Literalism and Convenience

There are three basic approaches to understanding and interpreting the Bible:  Inerrancy, which is the belief that the words in the bible are God’s true revelations to humanity.  It is completely free of error and absolutely authoritative. It is literally true not only for faith and life, but for science and history as well.  Nothing is open to interpretation.  Infallibility, or the understanding that the Bible was not meant to teach history or science, but is literally true only for faith and life and therefore some things are open to interpretation.  Inspired, which means that the authors of the Bible were writing in spiritus (in the spirit of God), but God did not dictate word for word and thus there are cultural and personal preferences found in the scared writing.  In this instance everything is open to interpretation.

Conservative Christians tend to use specific texts to argue a point (Inerrancy or Infallibility), while Progressive Christians tend to argue overall patterns of behavior (Inspired).

Contrary to popular belief, most Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians are not believers of Inerrancy but follow the Infallible track.  And there is where I get confused: If not everything is open to interpretation how then does one determine what is open to interpretation?

For example, Romans 13:1-2 states “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”  On what grounds then do Conservative Christians negate this clear scriptural admonition and rationalize their attacks on the current political administration?

Another egregious example of scriptural violation is the personal attack on Mrs. Obama for her leading the fight against childhood obesity and poor nutrition.  I am not an expert, but those who are experts suggest that the nutritional guidelines found in Leviticus are profoundly healthy and if more folks ate “kosher” there would be far fewer instances of maladies such as heart disease and diabetes.  Obesity is just not a common problem among Orthodox Jews …

So I am left with only one answer to the question posed above: Convenience.  One picks and chooses which part of the Bible to claim as God’s word based on one’s own particular wishes and desires.  If it fits my worldview, it is Gods’ word; if it inconveniences me, it is open to interpretation.

How convenient. 

Faith is not meant to be convenient; in fact quite the opposite.  It is supposed to challenge our common assumptions and ideologies.  That is why I firmly believe that whenever I come across a line of scripture I don’t like or agree with it is incumbent that I ask myself one simple question: “Why?”  Why don’t I like it?  Why do I disagree with it?  Why do I think it wrong? 

And sometimes that little question leads me to a clear-cut answer about my opposition, as I find patterns in the Bible that transcend any one verse.  But other times the answer is far less clear and gives me pause, as I realize that the Bible may be speaking against, rather than for me.  It is at those moments that I find myself stretched and challenged to grow, to cast off my own ideologies and conveniences, to set aside my pride and open myself to new understanding, for while I am certainly no literalist I sure do like what Proverbs 11:12 has to say: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.”

See you in church.