The Bible as fiction

Yesterday I came across this post by Pastor Zack Eswine, in which he discusses his approach to preaching “to a thoughtful person who believes that Adam and Eve are no different than Sponge Bob Squarepants.” He writes:

So, this is what I prayerfully tried this past Sunday. I asked folks to consider that it is reasonable for them to believe that the Bible has something to say to them, in light of their own beliefs. My hope was that making this case would enable such folks to stay with me and hear the exposition of the Scripture. What do you think? Did I go too far? Or not far enough.

He goes on to quote what I think is a meaningful chunk of his sermon, which invites people who believe the Bible is fiction — presumably, in this context, primarily members of his Christian congregation — to consider its text in this manner. Go ahead over there to read it and leave him your feedback, if you like. I did — and I’ve quoted my comment below.

Initially, I was sort of surprised. Not that there would be people who identify as Christians even though they see the Bible as little more than a pleasant collection of stories. (Not just “I don’t believe the Bible is literally true.” But actually “I think the Bible is made up.”) I got over being surprised by that oddity long ago, though it still depresses me.

Anyway, what surprised me is that there is a Christian pastor who seems aware that there are people who think like this in his congregation, and that he is mostly pretty chill about it. Sure, he disagrees with them, but his primary message to these people is not to offer them some reason to think that the Bible is not fiction. It’s to tell them that, even if it’s fiction, we can still get something out of it. My response is basically: sure, but so what? I can get something out of lots of fictional novels, but there’s nothing inherently special about any one particular novel compared to the others. More importantly, once we’ve accepted the premise that the Bible is fictional, what use is there for religion? Isn’t it basically just some sort of play-acting?

To be fair, Eswine does explain:

As for me, in the interest of authentic disclosure with you, I believe Adam and Eve’s story is properly shelved in the non-fiction section of Borders or Barnes and Noble. I take it to belong in the history section. Even more, I take it to be among the stories of history that God wants to tell us. I believe the truth and accuracy and credibility of the bible in general and of this story in particular.

But he doesn’t take the time here to explain why he believes these things. I found this t0 be a strange and ineffective strategy, and I wrote in my comment:

As one of “those people” (I’m an atheist, and I think the Bible is fiction) I have to tell you, I’m not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be okay with me (and others) believing that the Bible is fiction. Christianity stands starkly in opposition to that belief. Why are you okay with it?

I can get behind the idea that there can be an element of truth in fiction. This is why I like to read novels. I think they often have something valuable to say about the human condition, how we relate to each other, and how we deal with the challenges we face. But that does not mean that I am going to run out and start a religion based on “The Wizard of Earthsea.” (And I think you’d agree with me, that that would not be an appropriate course of action.) Sometimes, authors of fiction make claims about the human condition that I don’t think are true, or they try to communicate morals that I don’t think are good ones. I use fiction as a starting point for thinking about such things — and I include the Bible when I say “fiction” here, I *have* read it and pondered its impact on human history, society, and moral philosophy — but I don’t use works of fiction as unquestionable dictates of “the gospel truth.”

I enjoyed reading “The Lord of the Rings.” I found it worth my time. But that does not mean that I believe in the supernatural — even though I and others are capable of imagining it. What I need you to explain to me is, why is there something *more* true about the Bible than there is about the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Why should we all get together on Sunday mornings to study the Bible, but not to study Tolkien?

When I read “The Lord of the Rings,” I might come away with an understanding that it’s good to stand by your friends when they need your help, and that tantalizing and seemingly “precious” things may have more costs to them than are readily apparent. But I don’t conclude that hobbits, elves, dwarves, and orcs are real. I don’t conclude that I must devote my real life to serving Gandalf and battling Sauron. Similarly, when I read the Bible, I might come away with the understanding that it’s important to love and care for others, even when it’s challenging. Or that being a good person is much more important than having wealth and material possessions. But I don’t conclude that God, Satan, angels, and demons are real, and I don’t conclude that Jesus was really the son of God who died so that I wouldn’t be punished for the confusing misunderstanding of a naive couple in a garden at the beginning of time. Why should I?

What’s your take? Have you met people who call themselves Christians who believe the Bible is fiction? What do you think of this pastor’s approach?