It Means What it Means (except when it doesn't)
One of the larger obstacles for many people in encountering the Bible is the question of approach. How do you read this thing called the Bible? How do you interpret the words found within?
Both questions are answered largely before you ever open the book itself. A few months ago, I overheard a conversation between two men about the Bible (overheard isn't quite right. I was in a barber shop and the man in the chair was talking loudly enough for everyone in the room to hear). The man (in the chair) said that his brother-in-law who, according to the man on more than one occasion, was very smart just "didn't get the Bible."
Again, emphasizing that his brother-in-law was "very, very smart" explained that his brother-in-law didn't get the Bible because he was reading it incorrectly. At this point, try as I might to not listen, I had to hear where this man was going with his argument. How was this man reading the Bible that wasn't correct?
"He reads the Bible the same way he reads a novel."
The man in the chair went on to explain that his 'smart' brother-in-law read the Bible like a novel which meant that he read the book from beginning to end and looked for some plot and ultimate point to the whole book but wasn't finding it because he wasn't reading it properly.
Alarm bells.
So, if we don't read the Bible properly, it won't make sense?
My next thought was to reverse the man's idea: What if we read novels the same way we read the Bible? What depth would we uncover? That was the goal of our English classes in school - to open the larger meanings of texts. What is so wrong with that approach?
The man in the chair seemed to want to emphasize that intelligence gets in the way of faith or, at least, of truly reading the Bible as it was intended. He explained that you can't read the Bible like a novel and hope to make sense of it.
That made little sense to me. Then I read a book by Francis Chan called Erasing Hell. In the preface, he wrote, "Read the scriptures we've quoted as truth directly from the mouth of God. Pause and meditate deeply on the verses whenever they arise. Those words are ultimately what God wants you to cherish and embrace." (Erasing Hell p. 12)
Okay. So here we have a point of view that the man in the chair probably shared. The Bible is the direct word of God - not infallible, not inerrant. Straight from God to us. Therefore, we have to read the Bible as if it is God's words to us. Okay. So far I think I follow.
Then, however, he quotes a passage from 1st Corinthians 15:22 where Paul says, "In Christ all will be made alive (NIV)." (This is straight from the book). "When Paul says "all will be made alive," he's clearly thinking about the resurrection of believers at the second coming of Christ." Then he makes the great observation that, "in this case, "all" doesn't mean every single person. And this is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at 1 Corinthians 15:22 and other passages like it. You've got to figure out from the context what "all" means." (Erasing Hell p.29).
So it seems that God's clear words that God would have us cherish may not literally mean what they say - at least by this description of the use of the word "all." So if all only means some or most, or many, then it is no wonder that you can't read it like a novel because you will fall into the trap of assuming that the Bible means what it says and therefore miss the deeper truth that God would have you understand.
Wow.
I begin to see the problem. We can't read the Bible like a novel because we might misinterpret what it means. Yet if it was so clear, how could that be?
We also have to recognize that Paul probably would have balked at the idea that you and I would be reading his letters as scripture. Two reasons. 1. Paul was writing a letter. He didn't write with the intention of his letter making its way into a new collection of writings that would be considered sacred scripture. The Hebrew Bible was his scripture. There didn't need to be anything else. 2. Paul assumed that Christ would come and the world would end either before the end of his own life or shortly thereafter. He couldn't have considered the possibility that we would be arguing about the meaning of his letter 2000 years later.
So what are our options?
One is to take the fundamentalist point of view. The Bible is either true or false. That is to say either accept it as it is and work to find the meaning (especially if all doesn't always mean all), or dismiss it completely.
I find that there are plenty of scholars who take the second route. Once errors are found too numerous, the whole thing is thrown out.
That's too bad.
Because what we overlook is the possibility that in reading these texts with a critical eye, we do notice the problems, we do find errors and conflicting accounts and ideas. But we also still find that there is a witness behind them to larger realities.
In the case of Jesus, I found a tremendous observation from an atheist who wrote, "Historical Jesus versus Christ Myth debate aside, what sort of character is depicted in the gospels? He, uh, dined with tax-collectors and sinners, right? He preached against sin but embraced sinners." (Robert Price - from his blog Zarathustra Speaks) The academic and critical aspect aside, one can still find great truth as well as the exemplary character of Jesus in the texts.
Throwing out the Bible completely is akin to waking up one morning and finding the microwave doesn't work. As a response, you put your entire house up for sale. Overkill, I think. There are other ways of viewing the Bible. There are truths that remain regardless of how you read the texts.
And your intelligence should not be a barrier to reading the Bible.
