Death and Doctrine, Part 5: The Comforts of Biblical Literalism

A couple of posts ago in this series I made the observation that in the face of death and existential terror one has a choice to make. You can either move forward into the anxiety with courage and authenticity or you can retreat from the anxiety and clutch at comforting illusions. You can either take the risk of authentic faith along with its accompanying doubts and fears, or you can choose safety and use "faith" as an existential sleeping pill.

This analysis struck me this week as I reflected on the role of biblical literalism in the minds of many Christian believers.

For example, my friend Bill sent me this blog post. It's a review of the Creation Museum that has recently opened in Cincinnati, Ohio. The reviewer is a secular author, sympathetic to Christianity but not Creationists. Regardless of the author's stance and tone (and language), if you read the review you might be struck, as I was, by just how far biblical literalists are willing to go to hold on to their reading of scripture. The point being, when I spoke above about retreating into illusions I meant that literally (no joke intended).

This observation was reinforced last week when I saw audience members struggle with Wayne Meeks' point about misusing the metaphor "The Bible says..." Recall, Meeks' point was that the Bible doesn't speak. It's a book. It doesn't have a mouth. Which means that the Bible, when spoken about, has been filtered through the mind of a human being. A human being with a gender, an age, life experiences, and an ecclesial history (to name a few things). Thus, when a person claims that "the Bible says..." what he is really asserting is what he (or his tradition) asserts to be the truth. The phrase "The Bible says..." is just an obfuscation. We are all interpreters of the Bible. It's inescapable.

But if you let that point settle in, as it did last week at the lectures, you can start to grow uneasy. Particularly if you are new to this post-modern game. If all is interpretation then how can we ever KNOW the truth? If this position is true doesn't it all just boil down to a multiplex of opinions? And if this is so, how could you ever adjudicate between good versus bad readings of Scripture?

Now I don't want to get into post-modern or post-foundationalist readings of Scripture in this post. Rather, I want to do my psychological thing. I want to analyze the reactions and feelings we have when we first encounter the post-modern critique of "the Bible says..." formulation.

What I observed that day in the audience, as Meeks' point settled in, was existential anxiety (albeit only among a few of the participants; for the majority in attendance this is old stuff). The sense was that if Meeks was right then all bets were off. All was lost. It's a free for all. The end of all things. Doomsday.

Similarly, you will have noticed if you read the Creation Museum review that this movement--the loss of literalism to nihilism--is overtly spelled out in the Museum. Specifically, if literalism goes then the next step is the complete moral disintegration of society.

Now think this through. Notice the movement:

Loss of literalism to nihilism.

That's quite a leap. Surely there can be other ways to read Scripture. Surely the entire moral destiny of humankind isn't in the balance in how we read Genesis.

But some people think so. Why?

Well, here is my diagnosis. If we give even just a wee bit on biblical literalism then we open a can of existential worms. Specifically, it opens you to the possibility of being wrong. To the possibility that maybe the Good Book is just a human creation. Now, you don't have to draw that conclusion. Most Christians don't. But if you learn to read the bible in an non-naive manner then that possibility is clearly on the horizon as a potential outcome. Who hasn't upon learning how the bible was actually written and collected wondered about its authenticity as being the Word of God? In short, to approach the bible honestly opens you up to existential dread. So, as I said above, we have a choice. We can either confront the facts on the ground with courage, or retreat into the comforting illusions of the Creation Museum.

Interestingly, the biblical literalists, deep down, know what's up. They sense the risk. They know that if you open the door a crack, just a crack, then the specter of atheism becomes a real possibility. But rather than risk atheism they seek to play it safe. To eliminate the risk entirely. But at what cost? Well, intellectual credibility and honesty. The price of existential comfort, of the risk-free faith, is credulity.

In short, biblical literalism is a security blanket. It's comforting. It lets you feel certain, eliminating all risk.

It demands conviction, and lot's off it, but very little courage.


[Post-post-script: Having spent a day with my original post title I've liked it even less. So I've changed it.]