The Answer To Robotic Literalism
Is Rational Literalism
The Book of Revelation is important to this discussion because it is the book where you find the seven churches of Asia Minor addressed by the glorified Christ. He has something to say to each of these churches and His message to each is recorded in the first three chapters.
Revelation, by the way, is either an interpreters delight or nightmare depending on how the book is approached. It is filled with graphic text describing things we do not and cannot naturally understand.
It doesn’t provide an appendix, index or endnotes to help with unfamiliar words or phrases. The language of the book defies colloquial and academic language in our day and that is true even in the time it was written which was almost two thousand years ago.
The writer was not contributing to an ongoing discussion on popular issues. The message of this book was not something anyone saw coming.
Some of the unusal events and descriptions are found in earlier books but with no more explanation than John’s discourse. John simply puts them together chronologically in one place.
But even with previous mentions of some of these ideas, he’s telling us what we do not readily understand and describing things we’ve never experienced or seen before.
And that is where the seven churches of Asia Minor are mentioned.
Micro Doesn’t Work
Because of these vagaries, taking a micro approach, which most people do, leads to a great variety of competing interpretations.
To understand this book, you must think analytically and you can’t afford to go too deep with your analysis.
It is the last book of the Bible and it deals mostly with eschatology – last things, things we haven’t seen or experienced yet and that fact adds to the mystery. Because of that, it is understandable that Revelation is the book where arguments about different beliefs abound.
Beliefs about the return of Christ and the coming Kingdom illustrates the confusion. There are three main interpretations:
- Premillennial, Christ returns before the Kingdom.
- Post Millennial, Christ returns after the Kingdom.
- And Amillennial, We’re in the Kingdom now.
The differences between those three belief systems are neither nuanced nor vague and all three are rooted largely in the text of Revelation.
It’s also true that there are variations in each of the three meaning these three ideas don’t compete only with each other, they also compete within each ideological strain.
Premillennials, for example, are divided between pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib raptures. Issues around the rapture may be even more nuanced. It’s hard to keep up with the variations.
How, you might ask, can such divergent ideas develop? The answer is simple. Different approaches to interpretation. Some take a literal approach to interpretation and some take an allegorical approach.
But even that explanation isn’t as clear as it may seem. Literal, for example, doesn’t and can’t mean literal in the absolute sense of the word.
The Old Testament prohibited the eating of pork along with a long list of other foods. The New Testament removed that restriction. What that means is we can’t take Old Testament restrictions literally. Interpretation done properly will attempt to identify the underlying reason for Old Testament restrictions before turning them into modern day statutes.
Believers attempting to live strictly by the letter of the law (and imposing those ideas on everyone else) is one reason unbelievers question inspiration.
Another problem is the fact that if we understand inspiration to mean the literal message must be obeyed to the letter, then any changes made in the New Testament constitutes a transgression. The answer to that is the fact that there is an underlying meaning or purpose being served by the inspired text.
If we believe inspiration means we must take an absolutely literal approach to interpretation (do always and only exactly what the text says), then the New Testament is contradicting the Old. That’s like saying God said one thing in one place and a contradictory thing in another place.
Can that be true? Are we saying God is fickle and can’t make up His mind? Or is it possible that God made rules in one place to protect us from problems that were transient or not easily perceived? Once the problem is no longer a threat or our understanding has developed sufficiently to enable us to avoid the problem without the rule, the rule can be abolished.
In short, the meaning one ascribes to the text is determined by how they approach interpretation. It’s the difference between literal interpretation and allegorical interpretation and also the difference between robotic literal and rational literal.
All of that is to say that the literal text must be understood in light of its purpose and underlying meaning. When we understand it that way, changes to the literal reading can happen without interfering with the teaching behind it.
Revelation And Literality
No one takes an absolutely literal approach to Revelation. How can they when the text is full of descriptions that defy everyday human experience like the Seals of Revelation 6.
The text is definitely true. The text is definitely conveying meaningful information but we must be patient with the text and with each other as we sort it out.
It’s okay to be decided in what you believe as long as you don’t demand others readily accept your understanding based on how decided you are.
The very fact that discussions and disagreements are endless should make us humble.
The Seven Churches of Asia Minor
Some texts will have both a literal and allegorical teaching and that is true for the seven churches of Asia Minor.
