Reading Scripture Is Not The Ultimate Reading

Christians around the world read scripture. It is a critical spiritual disciple and one that I believe every Christian needs to engage in. The problem is that too often we think reading scripture is the ultimate “reading” - it is not. Reading scripture is important but perhaps you can see that reading scripture places the human being at the center of the action, and that is problematic.

Another limitation to reading scripture is that it is a practice that engages and is focused on the mind. When we read scripture we are seeking information. We will engage in study and research like we are doing some sort of term paper for school. It is popular to think that if you know when Romans was written, have a grasp on two source source hypothesis, and know what trito-Isaiah is then you “really know your Bible.” And you do. You know a lot of information about the Bible. Generally those who elevate orthodoxy and the mind are those who elevate reading scripture or sometimes it is expressed as “read your Bible”. This is all well and good, but limiting to the Christian life.

Many people have seen the deficiency in just reading scriptures. The argument is that it is not enough to engage the mind with reading scripture we must engage the hands. Orthodoxy is nice and all, but there is no orthodoxy without orthopraxy (right action). This group tends to elevate the morality and ethics of the Bible. The concern is less with engaging the mind than it is engaging the hands. Rather than ask people to read scriptures, you might hear this group speak about the scripture reading for the day. It is a little shift in the focus from reading scripture to scripture reading. It is not the human reading the sacred words, but that the sacred words are reading the human. it is the scripture that is doing the act of reading so that in time the human identifies the story of the Bible as their own story and not just a tale of the past.

Up until about five years ago, I assumed that this was the way to engage with scripture. I ask about the scripture reading in worship more than I ask what verses were read or quoted in the sermon. I had been one who understood the limitations to engage in the head and thought hand engagement was better. Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but five years ago it was revealed to me that scripture reading, othopraxy and ethics/morality focus is limited. Which leads me to the third way to engage with scripture.

You may know it as Lectio Divina, but this is the way that I now engage with scripture. It is not a practice where I read scripture (although passages are read). It is not a practice that demands a scripture reading (but scripture is used). Lectio Divina is Latin for "Divine Reading.” Notice the actual words and order - Divine Reading. It is not about the human reading scripture, nor is it about scripture reading the human, it is the Divine doing the reading. It is the Divine who is the main actor. It is the work of the Divine that is paramount in this practice. As such, Lectio Divina is less about information or ethics/morality as it is about formation. It is less about head or hands and more about heart. It is less about orthodoxy or orthopraxy but about orthocardia - right heart.

If you are interested to experience the difference between reading scripture, scripture reading and Lectio Divina, call your pastor and I am sure they can help. I know pastors can help because it was pastors who helped me - Nancy Allen, Bob and Judy Holloway, Estee Valendy, Jerry Hass, