Are Theological Progressives Smarter and More Spiritual than “Literalists”?

Objection: Ancient Believers Were Stupid

While most attacks against ancient worldviews wouldn’t necessarily call ancient people stupid, they certainly imply that we’re more sophisticated today, not least because we have modern science and they didn’t. However, ancient people were more intelligent than modern people often give them credit for.

Ancient cultures thought differently about truth than we do.

The listicle uses creation in six days as its example for this item and claims, “It’s about conveying God’s power, not being a geology textbook.”2 Creationists should be glad that the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook because those have to be updated every few years to keep up with new discoveries! Rather, the creation account is history. It doesn’t give details of how God set the laws of physics to just the right values to allow for life, but the simple, factual account gives us a framework for thinking about science.

Ancient people also didn’t attribute everything to miracles just because they didn’t know about microbes. Ancient people knew that at a certain age, a woman was unlikely to get pregnant and that virgins don’t normally get pregnant at all. They knew that men normally sink in water and donkeys don’t normally talk. In fact, the average ancient person’s life was more immediately dependent on cycles of seasons relating to harvest so could probably discern more about the natural world than the average person today. They sometimes expressed truth in poetry and other figurative ways, and so do we. If your friend tells you, “It’s raining cats and dogs outside!” you don’t ask if there are any dachshunds. And your meteorological report will probably tell you what time “sunset” is, even though we all know the earth revolves around the sun.

In a more scholarly setting, you may hear that Hebrews thought about existence in terms of function and that creation week was more about assigning existing things their function rather than creation out of nothing. In many ways, the Old Testament is concerned about the function of things, but that does not mean that there is no way for the Old Testament authors to consider existence apart from function.

Objection: Believers Today Are Stupid

Again, most articles would not put it quite that bluntly. But there’s a certain smug superiority about how much more sophisticated progressives are. However, people have been looking down on people who believed Scripture as written from almost the moment it was penned, so we are in good company! And we can see how weak these attacks really are when we take a moment to examine them.

Literalism often leads to cherry-picking.

The listicle claims that believers ignore passages about loving the poor but focus intensely on ones condemning homosexuality and pronounces, “This isn’t true faith; it’s using the Bible to justify existing prejudices rather than being challenged to actually live as Jesus taught.” Jesus actually taught that marriage was between one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:3–9), which is mildly inconvenient for the listicle. But even more inconvenient is the fact that Christians are the most generous group of people, giving far more to charity than other religions or atheists.3

Progressives, however, cherry-pick what they believe is important. It’s important to give to the poor, but not to “judge with right judgment” (John 7:24) regarding behaviors that the Bible and even secular culture have condemned until recently. It’s important to practice hospitality, but the moment you insist that Jonah was actually in the fish for three days, you’re an ignoramus who clearly doesn’t appreciate the finer nuances of literature.

Literalism encourages rigidity.

The listicle opines, “If there’s one right answer, it shuts down exploration. Faith is a journey!” Anyone who has been involved in circles that take the Bible as written knows that simply interpreting the Bible as a historical document does not mean that we have all the answers about it. People who believe that the Bible is God-breathed debate about how long the Israelites were in Egypt, what the nature of the Bethlehem star was, and how best to obey God’s commands in a host of different areas. However, taking the Bible as written gives us a starting point and the hope of going in a concrete direction, rather than endlessly wandering around feeling in the dark.

But beyond that, the Bible does demand “rigidity” on some topics. There is only one Gospel (Galatians 1:8), and one way to be saved. Jesus expects that his followers will obey him (Luke 6:46). Paul demanded that the church in Corinth excommunicate the man who was immoral with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). There was no flexibility in the Bible's stance on sexual sin; rather, there was grace for the offender when he repented (2 Corinthians 2:8

As open-minded and tolerant as it may seem to offer multiple answers, regarding the central truths the Bible teaches, there is one answer. And we should be glad that God clearly revealed it so that we can have a relationship with him. Furthermore, it is unloving to obscure the truth with nice-sounding platitudes about how faith is a journey, because all faith journeys that do not trust Christ fully for salvation lead to hell.

The article seems to suggest that the one thing the Bible can’t mean is what it plainly says! That makes for a bleak exegetical rule.

The article seems to suggest that the one thing the Bible can’t mean is what it plainly says!

Literalism makes faith fragile.

