Rachel Held Evans

Selective Literalism

I’m reading a really funny and engaging book called The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs. In it, Jacobs tries to follow the Bible as literally as possible for a year. His journey yields unexpected epiphanies and struggles, and highlights the challenges associated with biblical literalism. For me, it has served as a reminder of how often I pick and choose which portions of the Bible I decide to take literally and how dependent I am on selective literalism.

So, what exactly is selective literalism? I define selective literalism as the tendency to elevate certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions. For example, most Christians do not believe that rebellious children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18), but many support the death penalty as punishment for murder (Genesis 9:6).

Author Randall Balmer believes that selective literalism has been exploited by the Republican Party in order to attract one-issue voters. In his book Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, he writes that “selective literalism continues to serve an important function for the Religious Right. It allows them to locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture (or so they think) by designating as especially egregious those dispositions and behaviors, homosexuality and abortion, that they believe characteristic of others, not themselves.” (10)

[I would add that it is equally hypocritical for the democratic party to champion human rights while ignoring the concerns of so many Christians regarding the unborn.]

While applying selective literalism in interpreting Scripture is largely unavoidable, I see it playing a particularly harmful role in the following areas:

Homosexuality

A few years ago, my church got really involved in Tennessee’s push to include an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Forums were held, signs were posted in the church lawn, and bumper stickers were passed out. It was a classic example of evangelicalism’s continued obsession with homosexuality, an obsession I believe has done irreparable damage to the relationship between the Church and the gay community.

Now, I am certainly aware of the biblical passages that condemn sodomy. However, I find it very interesting that Jesus Himself never mentions the issue.

He does, however, talk about divorce. Jesus said that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

So why isn’t the evangelical community pushing for legislation against divorcees? Should we make it illegal for divorced women to remarry or to adopt children?

(To be clear, I don't think pursuing anti-divorce legislation is a reasonable response to Christ's teachings. Considering the context of His remarks, we might as well imprison folks for calling other people names...which Jesus likens to murder. I bring up divorce only to highlight the inconsistency in the evangelical response, not to judge anyone who's been divorced.)

Women in Leadership.

Why is it that so many evangelicals disregard Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians that “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head,” while adamantly supporting his instruction to Timothy to “suffer not a woman to teach…but to be in silence”?

It seems that whenever Paul talks about clothing, his words are interpreted as being culturally influenced; but whenever he talks about leadership, it’s suddenly considered a “biblical” thing. Honestly, I have more respect for Mennonite and Amish communities that are at least consistent in this area than for fundamentalist churches that pick and choose and then claim to be biblical literalists.

I echo Balmer’s concerns when he writes, “I guess what worries me…is that if I had been alive 160 years ago or 60 years ago, and the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation-I worry that I might have been one of those people quoting scripture in defense of slavery and segregation.” (30)

So, what do we do about this? What other issues are being affected by selective literalism? If it’s impossible to take the entire Bible literally, what should “make the cut?”

I’m interested in your thoughts on this.

friend of a friend

Mystical Guidance of the Holy Spirit
Reply #1 on : Fri March 28, 2008, 09:56:22

Selective application of scriptural passages might be the mercy of God manifest in the hearts of mankind. It's a phenomenon which is observable in all the great religions of the world. Personally, I am much more terrified by the thought of any religious group trying to apply (or not apply, for that matter) their scriptures consistently. Liberal christians are no better in this regard than evangelicals, except that the former are occasionally more honest about their selectivity than the latter.

Emerson once wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds."

Thank God for a little self-deception.

Pastor Gavin

Re: Selective Literalism
Reply #2 on : Fri March 28, 2008, 10:13:14

Great article with tough questions. I came across this blog through Blogrush and am glad I did.

I actually struggled when I was first ordained (just a few years ago) with the issue of divorce and remarriage. You see, I saw the double standard that we had and feel in my heart that we need to be consistent. And it is much easier to be consistent by refusing to marry divorced people than to agree to marry homosexuals (something that I would not be allowed to do in my denomination, anyway). But then I had a couple come to me wanting to get married who had both been divorced from pretty messed up marriages in the past and I agreed to marry them. I guess I find myself comfortable with the Christian culture we have, the do's and don'ts we follow, but I also realize that we are being quite hypocritical as we follow them.

At the same time, I have also accepted that it is impossible to read the Bible literally and have it make any sense. Nobody does, even those who think they do. The best example I have of this is one that I just came across. Biblical literalists like to take Revelation and read it literally, saying that it is a direct prophecy of how the world is going to end. They build their maps of the end times and tell you that if you don't agree with them then you aren't reading the Bible literally and aren't a real "Bible believing" Christian. But they take two chapters in the beginning of Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, which are letters to seven churches in Asia Minor and they say they aren't actually letters to seven churches in Asia Minor but rather letters to different eras of church history. Well, this is not what Revelation says. Revelation says that they are seven letters to seven churches in Asia Minor. So, they are not reading the Bible literally. Instead they are reading their own views into what they want the Bible to say.

I guess I don't have a problem with this in one way, because I realize that this is something that we all do. But on the other hand, at least progressive or moderate Christians don't claim to be doing something they aren't.

