Tag Archives: Biblical interpretation

Are Bible stories good enough?

I regularly teach Bible class. Almost every Sunday. And it’s the rare Sunday that I don’t preach, even though I’m not officially a preacher. I’m expected to take the Word of God and make the message plain for others.

Too many times, however, I get in the way. Especially when dealing with narratives in the Bible. I don’t see them as sufficient (if you’ll allow me to be honest about it). The story isn’t enough; I’ve got to add some lessons to it. In a wonderful essay on biblical authority, N.T. Wright says:

In the church and in the world, then, we have to tell the story. It is not enough to translate scripture into timeless truths. How easy it has been for theologians and preachers to translate the gospels (for instance) into something more like epistles!

Guilty as charged. I don’t find enough power in the stories in the gospels; I’ve got to bring out my own lessons, based on those stories.

So many of the narratives in the Bible have no moralizing to them. The narrator doesn’t tell us if what the person did was good or bad, if it was right or wrong. That’s not easy for us to live with.

Maybe that’s why so many of the stories in the Bible get relegated to Bible hour, never making it onto the big stage in the main assembly. They’re kids’ stories, not material for adults. (Though a lot of those kids’ stories would get an R rating if they were made into movies!)

Wright also writes:

And as we tell the story—the story of Israel, the story of Jesus, the story of the early church—that itself is an act of worship. That is why, within my tradition, the reading of scripture is not merely ancillary to worship—something to prepare for the sermon—but it is actually, itself, part of the rhythm of worship itself. The church in reading publicly the story of God is praising God for his mighty acts, and is celebrating them, and is celebrating the fact that she is part of that continuous story. And, that story as we use it in worship reforms our God-view our world-view—reconstitutes us as the church. The story has to be told as the new covenant story.

How can we do better about letting God’s story be told? How can preachers and teachers get out of the way so that the story can be heard? Or is there enough value in the stories alone? Do they need our “three points, a poem and a prayer” to make them worthwhile?

Reading the Bible as narrative

Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange

I’ve been thinking a lot about how we read the Bible. One aspect that I need to learn more about is how to read the Bible as narrative. Interestingly enough, several people have been looking at the same question lately. Among others, Sean Palmer and Patrick Mead have recently written about this. Sean approaches the subject from the point of view of preaching. I haven’t had a chance to read Patrick’s yet, but knowing the kind of research and study Patrick does, I have confident his thoughts are worth reading.

I was also directed to an article called Why “The Bible is our Instruction Manual” is the Worst Metaphor in the History of the World over at a site called The Ruthless Monk. While there, I explored the site and read a bit about reading the Bible as narrative.

I see at least two related trains of thought on this subject:

  1. We need to learn to read the narrative parts of the Bible for what they are. We don’t handle narrative that well. Maybe that’s one reason why the writings of Paul are so popular in our brotherhood. Narrative doesn’t always seem as “practical” as we might like.
  2. We need to learn to read the Bible as a continuing narrative. Each part of the Bible contributes to the overarching story. Too often we isolate verses, chapters or even books, without trying to place them within the whole narrative of the Bible.

I want to spend some time exploring these related ideas. I’m very open to insights, suggested resources, related questions, et. What do you think?

Fear-driven Christianity

Years ago, a hymnbook came out called Sacred Selections. It made numerous changes to the words of songs to adapt them to fit the beliefs of the editors. For example, instead of “When We All Get To Heaven,” this book had “When The Saved Get To Heaven.” Critics called it Scared Selections.

The subject of “safety” in Christian practice came up the other day. Too often, we let fear determine our practices, what we will do and what we won’t. (I wrote about “The Ticking Time Bomb” a couple of years ago) While actively seeking to do what is unsafe is foolish, focusing on “safety” in religion can lead us to an even more dangerous place.

It’s like the rabbinic concept of “the fence around the Torah.” To keep from violating the Torah, they made rules that would keep them from getting close to lawbreaking. This created a safety zone. It also created a new set of laws.

