In this article, I’m going to attempt to persuade you that no one really interprets the Bible literally.  Rather, we weigh different parts of the Bible against one another, looking for the reading that seems most persuasive.  As part of this process, a person’s background can affect one’s biblical interpretation, making people of different backgrounds better able to see each other’s blind spots.  These claims may seem obvious to some and sacrilegious to others.

I’ll start, by revisiting one of the most commonly read parables in the Bible — the Parable of the “Prodigal Son”.

How Americans Interpret the Parable of the Prodigal Son  Differently

If you were to ask a North American Christian why the Prodigal Son returned, you would get a variety of answers, but one of the more common responses I’ve heard is that the Prodigal Son squandered his money on prostitutes and chose to return to his father once his money ran out.  In fact, the allegation about the prostitutes that we remember is not explicitly part of the story’s original narrative, (Luke 15:13) but rather it is an accusation made by the older son when the younger son returns (Luke 15:30).  It is the older son’s accusation that is stuck in our memories.

How Others Interpret the Parable of the Prodigal Son

By contrast, if you were to ask Christians from another part of the world, particularly a place that has experience with famine, you would find that a greater number of them would mention the word “famine” in their answer. (Luke 15:14)

How Experience Affects How We Read

The story of the Prodigal Son illustrates how our own experience shapes how we read the Bible and what we remember.  North Americans below the age of 80 do not have direct experience with famine and so our memories don’t connect to this part of the story as strongly as do the older son’s allegations of sexual immorality.

For North Americans, “Sexual Immorality” is a more familiar concept than famine; we focus on it more easily; and it imprints itself more strongly in our memories.

Who Are You in the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

Some of you may be familiar with the Bible Study practice of empathizing with the different characters in a Bible story.  In this story, we might ask:

• Have you ever felt like a prodigal son?
• Do you sometimes feel like the older son; or if you have children,
• Do you identify with the role of the Father?

The Bible includes many rich stories that contain insight from a multitude of perspectives and if we want to experience the Gospel most fully, we should consciously try to empathize with each of the characters in a parable.

How Does Being Single Change One’s Focus? *

As a second example of how who we are shapes how we read the bible, consider the case of 1 Corinthians 7, which the NIV Translation titles “Concerning Married Life”. Christians who are single are less likely to quickly scan over Pauls’s writings regarding singleness, much as many Americans scan over the famine in the story of the “Prodigal Son”.  I put an asterisk in the above paragraph heading because by “Single” I specifically meant to describe not just people who haven’t yet married, but people who are single and who are open to the possibility of remaining single.  These people are more likely to read the Bible with a mind receptive to Paul’s message on singleness.  On the other hand, singles who aspire to marriage or who have internalized society’s marriage norms are less likely to pick up on Paul’s instructions.

What Would Paul Have Us Do Regarding Marriage and Sexuality?

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul responds to a request from the church at Corinth concerning the subject of sexuality and marriage with a recommendation coupled with a series of concessions meant for those who fall short of the goal.

Most people who are marriage-minded focus on the concessions, but Paul is clear in saying that he wishes that all the unmarried and widowed believers would remained unmarried, as he is (1 Corinthians 7:8).  In the next verse, Paul gives the concession that if believers are not practicing self-control they should marry.  “For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Grandfathered into this arrangement are all those currently married.  Paul grants that married couples should remain married, but he advises the widowed not to remarry.

What Reason Does Paul Give for his Recommendation?

Paul does not always give rationales for all his recommendations, but in chapter 7 he gives several, though I doubt many people can recall his most significant reason.

Some readers will pick up on verse 28:

But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

Some marriage-minded readers might also cite verses 29-31, arguing that Paul thought the end of the world was coming soon, and that if he’d have known that the world would continue for over 1,000 years, he would have approved of marriage out of a need for children.  But notice that once you suggest the possibility that Paul was wrong about the timing, you are speaking against the ideal of literal inerrancy and you lose the ability to apply this interpretive mode to Paul’s other writings.

No, Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 goes straight to the core of the “First Commandment”:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

That’s quite a charge against married people — that in choosing marriage, they are choosing to divide their love for God— as forbidden by the first commandment: (Mark 12:28-34)

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Now if you are a marriage-minded person, like most of society, this interpretation of the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians is likely going to face a lot of resistance in your mind, even though you will recognize that marriage may compete with other worthy goals.  If you are particularly practical, you might ask how we are supposed to continue to procreate as a species if all the “best” people stay single.  More philosophically, you might critique Paul for assuming an economy of scarcity, saying something like:

Is there is only a finite amount of love to go around?  If I have a child, will it really mean less love for my spouse and less love for God?

Because a plain and literal interpretation likely challenges at least one of your beliefs, you will likely consider alternatives to the plain literal version I just described.

I talked through an early version of this article with a father of eight and he did not undergo an immediate change of mind, phoning his unmarried children to discourage them from marrying.  I have yet to meet even one parent who says to their child: “Don’t marry.  I want no grandchildren”,  out of a desire for their child’s undivided devotion to the Lord. Yet that appears to be the position Paul advocates if you take a plain and literal interpetation.  You may find some other bible verse to negate what Paul is saying here, or may make some other explanation, but your eventual stance on this will be to choose some reason/s not to take Paul literally.

Our Actions Reveal Our Beliefs

Sometimes when we talk about literal biblical interpretation, we use examples that have a bearing on how we interpret other parts of the bible, but not much effect on our everyday lives.  For example:

“Did the creation happen in 6 literal 24-hour days”?

This question affects how we read the Bible, and what we may think about various scientific theories, but this is mostly a hypothetical question compared to the question of whether marriage is an ideal, rather than a concession.

I’d like to suggest that we can know more about what we really believe by keeping track of what we actually do, rather than by our assent to intellectual positions that have little bearing on our lives.  And we can’t faithfully believe in Paul’s recommendation that it is better to stay single, while encouraging all of our children, friends, and grandchildren to get married.

Weighing the Evidence

Now some of you may say: It’s just one chapter of the Bible, and there are many other parts of the Bible that support the traditional view of marriage, and marginalize Paul.  As they say in law, “the preponderance of evidence” speaks in favor of marriage. That is a valid position, and one I myself favor.  I wrote this article to raise your awareness that you weigh the scripture through various factors, rather than read the bible literally; and that people of different perspectives can help us see things that are in our blind spots.

About the Next Article

In the next article, I’m going to argue that, if you read the Bible literally, there are two views of sacrifice in the Old Testament:

1. The conventional view that God commanded the Israelites to make sacrifices to Him.
2. The view of the Psalmists, Hosea, and Jeremiah that God did not desire or command the Israelites to make sacrifices.

If you’ve never hear the term “Postel Christian”, that’s not surprising, as I’m coining it here for the first time.  The term is derived from Jon Postel, the technologist who created the email protocol, and described the “robustness principle” in RFC 761,  known as Postel’s Law:

Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

The basic idea of Postel’s concept is that in certain domains  it is advantageous to design systems to be forgiving (liberal) in what they accept and yet strict (conservative) in what they do.  Postel’s Law allows diverse participants to function together on a network, ensuring that that the system inter-operates, despite the fact that not all participants follow the rules strictly.

Although Postel was describing the technology behind email, the same principle can be applied in other areas.  In writing, for example, it is a good idea to try to follow proper spelling and punctuation, while at the same time also being forgiving of those who don’t.

Beyond Liberal vs Conservative

To extend the analogy to other domains, I consider myself neither entirely liberal or conservative.  I “act” conservative in many areas of my personal life — my finances are conservative, I don’t swear, or drink.  I try to respect the rules unless I feel that they are wrongheaded, yet I am freer than many self-described conservatives to associate with people of diverse backgrounds who don’t always follow the rules and I have more in common with many on the left on some social issues.  So where do I fit on the Liberal-Conservative Continuum?

When most people think about liberalism and conservatism, they thing about about the label as applying to one’s self.  What Postel’s framework does is add a second axis to distinguish between the strictness of the standard I hold myself to verses the standard with which I interact with my neighbors.  Most people are familiar with The Golden Rule, which calls for a symmetry between your love of self and your love of others, but Jesus actually asked for more then symmetry, he asked for grace and did not cut off others whom did not meet the standard.

I like to think that Jesus was a “Postel Christian”.  He said he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, which I interpret as living according to the spirit of the law (conservative), while at the same time hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes, which would have appeared scandalously liberal to the strictly law-abiding Pharisees.

We’re in a time of change, with political realignment taking place in the Republican party.  David Brooks says that Trumpism is an utter repudiation of modern conservatism.  Maybe so, but maybe its also time for a broader  reconsideration of the traditional Liberal and Conservative labels.

I’m an Anabaptist (Mennonite) so I’m used to not fitting within the standard Catholic/Protestant typology.  Third Way.com describes some of this in more detail, but within Anabaptism there are differences in approach.

A friend of mine’s family left the Beachy Amish when he was young and then associated with conservative Mennonites.  When I talked to Phil about the “Postel Christian” concept for this article, he commented that the Amish are in quadrant four.  They have strict expectations for their own community, but they don’t expect others to follow them, and they are able to relate to non-believers.

