Navigating Scriptural Interpretation: The Need for a Moderate/Liberal Hermeneutic

The Challenge of Communicating Liberal Hermeneutics

It is often difficult to discuss scriptural issues in modern debates due to the lack of clearly articulated liberal hermeneutics. It’s not that a liberal hermeneutic doesn’t exist, but rather that it’s poorly communicated to laypeople. Moderates have developed approaches they use with varying degrees of success, but these often amount to exceptions carved out within fundamentalist or conservative evangelical hermeneutics.

The Pitfalls of “Not Taking the Bible Literally”

The problem, I believe, stems from simply telling people not to take the Bible literally. In many churches, “literal” and “true” have become nearly synonymous, making this statement sound like a dismissal of the Bible’s seriousness. Mainline denominations often find themselves caught between biblical literalists and critical biblical scholarship, unsure how to engage with scripture. While I have no issue with critical methodologies, they have a significant limitation: after extensive discussions of the text’s prehistory and history, the question remains, “What do we do with it now?”

Bridging the Gap: From Text to Life

This is where many of us struggle to communicate our approach effectively. The Bible is important to me, but why, and how do I convey that importance to others? More importantly, what role does the Bible play in my life, particularly in addressing life’s questions? It cannot function as it does for a fundamentalist seeking specific commands in particular verses. That is not how I study or understand it.

Addressing Specific Questions: Genesis and Theistic Evolution

I am frequently asked about Genesis: How can I reconcile theistic evolution with belief in the Bible? Is my practice “biblical” Christianity?

The Misuse of “Biblical”

Let’s begin with the term “biblical.” I believe it is often misused as an adjective. One cannot determine whether something is biblical without establishing an interpretive framework—a hermeneutic. Therefore, if someone asks whether my views are “biblical” and they adhere to dispensationalism, they are unlikely to perceive my views as such. Frankly, were I as rigid as they are, I would find their views unbiblical, as I see dispensationalism as an external imposition on the text without sufficient justification. From my perspective, I am quite biblical, but to a dispensationalist who believes their approach is the correct way to understand the Bible, I appear otherwise.

Genesis as Myth, Not History

In response to the question about Genesis and theistic evolution, I see no conflict because I do not interpret Genesis as narrative history or any other form of literature that demands historical accuracy. Thus, my reading of Genesis differs based on its literary genre. Simply stating, “I don’t take Genesis literally,” is insufficient. There are few viable literal interpretations, but many non-literal ones. I must be more specific.

Understanding Ancient Literature: Genre and Context

To interpret ancient literature accurately, one must determine its literary genre and the questions it was intended to answer, and then read it accordingly. In the case of Genesis 1-11, we are dealing with the language of an origin myth. These myths were written in the ancient Near East not to preserve historical facts but to establish social order and legitimize governments.

Elements of My Hermeneutic

Today, I will briefly outline my hermeneutical approach. I may elaborate on individual elements in future blog posts. Liberals and moderates need to clarify how we move from text to action. If the Bible is important in my life, how does it shape my behavior? Obviously, I am not referring to simple exegesis. Determining Paul’s intent for his original audience is insufficient; we must also apply his teachings to contemporary life.

Community and Inspiration

My understanding begins with viewing biblical literature as the product of a faith community. This does not exclude divine inspiration, but it acknowledges that divine inspiration operates within specific historical and cultural contexts. Communication with these people had to be comprehensible to them. Since the literature originates from a faith community, its reception, creation, and transmission are crucial to its interpretation. If the Pentateuch is compiled from sources developed over centuries, this is significant. It reveals something about God and his methods, just as the text itself does.

Contextual Understanding, Not God’s Eye View

A corollary to this is that I do not base my understanding on God’s knowledge or context. The literature was communicated to and within a community, and it was understood by that community. I do not believe they possessed a God’s-eye view, and neither do I.

The Evolution of Understanding

However, the understanding of that community may not be relevant to us today. For example, the original audience of Genesis likely believed in a flat, disc-shaped earth with a dome-like sky. That was their cosmology. We know better. Future generations may improve upon our understanding. I do not retroactively apply my modern perspective to these stories, assuming God already knew the earth was spherical, without making other necessary interpretive adjustments.

Continuity, Tradition, and Experience

Because the Bible was produced within a community, I am interested in the continuity of that community from then to now, insofar as it exists. This maintains connection and continuity in a changing world. I also incorporate tradition in this manner.

At the same time, I acknowledge that my understanding is shaped by my experiences and my connections to my modern community, particularly my spiritual community (a United Methodist congregation), which provide a framework for interpretation. I also integrate knowledge from other sources, such as science.

Reason and the Holy Spirit

Finally, two elements work closely together. First is reason (a component of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral), which I see not as a separate source of knowledge but as the means by which we comprehend all other sources. Some Christians disdain reason, but reason inevitably informs our doctrines. The only question is how effectively. The second element is the Holy Spirit, guiding us into all truth. I believe the Holy Spirit is more active than we often realize, and we must remain open to ongoing guidance.

The Result: A Different Interpretation

The result of this approach often differs significantly from the interpretations of fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals. Understanding this difference requires examining our interpretive and applicative methods.

The Need for Clear Communication

I hope to elaborate on these elements further. This has been a brief overview. There is a wealth of excellent moderate and liberal hermeneutics available; however, they do not seem to reach laypeople as effectively as I would like.

(This post is lightly adapted from a post I wrote in 2008 on Threads from Henry’s Web. Gemini AI was used in the rewrite.)