This is sort of half-book-review, half-theology. Just thought I’d warn you.
I've recently been listening to Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. The work is a collection of stories detailing the exploits and misadventures of Earthmen who attempt to reach and explore Mars. Most of the stories end badly for the Earthmen, and Bradbury is quite creative in the bizarre twists and turns the plots take.
One of the stories, The Earth Men, had a particular impact on me. In it, astronauts from Earth arrive to a very blasé reception on Mars. In fact, nobody seems much interested in their story. They get pretty frustrated at being passed from one uninterested Martian to the next, but eventually find some interested people. In fact, these Martians seem *very* excited to see them. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
But these Martians also claim to be from Earth. And their descriptions of Earth don't ring true. The Earthmen soon realize they've been locked up in a Martian Funny Farm. They further realize that the insane Martians have the ability to project their delusions on others, complete with sights, smells, and sounds.
The Earthmen attempt to reason with the psychiatrist in charge of the Loony Bin (Mr. Xxx), but he believes that the Captain of the Earthmen is merely projecting his psychosis onto him, creating the images of his crew and ship.
After further examination of the Captain, Mr. Xxx diagnoses him as a hopeless case. Incurable. So he shoots him. When his crew doesn't immediately disappear, he shoots them. But the rocket is still there. Realizing that he's now obviously gone crazy with the same delusion, Mr. Xxx turns the gun on himself.
Crazy, right? Well, yes and no. Mr. Xxx behaves in an utterly consistent and rational way. He ended his own life because he was obviously incurably insane, a conclusion based on his former premise that the Captain was insane.
So the problem wasn’t so much Mr. Xxx’s consistency, but rather that he was acting on a faulty premise. Once Mr. Xxx decided the Captain was insane and that his appearance and that of his crew and ship were a result of psychosis, all the decisions followed logically. But he was just plain wrong from the start.
Now, at this point, you’re probably wondering how this ties in to a typical Theology Thursday post. Well, I’ll tell you. In a minute. First, I want to just point out that The Martian Chronicles is a decent audiobook, though the narrator isn’t my favorite (but not everyone can be Scott Brick). It’s not a typical short story collection, because all the stories are related and even refer to each other. Neither is it a typical novel. On the whole, I’ve enjoyed some of Bradbury’s other short fiction a bit more (R is for Rocket is a great collection). But I have to confess I haven’t finished the book yet.
Okay, now to the Theology part of this Thursday post.
I was reading in Acts this morning (Wednesday), and I came across this passage:
Acts 2:5-13 (ESV)
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
In particular, I want to point out verse 5, and especially the last five words: from every nation under heaven.
Now, many Christians will tell you that you need to interpret the Bible in a consistently literal way. There’s that consistency thing again. And I’m fine with it, as far as it goes. But in this case, wouldn’t those last five words mean that on the day of Pentecost, people from the Pacific Islands and Australia and Ireland and America were there? That, in fact, people from every nation under heaven were there? If you’re going to take it literally, then yes. But there’s just no way that’s what it means. Remember that Acts was written to an audience living in the Roman Empire. Every nation probably meant something quite different to them than it does to us.
And of course, “literal” doesn’t have to mean that we leave our brains on the nightstand. In fact, another take on “literal” is “as the text is intended to be understood.”
Let’s take another example from the text above. Are we really to believe that someone in the crowd said exactly the words recorded in verses seven through twelve? I really, really, sincerely doubt it. I think, rather, that Luke summed up the general tenor of the crowd.
So I guess my point here is that it’s fine to be consistent in our approach to interpreting Scripture; We just need to make sure we’re starting from the right premise. Take the text for what it intends to convey. Cross-reference where necessary and compare Scripture with Scripture. Consider the genre. Consider the audience.
In short, be consistent, but make sure you start from the right place.