Perhaps, though, a lack of imagination leaves things only black or white, Bible or novel.
Both questions are answered largely before you ever open the book itself. A few months ago, I overheard a conversation between two men about the Bible (overheard isn't quite right. I was in a barber shop and the man in the chair was talking loudly enough for everyone in the room to hear). The man (in the chair) said that his brother-in-law who, according to the man on more than one occasion, was very smart just "didn't get the Bible."
Again, emphasizing that his brother-in-law was "very, very smart" explained that his brother-in-law didn't get the Bible because he was reading it incorrectly. At this point, try as I might to not listen, I had to hear where this man was going with his argument. How was this man reading the Bible that wasn't correct?
"He reads the Bible the same way he reads a novel."
The man in the chair went on to explain that his 'smart' brother-in-law read the Bible like a novel which meant that he read the book from beginning to end and looked for some plot and ultimate point to the whole book but wasn't finding it because he wasn't reading it properly.
Alarm bells.
So, if we don't read the Bible properly, it won't make sense?
My next thought was to reverse the man's idea: What if we read novels the same way we read the Bible? What depth would we uncover? That was the goal of our English classes in school - to open the larger meanings of texts. What is so wrong with that approach?
The man in the chair seemed to want to emphasize that intelligence gets in the way of faith or, at least, of truly reading the Bible as it was intended. He explained that you can't read the Bible like a novel and hope to make sense of it.
That made little sense to me. Then I read a book by Francis Chan called Erasing Hell. In the preface, he wrote, "Read the scriptures we've quoted as truth directly from the mouth of God. Pause and meditate deeply on the verses whenever they arise. Those words are ultimately what God wants you to cherish and embrace." (Erasing Hell p. 12)
Okay. So here we have a point of view that the man in the chair probably shared. The Bible is the direct word of God - not infallible, not inerrant. Straight from God to us. Therefore, we have to read the Bible as if it is God's words to us. Okay. So far I think I follow.
Then, however, he quotes a passage from 1st Corinthians 15:22 where Paul says, "In Christ all will be made alive (NIV)." (This is straight from the book). "When Paul says "all will be made alive," he's clearly thinking about the resurrection of believers at the second coming of Christ." Then he makes the great observation that, "in this case, "all" doesn't mean every single person. And this is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at 1 Corinthians 15:22 and other passages like it. You've got to figure out from the context what "all" means." (Erasing Hell p.29).
So it seems that God's clear words that God would have us cherish may not literally mean what they say - at least by this description of the use of the word "all." So if all only means some or most, or many, then it is no wonder that you can't read it like a novel because you will fall into the trap of assuming that the Bible means what it says and therefore miss the deeper truth that God would have you understand.
Wow.
I begin to see the problem. We can't read the Bible like a novel because we might misinterpret what it means. Yet if it was so clear, how could that be?
We also have to recognize that Paul probably would have balked at the idea that you and I would be reading his letters as scripture. Two reasons. 1. Paul was writing a letter. He didn't write with the intention of his letter making its way into a new collection of writings that would be considered sacred scripture. The Hebrew Bible was his scripture. There didn't need to be anything else. 2. Paul assumed that Christ would come and the world would end either before the end of his own life or shortly thereafter. He couldn't have considered the possibility that we would be arguing about the meaning of his letter 2000 years later.
So what are our options?
One is to take the fundamentalist point of view. The Bible is either true or false. That is to say either accept it as it is and work to find the meaning (especially if all doesn't always mean all), or dismiss it completely.
I find that there are plenty of scholars who take the second route. Once errors are found too numerous, the whole thing is thrown out.
That's too bad.
Because what we overlook is the possibility that in reading these texts with a critical eye, we do notice the problems, we do find errors and conflicting accounts and ideas. But we also still find that there is a witness behind them to larger realities.
In the case of Jesus, I found a tremendous observation from an atheist who wrote, "Historical Jesus versus Christ Myth debate aside, what sort of character is depicted in the gospels? He, uh, dined with tax-collectors and sinners, right? He preached against sin but embraced sinners." (Robert Price - from his blog Zarathustra Speaks) The academic and critical aspect aside, one can still find great truth as well as the exemplary character of Jesus in the texts.
Throwing out the Bible completely is akin to waking up one morning and finding the microwave doesn't work. As a response, you put your entire house up for sale. Overkill, I think. There are other ways of viewing the Bible. There are truths that remain regardless of how you read the texts.
And your intelligence should not be a barrier to reading the Bible.
Perhaps, though, a lack of imagination leaves things only black or white, Bible or novel.
Comments
Post a Comment