I almost made a mistake the other day of opening the Bible with an agenda. I’d had an idea about a certain “Biblical principal” and I wanted to check a text to see if I was right. Then I realized that’s a slippery slope. There’s not a lot you can’t use the Bible to support. And besides that, if the Bible is designed to be a constitution, it’s horribly organized. I had to put myself in check.
This isn’t an easy thing to do. If you drop your preconceived grid when you go to the Bible, you may in fact find out that the grid you had been filtering the Bible through isn’t as concrete as you previously thought, and you may then have to admit that you were wrong. I wonder if our grids aren’t so solid for this reason, rather than as supposed guardrails to keep us from straying from the truth. What I mean is, a grid can help you understand the truth as much as it can cause you to reject the truth. When I hear a pastor or theologian speak in concrete terms about their grid, and especially when they defend that grid with emotion, I trust them less, not more. I trust them less because their paradigm is fixed, and they simply aren’t open to Biblical interpretations that contend with the ideas upon which they’ve stated and defend, ideas associated with their identities and even their financial security.
In my opinion, it is dangerous for seminaries to teach students a fixed grid that is not open to change or evolution. I trust an academic institution much less when they have only one interpretation of scripture rather than multiple interpretations that contend with one another. If the search is for truth, we can’t reject debate. This is not to say there is no truth, it’s only to say all of heaven hardly fits inside a mans head. And any man who says it does has made something small of heaven and something rather large of his head.
‘There’s not a lot you can’t use the Bible to support’ – how true that is. I’m in the middle of reading Brian McLaren’s book ‘A New Kind of Christianity’ in which he says exactly the same thing about reading the Bible as a constitution.
It’s so hard not to just slip back into treating the Bible that way, though. Like you say, Donald, you think of an idea and go check the Bible for a verse that you can rip out of all its context to justify your position.
“You think of an idea and go check the Bible for a verse that you can rip out of all its context to justify your position.”
Agreed; people are more likely to try to shape the Bible with their theology than to realize that their theology stems from the Bible!
It is like trying to take the statue of david and turn it into a block of marble; it is just backwards.
I am learning how to go to my Bible and see what God says, not what I want it to say or think is should say. For way too long I’ve gone in with an agenda.
I love that you wrote this; it’s exactly where I’m at.
Yeah, I tend to come to the Bible with some sort of agenda. “I’m gonna prove to you all that the Bible is about social justice, not personal redemption! Now let me see here . . . oh, wait, the Bible is actually about both. Never mind!”
Brilliant.
Convicted.
Well said!!!
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with checking an idea about a Biblical principle, provided you do the work of researching dissenting opinions and other scriptures that might modify the principle, or cast it in some new light. I definitely agree, though, that having a preset notion of what’s right or the truth, then finding a scripture to use as proof that you’re right is all kinds of wrong.
Brilliant.
I read the Bible like it’s alive.
Amen! (if I might be so prosaic, if not please forgive).
Smart! I agree. I love this challenge to find something to do.
Amen Don! It is incredibly difficult at times for me to open my Bible and read a passage that I interpret to mean something that I want it to mean rather than what it does mean. This has been true of a HUGE number of Church errors since Christ! I wonder how the Church would look if it was willing to shed some preconcieved theologies and re-read the Bible again…
Dang. This post just called me out…We ought to read the bible to move closer to God & to others through love, not as a weapon to defend our opinions.
Amen!
“If I were the devil, and I’m hoping I’m not, I’d just try to get people to use the Bible to argue about ideas rather than do anything.” – Great point!
“And besides that, if the Bible is designed to be a constitution, it’s horribly organized.” great thought. I used to see the Bible as a guidebook, but now have discovered that more than anything, the Bible is a story… it’s a story of how God pursues us over and over again, never giving up on us. It changed the way I read it forever once I realized that.
Entirely sympathetic to the gist of this post, but we must also be careful about the flip side—treating the scriptures as so entirely discombobulated that we miss the golden thread running throughout.
I’m reminded of a quote from Yoder that hits close to your same point, but I can’t find it right now. Trust me, it’s awesome!
Why do you assume there is a golden thread running throughout? Where did you learn that assumption? And does that assumption keep you from seeing something else?
Good questions, Don. The golden thread I’m referring to is simply God’s redemptive story played out in the history of Israel. Not the 5 points of Calvinism or Covenant Theology or something like that. Following the lectionary in the course of observing the church’s calendar taught me that assumption. It’s a good one, I think. No doubt I miss things as a result, but reading commentaries from various traditions often helps with that.
If we always come at scripture with no respect for a “canonical reading,” we run the risk of, for example, treating James as a “right strawy epistle,” of treating Paul as if he were not following Jesus’ trajectory, etc.
I’m not contending with your main point, though. We must free the scriptures to say what they mean as opposed to straight-jacketing them to say what we mean.
I had the same response as Chris, mainly because of Jesus comment in John 5 (v39 specifically) that he is the golden thread.
It seems to me, this assumption keeps me from trying to turn the Scripture into a Constitution, a self-help book, a theological treatise, or any number of things. Thoughts?
I’m with you Joe and Chris. It seems like Jesus and the redemption story is the central theme. Maybe you don’t like the wording “golden thread?” I’m curious about your thoughts, as Joe is…?
I’d have to agree about the central thread, to be honest. I see that thread. And yet, it begs questions about why the thread is not more clear. We would all say its clear, of course, but is it? I mean would a modern editor read through Exodus and say, yeah, its obviously a clear thread? But then again our writing and reading practices are very different than the authors had in mind when they wrote those texts.
There is a book called The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight that discusses this. http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Parakeet-Rethinking-Read-Bible/dp/0310284880
Amen to that Don. The Bible, including the central thread of Jesus is anything but clear, which is why we end up with all this other crap (and that’s just from those reading the whole story).
Wow, my mind is just spinning from all the links of this simple approach into hermeneutics as a field. Thanks for getting it going!
If by “golden thread” you mean story arc, then sure. N.T. Wright and Sean Gladding have done some excellent work with that.
I appreciate Ron Martioa’s thought with that in his book “The Bible as Improv.” He point out that there’s a gap in the story arc where you and I are living now. It’s our job to study the scripture to get familiar with the main character, plot, conflict, etc. Look at the ending… and then improv our lives in a way to fill that gap.
Improv seems like an apt metaphor. Feels true to scripture and it implies that we all need humility as we do our lives. In a very real way we are “making it up” as we go along.
Yes, probably getting most of this from Wright. I read a lengthy essay from him about scripture some years ago. It was better than his book on the same subject (The Last Word).
Wright’s work re: how we’re living out the 5th Act seems to be similar to what you’re saying Martioa has written.
It is very similar, Chris.
Thanks for posting this, Larry. That’s a really cool way to look at life and how we walk out our relationship with the Lord.
I just have to chime in and say Exodus is my favorite book in the Bible. Not saying it is the clearest, but I also don’t necessarily get what you mean by that statement…but for me, that book changed me the most and has given me such wonderful glimpses into human character, and shown me the incredible beauty and goodness of God’s character.
Just had to give a shout out to Exodus.
Sometimes, I think we miss out on so much in the Bible because of culture and not understanding the history and the Jewish world…but also, it is alive and active and His words are infinite just as He is, so why would we think we could ever fully grasp them.
Just another example of His awesomeness…even His book is a well that doesn’t seem to have a bottom.
I don’t know about seeing a story arc in the entire Bible — they are 66 different writings, after all — but there’s certainly a story arc in history that would naturally be reflected in at least the historical writings.
Lori,
I think it’s there. Not that there’s aren’t subplots, and cultural stuff that makes us all scratch our heads.
But to use the elements of story…
We have a hero God…
Who wants something… to enjoy and be enjoyed by his creation.
But there’s a conflict… call it sin, our inward bent, the Fall, exile.. whatever your preference, we all sense things aren’t the way they were mean to be.
So God works to overcome that conflict… by creating a beachhead in Israel and ultimately sending Jesus… Who will reconcile all things to him…
The church is the community that embodies that future reconciliation…
GAP
God finally reconciles all things.
…
When I teach the class on FAITH basics at my church I buy a scad of simply children’s picture books and laminate 2-3 pages about two thirds of the way through the book with white contact paper.
The participants can see the beginning of the story, the conflict introduced and growing, they hit the gap, and then see the happy ending. I ask them to use markers to “make up” those three missing pages.
It makes them read the rest of the book differently. They study the arc, and the nature for the main characters more closely.
I do think relating to the Bible is like that.
