I was given a couple of articles last week by one of our members. He is concerned about some of what he’s seeing during the Lord’s Supper, so in an honest attempt to help, he brought in these articles.
I don’t like them a bit. To be honest, I saw the title of the journal they were from, and I went in with a bad attitude. I read through them, but was quickly turned off. I’ve grown tired of piecemeal theology, which seeks to find words in the Bible that say what they want said rather than trying to figure out what a passage of Scripture is actually saying.
My dilemma was (and is) how do you explain that to the average church member? How do you show them that an author’s entire approach to Scripture is wrong? The man made points, with verses to back them up. To the member’s eye, it was very biblical. To my eye, it was very human and bordering on biblical malpractice.
I don’t want to come to the “well, you just wouldn’t understand” point in talking with people about the Bible. Yet I find that many biblical questions can’t be adequately answered by quoting a pair of Bible verses. I want themes and large principles. I want a passage of Scripture that is actually addressing that topic. If there isn’t one, then you’re going to have to show me how what you’re saying fits into the overriding story of Scripture. And that’s hard to do in an elevator speech.
It’s much easier to say, “Paul told the Corinthians to lay by in store every first day of the week, so that means we should meet on Sundays and have a collection.” That’s a concrete answer that people understand. It’s harder to look at principal themes of the Bible to determine how often to meet and what to do when we meet.
So much comes down to the way we view Scripture and what we consider to be an appropriate use of Scripture. Any suggestions on how to communicate such things in a way that people can understand? How do we lead people down a road that’s taken us years to travel? Should we even try?
“It must be difficult for an Indian who loves his tribe, but doesn’t speak their language.”
I struggle with this as well, brother. I have some thoughts, but they don’t make sense to me yet, so I will let them simmer for a few hours and see what rises.
I hear you, Tim. Several months ago I spoke at a congregation in a suburb in Dallas. My base text was in John 3 where Nicodemus comes to Jesus. I started by talking about how we should be careful with translations because they don’t always capture the essence of what was really said. I talked about how “anothen” actually means “from above.” It is an added dimension to how we traditionally translate it as “anew.” After my talk, the local preacher approached me and said he liked the traditional translation better because it “characterized baptism more better.” I’m still trying to figure that one out! I’ve just about reached the point of not accepting any more speaking invitations and just saying to my brethern, “if you and any of your group have a question about what the Bible says, come to my house and we’ll sit and study over a cup of coffee.” It may be time for a new “restoration movement.”
I’ve struggled with this in the past when I was serving churches with members who still read the Bible like this and it is frustrating.
There are no simple fixes to this, as it takes a lot of patient deconstruction (applied with wisdom) but there are two places I always start. First, is the question of what constitutes “biblical.” Just because a person can cite scripture does not make what they’re saying biblical unless we are ready to concede that Satan was biblical when he was quoting scripture to Jesus. Second, I gently try to undo the flat, legalistic reading of scripture that treats the NT as a constitution or “how to” manual of church. I do this by pointing out that the there was nothing wrong with the Law (cf. Rom 7:12), so if God was simply interested in providing Christians with a legal text by which they can then live under a written law then God already had a written Law for that (which, of course, if we could be righteous by keeping a legal code from God then there would be no need for Jesus’ atoning death).
I’ve had this conversation in the past with several people and for a couple of them, it opened the door to learn a better way of reading scripture. But for another person, I just frustrated him and convinced him all the more of my apostasy :-). Looking back, I suspect the difference was the disposition of each person. The Christians who learned a better way of reading scripture seemed to already have a humble, God-seeking heart. Where the other person seemed only interested in proving other “religious people” wrong.
Tim, we share the same concerns. When I moved here 20 years ago, one of my elders brought me a book, based on “pattern theology” and asked me to read it. I explained that I would not do so, because while I was sure there was some truth contained in it, I knew the author and did not respect his approach to Scripture. This brought about no small rift between us initially. Trying to find a stream of potable water in a cesspool is just not worth either the danger nor the time.
