I’m interested to know how other people approach reading the Bible, and what it means to read the Bible well.
For me, reading the Bible well means reading in context, as revelation, for Christ, through the Holy Spirit, with the Church, from the margins, by faith.
You must log in or register to comment.
For me, reading and studying the Bible is sacred ground. We have the text, the Old Testament and the New Testament. But behind them is the Holy Spirit. The meaning of the Bible comes in how I can apply it’s principles in my own life. It doesn’t matter to me living in this age any of the debates people come up with based on biblical texts and concepts or misconceptions. It matters to me what God is indicating for me to work on in my life. What is the next step in working out this salvation, that is becoming better. Becoming a better person and a better Christian. Whatever that means.
Thanks for engaging with the question. The only thing I would push back from my perspective is that I don’t think it’s so much about applying the principles of the Bible in your life as it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to shape your life.
The Bible for me is like a conversation with my 3,000 year old faith community. It is not:
- Inerrant: it was written by flat earthers
- The actual “word” of God: Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible shows how we’ve been wrestling with God over time
- In all ways permanent: the Bible writers and Jesus change meanings, interpretations and more — all over the place. So can we. Language, culture and science advance and we cannot expect every single thought someone had back then to carry forward or make sense.
I like your hermeneutic above. Christ first. Definitely the Holy Spirit although a lot of Protestant types are afraid to listen in silence and trust what they hear. Definitely the church, we are the body of Christ and it important to help each other grow in our understanding. As the UCC says, “God is still speaking.” I especially like that you listen to the margins. Christianity is a faith of the margins, despite how Christian nationalists and prosperity gospel preachers try to pervert it.
I’m indebted to Martin Luther in many ways, but Sola Scriptura is a pair of handcuffs on many faith journeys.
I think “conversation” is the key word here. It’s a means of engaging in dialogue with our predecessors, who wrestled with many of the same questions we do today.
These days, I interpret the idea of “sola scriptura” to be more closely related to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers than the infallibility of the Bible. I recognize that this may not be what Martin Luther had in mind, but I’m comfortable asserting that we don’t need to rely on the clergy to interpret scripture for us. I don’t think it’s wise to reject the wisdom of the church or to read the Bible outside of community.
Thanks. Helpful take on Sola Scriptura. Rohr talks about his tricycle of experience, scripture and tradition. I think the Methodists have a similar take and add a fourth pillar of reason. But scripture is just one element. I think tradition is an extension of scripture, the conversation continues.
