Though this is hardly a political post, an important religious question was generated in a recent Republican Debate. The question, submitted by a Youtube user, was straightforward:
The question: do you believe every word of the Bible?
Getting the essential bias out of the way, I do. I believe every single word of it. I take the Bible as a literal document unless it seems dramatically clear that we are talking about metaphor or symbolism. Jonah in the fish - yup, I believe that. The creation story - yes, I think God literally did the job as it says.
At the same time, can someone believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and take it less (even much less) literally than I do? What if someone believes that Jonah’s story is somewhat true, but has been peppered with symbolism and mythology in order to make a critical teaching point? What if the creation story is an anecdote that is less about the specifics of creation, and more about God’s love for mankind and man’s inherent drive to rebel?
Most conservative Christians would say no. But ironically, most conservative Christians understand and accept that the book of Revelation and other prophetic passages may elicit different interpretations based on how literal it should be taken. People squarely in the pre, post or mid trib eschatology generally tolerate each other as, though a little misguided in those things, still Bible-believing born-again Christians. Almost no one in a pre-trib oriented church would call a post-trib guest a heretic. But if the guest did not believe in a literal interpretation of much of the Old Testament - I think there would be a problem.
This brings me back to my original though - can one say they believe the Bible, even if belief is not in a principally literal interpretation? Is Rudy Giuliani’s response, for example, valid:
I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.
So, yes, I believe it. I think it’s the great book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I’ve gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it, and it does define to a very large extent my faith. But I don’t believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale, or, you know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.
Is that truth? Is that acceptable? Is that Christian? I am not attempting to criticize Giuliani here, but to actually ask if his response is particularly un-Christian.
Belief in the Bible seems predicated on faith - that even though all of it does not obey the natural order, it should be taken on faith. In some sense then, to believe the Bible, one must abandon or go beyond pure reason in order to interpret it. Is an interpretation like Giuliani’s, which essentially removes faith from the equation and takes the Bible only as far as reason would allow, still a fundamentally and distinctly “Christian” view?
Giuliani’s answer is vague. Of course we all know that parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. It’s full of poetry and symbolism. The question is precisely which parts are literally true and which parts are not.
The only specific thing Giuliani mentioned was Jonah in the belly of the whale. That’s not a very important part of Christianity, if you ask me. We could leave Jonah out of the canon entirely and the Bible would still be more than sufficient.
I’d say it’s also reasonable to take Job and Esther as not literally true.
Now, if you take Christ’s death and resurrection as an allegorical story instead of literal truth, then you’re outside of orthodox Christianity and should probably be excommunicated (or whatever it is Protestants do to heretics.)
“The question, submitted by a Youtube user, was straightforward:”
Au contraire. That question really isn’t straightforward at all.
I did not listen to the debate, except for the clip you posted, and my thought at the time was, “That was an ignorant question.” I say that because the real question isn’t that simple.
First of all, the exact question was, “Do you believe every word of this book? [holds up Holy Bible]. I mean specifically this book that I’m holding in my hand. [camera goes in for a close shot at King James Bible] Do you believe this book?”
The reason it isn’t a simple question: (1) The book he is holding is an English translation, not the original non-English manuscripts. Is the man asking the candidates’ opinion about the original manuscripts, or not? (2) The specific book he is holding is a KJV. Is the man asking the candidates’ opinion about KJV as opposed to a different translation? (3) The use of the word “believe.” Does he mean “agree that every word in this book is literally true? Does he mean that the book is literally true in some places and imparts truth via symbolism in other places? Does he mean believe in the sense of “I believe it is true and therefore I live according to it”?
That question was wrong on so many levels. I think the questioner did not really get the information he likely wanted to get because of his poor question.
“That’s not a very important part of Christianity, if you ask me. We could leave Jonah out of the canon entirely and the Bible would still be more than sufficient.”
God obviously disagreed. As would I, it gives a great insight into God’s mercy.
Job is possibly allegorical, or at least portions of it. Esther seems quite literal, what’s allegorical about it?
In general, when a portion of the Bible is allegory or metaphor or poetry, it tends to give strong hints in that direction. Thus, almost no one believes there actually was a man who tore down his barns to build bigger ones (though there are many men who act with that same spirit of greed and materialism). It was a parable, a made-up story to make a point. Job is one of the few spots that is not completely clear, but it would seem that he did exist and have the events happen to him as described in the book. However, the majority of the book is dialogue between Job and his “friends,” wife, and God; as well as between God and Satan. How literally accurate the conversations are is something we’ll never know. All we do know is that the dialogue (and lessons learned) is endorsed by God.
Darius said: “Esther seems quite literal, what’s allegorical about it?”
