Literal and Figurative reading

To take it figuratively we must take it literally. This is a maxim that I want to try to think around in this post. For a while now, I have found tiresome the polemic against fundamentalists that condemns readers for interpreting the bible literally and then lectures on the virtues of reading the bible figuratively (for an example of this read the first chapter of Chris Hedge's American Fascists). The dichotomy of literal and figurative seems wrong headed for some reason.
Genesis
When I read the creation stories of Genesis I do not think that the world was actually created according to the 7 day scheme. I tend more toward the evolutionist frame work with a divine driver. However, there is a part of me that will not allow myself to junk the first three chapters of Genesis because I no longer think that they represent "reality", because, on some level I do think that they represent reality much better then say Darwin's On the Origin of Species. I don't think of the original composers of the text, and the later editors, as people who thought to themselves "I'm going to write a figurative story about creation for my children". I think that such authors said, I'm going to tell "our" perspective on the world. This is to say that I don't think of the first authors to be hung up with the enlightenment problems of empiricism. These authors were much more poetic, much more Heideggerian, if you will, meaning that they thought of themselves as living in a "house of language", a world contained by their theological convictions. This world was distinct because it was sustained by a God who was both singular and plural. Both in the world and beyond. Both evident and mysterious. To understand this God you must enter into figuration, while reading figurative statements as if they were literal. This is me is the essence behind the ontological argument proposed by Anselm of Cantebury: Imagine the greatest "thing"; now imagine that "thing" as real; isn't that better? (Anselm"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."). With contemporary readers, I do not think that Anselm was trying to prove the a priori existence of God, but to help Christian, people of a particular faith, to understand what it is that they have hope in. To me the spirit of Anselm thus expressed, is extremely important to reading the tales of Genesis (one of my all time favourite pieces of literature - one I grow to value more and more on formal and aesthetic and anthropological grounds). To read Genesis according to a limp concept of figurative language, on that is not attached to a realist theology, is to undermine faith in God. This is what thinkers like Chris Hedges do while they imagine themselves to be correcting the blindness of hardly literate readers.

The Body of Christ:
In several places in the new testament Christians are referred to as the body of Christ. If we think of this with a limp concept of figuration we say that the man Jesus wanted to express how close the followers of his ethical ideology were to him to such extent that he used hyperbole, claiming that followers were actually him. This should be read as a concept of ideological tradition, whereby Jesus' thoughts are carried on by those who think and act likewise. To read Christ likewise, is to read him as though he were merely finite. We must actually enrich this finite reading, which is wrong only in that it limit's Jesus to the category of man, without ever approaching the infinity of Christ. Christians cannot think of themselves as only being part of an ideological body/tradition of teaching, they must flesh out this ideology by then understanding the mystical nature of this comment. Spiritually, Christians are the body of Christ. This means that our finite capacity as human beings is united with Christ's infinite capacity as the resurrected, un-end-able, God that he is. To be the body of Christ is to participate in God himself, the most real of the real. To think thus, we must entertain the figurative element in the statement, but read it literally. The finite nature of the language does not totally capture the mysterious reality, yet, it is one of the most useful doors through which we imagine this reality. It is not the only door, because Christ himself (as narrated in the Gospels) used other expressions to describe this mysterious event - the imagine of the vine and the branches. My brother in law speculates that this analogy has a natural referent - the vine - that was especially developed for the purpose of expressing Christ's message to believers. I do not permit myself such speculation, as it overshoots the mark from my perspective, but it is an interesting comment that may be aimed at getting folks to meditate on God's eternal foresight for the world. At any rate, Christians cannot afford not to think of themselves as literally embodying Christ on some level.

The End