How should we then read

Today is sort of a brainstorming day. I want to throw out some thoughts about reading and interpreting the Bible, hoping that you will be able to help me process some of these. Here goes…

  • We are too focused on individualized Bible study. We have lost the sense of community in Bible study. We expect every man to be able to sit down with his Bible and interpret it correctly. That’s not the imagery I see from the Bible. People heard the Word read aloud, then they interacted with one another to come to an understanding of what it means. (Maybe forums like this help us do some of that)
  • We are too individualistic in our application of texts. We focus our reading on what it says to ME, what it means to ME, how it applies to ME. We lose that sense of connection to the body of Christ. We lose our connection to the church throughout history.
  • We need to recapture “big picture” Bible reading. Texts should be read not only as they fit into their immediate context, but as a part of the continuing flow of the Bible.
  • We need to rethink how we read different parts of the Bible. Poetry is there not just to communicate ideas in memorable ways, but because of how poetry affects the whole man. Visionary literature is visionary to capture the imagination. Narrative exists not just to teach faith lessons, but to help us under OUR story. (How in the world did we ever come to think of the Old Testament as a “constitution” for God’s people? Seriously… what percentage of the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures are dedicated to the giving of laws?)
  • We need to move beyond the idea that Bible study should be a simple endeavor. The Bible doesn’t make that claim. Some of our problems come from wanting to boil interpretative principles down to simplistic sayings that can be expressed in 25 words or less.

OK, a few thoughts for a Monday morning. Feel free to reflect on those, add some of your own, or suggest resources for study.

photo by Marian Trinidad

10 thoughts on “How should we then read

  1. Wendy

    Excellent thoughts, Tim. The more I study the Bible, the more I realise it provides more questions than answers, and the questions are meant to be grappled with in a faith community. Jesus taught in parables for a reason, but some of us prefer to trot out single verse “answers” to the most profound questions there are…

  2. Tim Frakes

    Conservative Evangelical Christians are often too focused on individualized Bible study. I would argue that individual Bible study has become a new conservative evangelical sacrament. We have replaced Baptism, Communion and the five other Roman sacraments with “time in the Word.”

    The emphasis here is on “individual.” In 1517 the Roman Church warned that the Reformation would bring a storm of conflicting interpretations of the Bible. It did. And most protestant leaders were not particularly open-minded. One reformer wrote: “Individual interpretation of the Bible allows each man to carve his own path to hell.”

    On the flip side, the use of the Common Lectionary in many main-line Protestant denominations keeps Christians all over the world literally on the same page, while limiting the ability of individual preachers to over emphasize narrow topics like stewardship.

  3. guy

    Tim,

    This is really good stuff. In my experience, communal reading of Scripture is a very different experience than private reading. So much about the experience changes. Just hearing the words read by someone else’s voice rather than only in my own mind makes a big difference to how those words impact me.

    Further, i would say that the meaning of the act of reading is altered. Tim Frakes very insightfully mentions “time in the word” as the be-all “sacrament” of evangelicalism. i definitely agree with that sentiment. But part of the problem i think is precisely that i wasn’t brought up to think that Scripture reading can be a sacramental act. i think evangelicals will still largely cache out “time in the word” in terms of my private wrestling with interpretation. Reading communally suggests to me that the act of reading is not merely about each individual hearer acquiring and processing information. Rather communal reading suggests that the words themselves ought to be shown due honor from a community. i believe it suggests that the reading done in community can accomplish things beyond mere processing of information by individuals (perhaps for the same reason that there can be spiritual value in praying the Lord’s prayer even when i don’t have tangible, concrete understandings of every phrase). And it can also bolster communal submission/commitment to the words–a sort of level of accountability not present in my private reading.

    It always puzzled me why there weren’t significantly more public scripture readings in the CoC–doesn’t that practice seem to comport with everything the CoC claims to stand for? And yet they were always a rarity in my experience.

    –guy

  4. Tim Archer Post author

    Guy,

    A major problem, in my view, came from the “five acts” mentality. We combined public reading and preaching into one “act of worship,” then allowed preaching to displace the public reading of the Word.

    Most of us aren’t conditioned to listen well when Scripture is being read publicly. I know I’m not.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  5. Travis Flora

    I agree with your thoughts, but do see limitations to emphasizing public reading vs. individual reading. You mentioned one: people lose focus and don’t pay attention when others are reading. Every CoC I’ve attended has had some sort of Scripture reading as part of the Sunday worship service, and usually on Wednesdays, too. The length varies from a few verses at our current congregation to entire chapters or thematic passages at another. Reading by itself among a large group is probably fine, but reading with discussion is probably best suited to smaller groups, from a practical standpoint (the smaller the group, the more likely to get involvement from those in the group). Another problem is “that guy” that exists in all congregations who tends to dominate the group, throws out big words and complex thoughts, insists his (or her) view is the “correct” one, and basically intimidates others into participating. You know, the person who wants to be the preacher or “authority” but isn’t. Just another thought, but straight readings followed by open discussions tend to be pretty good for examining applications, but tend to fall short when it comes to really digging in and “studying” the Bible, cross-referencing, word studies, geography studies, cultural examinations, etc. There’s a time and place for both.

  6. guy

    Tim,

    Years ago on a Sunday night, the preacher at my old congregation led a worship service with readings from Revelation. The readings were divided up so that he red part of it allowed, and the congregation read the other parts. That was definitely on of the more meaningful Scripture readings i’ve participated in.

    At my Orthodox parish, there’s two public readings every Sunday–one from an epistle, and one from one of the four gospels.

    –guy

  7. Darin

    I do see a difference in my limited experience between Churches of Christ and other groups. That is one of the refreshing places in my return. Corporate scripture reading along with Bible focused classes with discussion. Not saying we couldn’t do more but that is an area that for me Churches of Christ are better at.

  8. nick gill

    Every CoC I’ve attended has had some sort of Scripture reading as part of the Sunday worship service, and usually on Wednesdays, too. The length varies from a few verses at our current congregation to entire chapters or thematic passages at another.

    Typically – not just where we are, but everywhere I’ve gone – as a preamble for the sermon rather than a reverent hearing of God’s words to his people.

    People lose focus and don’t pay attention while others are preaching, too, but 30 seconds of Scripture and 30 minutes of sermon still seems to be the default setting in the church.

    Another problem is “that guy” that exists in all congregations who tends to dominate the group, throws out big words and complex thoughts, insists his (or her) view is the “correct” one, and basically intimidates others into participating. You know, the person who wants to be the preacher or “authority” but isn’t.

    Thanks for outing me! Now I have to find somewhere else to annoy people! :)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.