They were literal churches. They were in locations mentioned in Acts. They were places in which the Apostles preached the Gospel. These are literal facts. These churches are familiar to us in Revelation because they were featured in the Book of Acts.
The glorified Christ addresses Himself to these seven churches in the second and third chapters of Revelation and the tone is sombre, almost threatening.
He doesn’t, however, address the seven churches directly. Instead, He speaks to the the pastors of these churches through the agency of the Apostle John who had been banished to the Isle of Patmos.
A very long study could be conducted on chapter one’s description of the glorified Christ but that’s not the focus here and, depending on the spirit and attitude of the teacher, the lessons could range any where from terribly threatening to thrillingly encouraging.
The teacher’s mindset is another factor to consider. The teachings of any one person can be heavily influenced by their sense of security and balance. An insecure person will preach insecurity. A balanced person will encourage the same.
It all influences the outcome.
The Particular Problems Isn’t The Point
You could say these seven churches were representative of churches in general. There were seven of them. They were in particular communities. They each had a pastor and they each developed fellowship/service programs.
They held services. They got together apart from services. They may have enjoyed meals together. They influenced and were influenced by the communities in which they were established.
All that is understood.
But Jesus had things to say to each church. He didn’t offer them all the same message because they were individual churches. Each church, like each person, has personalities and strengths that separate them from other churhces.
They also have problems that identify them as different to other churches. Their situations were different and their responses to those situations were different.
And in the case of these churches, some of them were wrong. In fact, they were wrong to such an extent that Jesus had to rebuke them.
In His rebuke, Jesus does mention problems and most every study on these churches focuses on exactly what those problems were. Google it and you’ll see. Everyone wants to figure out exactly what their sins were. It is an interesting study. I’ve done it myself but I can’t say I got it right and most of the studies I’ve read through were so different, I can’t say any of them got it right either.
Trying to nit pick the sins of these churches may not produce a conclusive answer.
The Bigger Picture
But that isn’t to say all is lost.
There is a lesson here that most people don’t mention or if they do, they say very little and pass on quickly.
As I mentioned before and the text obviously indicates, there were seven churches. These churches shared geography. They were relatively close to each other. Today, the distance between these churches is no further than a two-and-a-half hour drive. Some were much closer.
Although we struggle to identify the particular sins, the bigger truth is that of the seven, five of them were rebuked by Jesus. Only two of the churches were recognized for their faithfulness.
And these churches were no more than 50 years old.
That means in a short time span (no more than fifty years) five of these churches had gone off the rails and only two had remained faithful. That means 71% of the churches had failed.
If these churches are representative, what does that mean for us today? I would suggest it is worse now than it was then.
Today’s Problem
Today, we have a different set of circumstances which actually multiplies the problem.
The biggest contributor is social media and the world-wide web. We know exactly what eveyone is thinking in real time.
Whatever a prominent leader says in YourTown, YourSate, it is known immediately in every corner of Africa. The internet and social media is a megaphone to the ears of the world.
The more prominent and influential a person is, the more their ideas stick even when they are wrong. The more widely these wrong ideas are accepted, the more entrenched they become.
This problem isn’t insurmountable. As long as we remember to think for ouselves, we can avoid the Lemming effect.
The Lesson
Taking an analytical approach to these churches leads to a couple of observations we should all take seriously.
Churches are not inspired and are therefore vulnerable. The Bible is inspired meaning it’s accurate and true. We accept that fact while at the same understanding that it still needs to be applied to interpretive principles to get at the meaning behind that truthful and accurate text.
Churches, however, are not inspired and are subject to human agency, which is also not inspired and definitely sinful and weak.
We get it wrong often. And if we, the humans, get it wrong, the church as a whole is sure to follow.
Don’t be naive. Churches can and will find themselves off center. Erring is not just possible, it’s likely.
But there’s a second observation.
If 71% of first generation churches veered off track without social media, then it is highly likely that even more will go astray under the help of social media today. The question is where might we be veering? What issues should we be revisiting?
The Bible is inspired and infallible but churches and church leaders are not. The Gospel is true but what fundamentalism espouses is far outside the Gospel. There is no place for politics in the Gospel but politics is an overriding theme and the involvement of religion has brought nothing but rancor and division to the country at a political level.
Before you accept what fundamentalists are saying, consider the issues carefully.
THINK!AboutIt
Leave a Reply