Oh, I do agree with the idea of reading the Bible in a nonliteral manner, and in a way that is aware of the culture and society of when and where these stories are told and recorded. Finding new ideas is powerful when you can recognize the underlying principles and then apply them to your own life as would seem appropriate. That philosophy works great for reading other stories, too, but the Bible certainly stands out because of its comprehensive and long-standing nature (as you mentioned).
However, I would like to remark that while Lutheran doctorine is sometimes applied this way, at times the exact opposite is done (a literal interpretation). Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. The latter may not have emerged in your experiences, so would I be right in guessing that your overall message is to advocate the idea of interpretting the Bible in a critical way, and that Lutheranism is how you have seen that concept implemented?
Thanks for your time.
Hmmm... come to think of it, that Lutheran statement should probably be slightly amended. I was just thinking 'this is how I think of it, and I consider myself true Lutheran, thus this is the true Lutheran way of things.' Alright, probably not the best of logic. Admittedly, my father, in the Church, is a tad marginalised for his viewpoint - the Confessional segment of the Lutheran church, I'd say. However, what I was thinking about the critical analysis of the Bible probably comes less from doctrine, and more from the fact that, while my father is qualified as a pastor, he is also trained as a systematic theologian, and far prefers teaching. As such, he is a scholar, and treats the Bible in a scholarly-religious manner, and has a better understanding of its origins, development, and so forth, than 99% of pastors do. As such, I have always been raised to think in that manner, and have always held it as the right way of doings things.
So, to be honest, on considering it, there are probably many Lutherans who'd disagree with me on that. However, you must understand that there are so many fractures and divisions within the Church (and I'm not talking Protestant-Catholic, or even, say, Lutheran-Baptist, but rather within not only the Lutheran church, but within the synod, the district, and the Churches themselves) that it's difficult to say what's Lutheran one way or another these days. However, seeing as my father is extremely logical and learned in the matter, and knows the origins of the Lutheran doctrines - I've at least never been able to logically refute it - I'll take him to be the standard for what is truly Lutheran. As such, those who preach works-righteousness, those who'd look to much to the literal interpretations... they're not doing things quite the right way. Or, that's what I'd say.
By the way, what DID Wikipedia say about Lutherans? I don't trust Wiki much myself, but I'm curious.
Poll