Little or no historical evidence to support it, that’s what prompts some people to take it as allegory. I’m not saying that Esther is allegorical, I’m saying that it doesn’t shake the foundation of Christian faith–or of faith in the Scriptures–to interpret Esther as allegory.
Thainamu said: “The specific book he is holding is a KJV. Is the man asking the candidates’ opinion about KJV”
I wondered about that too. It was rather a poor question in my opinion, for all the reasons you cite and others. I wonder whether the intent was to take a jab at Mitt Romney. If so, it was rather a foolish question, because Mormons do believe that the Bible is the word of God. That could explain why the man was so insistent upon the particular version he was holding. Mormons believe the Bible was true in its original form, but that it has been corrupted through the years. Therefore a Mormon would not believe that every word of the KJV (or any other translation in existence today) is literally true.
There is something that grates me about Giuliani’s response. He said, “I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.” I don’t think that’s wise. The Bible should be interpreted in its original, historical context. We can’t pull it out and interpret it in light of current events and modern ideas. But I don’t want to read too much into Giuliani’s response. That was an odd question and he was thinking on his feet. He probably didn’t mean to imply that the Bible should be reinterpreted according to the prevailing wisdom of the day.
Giving him the benefit of doubt, he could have meant that it has to be applied in a modern context. Which can be quite difficult.
A Christian is someone who accepts the gospel as literal truth, and chooses to trust in Christ’s sacrifice alone as the only way to overcome the gap between us and God that results from our sins. I would not attend a church that did not believe the Bible to be literal truth, but someone can still be a believer without properly understanding the meaning of Scriptural authority. I don’t know whether any of the candidates are truly Christian, though all I really require in a political leader is that they demonstrate a morality consistent with Christian values and not make openly hostile efforts against Christianity. Of course, I’d probably disqualify any candidate making open attacks against any religion not clearly endorsing aggressive behavior toward non-participants.
Colin said: “Is an interpretation like Giuliani’s, which essentially removes faith from the equation and takes the Bible only as far as reason would allow”
I missed that earlier. That begs the question of whether Giuliani’s interpretation does remove faith from the equation. I submit that it does not. It’s quite possible to consider vast portions of the Bible as allegory while still having complete faith in the Bible. You don’t have to take every part of the Bible literally to have faith that it is inspired by God.
Call me heretical, but I’ve never thought it wise to vote (or not vote) for a person based on how “Christian” they are (or appear to be). I’m not saying that one can divorce oneself from one’s religious beliefs, but that idea is firmly accurate. I can see voting for someone who shares a similar outlook on truly political issues (sorry, but the “evolution/creation debate” isn’t one), but who really cares whether it’s a he or a she; an African-American, an Asian-American, a Scandinavian-American, or an Native-American-American; a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, or an Anton Levy Satanist. None of these should matter in determining which candidate is the best one suited for “running a country.” None of these quantitative measurements have any meaning in an economy of value-judgments (unless we’re all really closet sexists/racists/discriminating bigots).
I want a candidate that shares my morality because I want someone who shares my respect for honesty, respect for individual liberties, and will not take official actions that I would find morally repulsive. To take the classic Bill Clinton example, sex with an employee is a moral issue. Lying in court is a legal one. It is my position that I’d rather not have people who would violate moral issues because I believe they lead to the legal problems. (That said, I’d never support impeaching someone for cheating on his wife, though I think the right thing was done for lying in court.)
Atanamis, even looking at a candidate’s morals can be acceptable. My point is targeted specifically against those who would vote against a candidate simply because he’s a she, black, Jewish, or doesn’t believe in a 6 24-hour period literal creation story.
I think something can be literal and figurative. For instance, I believe in the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden. But that doesn’t mean reference to the literal Tree of Life cannot be presented in a figurative context. Indeed, it is.
“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2).
So we have to be careful about either/or propositions where biblical hermeneutics is concerned. And since Job was brought up, I’ll say this also applies to him just as it would apply to the literal Tree of Life. Christians should be able to agree on this because Jesus referred to Jonah as a literal historical figure, but he also made a figurative reference to his being in the belly of the whale.
“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40).
But where Giuliani is concerned, we should take into account that he is a self-professing Catholic. Catholicism does not give the same degree of credence to the Bible that other faiths do. Its not necessarily recognized as the final authority for every question. No offense to the present company of Catholics, but there is much about Catholic theology that is plainly non-biblical.
That being the case, I think the Youtube question was a good one. I think the questioner got what he wanted. He basically got Giuliani to admit that he doesn’t believe the account of Jonah to be literal. So in this guy’s book, Giuliani doesn’t believe “every word” of the Bible.
Well Lets Try This One.
Here Are My Answers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4113
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4158
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4144