Well, I ran on way too long, but again I just want to mention how much I appreciate this post and the questions you are asking.

It is good to see someone asking difficult questions of God and their faith and realizing that this is something God is not scared of or something God will punish. Rather it is how our faith deepens and grows.

Rachel

True that!
Reply #3 on : Sat March 29, 2008, 00:55:43

Friend of a Friend,
Love the Emerson quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds."
Reading Jacobs' account of his attempt to take the entire Bible literally has been a good reminder that we should indeed be grateful for the role of the Holy Spirit, as well as Church tradition, to help us interpret the Bible and practically apply its teachings.

My main concern with selective literalism is when it is used to oppress people or alienate them from the Church.

Friend of a Friend

Mislocation
Reply #4 on : Sat March 29, 2008, 09:21:31

Yes, but then the problem is not the selectivity but the oppression/alienation itself. Attempting to apply a given method of interpretation might not solve the problem at all, but merely create new ones.

Just a thought.

Mandy M.

comments on literalism
Reply #5 on : Mon March 31, 2008, 14:03:43

It seems to me that to take all aspects of the Bible literally…is to kind of “miss the point,” of Christianity as a whole. Followers of Christ, existing as Christ did or would today. The spirit of the bible is virtue, and understanding what it means to be a virtuous person in this world.
To pick certain sins (and not others) out of the Bible and try to preach that all committing those sins are bad people who must change or go to Hell (homosexuals, divorcees, etc), is to commit hypocrisy.
The world is not the same as it was 2000 years ago. The bible is not just a set of rules that can be applied universally, at any time. The point of the bible is to learn kindness, and to understand God. And to love mankind, not to condemn.
As a straight person I have often felt deeply hurt by the accusations made at homosexuals I’ve heard in church. I’ve nearly walked out of church and have been disappointed at such hateful words and knew that God would not want people treated and regarded in such a way.

Rachel H. Evans

Church and Gays
Reply #6 on : Tue April 01, 2008, 02:01:13

Mandy - Thanks for your posts!

I have a terrible feeling that 10 years from now, the evangelical community will be shaking its head in shame over the way it has treated gays and lesbians. I hope they will be able to forgive us.

James Ludwig

Selective literalism
Reply #7 on : Sun April 06, 2008, 14:15:15

People tend to elevate the infallability of scripture while recognizing that those who wrote it believed that Jesus would return in their life times and wrote such. The Word of God is infallable but the men who wrote the Bible were not. Present a cunundrum. The Bible is historically accurate and pholosphically correct. Unfortunately without a perfect understanding of Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic and the mind of God man is subject to error. Many areas of the Bible were meant to address specific issues but have been taken as universal.
THERE IS NO SUCH SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS "SIN IS SIN"
Often quoted but not there. It refers to relying on the law for salvation as an all or nothing proposition. But does not require acceptance of on sin is no worse than another any more than to say murder is no worse than jaywalking. That being said the degree of "damage" done by particular sins is individualistic and a matter of the heart and spirit. Some sins are more spiritually damaging to the individual than others and each person may not be affected the same way be the same sin. Some sins are more damaging to the body of Christ than others.
The condemnation of homosexuality comes both from the repugnancy of it to the straight and its constant slap in the face of God. There are some homosexual that are misguided into acceptance. 30 years ago all the research showed that it was primarily the result of a bad/no dad, sexual abuse, effeminate labeling or intellectual rejection of the norm (more bisexuals). A gay psychologist had homosexuality declassified as abnormal and the psychological community was left impotent in the matter and biology became accepted although any evidence for such has yet to be found. For whatever reason someone might have the inclinition they have the Christian choice of abstenance that is required of the unmarred. Premarital sex seems to be the most excusable of sins in todays society but it is condemned by God and is an elavation of man's desires over Gods and thus we justify ourselves. Forgive the long pontification I could say a lot more. JIM

Jason

What's in a sin
Reply #8 on : Mon April 14, 2008, 14:58:33

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. There are many different types of sins that exist in our world today. So how are we to handle these as Christians? Simple, seek holiness in all aspects of life, seek the wisdom of God, love the Lord our God will all our heart, soul and strength, and yes, love our neighbors as ourselves. We need to love everyone equally, but with the understanding that each sin brings about its own consequences.

Christians have always been battling the acceptance of sin in our culture. The example of divorce is no different...the reason it's not a big debate now is because the battle has been considered lost and therefore has now been openly accepted. I understand that Jesus gave a legal reason for divorce (only one reason). Jesus never gave a legal reason for homosexuality.

And Jesus did speak of homosexuality..."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1. If you continue reading John 1 you will see that Jesus was a part of every verse ever penned in the Bible. To say that Jesus never spoke on homosexuality is to say that Jesus never took part in the establishment of any Scripture a part from the red letters. Jesus Himself stated that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

In conclusion, we are to respond to every sinner the same...with love...but not accepting of the sin. Each sin should be examined equally because all sin has the same result...our seperation from a holy God. Therefore, we must call for repentance from all sin.

Write a comment

Required fields are bold and marked with *.

Evolving in Monkey Town

living, learning, and re-thinking fundamentalism in the town that gave it its name

Selective Literalism

Write a comment

It happens to everyone...