ON BIBLICAL LITERALISM
Another characterization of evangelicals is that they all take the bible literally. Biblical literalism has been and continues to go alongside a high view of scripture. For if we believe in the authority of scriptures, an interpretation is necessary to understand this scripture. Thus in order to be faithful to the scriptures for life and practice, many evangelicals insist on a literal hermeneutic. Olson historically tracks biblical literalism and notices a changing of terminology over the past “whereas literal interpretation of the bible was once tied especially with fundamentalism (maximum religious conservatism), it is now associated with conservative evangelicals in general because the nomenclature has changed.”
Issues such as the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis have received such attention. Scholars are divided, with some taking the account literally, while others stress the nature of the genre, and others see the passage as poetry. However, with proponents such as Ken Ham receiving somewhat national attention, along with the current debate of teaching creationism in public schools, the image of evangelicals as biblical literalists has been engrained into the minds of the media and adopted as synonyms.
The obvious problem with such biblical literalism is that no one practices what they preach. Everyone from conservative, progressive, to liberal, all pick and choose what biblical texts to take literally and which texts to spiritualize. Usually this is defined by the current social-cultural milieu of the day rather than on any clear set of methodological principles. This idea of literalism has struck a contemporary note in two recent publications. One such note is the recent book by A.J. Jacobs, where “In the Year of Living Biblically” he attempts to take every aspect of the biblical text literally for one year.
A non-religious Jew is even struck by the way that many Christians pick and choose the texts they want to apply. More recently, Scot McKnight has tackled the issue of biblical interpretation in his book entitled “The Blue Parakeet”.
Each author, along with Olson, have attempted to bring awareness to the picking and choosing of each group and to show that biblical literalism is not the answer.
For Olsen, the problem is that “the term biblical literalism is a misleading concept; nobody believes every sentence of the Bible literally.”
While agreement can be found Olson’s statement that “truth can be conveyed nonlitearlly”
Other disagreements arise with some of Olson’s methadology. For instance, Olson criticizes Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich for arguing that the historical resurrection was not as factually important as the importance of the effect of faith it had in the life of the disciples.
He then goes on to address the book of Jonah, which itself has been scrutinized for its historicity. Olson then makes the contradictory statement of “If Jonah spurs one to affection and action, it is being taken seriously whether or not a huge fish actually swallowed a human being.”
In essence, the historicity of the account is not as important as the effect it has in the life of the believer. One is hard pressed to find a difference between the statement of Olson and that of Bultmann. If one can apply the same standard to Jonah, why not to the resurrection account?
Agreement can be found among the importance of stories within the Old and New Testaments. One could honestly argue that the story of Abraham is more fundamental than Jonah. Nonetheless, methods and practices should have continuity to insure integrity and validity in interpretation. While it is impossible to take every sentence of the bible literally, and in some cases this would be the exactly the wrong approach, we should exercise caution so that the literal baby will not be thrown out with the metaphorical bath water.
