I have come to immensely appreciate when an author not only gives you a list of what someone might be doing wrong, but also teaches you how to recognize it yourself. James W. Sire takes this approach in an older book of his, "Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways Cults Misread Scripture." As I've been reading it, I've realized that the "techniques" of misreading used by cults is also evident among people who profess to be Christians. The internet seems to make the tendency to twist the meaning of Scripture even more prevalent, and obviously, much more accessible. Here is an excerpt introducing one of the ways people misread Scripture, one which I've seen a lot, the tendency to read literally a passage that is mean to be figurative:
"The figurative fallacy is far more difficult to avoid than word play. Every reader must determine the way language is being used. Does the fact that in John 4 the word water is used both literally and figuratively mean it is always used this way in Scripture? And is the figurative meaning always the same? If a word has a literal reference as a part of an historical narrative, does that mean it does not have a figurative meaning? Or vice versa, if a word is used figuratively, must it also signify something literal?
Most Bible scholars would, I think, answer no to all of the above. Nonetheless, that does not help us as readers to determine when a particular word or sentence is being used solely in a literal way, solely in a figurative way or in a combination of ways. As readers we must learn to develop good judgment. Examining some errors that have been made by the cults will help us get a perspective on our task. We will first look at those misreadings that involve mistaking literal language for figurative language.
Case 1. Mary Baker Eddy turns the figurative fallacy into principles when she writes, 'In Christian Science we learn that the substitution of the spiritual for the material definition of a Scriptural word often elucidates the meaning of the inspired writer. On this account this chapter ['Glossary'] is added. It contains the metaphysical interpretation of Bible terms, giving their spiritual sense, which is also their original meaning.'
In the glossary that follows, 125 words are given their figurative, that is for Eddy, their actual meaning. Dove, for example, is 'a symbol of divine Science; purity and peace; hope and faith.' Evening is 'mistiness of moral thought; weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest.' Morning is 'light; symbol of Truth; revelation and progress.'
Most of the words in the glossary are defined without reference to any specific text of Scripture. Under the word day, however, we find this: 'The irradiance of Life; light the spiritual idea of Truth and Love. 'And the evening and the morning were the first day.' (Genesis i.5) The objects of time and sense disappear in the illumination of spiritual understanding, and Mind measures time according to the good that is unfolded. This unfolding is God's day, and though not documented, is from Revelation 21:25 and refers in context to the city of God. Regardless of how we examine the full contexts of these words--morning, evening, day --there is no way we can arrive at Eddy's 'spiritual' meaning. Unless we accept her as a special prophet and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as a new revelation, there is no reason to use her glossary as a guide.
As traditional Christians we must simply conclude that Eddy has committed the figurative fallacy; she has mistaken the literal for the figurative. It is interesting to note that this particular fallacy is a natural outgrowth of Christian Science theology. In Eddy's world view, only spirit exists; matter does not exist except as an error in our human perception. So any word signifying something material on a literal level is either a label for error or a metaphor for truth. Adam, for example, is 'error, a falsity; the belief in "original sin," sickness and death....'
As we will see in chapter eight, Eddy is not the only modern prophet to propose an ornate spiritual (figurative) meaning to biblical terms. Emanuel Swedenborg, from whom the Church of the New Jerusalem derives, likewise developed such an approach to Bible reading. (See discussion of both Eddy and Swedenborg below, pp. 109-15). It is, in fact, the constant temptation of readers who somehow believe there must be more to the Bible than meets the eye of steady reason. Hidden in the literal is the figurative, the real, the spiritual meaning, and we must find the key. The cults are filled with 'keys,' but when each key is used to unlock the text, the meaning that emerges is unique and fails to square with other meanings unlocked by other keys.
Traditional Bible scholars use a different principle: where the Bible itself suggests that words or narratives are being used symbolically, we should follow the suggestions of the Bible; where the Bible is silent on such symbolism, we should stick with the plain, straightforward sense of the text; in no case will a symbolic or figurative reading contradict any biblical teaching which derives from texts which are obviously intended to be taken in their plain ordinary sense. We must not, for example, interpret a parable of Jesus so as to conflict with Paul's letter to the Romans or use an event in the life of Abraham to typify an idea with Jesus calls into question. This will not solve all the problems of figurative language, but it will dramatically reduce the number of difficult texts..."
- James W. Sire
from: http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Twisting-Cults-Misread-Bible/dp/0877846111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380422807&sr=8-1&keywords=twisting+scripture
No comments:
Post a Comment