Enns’ book and I have some difficulties together. Perhaps it was the circumstances surrounding my reading it: an evangelical friend of mine sent it to me as a way to “bridge discussion” between he and I; Enns, however, didn’t represent “my side” in any meaningful way. It was as though he set up a ‘liberal’ straw-man – many evangelicals, it seems, still think in terms of twos when it comes to the types of Christian one can be – and began to dialogue with it. I could see that Enns was communicating, but I wasn’t sure with whom.

In any event, I agree with you; it is entirely unrealistic to expect a synthesis between science and the text. This is why most of the projects heretofore have seemed, to me, to be dissatisfying: the attempt to reconcile two great Truth-sets with one another (as all truth is God’s Truth). At the same time, I’m not sure that I would want to travel the route you propose, perhaps for a similar reason; the text is myth, the text is history, the text is allegory: and then the text is static, lifeless, and beyond utilization. The danger of literary criticism is the degree to which it is still taken seriously; many of us still believe that these literary categories exist outside of literature itself, that these categories represent what a text actually is, that many still fail to recognize that literary criticism is something we have imposed upon the text, and not something that the text can reveal to us.

All the while, categorization by means of genre is still playing the game of truth/error; within the genres themselves exist means by which literature can be judged. Within Christian thought (cf. back to Enns’ book), this easily leads to how the texts ought to be read, what lessons the texts have for us – given their genre – and by consequence, how God and the ancients are instructing us still to this day.

Then the gospels and Paul become effective voices against empire. Then the Song of Solomon becomes a Biblical guide to holy lovemaking. Then the minor prophets have something to say about Sudan, and people become capable of asking “What would Jesus drive?” while maintaining a straight face. Then: people are led to believe that the Biblical authors were speaking to us, to all of time, and might be able to give us advice regarding fast food, or what sort of music we should listen to. Why must the text be something at all? What if the text were nothing, and all of these formulations were little more than reflections of ourselves within believable constraints?

Having said all that, a bit of stability can be a very good thing, and literary criticism certainly provides this. What it doesn’t seem to provide, at least in my experience, is a way out, and the pneumatic forces behind and underneath text and interpretation need a way out. Genesis as myth, Genesis as foundation-of-kingdom, Genesis as undermining-of-empire, Genesis as bedtime story, Genesis as morality lesson: and so on. I only desire the ability to keep the avenues open, should the spirit of interpretation feel the need to explore.

http://www.danielbooy.co.nr/

The suPer-EsSential Divine Gloom (cc)