Armstrong's Case

This week's Newsweek contains an interesting article by Lisa Miller that basically reviews Karen Armstrong's nineteenth book entitled The Case for God. In the article there were two points that made me think about my past beliefs and my current ones. The first point Armstrong makes is that believers in the three major religions--Jewish, Christian, and Muslim-- are all capable of reading the Bible symbolically, rather than literally. If one does so, he or she is likely to realize there are multiple interpretations of the Word. The second point is that the Bible does not present just one revelation only in the far distant past but rather continuing revelations. I would like to consider these two points carefully since they are the reverse of my previous theological teaching.

The church in which I was a member for over fifty years always taught the one should interpret the Scriptures absolutely literally. The snake was a real one in Genesis, the donkey actually spoke in the Old Testament, and the whale actually swallowed a fellow named Jonah. As I grew older, however, and became an English major, I realized there were numerous verses in the Bible which we cannot take literally but symbolically. There are many, but a few examples will make the point: "I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke 19:40); " . . . hide me under the shadow of thy wings" (Psalm 17:8); and "I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, . . ." (Revelation 13:1).

On the second point, likewise, I have been taught in the past there there was one revelation only and that the time for revelation ended with the completion of the Biblical Word. Yet, we realize that the Muslims base their religion on revelations from the prophet Mohammad and the Mormons base their faith on the prophet Joseph Smith.

Does God evolve His Word in a dynamic creative way today? If we believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to teach Truth to us, I have come to believe the Word is ever changing in its ability to speak to us in different ways. I do not believe, like our American Constitution, that it is a static document--but it is one that is constantly in motion to teach us new Truths daily.