He said the conservative Mennonites he knew couldn’t develop friendships with  outsiders for fear that they would be corrupted.  I talked this “Postel Christian” idea over with his brother Andrew and described to Andrew about how I choose to be friendly with my neighbor, even as he smokes and sits outside with a beer in his hand.1  I don’t smoke and I recognize that second-hand smoke can be damaging, but I figure in low doses it is more important to be neighborly than to protect myself.  Andrew said that the people at his church would not be able to engage this way with my neighbor because they would feel an obligation to either publicly denounce the neighbor’s drinking and smoking, or shun him.  For some, this response is done out of a fear that they wouldn’t be able to resist the objectionable behavior; and for others they would avoid the neighbor because they don’t want to be seen as condoning bad behavior.

Does Postel’s Law apply to all of life?  Must I be forgiving of everyone?

One misunderstanding about Postel Christianity regards its scope.  Say, for example, that you ran a software company.  Would you as an owner or manager have to let employees do anything they want, applying a strict standard only to yourself?  No, subgroups (companies, churches, civic groups) are free to hold themselves to a stricter standard.

So if I had a software company called Postel Software, I could insist that all of our HTML validates and our Python code follows certain standards.  But the key difference is that, if we are a company making a product which interoperates with web pages created by anyone on the internet, it should be designed like Google’s Chrome browser, not requiring every web page to be perfectly valid HTML.  This is an accurate description of how web browsers do, in fact, work.  I know of no web browser that treats html web pages strictly.

This doesn’t mean that there are not rules that can’t be broken.  If I am at my local electronics shop and I see a customer attempting to steal something, I will alert to store owner.  But if my neighbor is mainly harming himself, or setting a bad example, I am forgiving.

The Benedict Option

Rod Dreher of The American Conservative has written a book called The Benedict Option, advocating that conservatives withdraw from mainstream American society to isolated communities where they can preserve Orthodox Christianity.  From what I’ve read, LGBT issues are an important factor in this decision, with Rod fearing that the government is going to force Christian-affiliated schools and colleges to violate their consciences.

One of the questions I have about Dreher’s proposal is about exactly where he draws the line and why.  Is he willing to interact with neighbors who may be gay, or who may think differently about LGBT issues, so long has he is able to maintain the freedom to exclude LGBT people from his churches, church-affiliated colleges, etc.  If, as Skye Jethani of the Phil Vischer podcast has said, Christians are given an exception allowing them to opt out of participation in LGBT wedding ceremonies and  wedding cake decorators are free to deny decorating services to LGBT couples on the theory that a cake decorating mandate violates artistic expression, would Dreher be willing to accept a mandate that required him to sell generic uncustomized cakes to anyone?  Or would Dreher want to allow businesses of any kind to deny service to LGBT customers?

The point I’m getting at is — is Dreher willing to coexist with his neighbors, knowing that he will come in contact with people with whom he disagrees, or does his faith require him to shun them?

If Dreher really believes that self-preservation requires him to minimize his exposure to non-believers, I can understand. I live in Lancaster County and grew up in a progressive Mennonite home without a television (although I did go to public school).  My parents shielded me from some things, but they accepted that I would have to go out into a world that is at odds with the Mennonite faith and make my own choices.

Many Mennonites have developed a theology calling for separation from general society based on an interpretation of bible passages that call on believers to be “in the world but not of the world”.  My church is among the more progressive of Mennonites, living a modern life (I’m a computer programmer), engaging with the world, but trying to maintain a different ethic.  Critics of the type of separatism that Dreher advocates, such as Elizabeth Stoker Brunei, question how followers of the Benedict option can follow the second commandment to love their neighbor, while at the same time wanting nothing to do with them.

The Illiberal Left

A lot of the conflict in these scenarios is between quadrant three and quadrant four.  Besides hypocritical conservatives, Quadrant three contains people who identify themselves as “liberal,” yet are unwilling to coexist with quadrant four conservatives.

Recently, Heather Mac Donald, author of “The War On Cops” was invited to speak to students at Claremont-McKenna College in California.  One might debate whether her arguments are persuasive or wrong-headed, but the opposition among students was such that event organizers “were considering changing the venue to a building with fewer glass windows to break.”  The Wall Street Journal quoted the CMC College president as saying that students had blocked people from entering the venue.  Columist William McGurn attributes the conflict to the students a belief “that they should never have to hear an opinion different from their own.”

It is quadrant three and four that pose the greatest challenge to pluralism.  Decreasing tolerance from quadrant three “illiberal liberals” antagonizes conservatives and drives conservatives in quadrent four like Dreher to consider separatist strategies.

Are these groups irreconcilable?  I don’t know.  As I interact with more people, I’m increasingly interested in looking for ways that can strengthen American pluralism, allowing Christians to learn from each other and from the broader society.2