Think about this principle in real life. What if every choice we made was determined by safety? We’d probably eat baby food, just to reduce the risk of choking. No elevators; it’s the stairs for us. Speed limits would be set at 10 mph, or maybe cars would be banned altogether. Human contact would be restricted, to avoid the risk of contagion. See what I mean?

We see it in sports. The teams that play to “not lose” rarely win. Frankly, I think we see it in churches as well. That atmosphere of fear doesn’t foster healthy church relations. It kills creativity, spontaneity and leaves little to no room for the Spirit to work.

Part of this comes from the lost/saved mentality, the one that says that all that matters is being saved. In a sense, that is the ultimate goal, yet Christians that focus on that rarely enjoy the fullness of life in Christ. Our focus needs to be on pleasing God. It needs to be on the imitation of Christ. It needs to be on living life as a citizen of the kingdom, promoting the good of that kingdom. It’s not just a focus on “Am I in or out?”.

Or is there a way to focus on safety without focusing on fear? Am I defining things too narrowly? Am I misunderstanding what others have said?

Looking forward to your input.

Photo by Kevin Rosseel

Human laws and our own humanness

Yesterday we talked about the danger of making laws where God hasn’t. I’m still not sure why we tend to take such things lightly. But Danny made an interesting observation: hardly anyone realizes that they are binding manmade laws on others. Rarely does anyone say, “I’m going to make a new law.”

Most of the time, we feel that we are merely applying the logical extension of another law. It’s like the Pharisees with their Sabbath traditions. They were trying to follow the commandment about keeping the Sabbath. They did so by creating a series of definitions of what was work and what wasn’t, what was allowed and what wasn’t. Then Jesus came and violated their manmade regulations… and they accused him of violating God’s law.

Our history is full of examples of laws laid down in the pursuit of holiness, some which seem quaint now. No movies. No “spot” cards (you could use Rook cards, but the other cards were for gambling). No “mixed bathing” (which I still oppose, though I have no problem with mixed swimming). No rock and roll. No smoking. No drinking. No dancing.

My great-grandfather allowed no dominoes on his property; they too could be used for gambling. He also forbade the reading of fiction, for fiction is a lie. When my mother was at ACU, women couldn’t wear polka dots; might draw the boys’ attention in a bad way.

As I said, these laws are an attempt to make it easier to fulfill God’s law. It’s easy for me to look at another man’s home-brewed laws and laugh; it’s harder for me to see them in myself. Here’s part of Danny’s comment from yesterday:

One hurdle, I think, is that hardly anyone (if anyone at all) sees himself as guilty of binding man-made commands. I suppose our core problem may be in recognizing them as merely that. It’s like we all have friends who need this post, but not us.

The yeast of the Pharisees is as bad as the yeast of the Saducees. I think we need to openly talk about the dangers of creating our own laws.

What attitudes can help us avoid the trap of creating new laws? What heart adjustments need to be made? How do we make them in ourselves, or what outlooks can we avoid personally? How do we walk the fine line between legalism and lawlessness?

Making laws that God hasn’t made

Somewhere in all of this discussion of biblical interpretation, we need to talk about one of the biggest dangers in our churches: making laws that God hasn’t made. In my faith heritage, that seems to get brushed off lightly. Somehow Nadab and Abihu became main characters in the biblical story (though they are mentioned less than their brothers: Eleazar and Ithamar); Leviticus 10 is made to teach about the danger of doing things that God hasn’t authorized, with next to nothing said about God’s forgiving disobedience in that very same chapter. For whatever reason, the sin of unauthorized worship was deemed worse than it’s counterpart: the creation of new laws, laws which God did not make.

I look at Jesus’ ministry, and “unauthorized lawmaking” was the biggest source of conflict between the Jewish leaders and the Messiah. Jesus challenged their authority to take God’s law and extend it, to surround God’s law with manmade regulations.

Creating laws is something that God has reserved for himself and no one else. “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.* The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:11–12) God is the lawgiver. God is the judge. When we try to step into those roles, we cease to be “doers of the law.”

When we begin to speak of what God has commanded, we should tread carefully. Usurping God’s authority is not something to be done lightly.