What I did recognize, and what you point out with your member who came with the concerns, is a spirit of one who wants to do right. My member, and I assume your’s, wanted my opinion and perspective on how to understand the problem. It was about a 5-10 year process to help him begin to look for intent in a passage instead of simply a pattern of behavior. He still slips easily into his earliest approach from time to time, but he has, with my patience and kindness, come to view life differently. When I learned his personal history, with multiple generations of family who were very insistent about a certain view of Scripture, I could see why he thought the complexity (from his view) of my hermeneutic was “drifting” from the “old path” that he found comfort in.
I offer a prayer of thanks today for your approachability where your brother felt he could bring such questions to you. I also offered prayers for both of you for patience and enlightenment.
Grace to you both, and peace from the only one who offers it.
Thanks, guys for some excellent thoughts… and some excellent quotes.
People read the Bible like that for two primary reasons:
1. They were taught to read the Bible verse by verse in a proof text manner, or
b. They were taught to read the Bible by letting the authority figure explain it to them.
Given that’s the background of many people today (especially older Christians), how do we address that? The surprisingly easy answer is that we teach them how to read the Bible properly and, in so doing, show them just how great a book it is. Note that I said it’s an easy answer, not a quick one. I do my best at this by modeling how to read the Bible.
The first step is a quick overview of how the Bible as it is today came to be. You’d be surprised (or perhaps not) at how many people think the original texts have chapters and verses. Once they learn that’s not the case, it helps them understand that studying the Bible in proof text fashion is not, for the most part, a faithful way of reading Scripture. You don’t need to tell them that explicitly: people are smart enough to figure it out for themselves.
The next step is to teach how to read in broad context. People have been taught to read every part of the Bible the same way. If we don’t show them the difference in genres and let them know that reading poetry differently than history than doctrine is not denying the inspiration of any particular part of Scripture, they’ll not only read Scripture differently, but read it with a sense of enjoyment. It also gives them the freedom to ask the hard questions without feeling like they’re questioning God’s authority.
What I won’t do is tell someone the way they’ve been taught how to approach Scripture is wrong. One of the important lessons I’ve learned from prison ministry is: “Don’t tell people what they’re doing wrong. Show them what’s right.” I don’t need to launch an all out attack on a proof text hermeneutic that will only raise hackles and make people defensive. Instead, we need to look at what the whole text says and not be too surprised when folks who have been in the church for a very long time say, “I never knew that’s what the Bible said.” Just taking that one step of reading and studying large chunks of Scripture and resisting the temptation of a verse by verse breakdown will give people an opportunity of looking at Scripture from a new perspective.
Nothing here is particularly new or insightful. I do believe, however, that we underestimate how much people today actually read the Bible as opposed to what people say/blog about it (the overall level of Bible knowledge in the church today is abysmal, to say the least). I also believe that, when shown how to read the Bible correctly, even the stodgiest of folks (and the trendiest of folks) can join with David in discovering wonderful things in God’s Law (and if David can find “wondrous things” in Torah, imagine what we can find in the “doctrinal” books).
An addendum of sorts: as an example of how I like to approach this, I’m teaching a Wednesday class on Solomon this summer. We’re going to start by reading the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings, noting how he went about establishing a successful empire and also noting how, in so doing, he systematically violated everything God said about what he wanted in a king (should generate some conversation about the problems of mixing church and state). Then, we’re going to read the account of Solomon’s reign in 2 Chronicles, noting the very different take on Solomon the two accounts present. We’ll discuss how the two accounts differ, why they differ and how that affects how we read this genre of Scripture. And, for the record, this is what most folks would consider a “conservative,” congregation (but we are by no means “stodgy”…well, maybe a little, but we’re getting better).
It may be coincidence, but I think not: When some older folks in our congregation started trying to understand how to approach postmodernists with the gospel, they began to drop the proof-text way of analyzing scripture.