Chicago Maroon (from reader Mack):
A leading humanist scholar stressed symbolic Bible reading and warned of the radical right at a talk on Tuesday at the Seminary Co-Op.
For Catherine M. Wallace, faculty member at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine and author of the recently concluded book series *Christian Humanism and the Moral Imagination*, the Christian fundamentalist movement in the United States is more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. Wallace, a Christian herself, believes fundamentalist access to United States armaments is the number one threat to state security.
“If [anything Islamic] wanted to attack an American city, they had to hijack an airliner. If they want to blow up a concert, they need to put bombs on their own children and send young men in to kill themselves…that kind of radicalism [Christian fundamentalism] in control of nuclear codes was a much, much greater threat,” Wallace said.
As a historian and Christian humanist, Wallace wanted to examine fundamentalism’s strongest arguments and find its weaknesses. She looked at how fundamentalist Christianity first sprung up in the Southern United States. “The religious right in its most contemporary form has an origin in Southern opposition to desegregation and to the Civil Rights Movement…a transparently racist appeal,” Wallace said.
In Wallace’s view, this radicalism stems from a literal reading of the Bible. “Nobody in the ancient world would have read the Bible literally,” Wallace said. The idea of a literal reading is a thoroughly modern phenomenon, according to Wallace—church fathers of the past would discourage anyone from taking the Bible literally.
Therefore, according to Wallace, the fundamentalists have it all wrong. “Christian fundamentalism is a malignant form of Christianity,” Wallace said. In her opinion, their literalist reading creates misconceptions of what the Bible means, fostering a climate of hate and leading to increased and unnecessary conflict between Christians and the rest of the world.
Near the end of the talk, Wallace turned to her personal take on the Bible. “It’s the great anthology of Jewish storytelling. It’s brilliant, but these are very ancient stories.” She argues that by reading the Bible this way, Christianity can far better coexist with the worlds of science and politics. Equally important, the religion can lose its reputation of going against facts and progressive social trends.
She’s lying. She is presupposing the stupidity and ignorance of the modern seminary student – and that may be a perfectly good assumption – in order to make her point. She wants the students to think that good hermeneutics means that nothing the Bible says is true. She is conflating the lies of source, form and redaction criticism with good hermeneutical principles like interpreting according to literature type (e.g., the parables of Christ aren’t systematic theology, and cannot be used to make more than a single theological point, versus the systematic theology that is found in the Pauline doctrine from the epistles).
So who knows – since we Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than Islamic radicals, perhaps she wants the fedgov to go after us. But listen here. We have the guns. So what are you going to do about it beyond lying to the idiot students?
As for my more fundamentalist Christian response, I can only think of this to say. Blow it out your ass, jerk. Oh, and I don’t think you’re a Christian at all. You lied about that too (I find the stupid term “co-religionist” insulting and objectionable and you don’t get to make up anything you want and call it Christian, any more than I can declare that I am the king of Siam and make it happen).