I Don't Take it Literally... And I Still Believe

I would like to make a suggestion:  Stop using the word "literal" to describe any reading of the Bible.  Two reasons come to mind: 1) The false dichotomy is usually "those who take the Bible literally" and "those who don't believe the Gospel" and that dichotomy is supremely unhelpful toward expressing the Church's unity among diversity; 2) Nobody... nobody... nobody takes the Bible literally.

Recently, I stumbled across this article criticizing Bill Nye (the Science and Dancing with the Stars Guy) and his critique of Genesis 1-2 as a scientific text (http://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=27719).  In it is this passage:  "I take Genesis literally (and that is because I feel it is always safest to put the Word of God above the word of man). But even the dullest or most diehard literalist would not mistake Genesis 1:16 to be saying there is a trillion-watt light bulb inside the moon. Nor would the most poorly schooled among the children of God take the verse to insist that the sun is not one of many stars."  In that passage lies both of my problems with literal: 1) The only alternative to reading Genesis "literally" is to place God's Word as subject to human reason; 2) The author uses a selective "literal" reading which actually reinforces human reason as the arbiter of scientific fact in the Bible.  A six-day creation is "literal" because Creation Scientists claim scientific backing for it.  The moon being a light is not literal because science has shown that to be untrue.

(Just for kicks, a far better reading of Old Testament creation stories would come from RJS or John Walton: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/author/rjs1/)

Ultimately, the word "literal" has run its course.  It was a good answer to Deism in the 19th century, especially with well-known scholars like Thomas Jefferson hacking his Bible up to remove supernaturalism from the New Testament (http://www.openculture.com/2013/09/thomas-jeffersons-cut-and-paste-bible.html).  But now it isn't useful. 

Is there a need to distinguish the reading of Scripture from the reading of other materials?  I think so.  The Bible holds a unique place in Christian worship and spirituality for a reason.  What could that word be?  I like "trustworthy," although it allows for some slipperiness which makes faith Bibliocentric rather than Christocentric.  "Authoritative" would also work, although it plays into the hierarchical (and often misogynistic) power dynamics which have plagued the Church for centuries.  "Seriously" could work, except that Scripture has the power to ignite the playful imagination.  Perhaps there is no perfect word... and maybe that's the point.

Maybe the point isn't to see who can believe the strongest.  Maybe the point is to let God's story of grace help us love God with our whole selves and love our neighbor as ourselves.