|
Comments: Any hopes that this might be an inspirational book disappear when you see the photos on the dust jacket, showing a guy standing in downtown Manhattan dressed like a shepherd in a Sunday School Christmas program, complete with flowing robe, long unkempt beard and shepherd's staff. And a sheep. So this is Biblical literalism, hmmm?
The author gives two reasons for the book: on the one hand, he describes himself as genuinely seeking to add a spiritual dimension to his life. Although of Jewish descent, he hasn't practiced his faith for many years, and as a new father he seems to sense something missing, a foundation that he believes would benefit both himself and his family.
Of course, a squishy topic like that isn't going to sell many books, so he acknowledges another agenda as well, specifically: ...the purpose of this experiment was to take legalism to its logical extreme and show that it leads to religious idiocy. What better way to demonstrate the absurdity of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism?Having thus taken the liberty to draw his conclusions up front, Jacobs launches into his sociological experiment. Naturally, when faced with a choice of interpretations, he tends to favor whichever one leads to more bizarre or outlandish behaviors. To give at least some impression of fairness, Jacobs enlists a panel of rabbis, pastors and other advisers to consult with him on various spiritual issues. He also travels quite a bit, interviewing representatives of sects ranging from Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn to snake-handlers in Tennessee.
In the end, though, it all boils down to the list of 700+ 'commands' that Jacobs has distilled from the Bible, each of which he tries to obey at least once over the course of the year. Therein lies the entertainment, but also the fundamental fallacy. The Bible isn't just a big book of rules to be followed; in truth, it's a love story.I did enjoy the book though, and for several reasons. First, it was fun - Jacobs is an entertaining writer. Secondly, as a literalist, I found it good mental exercise to track his logic and identify the holes and inconsistencies. You don't need to be a scholar to find them. And, lastly, it was interesting to see the progress that the author makes on his goal of injecting some spirituality (or at least morality) into his New Yorker lifestyle. I sensed some surprise on his part as to just how much personal impact this project had. But the Bible will do that to you.
This would make a great read for a church-oriented book club (such as the one I'm hoping to start this year). If I were leading a group discussion, I'd ask the group to chew on the following questions:
- How is it that some people come to salvation simply by reading the Bible on their own, while others can immerse themselves in it for a solid year and yet miss the whole point?
- How do you deal with the fact that evangelicals are just one of dozens of irreconcilably different groups who all claim to be interpreting the Bible literally? What gives you confidence that your beliefs are well-founded?
3 comments:
You're a literalist? Didn't know that. Sounds like a good book though. So to answer your questions from my point of view:
-I think everyone comes to the bible from a different perspective, that's what makes us beautiful. No two people have lived the same life, no two people will look at the bible the same way. I believe this is what makes our faith interesting and increases our understanding of God.
-I don't interpret the Bible literally so I guess I am okay with this. I have complete confidence that my beliefs are well founded and agree with the statement that the Bible is a love story. Just as no one see's a relationship the same way, or love the same way, I am okay that we don't all understand God in the same way. I do see how this would be difficult for someone who see's the Bible literally to reconcile so I am interested to see other answers.
I think I created some confusion by throwing around the word "literalist" without explaining what I meant. Let me give it another try:
When understanding scripture, it's useful to distinguish between a passage's 'interpretation' and its 'application'.
'Interpretation' refers simply to what the text actually says, i.e. how the words would be understood by the person(s) to whom they were written, as heard through their own cultural, historical and linguistic filters. Unless someone is playing word games with you, any given passage will have but one interpretation. That's how language works.
'Application' is the process of deriving a meaning from the passage, of understanding how to apply it to your life. Unlike interpretations, applications can be pretty subjective. There can be multiple legitimate applications for a passage. Some may apply to me, and some to someone else. Some might not apply at all at this point in history ("...make thee an ark of gopher wood..."). That's not to say that there are no absolute or universal applications - there are plenty of those as well.
Unfortunately, applications can be negatively influenced by one's beliefs and biases. Even among sects that agree completely on a passage's interpretation, there's often strong disagreement about the legitimate applications for it. Because of that, a branch of study exists, known as 'hermeneutics', wherein scholars agree on a basic set of principles to guide their studies and ensure a consistent understanding. My niece Denaye has written a nice summary of this, which you can read here.
Interestingly, the Bible itself seems to suggest that doctrinal disagreements will always be with us. In Ephesians 4 Paul encourages the new church to preserve unity in the Spirit now, until such future time when unity of the faith is finally achieved.
In my mind, literalism applies to interpretation only, as described below. Conversely, I'm not sure how or even if the word can apply to applications. If you say you're applying a passage literally, what are you really telling me?
So back to my original point: when literally interpreting the text, I'm saying that I take it at face value, just as an ancient reader would understand it. If it says that Moses crossed the Red Sea, then I believe he literally crossed the Red Sea. I'm not just reading some sort of symbolic description about him overcoming his fear of water. Or, if the language is something that an Israelite would have clearly understood as figurative ("the sun went down"), or genuinely symbolic ("the kingdom of God is like a sower...") then I'll take it that way as well.
Based on that approach, I obviously accept the supernatural and miraculous aspects of the text. For those who are unable to accept that sort of thing, I can understand that, along with their tendency to reject the Bible entirely. What I do struggle with, though, is the pick-and-choose approach of those who decide to believe some portions and reject others. This just strikes me as intellectually dishonest, pretending that deep moral truths and deception can exist side-by-side. But that's a topic for a different time.
Bottom line: a literal Biblical interpretation wasn't what led A.J. Jacobs astray. Rather, it was his willingness (even eagerness) to uncritically buy into a wide variety of ill-conceived applications and traditions that humans have layered onto it over history. Good hermeneutics would have kept him on track (but led to a less entertaining book).
I have just started reading this book myself and figured that there would be good discussion on it on the internet. I am anticipating a very fun read, but right from the start I am struck with the impression that Jesus represented a direct response to Jacob's frustrations expressed on page 1 of month 1. "Before I so much as inhale or exhale, I have to run through a long mental checklist of the rules."
In a sense, Jesus says that there are really only two important rules, roughly 1) love God with all your heart, mind, sole, and body and 2) love your neighboor as yourself.
Post a Comment