Comments on: An Alternative to Calling People Biblical Literalists

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:45:35 +0000

Glad it works for you. Thanks.

I’m watching the video now…

By: dave wainscott

dave wainscott — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:25:26 +0000

Good stuff. Quite helpful, will use it.
Reminded meof the Len Sweet video I showed to my preaching class. His analogy was apples vs oranges (segmented “verse-itis”) here:
http://labipreaching.blogspot.com/2009/08/tonights-videos.html

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:32:51 +0000

I have often gotten frustrated by the use of “biblical literalism” mainly due to the fact that everyone who reads the Bible must do so literally. To read something literally means to read the words. While then from there one can read the Bible metaphorically or figuratively or literally, very few people read the Bible entirely metaphorically or figuratively. The Biblical literalists are more often than not reading the Bible literally because to read the Bible means to read with respect to the genres, contexts, and to see the shapes of scripture. Biblical literalists also tend to ignore their own context when they read the text. While everyone interprets the Bible through particular lens, literalists do not admit this. Biblical literalists become contextless Christians.

I tend to call biblical literalists/biblical pointillists biblicists. Biblicist used to be used when discussing those people who’s devotion to the bible had turned to idolatry. This is the case. The Biblicist position places the Bible at least equal to if not above God. The Biblical literal reading of scripture ultimately unconsciously makes this claim.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:37:51 +0000

Hey Adam, I used the pointillist analogy because of the fact that pointillism is used to create a picture. But, the way of constructing that picture is a bit different. I think we’re all “painting a picture” of Jesus and the cross, but the reason why there is a different feel to the way people speak about the scriptures has to do with method and technique. So, I’m not trying to say that they miss out on the big picture, just that their big picture has a unique quality to it that differentiates itself from more mainline methods of reading the scriptures.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:38:45 +0000

Matt,

The analogy of pointillism implies that literalists miss the big picture, but I am not sure that is the case. Pointillists such as DA Carson, for instance, seem perfectly able to catch the cohesive themes. Put another way, it does not seem to be the case that taking a literal view of scripture implies that one is unable to catch the “big-picture.” I seem to think that there are literalists and non-literalists who miss the cohesive themes of redemption, renewal, etc. so it does not seem to be something that is particularly a problem for literalists.

Good thoughts! I appreciate the post.

Adam

By: New Lutheran

New Lutheran — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:19:18 +0000

I think I agree here. As someone who is still relatively new to the Lutheran church, but was raised Southern Baptist, I see a lot of applications of this concept. As an example, Lutheran churches use a lectionary and hone in on specific passages of scripture for weekly teaching from the pulpit whereas most conservative (and typically non-liturgical) churches would pick a theme *first*, then select scriptures to support the theme.

This has been a noticeable difference for me going from one approach to scripture to the other. The way I see it, so-called “conservatives” tend to start with a topic then look for scriptures. Lutherans, as far as I can tell, start with scriptures, then look for topics. I don’t find either method “better” necessarily. There are uses for both. Coming from a non-liturgical world, I find myself often missing the thematic approach. I enjoyed being able to focus on a particular issue or life question and exploring Biblical answers. But I can see the beauty of taking a passage of scripture and asking “where is God?” and “where am I?”