Sunday, March 7, 2010
A New Kind of Way to Read the Bible
Tweet
I'm reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity," which deals with "10 Questions that are Transforming the [Christian] Faith." (See my introductory post here.) The first question is "What is the overarching story line of the Bible?" This first question has incredible implications, is very interesting, and I first began to think about it during a one-on-one conversation with McLaren himself. I'd recommend reading my friend Kyle's summary posts here and here.
However, the second question, "How should the Bible be understood?" - or rather McLaren's discussion of this topic - is what really got me going this week. He begins by demonstrating through that the Bible has been used to legitimize many of the worst human atrocities in history - not a tough case to make, really. He states, "Slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism, genocide, chauvinism, homophobia, environmental plunder, the Inquisition, witch burning, apartheid - aren't those worth taking care to avoid, for God's sake?" However, the point is not that we made (many) mistakes in the past, because, of course, we have repented of these mistakes and are trying to use the Bible better now. Aren't we??
What McLaren incisively points out is that "very few Christians today...have given a second thought to - much less repented of - this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery..." and other horrendous crimes against humanity. In other words, it is not good enough to simplify feel bad that in the past Christians used the Bible to defend certain practices until enough people realized it was wrong; we have to stop using/reading the Bible in the same way.
He states, "Repentance means more than being sorry - it means being different."
What is the way Western Christians typically read the Bible? McLaren uses the analogy of a "legal constitution." For me, this was an "ah-ha" moment. He states,
The problem is that the Bible doesn't work this way. It is not internally consistent on many topics; it is easy to distort and abuse passages for the sake of the readers desire (whatever that may be at the moment); and the result is endless debates on interpretive approaches and the meanings of just about every passage in Scripture! When you step back and think about it, if the Bible is supposed to be read like a constitution, it isn't a very good one.
What then is this "new way" to read the Bible? McLaren's imagery is that of a "library of a culture and community." By this he means that it is a "carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek [the Judeo-Christian] God."
This is a challenging idea, and at first seems rather ambiguous. But as he explains it, McLaren makes several good points (which, coincidentally, relate to prior discussions with the COEC). First, there is tension, arguments and questions - it is a "group of people who say different things about the same things" (kind of the like the biblical authors?) The "library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God...into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed." The Bible was produced by and within a community, and it is meant to be read, heard and experienced by a community.
This approach has interesting implications for the idea of "inspiration." If the Bible is understood as a "constitution" then we would expect every word, the format, the construction and the entire product to be "inspired" in its entirety. This idea has challenged honest theologians for centuries. But if we understand the Bible as an "inspired" (or "authoritative") library, then there are different connotations. It includes key arguments, uniquely reveals God within itself and has the power to provide training, encouragement and guidance.
Clearly, the difference between reading the bible as a constitution and as a cultural library are vastly different, but also in my opinion, incredibly exciting. As McLaren states,
I'm reading Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christianity," which deals with "10 Questions that are Transforming the [Christian] Faith." (See my introductory post here.) The first question is "What is the overarching story line of the Bible?" This first question has incredible implications, is very interesting, and I first began to think about it during a one-on-one conversation with McLaren himself. I'd recommend reading my friend Kyle's summary posts here and here.
However, the second question, "How should the Bible be understood?" - or rather McLaren's discussion of this topic - is what really got me going this week. He begins by demonstrating through that the Bible has been used to legitimize many of the worst human atrocities in history - not a tough case to make, really. He states, "Slavery, anti-Semitism, colonialism, genocide, chauvinism, homophobia, environmental plunder, the Inquisition, witch burning, apartheid - aren't those worth taking care to avoid, for God's sake?" However, the point is not that we made (many) mistakes in the past, because, of course, we have repented of these mistakes and are trying to use the Bible better now. Aren't we??
What McLaren incisively points out is that "very few Christians today...have given a second thought to - much less repented of - this habitual, conventional way of reading and interpreting the Bible that allowed slavery..." and other horrendous crimes against humanity. In other words, it is not good enough to simplify feel bad that in the past Christians used the Bible to defend certain practices until enough people realized it was wrong; we have to stop using/reading the Bible in the same way.
He states, "Repentance means more than being sorry - it means being different."
What is the way Western Christians typically read the Bible? McLaren uses the analogy of a "legal constitution." For me, this was an "ah-ha" moment. He states,
"It shouldn't surprise us that peopel raised in a constitutional era would tend to read the Bible in a constitutional way. Lawyers in the courtroom quote sections...to win their case, and we do the same with....chapters and verses...We seek to distinguish 'spirit' from 'letter' and argue the 'framers intent'...[as if it is] a universal, eternally binding law."To me, this is exactly what is done by "proof texting" - Christians throwing out verses that prove the point they are trying to make. We create or defend our beliefs by picking and choosing supporting verses. Especially in a Western, democratic, constitutional society, we have become subconsciously trained to think in these terms.
The problem is that the Bible doesn't work this way. It is not internally consistent on many topics; it is easy to distort and abuse passages for the sake of the readers desire (whatever that may be at the moment); and the result is endless debates on interpretive approaches and the meanings of just about every passage in Scripture! When you step back and think about it, if the Bible is supposed to be read like a constitution, it isn't a very good one.
What then is this "new way" to read the Bible? McLaren's imagery is that of a "library of a culture and community." By this he means that it is a "carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek [the Judeo-Christian] God."
This is a challenging idea, and at first seems rather ambiguous. But as he explains it, McLaren makes several good points (which, coincidentally, relate to prior discussions with the COEC). First, there is tension, arguments and questions - it is a "group of people who say different things about the same things" (kind of the like the biblical authors?) The "library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God...into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed." The Bible was produced by and within a community, and it is meant to be read, heard and experienced by a community.
This approach has interesting implications for the idea of "inspiration." If the Bible is understood as a "constitution" then we would expect every word, the format, the construction and the entire product to be "inspired" in its entirety. This idea has challenged honest theologians for centuries. But if we understand the Bible as an "inspired" (or "authoritative") library, then there are different connotations. It includes key arguments, uniquely reveals God within itself and has the power to provide training, encouragement and guidance.
Clearly, the difference between reading the bible as a constitution and as a cultural library are vastly different, but also in my opinion, incredibly exciting. As McLaren states,
"I anticipate that our quest for a new approach to the Bible will be come more attractive the more we practice it. As we transcend the wrangle and tangle of theo-legal suits and countersuits...we will humbly and joyfully add our voices to the age-old conversation with and about God, a vigorous and vibrant conversation rooted in and inspired by the fascinating array of voices in the Scriptures."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment