“Just as it would be counter-indicated to read Moby Dick as history or “The Wasteland” as social science, so it is silly to interpret, say, “The Song of Songs” as journalism or the Gospel of Matthew as a spy novel.” – Fr. Robert Barron
Fr. Barron hits the nail on the head in his recent article denouncing Biblical literalism. The Catholic Church, counter to Christian fundamentalism and many skeptical secularists, promotes a nuanced approach to the Bible, reading it through many different lenses (Mark Shea has a great book exploring these).
Just as we approach Dante, Winnie the Pooh, and 1984 differently depending on each book’s genre, so we study each Biblical book differently in light of its unique genre. So when people decry Genesis for not aligning with science, the Church says “it wasn’t meant to be science, as we understand that genre today”. When historians reject the Gospels because of chronological inconsistencies, the Church says “they weren’t meant to be historical accounts, but textured Jewish story.”
This is why the Church’s authority and guidance are so important: it’s her who tells us that Genesis is poetry, Isaiah is prophecy, and Revelation is apocalyptic literature. And this is why, as Verbum Domini recently proclaimed, Biblical interpreters should study Scripture through the eyes of the Church–not through universities, not through laboratories, and not through Biblical fundamentalism.
Without this guidance–without this historically rich, nuanced approach–Biblical literalists seem foolish to the intelligent, secular-minded world, and the resultant pseudo-Christianity becomes deservedly discredited.
“My hope is that those who are tripped up by the beginning of the book of Genesis can make a small but essential interpretive adjustment and see these writings as they were meant to be seen: not as primitive science, but as exquisite theology.” – Fr. Robert Barron