I totally and completely agree, yet I must ask… Is it possible to read the Bible (or anything) without some kind of agenda? The Bible contains so many paradoxes like this, which seem to contradict themselves i.e. blessed are those who mourn (or alternatively read, happy are those who are unhappy). Great post as per your norm!
[...] Don Miller. I don’t know very much about him, but that he writes like this says something about him. I’d like to read more of what he has to say. Apparently he’s written some books — probably time to check those out. [...]
Thanks Don….wish more would think this way.
Your thesis sounds great, but frankly, is entirely flawed. We have to read through a grid in order to not make it say whatever we want. We have to understand the attributes of God, we have to know the historical context, we have to have some basic understanding of the gospel. Not to mention that the example you use of your friend is contradictory. He is looking through a grid as well. Anyway, I’m a little confused by this blog post.
I see where you’re going here…but even thinking you understand the attributes of God puts you in danger of limiting him. In fact, I’d say it locks you into limiting him and *mis*understanding him.
Ok but then you might as well say we can’t ever know anything about anything. And if that’s the case why even read it at all? I mean honestly. (this is not aimed at any one person but just this line of reasoning)
Sometimes I feel the same way. But where do we derive our understanding of what God’s attributes are or what the *entire* gospel is apart from our own biased reading of the text? I’m sure my idea of God’s attributes is different than everyone else who has posted. The attributes of God are even different between Biblical writers. I think all he’s arguing for is openness to interpretation. If you start with a system (Arminianism, Calvinism, liberation theology, even creeds, etc.) and then use the Bible to support the system, you’ve missed the point.
But the grid that you mention about a basic understanding of the Gospel comes…from the Gospel. If someone who had never heard of the Gospel (absolutely clueless) picked it up and read it, they should not be hindered in their reading by not having a basic understanding of the Gospel. That is why they read it for the first time…to obtain that basic understanding.
As far as historical (and social) context, I agree with you.
Do you suppose that we go to Holy Writ in this way because of our hunger for validation?
It worries me that people are turning the Bible into a handbook, not a story of God’s love. But I can’t judge them. I’ve done it before. I’ll probably do it again in the future, at least subconsciously.
It’s always good to remind ourselves that the Bible is a love story, not (like Don said) a constitution.
Love this: “This is not to say there is no truth, it’s only to say all of heaven hardly fits inside a mans head.”
A college pastor I knew once essentially said that he could (and did) understand all of scripture. He wasn’t my pastor after that.
Sure, *one* Bible can’t support much more than my coffee cup, but what about many Bibles? I think we’re on to something.
I agree that reading the Bible to prove your own notions is a bad idea. But while parts of the Bible are controversial, I think it’s dangerous to open it to literary criticism, which is effectively what happens when you have too many multiple viewpoints… Example: I don’t think it’s good to have multiple competing viewpoints on “God is love,” or Jesus saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” There are certain key verses that don’t need to be messed with – otherwise, you run the risk of losing any certainty. And while humans are uncertain, God is certain. And if you follow Him, He will reveal the Truth of His Word. He’s powerful enough to overcome any hurdles we put in His path against that. To quote a good friend, “Certainty is not arrogance. Questions are not humility.” If you are certain about something in the Bible based on God, then it is never arrogance to say you’re right (PROVIDED that you are standing With God!).. And if you’re questioning what is clear in His Word (example: ” ‘You shall not commit adultery’ no longer applies to us”), then you’re not being humble, you’re being dangerous..
In summary: Tread *carefully* when you are reading the Word of God. But don’t be afraid to be certain: The Bible is a Rock to build a Faith upon, or deep soil in which to put good roots – it’s not a quagmire to be continually questioned forever and ever…
As I read your comment, I thought that the two examples you gave of concrete verses are two that I would find incredibly broad and rich in meaning. “God is love.” Wow — SO many things that means. And “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life…” How poetic and rich is *that* statement.
My version of “tread carefully” comes from the Sermon on the Mount: “Hunger and thirst after righteousness…” We are promised that if we really want to know the truth, God will make sure we know it. If we go to the Bible trying to prove anything… including some kind of design-your-own religion…we can’t be sure that we’ll find anything real.
The promise has made opening my mind a lot less scary. I’m no longer afraid that my brains will fall out.
