Br. Francis Therese's answer to Religion: Which groups of people interpret religious stories in a non-literal way?
After reading the responses, I would like to suggest that the problem of “literality” is a specifically modern and Christian problem. In Ancient Greece we saw the passage from mythos to logos, a process which was - to my knowledge - one of a kind at the time. The more radical of these thinkers, Socrates in particular, was executed (or rather condemned to commit suicide… a truly bizarre thing to consider) for “impiety.” By his example, he encouraged the young - voluntarily or involuntarily - to question preconceived notions (on piety, courage, friendship, the soul, knowledge itself.) Socrates is the hero of all philosophers - the one who has not come to destroy knowledge, but to seek truth. The fundamental intuition of all these Greek thinkers was that the myths did have a “logos,” a reason, something intelligent to say about existence - and that by unlocking the logos they would become wise. The myths dealt with the right questions, the right problems, the big picture, but they did not do so clearly enough. The philosophers, especially Socrates, understood that the right question is far more important than the right answer when it comes to seeking wisdom. Removing these questions from their mythical contexts, - questions on creation, the soul, being, oneness, the divine, etc - and placing them in the context of human experience, of one’s personal experience - and of what one actually knows from personal experience - was the radical revolution wrought by Socrates. This is the process of separating the irrational from the rational, the imaginary from the real, the feeling from the existential. It is a philosophical process, not a hermaneutical process. A process of reflection, not of interpretation.
Literal vs. non-literal is, as the question suggests, a question situated at the level of interpretation. No one in their right mind would suggest that a story communicates zero truth just because some aspects of it were made up - or that the reason people tell stories is to communicate lies. At that point, you might as well say that all art is a lie (when it doesn’t materially reproduce nature.) Art isn’t a lie, storytelling isn’t lying, but interpretation is implicitly required. Philosophy draws truths out of the context of myths or stories and treats them rationally within the context of human experience. Interpretation draws meanings from myths or stories while trying to remain in context.
Catholic teaching has always seen the literal sense of biblical texts as the essential meaning upon which all other meanings are based. There are other meanings contained within the literal meaning (St. Thomas Aquinas resumes them as the allegorical, anagogical, and moral interpretations) referred to as spiritual meanings. But the literal meaning of the text (as it is understood in Catholic Theology) is the one the author intended to communicate - taking into account the audience, the cultural context, the literary style, etc - which is distinct but not separate from the spiritual meaning.
At the time of the reform and the enlightenment, sometimes what was preached was far enough from the literal meaning of the bible, that radical reformers refused all spiritual meanings in an effort to return to orthodoxy. An effort of purification that often led to oversimplification, and heterodoxy. This was the beginning of modern exegesis. Often, modern biblical exegesis is a scientific study of the scriptures that requires one to remove faith from the equation. An “objective” exegetical approach, according to this logic, is one outside an act of faith.
For me, as a Catholic, interpreting religious stories in a “non-literal” way would mean “taking them out of context,” or “projecting upon them something unintended…” both of which correspond to human tendency. At the same time, I recognize that the word “literal” has taken on a new meaning today - one that corresponds much more to the word “material” in my opinion. So the question becomes, “Which groups interpret religious stories in a non-material way?” Which groups interpret religious stories in a spiritual way? Which groups interpret religious stories while ignoring the concrete details? Which groups interpret religious stories in a non-factual way?
All Christians recognize certain facts present in the scriptures as indeed historical fact: the death and resurrection of Christ, miracles, etc. Some Christians read the Bible as though it were a modern history book, which is about as “non-literal” as you can get. Many Christians, however, are not sure what they should consider to be historically factual and what they should consider to be literary devices. Few Christians take the time to study the texts and the context close enough to make an educated decision, and only Catholics believe that the Church’s Magisterium has the authoritative interpretation of the scriptures (which has been passed down but also extensively validated through methods of textual criticism).
I think then, that the “literal/non-literal” question boils down to two things: 1. the influence of Positivism and Rationalism on the modern mind and the way it forces all we receive through filters of scientific accuracy and mathematical reason. 2. the quest for authority in matters of interpretation. So, those Christians who take the scriptures without faith will either reject them on scientific or logical principles, or accept them as stories loosely based on fact - or simply as myths. Those Christians who do read the scriptures with faith, then, either see the bible as needing no interpretation - as “literally true;” as needing an interpretation that comes to the individual directly from the Holy Spirit; as needing an interpretation that comes from study; or as needing an interpretation that implies both the motion of the Holy Spirit and study and is also confirmed and taught by the Church.
I think that Christians who interpret the scriptures in a specifically non-literal way do so without faith. Christians who interpret the scriptures in a “literal”/material way are considered fundamentalists and considered Fideists by the Catholic Church. Christians who try to get the literal meaning - the intended meaning - are mainline Christians and Catholics as well. The only difference with Catholics is that they have recourse to the Church as an authority in matters of interpretation.
Which groups of people interpret religious stories in a non-literal way?
