Americans, Biblical Literacy, and the Magisterium

I enjoy reading the Big Think articles because they post generally popular, quasi-intellectual topics in a way that reflects how most people, especially seculars, basically look at these same issues. It allows me to stay up-to-date on some of these issues and the perspectives that have been developing. It also is a catalyst for self-reflection and meditation. Finally, it is a source of frustration, probably not only for me, but even for seculars who may see that the issues may be radically oversimplified for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, a recent article was on Americans and the Bible. Apparently, 80% of Americans believe the Bible is either the inerrant, literal Word of God or at least inspired by God, but less than 50% of Protestants or Catholics (Catholics actually scored higher) could pass a very simple Biblical literacy quiz. You can read the full article with links to the quiz here: http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/the-bible-paradox

One professor that the article interviews, Joel Baden at Yale Divinity School of all places, notes the contradictory, jumbled elements of the Bible and that to invoke the Bible for cultural authority is therefore not so straight an issue as Americans would like it to be, say, for creationism, monogamy, or heterosexual marriage. The article and Baden therefore, somehow, conclude:

And so if we are to continue to invest as much authority in the Bible as we do, Baden says, we - as serious readers of the text - cannot pretend that the Bible is a single, clear statement of belief. Rather, "it is a jumble of beliefs," Baden says, "a combination of voices...embedded in the text right from the word 'Go.'" 

So of what use is the Bible? This book is both the ultimate source of authority and completely indecisive. But that does not mean we should throw it away, Baden says. "This text that our culture holds most sacred is a living reminder that human interaction is founded on dialogue and not monologue - the inclusion of differences, not their exclusion.

Source: Big Think Editors, "The Bible Paradox," Big Think, October 20, 2013, accessed October 24, 2013, http://bigthink.com/big-think-tv/the-bible-paradox

I can see how that makes sense if one assumes either: 1) there really is no supernatural origin for the Bible and therefore what we do—"dialogue"—is the most important element in our collective, cultural relation to the Bible; and/or 2) a Protestant approach to adjudicating Biblical interpretations.

But there's a third possibility, the Catholic one. Perhaps the Bible isn't meant to be read as some call it "literalistically," that is, that we take every story or verse to be literally true precisely as we happen to interpret that story/verse in the moment. Such a reading leaves no room for analogies (or at least only a little), for differences of genre, or for spiritual interpretations of the text.

The Catholic solution is the need for a Magisterium to help guide us in the proper reading of the text. Perhaps the Biblical text wasn't meant to be read merely by individuals in isolation from one another. Perhaps the text arose within a structured, even hierarchical, community of religious believers. Perhaps the text arose simultaneously with an oral tradition as well as rituals and an authoritative context that made sense of all three elements. Perhaps sola Scriptura and "dialogue" are not as important as submission to the authority that God personally established in order to protect and hand on His self-revelation. Just saying.