Literalism and Exclusionary Theology

Beyond Authority: Scripture in Our Churches (edited down)

In A New Teaching of Authority: a Re-evaluation of the Authority of the Bible, Mary Ann Tolbert aptly discusses the ways in which ecclesiastical institutions use a “special hermeneutic” in studying the Bible that allows for selective, biased, and harmful uses of scripture. She discusses how prevailing lenses of the academy are decidedly different in their approach to biblical study; how prevailing uses of scripture as authoritative have damaging consequences and involve removing scriptural passages from their textual, historical, and cultural contexts; and how church hierarchies are reinforced and laity stagnated by defining how scripture is to be interpreted by adherents.  She argues that the authoritative use of scripture is damaging in ways that are seemingly at odds with the “spirit” of the text.  

Scholarship within the field of religion has set aside the “specialness” of the Bible in order to give it the fair treatment applied to other historical and ancient texts.  Different fields’ expertise offer a multiplicity of ways to view scripture, including through the lenses of history, archaeology, sociology, psychology, and linguistics, which allow academics different ways to view biblical material and study it in ways that allow for multivalence.  The academy treats the Bible as no different than scripture from other faith traditions or other great works of antiquity.  Such lenses have not only allowed for a more generous interpretation of the biblical texts, but also have brought us closer to what the lives and communities of our spiritual ancestors may have been like and what their intentions and viewpoints may have been.  It is through the contributions of scholarship that we can see how scripture has been used to “exclude certain groups or people… and to justify morally or historically debatable positions” (Tolbert, 171).  Churches, in selective uses of scripture that are promoted by those with authority, have promoted uses of the Bible that allow for morally repugnant practices and worldviews to be spread and justified.  History shows us that scripture has been used to promote slavery, the Holocaust, suppression of women and minorities, and homophobia by elevating “tenuous and marginal” passages which are in contrast to the spirit of the Bible and have debatable meanings in their original languages and contexts (Tolbert, 171).  

Tolbert further explicates her position by discussing how the “special hermeneutics” found often within religious bodies are “radically ahistorical” (Tolbert, 176).  In treating the Bible as transcendent in its capacity to be applied to the specific lives and needs of all individuals and communities, it must necessarily be removed from the lenses and biases of the biblical authors and their contexts (Tolbert, 176).  Such a perspective consequently leads one to disregard the worldviews of antiquity that are undoubtedly pervasive in the texts and apply them to the modern world, centuries removed from the Bible’s authorship, in ways that the authors could not have foreseen and make little sense given the scientific, technological, and societal advancements that have been made (Tolbert, 177).  Furthermore, such application of the texts often requires picking very small passages from a large collection of books in order to meet specific needs of today.  Such passages must be removed from their contextual reading in order to be applied to a very different modern world (Tolbert, 178).  Finally, Tolbert shows us that “multiple meanings” are ruled out in favor of a “single meaning” which is decided by those in institutional power (Tolbert, 180).  Such treatment of clergy as authoritative “advances the pervasive and demoralizing attitude of regarding laity as passive, perpetual children” and disallows clergy from being honest with themselves or their congregants (Tolbert, 173).  While such treatments of the text are well-intentioned and are undoubtedly indicative of efforts to faithfully apply the Bible to our own contexts, Tolbert reminds us that “there are no neutral interpretations” and that any treatment of the Bible’s text must be influenced by our own paradigms (Tolbert, 182).  Taking these arguments into consideration, it seems obvious to me that the “special hermeneutic” is applied inconsistently and in ways that reinforce extant paradigms within a given church body, inevitably leading to damaging uses that fortify the positions of those in power, often while encouraging for oppression and discrimination.  

Mary Ann Tolbert expresses well how biblical authority and the “special hermeneutic” applied to the text by many churches is not only misguided but has been historically damaging. The academy’s lenses are decidedly different and more balanced in their approach to the Bible and more honest with the reality that “Jesus of the canonical gospels expends much of his ministry on breaking down… boundaries which permitted some to claim power and superiority” (Tolbert, 177).  Prevailing uses of scripture as authoritative involve selective treatment of tenuous portions of the Bible that serve to reinforce community prejudices and preserve power structures.  Removing such passages from their textual, historical, and cultural contexts allows for uses which no biblical authors could have foreseen or understood and which have detrimental effects on society.  Tolbert shows us how authoritative use of scripture is often at odds with overall biblical themes.  The lessons of Tolbert’s perspective could be applied in ways that bridge the gap between academic and community treatment of the Bible which could augment our own experience of the text as well as create a “defense” against dangerous usage of our scripture.

Works Cited

Tolbert, Mary.  “A New Teaching with Authority: A Re-evaluation of the Authority of the Bible.”  In Teaching the Bible: The Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy, edited by Fernando F. Segoviov and Mary Ann Tolbert, 168 - 189.  New York: Orbis Books, 1998.