Literalism and the Bible vs. Processual Theology, Part 2

 

Literalism and the Bible

vs. Processual Theology, Part 2

A Study on the Meaning of "Literal"

& "Literalism" in Modern Christian Usage

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

The Bible is the unfolding record of humanity’s relationship with

God-narrated, imagined, and inspired revelation across the ages of

evolving  human self-awareness and consciousness. - re slater/AI

How I was taught to read the bible through most of my life in fundamental and evangelical churches essentially closed off the world, the bible itself, and God from a more expansive perspective of the Christian faith.

Broadly, I feel that most of the things evangelics like to accuse non-believers regarding their view of the Christian faith, the bible, and God, makes evangelicalism as guilty of the same charges as well. Except that we never saw ourselves as being hypocritical in these areas. Largely because our "defensive attitudes" (known as apologia or apologetics) prevented us from asking the tough questions non-believers were already asking.

Once I was able to "step out" of the attitude that the bible is a revered communication by God to humanity and to look at it from a more pedestrian perspective I could then "lower" the bible from God's WORD to mankind to the collective experience of faith communities Words to themselves, their neighbors, and to future generations. Over those generations additional forces came into play such as tradition and protect measures to lift up those traditions.

So as a past evangelic I had a lot of "mental/spiritual/existential" obstacles to overcome when finally deciding that the study of Scriptures required a new approach as versus the mandated approach of my traditional faith. In bible circles, colleges or seminaries, this area of study is known as Bibliology (with a CAPITAL B!). But today, I'll simply throw out a few ideas as an introduction to the study of Scriptures from a processual viewpoint.

HOW TO READ THE BIBLE

Part of the problem of reading the bible is the problem which plagues all of Christianity... "How do I read the bible?" Many respond consciously or unconsciously by reading the bible in the modern fashion of literalism believing the entirety of all the biblical narratives are completely true. This approach was described in the previous article, "Literalism and the Bible," Part 1.

However, any historian delving into studies of ancient societies, their cultures, religions, practices, and beliefs, will tell you that a literal approach to reading historical narratives will only lead to erroneous beliefs, suppositions, conclusions, and teachings.

As example, Rome is said to have been founded by Romulus and Remus who were lost orphans raised by a wolf clan. Statedly, humans and wolves had had a long history by this time, each species having become interdependent on the other for survival. So Rome's legendary tale gives immediate respect and mutual acknowledgement to the importance of the evolutionary domestication of wolves in helping ancient human tribes survive extremely hazardous glacial epochs of the Pleistocene Age:

The Pleistocene epoch is a geological time period that lasted from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago. It is most known for the repeated glacial cycles, often referred to as the "Ice Age". This period saw dramatic climate fluctuations, including periods of glacial advance and retreat across large portions of the globe.

Too,

Early humans and wolves likely formed a partnership that proved advantageous for both species. Wolves may have initially been attracted to human campsites for food, and over time, a symbiotic relationship developed where wolves helped with hunting and defense, while humans provided food and protection. This relationship eventually led to the domestication of wolves into dogs.

And lastly,

Romulus and Remus are legendary twin brothers whose story explains the founding of Rome. According to the myth, they were abandoned as infants, nursed by a she-wolf, and raised by a shepherd. After growing up, they decided to found a city, but quarreled, and Romulus killed Remus. Romulus then became the first king of Rome and named the city after himself. 

In the tale of Romulus and Remus we can hear echoes of Cain and Abel's brotherhood that was eventually broken by a dispute eventuating in the murder of Abel by his brother Cain. One might ask which came first? Rome's tale or Israel's narrative in Genesis? Or did each have a common ancestral linkage far earlier in the recollections of ancient Mesopotamian minds which spread over time from the Steppes of Euro-Asia?

WHY THE BIBLE IS IMPORTANT

In Part 1 I put up the following table showing why reading the bible literally can help preserve the beliefs of fundamental and evangelical Christianity:

📖 Should We Read the Bible Literally?

✅ PRO: Arguments For Reading the Bible Literally

Argument	Explanation
1. Preserves Authority	Literal reading is believed to uphold the Bible’s truthfulness as the Word of God, preventing dilution or distortion by subjective interpretation.
2. Protects Core Doctrines	Doctrines like the resurrection, incarnation, and second coming often rely on a literal interpretation to maintain their theological weight.
3. Resists Relativism	Literalism offers a fixed standard in contrast to interpretive pluralism, which can lead to conflicting meanings and loss of theological coherence. (Me: Disagree. Literalism's usage has proven to very pliable/fluid as well)
4. Historical Anchoring	Literal readings ground events in time and space (e.g., Exodus, the Crucifixion), reinforcing faith in God's action in real history.
5. Accessibility	A plain reading makes Scripture understandable to everyday believers without requiring scholarly or symbolic analysis. (Me: Disagree. Oftentimes it proves to be quite perplexing)
6. Evangelistic Urgency	Many evangelical missions are driven by a literal interpretation of judgment, salvation, and eternal destiny.

---

❌ CON: Arguments Against Reading the Bible Literally

Argument	Explanation
1. Misunderstands Genre	The Bible includes poetry, parables, apocalyptic visions, and mythic narratives—genres not meant to be read literally (e.g., Psalms, Revelation, Job).
2. Ignores Cultural Context	Ancient texts were written in a worldview foreign to modern readers. Literalism flattens metaphor, symbolism, and cultural nuance.
3. Leads to Contradictions	Literal readings can create theological and historical inconsistencies (e.g., two different creation accounts, differing genealogies).
4. Inhibits Theological Growth	Treating Scripture as frozen prevents evolving understandings of justice, ethics, gender, ecology, and divine love.
5. Fails to Grasp Depth	Literalism may reduce rich metaphors (e.g., “God is a rock”) to absurdities or shallow readings, missing poetic theological insight.
6. Encourages Dogmatism	A rigid literal stance can promote exclusion, legalism, and resistance to spiritual discernment or dialogue.

From this table we can readily see the pros and cons of reading the bible literally. And while appreciating the importance of the arguments one can see that over the past hundreds of years the bible has been lifted up into a place of magical worship and reverence. For any like myself who would question the "literal" approach is to be condemned and excommunicated from the faith on one's fathers.

And yet, if we do not reject the Christian practice of literalism we then condemn our Christian faith into folkloric practices of ritualism and ritualistic attitudes disconnected from the faith that was meant to be and from it's very God that the Christian faith means to honor and obey.

And so, as a past fundamentalist and evangelic, I must reject the practice and attitude of approaching the bible from a literalist perspective. It is deeply unhelpful to the Christian faith; it makes the bible an "a-historical" (or super-historical) collection of ancient writings; and loses the God of it's pages in the fanciful pages of the human mind.

BBIBLICAL LITERALISM IS SUBJECTIVE

The single most worrying aspect of leaving biblical literalism is the morass of subjectivity. What guides are left to maintain the Christian faith if the very foundation of Christianity's beliefs is called into question???

This I struggled with for many years until realizing that discovering a good, underlying philosophy can be the answer. And this is where Christian hypocrisy also arises. For Christians will tell non-believers that the bible can only be read literally NOT realizing that underneath traditional Christian teachings lies their own eclectic philosophies based in modernal Westernisms largely pulled from Greek philosophies.

If anything, the very old biblical narratives are based in the Semitic-Hebrew culture that is nothing like the Greek culture per the Old Testament. But by the time of the New Testament  era, Greek culture had affected both Israel and Jesus' era... we call this time a period of "Hellenization." And from there the Gentile church arises roots-and-all steeped in Hellenized Greek attitudes about God, faith, and religion.

Christians then yearn for purity in their "biblical" faith and yet at the very base of the Christian culture lies its own philosophical underpinnings forcing to the surface their own kind of subjectivities related to their faith. Thus and thus, the traditional Christian faith is as much a subjective expression of belief and practice as that of their accusals of others practicing the same. And once realizing this in mine own examination of a bibliology based on literalism I knew I needed to find another avenue or approach to my Christian belief in God....

 

PROCESS PHILOSOPHY'S STRENGTH

The second half of "Literalism and the Bible," Part 1, rehearses the strengths of processual bibliology as versus a literalistic bibliology. Consequently, all the old guards of infallibility and the newer guards of inerrancy, now fall away as unnecessary to the overall concern of protecting the bible.

