During a recent lunch conversation with some friends about different ways of reading scripture, I was reminded of a couple things I recently heard Rob Bell talk about while speaking at the Greenbelt Festival.
When asked a question about prophecy and its relevance today, Rob noted that for some, “prophecy” means foretelling future events but that in Hebrew scriptures, prophecy much more often means “speaking truth” – even when it’s unpopular.
I think we see a lot of that from old testament prophets. where they’re job and their message is “you need to get your shit together…God is not cool with what’s happening here.” (that’s my non-sunday-school-friendly paraphrase)
In the lunch conversation, the frustration was in how some folks are all worked up about finding coded messages within scripture that predict the future, which is, i think, in part, all tied to how you read/understand scripture and how you understand (or don’t) the cultural context of the writings.
In the Greenbelt discussion, rob responds to another question about the genesis creation story and issues of trying to rectify the story with science. rob noted that the poem of the genesis creation account and the whole point of it for the culture in which it was created, was focused on how you tell a story, and the “more than literal” truth. the goal was not about getting historical moments lined up correctly (like many modern minds are obsessed with) and more about getting at the meaning.
in my mind, this conflict about literal vs. nonliteral reading is profoundly rooted in our understanding/definition of “truth.” I remember this notion hitting me like a two-by-four on the very first day of my philosophy class as a freshman in college. for many ancient cultures, truth does not equal fact. and often fact has little to do with truth. truth is much bigger and more profound than fact. that’s why it’s unsettling for some bible fans (literalists) to hear another say that the noah/flood story or the creation story are myths. because to many modern folk, myth = “not true” instead of myth = “bigger than fact.” for a literalist to hear someone say that something (especially when talking about the bible) might not be factual, in his/her mind threatens the bible’s credibility, because in calling it a myth, you’re calling it a lie. this is the unfortunate pitfall of “just reading what’s on the page”, free of context. if people can shed this modern, myopic, way of reading scripture, they might finally begin to understand that maybe God laughs (and cries) at all the petty particulars we fuss about. they might begin to see that it’s not about whether or not there was a person named Adam that lived at 1504 Eden St. it’s not about whether or not we can scrounge up proof of Jesus’ resurrection. the meaning behind the stories/accounts is “TRUTH” and that is so much bigger and greater that any fact. facts or no facts cannot unravel or diminish the truth.