One of my favorite quotes is:
“A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text”
Thank you for this post. A part of my challenge with the Bible is finding a way to really love it again without coming to it with all of the theological baggage I once carried… I still find that when I open the text, I’m always searching for some affirmation that I’m “right”– which is a shadow of the religious background that I’ve been trying to shake off for a while now.
Again, thanks for sharing this.
“In my opinion, it is dangerous for seminaries to teach students a fixed grid that is not open to change or evolution. I trust an academic institution much less when they have only one interpretation of scripture rather than multiple interpretations that contend with one another. If the search is for truth, we can’t reject debate. This is not to say there is no truth, it’s only to say all of heaven hardly fits inside a mans head. And any man who says it does has made something small of heaven and something rather large of his head.”
This is so true! I have friends who sort of lock Jesus in a box based on what the Bible says … as if He is not the Living Word of God … as if what you take away from a Scripture isn’t dependent on how you interpret it. People seem to forget that their understanding of Scripture is based on what was taught to them by the authority they trust — and so they don’t ask Jesus, the Authority, to tell them what He wants them to take away from Scripture … I am glad whenever someone is able to admit, “This is what people usually think this means, but there are other ways to look at it …”
Our salvation or conversion is not dependent on what we interpret the Bible to say about certain things. It is dependent on God and the work that was “finished” by Jesus on the cross. Trying to understand who God is and how we relate to him is very helpful, but salvation does not require perfect theology. And thankfully so for there is no such thing.
“This is not to say there is no truth, it’s only to say all of heaven hardly fits inside a mans head. And any man who says it does has made something small of heaven and something rather large of his head.”
Sounds like Don Miller has been reading G.K. Chesterton..
“Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion…The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits…”- G.K. Chesterton
Great points in this post. To me, the critical thinking problem goes beyond just reading the Bible. It’s spiritual “tidiness” gone wild. My thoughts on it:
http://nathanrix.com/wordpress/index.php/2011/03/thoughts-on-spiritual-tidiness/
I’m trying to get back in the habit of reading the Bible after a LONG time away from regular reading. Recently it has helped me to choose a short book (one of the letters) and read it all the way through in one sitting. That seems to help me to get the big picture “message” of the book, rather than focusing on a few words at a time.
Well everyone has a grid of some kind. There are plenty of issues that are not 100% clear in Scripture and if you are simply consistent in your beliefs you decided these issues with a discernible pattern, aka your grid.
As for me I do my best to try and discover what the Biblical writers meant when they wrote the word we translate as Love, Joy, Peace, Faith or whatever. The more we hone in on what the Biblical meaning of these words are the better off we are. More theological damage has been done by importing what WE mean by the word love back into the Biblical texts than almost anything else.
Another great thing that works really well for me is to go into the Bible praying ahead of time of for the Holy Spirit to teach me whatever the Holy Spirit wants to teach me about the Bible. These two things help me have a more Biblical theology as opposed to a systematic theology. It is not perfect by any means it just helps me a lot.
Also we Christians tend to think that because of the technological age we live in we are more “advanced” than the people that have went before us. However many, many seasoned, passionate, brilliant and more important Spirit-filled Christians have gone before us and wrote down for us amazing insights that we should be alive too.
Finally our church in the here an now is a great place to explore truths together, rubbing up against each other and seeking truth. Many times we might think that we have a novel and great insight that could do wonders for the church only to find out, because of loving brothers and sisters in Christ, that not only is our insight new but it may have done great harm to the church in the past! Nice for all of us to keep a humble, learning attitude about Bible study and always seek to define our words in the Biblical sense of them and always pray we don’t get in the way of the Spirit doing his job of teaching us the mind of God.
One of the most convicting statements I ever heard in one of my studies:
“This [the Bible] is not a cadaver that we cut into pieces in order to study and look at. You’re the cadaver. You come to this class so this book operates on you.”
I think about that line all the time.
Also, LOVED what you said, Don, “And any man who says it does has made something small of heaven and something rather large of his head.”
So often I make God so small and I’m so gratfeul He is beyond my imagination.
I really love this thought of the Bible working on us, not the other way around.
I’m glad you used the word “grid” rather than “matrix.” I am tempted to view the Bible through The Matrix sometimes and vice versa. The Bible does a terrible job of supporting The Matrix. It is funny to think of Jesus speaking in choppy sentences like Keanu Reeves.
Similarly, when I try to fit my life into some grid where everything is biblical, it doesn’t work, and Jesus seems to have words for those who try to gridlock religion. I just end up doing a lot of stuff I resent.
I believe that its bad to go to the Bible to find scriptures to support an idea one holds on certain matters. But I don’t think and believe that the Love of God and the truth of God is made to remain ever changing as the world and human desires change, God is a God who dwells in a light where there are no shifting shadows or variables. it the word word of God has become a propositions that is surrounded by various variables, I think mankind is doomed.
The Bible must have clearly defined principles or doctrines or teaching over life issues and how man and God must meet to have fellowship, and how man and mad with God, must meet to have fellowship.
If God has left every generation to do their thing with His word their own way because they may feel that He is rigid, and not flexible to accommodate their mental desires and pleasures , I also believe there is a problem before us all. Look at what cost men over the centuries and generations have paid for Disobedience to God’s word. Do they matter again to this generations that there is something as error, falsehood, heresy, and more?
I think the Best thing to do is to imbibe Paul’s
thanks, good post. we need to be taught how to think. not what to think. i don’t see God as someone who wants to tell us what to do and what to think. that’d be one crappy relationship.
if he knows a better way way to think and to do things, wouldn’t it be a worse relationship if he kept silent and just let you continue on your current path? A true friend tells you when you’re going to destroy yourself before you destroy yourself.
Agreed!
I would say that approaching the Bible with a preconceived theological grid causes problems; I would, however, say that attempting to approach the Bible with a set critical pattern to promote critical thinking, while understanding the sociohistorical context of each piece of the Bible is necessary.
I think it’s good to have grids…I think we need to know why we believe a certain thing to be true or not..but, I hope to have a grid that is open to being reworked and improved. However, if someone asks my opinion, I hope that I have an informed one.
Terrific point, Price. While I am less comfortable with a fixed grid, if I’m honest, I have one. And its very rigid. I believe Jesus is the son of God, for instance, and the Bible is true and God breathed. That said, though, those ideas are easily defensible in the text on a ground level. I suppose I am talking about a higher elevation of seemingly contrasting ideas in the text. Thanks for chiming in.
Without a good grid I can start applying lots of things in Leviticus that I should not be. Or if I choose to, not apply many things in the NT. Worse still, I can come up with all kinds of horrible theology.
A solid grid is not bad, it actually protects me from myself. I believe we should teach people how to have a grid that remains true no matter the book or chapter.
I actually DO believe in “letting the scriptures speak for themselves” and try my best to have an open mind when coming to them. As some have previously suggested praying before-hand and listening for the still snal voice is critical when honestly approaching “the word”. However, I find it interesting to hear you guys talk about throwing away your grids and all that but are any of you REALLY willing to do that? What about the fundamentals that most of you no doubt support/believe such as the trinity or that the dead are not awaiting Christ’s return but are up in heaven. I’m not saying what I believe one way or the other but the point is these are just 2 basic things that pretty much every Christian blindly accepts (among others) even when approaching the bible with an “open mind”. I’m not really trying to start an argument here but rather hopefully just get people really thinking and maybe throwing away even some more pre-conceived notions (how about ALL of them or realistically as many as is humanly possible) and look at the scriptures anew. Anyway just a though. Sincerely, Devil’s Advocate
Oh and sorry about the grammatical/spelling errors and typos. It wouldn’t let me review what I had written. But anyway it’s clear enough methinks.
I really enjoyed your last line, Don. Thanks for your thoughts!
It’s good to examine your reasons for coming to the Bible. However, I’d also say that in addition to being away of our tendency to read into the text, we should also be aware of our danger to miss the Spirit’s impressions on our heart from the text. I don’t know what your idea about a certain Biblical principal was, but it’s also possible that the Spirit was using your knowledge of that text to teach you more about who He is, who you are, and how to respond. Just like getting to know any other person in your life, sometimes things that have been there all along don’t become obvious to you until some circumstance in life draws it out. In the same way, thoughts we have or circumstances that we are in can draw out things in the text that we never saw before.
As for the thread, Jesus gives his disciples a presupposition to have when reading the Old Testament: “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. ” – Lk. 24:25-27
A good piece of advice to avoid misinterpretations but… aren’t some preconceived “grids” necessary? I mean… Jesus, the cross, forgiveness, aren’t these things “concrete”?… Should I not approach the Bible through this “paradigm”?
So then the issue becomes deciding which areas to accept as absolute truth and which to keep free from this label. This seems to be central to many of the current debates that are ongoing but it leaves us right back where we started. We become the ones deciding what to accept and what to leave for interpretation which is the very process that creates “grids”. And it is the grids that are “slippery”…
Just a thought I’ve been wrestling with but I do appreciate the post and its desire to help us avoid certain pitfalls.
Personally I enjoy a pastor that speaks passionately about truth.
I have often wondered how you really go about reading anything without some kind of pre-existing paradigm, experience or bias coloring the way you experience it. If we have been hurt in life, we are looking for comfort. If we love a good debate, we are looking for the holes. When it comes to reading and interpreting the Bible, I try really hard but fail miserably at this.
My conclusions: God does means something specific, but we all miss parts of His meaning because of our biases, experiences, and paradigms.
My hypothesis: Scripture is best read and interpreted in community. That way biases and experiences are offset or augmented by other people in the community.
My problem: It is really hard to find a group of people who humbly want to learn truth, as opposed to a group of people who are looking to entrench in a particular paradigm or are looking for a platform to convert other people to their paradigm. Even more personally, it is hard for me to be the kind of person I am looking to be in community with.
Thanks for the post!
Don, I agree that teaching a “fixed grid” is dangerous, but teaching with no grid at all is just as risky. I attend a university where professors teach several interpretations of scripture– which is great– but by not giving their opinions on which idea is likely true, they leave students pretty directionless. Instead of choosing a stance, students juggle the possibility that any interpretation could be true, until even basic Christian Truths are cloudy and misguided. Too many of my fellow Bible majors have given up their faith because they have lost sight of who God is. Variety in thought is good, but we need guidance too.
Indeed. I wrote this a few months ago Don.
Why Not Reading Your Bible May Actually Be A Good Idea
http://www.johilder.com/?p=495
Cheers,
Jo
Good post, Don. Very timely.
I am as weary of ideologies and dualisms as I am of politics. I draw more hope from mystics, artists and poets these days. I am interested in philosophies and theologies that are not about domination and control, but about how things relate and connect. To imagine we have no grid (objective views) within political, religious or even scientific systems is delusional. But to ponder and discuss the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit; to worship in spirit and truth; to “experience” faith, hope and love; these things are worth my life’s energy.
“This is not to say there is no truth, it’s only to say all of heaven hardly fits inside a mans head. And any man who says it does has made something small of heaven and something rather large of his head.”
Couldn’t agree more with this statement! Sometimes we need to remember how big the God of heaven and of earth really is and how small we are in comparison. Reminds me very much of John 3:30, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
Heaven will be grid-less.
Until then, I think we’re always going to be battling these extra-Biblical, heavily cultural-laden ideas we bring into the Bible.
Sometimes it helps, if at all possible, to get out of the context we’ve lived in for so long. Living a significant amount of time overseas, for example, will help break down much of your grid, if we allow it.
We’ve lived outside our passport country for about 11 years. The first bit of baggage we began to shed was in the area of church practice. Then came theology.
God help us to be learners.
Not sure if someone else has addressed this, but I wanted to chime in. I have struggled over the years with how to approach the Bible as a faithful reader–but one who has come from a specific background, whose experiences and inevitable biases affect my reading (my grid, as you say). It’s a tension that I’ve learned to appreciate, rather than try to avoid.
Here’s my perspective. We all come to scripture with a grid. It’s impossible to separate ourselves from ourselves–our biases, assumptions, and perspectives make us who we are, and after several years I’m coming to accept that I can’t come to the text completely free of these things. The best I can do is acknowledge them, and ready myself to be surprised and challenged by what I encounter in this living Word.
So rather than try to reach some impossible state of complete impartiality, I come to the text humbly, acknowledging my own hang-ups and ready to learn. Most of the time. At least on a particularly virtuous day. I can’t be grid-free, but I can be agenda-free. I think the grid is what we bring to the text; an agenda is what we try to impose on the text. We can’t help the first; but we can work on the second. And the blessing of the Spirit is that God can graciously change our “grid” as we come humbly to God’s word, ready to learn and be surprised. God’s good that way.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
Krista
and it’s a great 2 cents. glad you said it.
[...] ”How not to read the Bible” [...]