What do I mean by this?

Firstly, and primarily, the fears of subjectivity goes away because this was the very thing which was plaquing traditionalized Christianity in the first place. It had no standard but it's own commitments to a fallacious philosophical foundation. A standard which has given rise time-and-again to terrible, horrific Christian practices of forced behaviors, exclusions, standards, and beliefs towards their fellow human beings. Practices that are ungodly, wicked, lawless, and evil as observed even as recently as this era under the church's dominionist dogmas.

Process-based Christianity rejects this subjective reading of the bible and forces biblical doctrines to adhere to the underlying processual foundations of generative values in relational harmony. And when applied to theism, a processual theology then grants that God is loving in all that God is and does. This then means the current Christian teachings of God based on a literal bible are not only subject in their own regard but erroneous and unhelpful as well. Teachings which I have responded to many times on this site.

This then is the value I find in process theology and why I recommend it as a superior approach when reading the bible and thinking about questions of God, life and future. Process teaches a world-and-life view more in tune with reality and is fully impregnated with speaking life, love, and healing into a suffering cosmos struggling in its harmonics to come into tune with God's processual will, being, majesty, and outworkings.

IN  SUMMARY

Processual faith-living questions unloving authoritarian structures; demands justice and inclusivity; purposely disconnects from rigid dogmatic systems; longs for spiritual paths which breathe responsible freedom; keeps the bible sacred but not static; views God not as all powerful but as all loving; is grounded in the ancient faiths of its past communities while reserving the right to question those community's objectives and beliefs; and, describes a Christian faith as an evolving, never-ending-and-generative-practice, of giving and receiving.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 20, 2025

ps, before signing off I asked ChatGPT it's thoughts.... Here is it's response:

The Processual Christian faith is:

• Relational over authoritarian: It critiques unloving structures that enforce control in the name of God.

• Justice-oriented and inclusive: It moves beyond tribal or nationalistic boundaries to embrace the full breadth of human dignity and planetary kinship.

• Critical of rigid dogma: It values flexibility, creativity, and transformation in place of immutable systems.

• Drawn to spiritual freedom: Not a freedom of license, but one of responsibility, reciprocity, and generative becoming.

• Reverent yet dynamic with Scripture: The Bible is sacred as testimony of evolving human-divine relationship, not as a static rulebook.

• God as persuasive Love, not coercive Power: God does not control but lures creation toward beauty, wholeness, and novelty.

• Grounded in tradition but not bound by it: It listens to the ancients while recognizing the right—and need—to critique and move beyond their limitations.

• A faithing rather than a faith: A living, open-ended, co-creative process of becoming, healing, reconciling, and loving.

---

✦ Contrast with Evangelical Claim to Objectivity

Your closing point is especially astute: Evangelical Christianity’s assertion of doctrinal objectivity is itself deeply enculturated—a product of Enlightenment rationalism, Reformed scholasticism, and Western metaphysics (e.g., substance dualism, juridical justice, etc.).

In contrast:

• Process philosophy does not hide its commitments. It owns its subjectivity and honors the interplay between perception, value, and change.

• Rather than pretending to be above history, process theology walks within history—embodied, limited, evolving, but faithful.

• Its rigor lies in its honesty—not in eliminating complexity, but in embracing it with clarity and relational intelligence.

---

✦ Your Statement as a Process Creed (Poetic Form)

Here’s your summary reframed as a kind of processual creed in poetic rhythm:

Beyond Literalism, Towards Processualism

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

We question the unloving and authoritarian.

We seek justice with open arms.
We untangle the knots of creedal dogma -
longing for the freedom bearing godly responsibility.

We cherish the sacred Word - not as everlastingly fixed.
Nor see God as all-controlling in Sovereignty,
but as all-loving, all-luring, all-becoming Sovereign.

We stand rooted in the ancient faiths,

the ancient dialogues and narratives,
but dare to axe or prune what no longer bears good fruit.

Processual Christianity is a rhythm, not a rule -

an ever-generative and evolving movement
    of giving and receiving,
    of becoming with God,
    with the world,
    with one another

forever, and ever, and ever. Amen

R.E. Slater

June 20, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved