our understanding of the purpose of literature is not that of a writer in the first-century. So to adopt a reading without wrestling with this is lazy and dishonest.
Because the problem of literalism is mistaking a flame for the fire. One facet for the whole gem. One colour the whole spectrum. You get my drift.
And so, Satan, is just that volitional metaphysical entity jamming up the works, devouring the undevout and looking for any chance to trip us up. What comes of such a failure is to miss the satanic, the evil, that hides within dehumanizing institutions—systems of domination. That lives at the heart of state repression—from forms of socialism to fascism—that exults in racism and patriarchy, and hides within bureaucracy and capitalism.
Since we’re in a mood to pick and choose parts of the Bible to literally interpret, consider the following:
Everyone, even athiests, could literally interpret and live according to The Good Samaritan parable and Commandments five through ten . They could give ten percent of their post-tax take home income to their favourite church or charity. If this were done, I think it would cut down on the world’s social problems by half and states would have reason to roll back on defence and police spending.
Yes, the part about ten percent of income is not literal. I just figured I’d throw that in.
🙂
I think that the reason evangelicals have not embraced social causes is not because of literal readings but because of incomplete readings. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Micah bring clarion calls for justice.
The Greek word dikaiosune, usually translated righteousness, equally means justice. (this will come up at my church on Sunday).
Jesus taught us to pray for justice, and it’s a major theme in Luke.
The problem, methinks, dear brother, is not in the belief in an inerrant Word, but in an incomplete reading of that word.
This is my favourite line!
“Biblical writers’ understanding of the nature of reality could not be more removed from our own. And too, our understanding of the purpose of literature is not that of a writer in the first-century. So to adopt a reading without wrestling with this is lazy and dishonest.”
I just re-read my previous post. Let me adjust the tone. I found myself reacting to the way in which you used the words fundamental, inerrant, authoritative, infallible, inspired – all things I hold to. Also, the ideas that the context of the writing of Biblical times, and the purpose of literature being different, could be pushed to the conclusion that the literature has no relevance. I know that you’re calling rather for a wrestling with these differences, with which I heartily concur.
One more thought. In our struggle against evil, what difference might it make if we believe in a literal Satan or a metaphorical one?
Actually Ian, the literal ‘tithe’ interpretation, which I hope you’re practising, is 10% PRE-tax. You must not pick and choose, but grapple with such texts:)
Thanks Sam, incomplete readings, yes, certainly. That was my point with the problem of literalism as it “mistakes a flame for the fire. One facet for the whole gem. One colour the whole spectrum.”
And yes, you understand far better than I do, that wrestling with the text requires a multi-disciplined approach.
Finally, in the struggle against evil, biblical literalism (think Flip Wilson and most sermons you heard growing up) individualizes and personalizes evil (again, that was my apparently ill-conceived gist of the post) missing and so leaving the structural and institutional evils in place. A metaphorical reading will/should span both.
Kyle, thanks for voting!
Sam, I do recognize that if I come to your question from your perspective, with a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the many faces/facets of evil, then, in praxis, in how we go about living our lives, the differences largely disappear.
You wrote: ” biblical literalism (think Flip Wilson and most sermons you heard growing up) individualizes and personalizes evil (again, that was my apparently ill-conceived gist of the post) missing and so leaving the structural and institutional evils in place. A metaphorical reading will/should span both.”
I guess I’m not convinced that the problem of overlooking the structural and institutional evils is due to a literal reading. I still would rather vote for an incomplete reading, from an individualistic hermeneutic. I think that a more communal hermeneutic would more often see the structural evil that is present in the biblical text.