Interpreting the Bible: A Spectrum of Perspectives
This chapter examines the contrasting liberal and conservative approaches to biblical interpretation, highlighting the significance of various literary forms within the text. It emphasizes the Bible's complexity as a diverse collection of writings, inviting deeper understanding through historical context rather than strict literalism. The conversation encourages listeners to reflect on the nuances and contradictions present in biblical narratives and the impact of sociopolitical factors on religious traditions.
00:00
Transcript
chevron_right
Play full episode
chevron_right
Transcript
Episode notes
The book-end to our conversation last week with a conservative scholar, this time with a leading thinker on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Last week, Dr. Roger Olson — a highly-credentialed conservative Christian theologian — gave us his critique of liberal Christian theology. In that discussion and in his book, he referred often to another highly credentialed scholar from the liberal end of the theological spectrum: Dr. Douglas F. Ottati. We thought it would be good to get Dr. Ottati’s responses to Dr. Olson, as well as his comments on our theology.
We first asked him to define “liberal” theology, and where it came from. He talked about “historically particular circumstances” and “historically particular societies” … the discovery of previously unknown people groups in the Americas … the intrusion of modernity, and wanting to engage with sciences … and the re-discovery of the social gospel.
Next, the definition of “orthodoxy” and Dr. Olson’s insistence that liberal Christians are not “orthodox.” The word literally means “correct teaching,” but can also refer to adhering to a long-standing tradition. Dr. Ottati challenged both meanings: “orthodoxy develops over time” … “there are orthodoxies, plural” … “one man’s orthodoxy is another man’s heresy” … “some statements of orthodoxy are just not found in the Bible!”
We then addressed the same four points that Luke focused on when he put his own liberal theology on the table two weeks ago, and asked Dr. Olson to comment on those four points last week:
the Bible: the difference between taking the text literally and taking it seriously. It’s a “historically particular resource,” in the sense that it is written to/by ancient Jews. Luke asked if it’s being too dismissive when coming up against difficult or disturbing Bible passages to say: “that’s just ancient Jews talking.” Dr. Ottati: “it’s even ancient Jews talking in the passages you like!”
God: some people want to anthropomorphize and personify God (ascribe gender: body parts [his face; his hands] and emotions), and have a personal relationship, while others (like Luke) see God as an unfathomable cosmic force or energy. Dr. Ottati said the Bible often uses metaphors/analogies, some of them personal, some not (a burning bush). We also talked about the hiddenness of God, and whether God is interventionist (intervenes in our history or timeline). What’s the point of prayer?
the personhood of Jesus: the human Jewish Messiah versus the cosmic divine being, and his mission.
the human condition and need for salvation: Dr. Ottati spoke at length about the importance of grace. Luke also asked for specific comments on his new understanding of the human condition: that humans did NOT lose something in the Fall (perfection; sinlessness; immortality; a close relationship with the Divine), but have been evolving toward a divine image, have always been on a long search for God, and had to live by a code of ethics that we might now condemn (being selfish; stealing; killing; sexually promiscuous) in order to fulfill the FIRST divine command (to be fruitful and multiply) before we were ready for a new and better code of ethics that was best taught and modeled by Jesus Christ. Dr. Ottati said this might be labelled heterodox (rather than unorthodox) but not heretical, and that many other prominent Christian thinkers who have proposed similar things.
