WESLEYAN WISDOM: Move beyond literalism; become biblically literate Donald W. Haynes, Feb 20, 2007
Dr. Donald W. Haynes
By Donald W. Haynes Special Contributor
Biblical literalism insists that "every word of the Bible is equally true," meaning equally applicable. One wonders whether people who insist on literalism have actually read all of the Bible.
Biblical literacy, on the other hand, means searching the Scriptures for the Word within the words, and the eternal truth within the temporal language, culture and theology.
Biblical literalism encourages us to treat every verse in the Bible as an entity to itself that can become a weapon to help support some premise we bring to the Bible or to help us win an argument. Biblical literacy elevates the Scriptures to "tower o'er the wrecks of time."
John Wesley emphasized searching the Scriptures as a means of grace. Certainly he did this until his eyesight failed him. Whenever he found a text incongruent with biblical teachings-he even said some of the psalms are not worthy of a Christian audience-he counseled finding God's Word in the macro, not the micro.
It wasn't until the 20th century that terms like "verbally inspired" and "infallibility" became litmus tests for biblical authority.
Certainly, a failure to lift up the Bible as the Word of God weakens the evangelistic motive and message of a church. And using higher criticism like a butcher has eroded our ability to preach "Thus saith the Lord." But when we lift isolated texts out of context, we abuse rather than honor the Bible.
Every book of the Holy Bible is written to and for a historical audience, so we must see the text contextually. This might mean a study of language: Perhaps the writer is speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically, which ancient Eastern writers loved to do. Perhaps the word has a different nuance in Hebrew or Greek than in English. Or we might need to know the cultural context in which the message would be received.
Here's a case in point: A prominent Baptist seminary recently refused tenure to a faculty member because it insisted the Bible "forbids women to teach men." If one pulls out a single verse, that is true. I Timothy 2:12 reads, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (Incidentally, those who use this text often leave off the second clause).
If one reads the whole chapter, however, there is an admonition for slaves to obey their masters! Why did the seminary administrators not quote the Scripture as a passage or chapter? Because they wanted a specific word forbidding women to teach men.
Now let's look at the text with biblical literacy instead. Certainly a Baptist seminary would have a Bible commentary on hand. There are times biblical verses see God calling us to break out of cultural mores; at other times, the Bible reflects cultural mores.
When Paul says, "In Christ there is no male or female, Jew nor Greek, bond nor free," he is breaking the bonds of culture. But when he says, "Do not permit women to teach men," he is reflecting the Jewish and Greek cultures in which Christianity was taking shape.
Neither culture gave women dignity, respect or position. Under Jewish law, a woman could not learn Mosaic law, participate in the synagogue service, go beyond a certain point in the Temple or teach in a school (not even young children). A strict Rabbi would not speak to his own wife, sister or daughter on the street. Some historians claim that Jews in Jesus' day recited a prayer each morning: "O God, I thank thee that I was not created a Gentile, a slave or a woman."
By the time of the pastoral letters, many Christians were Greek. A Greek woman lived almost confined to quarters in her home, where no one came except her small children, her slaves and her husband. She did not entertain or attend celebratory meals.
Yet other passages that might have been lifted up by our Baptist brothers cite Priscilla as a teacher and Phoebe as a deacon. Mary Magdalene "provided for Jesus' ministry out of her own means" and the merchant Lydia let Paul use her home as a house church. If one is to teach biblical literacy rather than literalism, surely such women of the early church deserve recognition.
For whatever reason, this passage in Timothy simply does not square with the role Jesus gave women in ministry, whether in the Book of Acts or the various churches established by Paul.
We need to follow Wesley's advice and move from micro-texting to macro-texting. Let us see the Bible as the canon of sacred writ, sweeping over centuries of time, reflecting many authors and often self-correcting earlier insights.
Did not Jesus often say, "You have heard it said of old . . . but I say unto you . . ."? Did not Paul say more than once that he did not have a revelation from God, but would instead express his own opinion on a matter?
As E. Stanley Jones said in 1955, "The Word did not become printer's ink; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it should not become an idol.
To worship the book is bibliolatry. We worship the great and loving God who inspired the book.
By terminating a Hebrew teacher because she is a woman, Southwestern Baptist Theological College president Paige Patterson used a view of Scripture that makes every Christian woman a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of God.
This is merely cultural. God shows no partiality as to gender, ethnicity, race or other cultural divisions.
We need to realize that many church-wounded people could find a home in United Methodism if we had more confidence in our own grace theology and were motivated and more competent in our efforts to "rescue the perishing."
Let it be our United Methodist mission to pick up those "refugees," salve their spirits and lovingly bring them into a church of open heart, open mind and healing grace.
Dr. Haynes directs the United Methodist Studies program at Hood Theological Seminary. e-mail: dhaynes11@triad.rr.com.
Dr. Donald W. Haynes
Every book of the Holy Bible is written to and for a historical audience, so we must see the text contextually. This might mean a study of language: Perhaps the writer is speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically, which ancient Eastern writers loved to do. Perhaps the word has a different nuance in Hebrew or Greek than in English. Or we might need to know the cultural context in which the message would be received. 
 12-09.gif)