If one wanted to be pithy, a good response would be “and liberalism kills faith altogether.” The listicle claims that a metaphorical interpretation is required for faith and science to coexist comfortably so “you can respect science as revealing the ‘how’ of God’s creation.” That would come as quite a shock to all the PhD scientists who interpret Genesis historically, including many who work for Answers in Genesis.

Christians who believe the Bible as written, meaning that we interpret poetry as poetry, parable as parable, and historical narrative as historical narrative, believe that science reveals a lot of God’s genius design in creation. In fact, modern science was founded by Christians who believed they were glorifying God in their quest to understand the world he made. What we don’t do is use the majority opinion in science today to overturn God’s Word.

Literalism creates unnecessary division.

Again, the author of the listicle targets biblical creation when he says, “Debating the exact age of the earth misses the point! Different denominations approach the Bible in various ways. Literalism makes you see those who disagree as wrong, not fellow seekers.”4 Says the liberal who very much sees creationists as wrong!

It’s easy for someone who has already given up the historical nature of the Bible to admonish others to just focus on “the core message of compassion” (which isn’t even the core message of Scripture). A sort of fuzzy feel-good humanitarianism is all they have left. But when you actually interact with people in the church, they want to know that there is a basis for their faith and that the Bible is actually trustworthy. A foundation in creation explains why we even need to be saved in the first place.

Literalism turns the Bible into an idol.

Psalm 119 is the longest Psalm, and the author (we’re not told, but the author has many similarities to David and might have been David) extols how much he loves God’s law, heeds God’s law, how good God’s law is, and asks God to conform his path to his law.

Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17 is his last intercession for believers before he was crucified. He asks of his Father, “Sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth.”

Read those two chapters of Scripture and absorb what they communicate about God’s Word. Then read this quote of the entire point of the listicle.

Obsessing over the words themselves becomes more important than living out the teachings. That’s backwards! The Bible is meant to inspire action in the world, not endless debates about the specifics. Literalism, oddly, can become a distraction from true faith.5

People who love God’s Word and want to know it deeply and obey it thoroughly have had a huge impact throughout history. It is people who believed the Bible to be true that have acted most meaningfully in the world. Wilberforce and many of the abolitionists of his day were motivated by their belief that all people were descended from Adam and therefore in the image of God and equally valuable, meaning that slavery is sinful. Today, people who believe that unborn children are image bearers who deserve protection from fertilization to natural death are on the front lines of fighting the holocaust of abortion.

Objection: Unbelievers Are So Much More Sophisticated than Believers

This category of objections basically boils down to how much better, more spiritual, and more knowledgeable people who don’t believe the Bible are.

Focusing on literal truth can miss the profound beauty and symbolism.

The listicle claims that “the story of Jonah in the whale is way more powerful as a metaphor for facing your inner demons than debating the digestive capabilities of marine life.”6 First, “facing your inner demons” is not even on the generous list of things that the account of Jonah teaches. But Jesus did draw a parallel between Jonah’s three days in the “great fish” (per Jonah 1:17 and also mentioned again as a fish in Jonah 2:1 and 2:10) and his three days in the tomb, which indicates that Jesus saw it as a true account, and so should we. Sounds like the author missed some very important symbolism.

Literalism misses the potential for personal interpretation.

The listicle says, “Locking it into a single ‘right’ meaning robs you of the text engaging you where you’re at.”7 The author mixes up meaning and application. Paul’s teachings on marriage mean the same thing to a man and a woman, but they would apply them in different ways. A woman would apply the same texts in different ways before she was married, during her marriage, and after her husband dies, for instance. The Bible is applicable to a vast range of circumstances, but part of its power is that it is true. Take that away, and you might as well read Jane Eyre.

Literalism ignores the ongoing work of theologians and scholars.

Readers who have made it this far are doubtless shocked that the author does not cite a particular theologian or scholar “literalists” ignore. Of course, the author also probably believes that people who believe in biblical creation or the miracles in the Bible are automatically excluded from the category of “scholar.” There are scholars to support any view you want to take, including some who very much deserve to be ignored.

Conclusion: Don’t Get Your Theology from Pop-Culture Sites

There are more articles and videos about people losing their faith, coming to a more progressive understanding of Christianity, and “deconstructing” than one could consume in a lifetime. We should understand how to respond to them if someone asks about them, but they shouldn’t overly concern us. We’ve just scratched the surface, but this particular list shows just how shallow some of the objections to Christianity truly are.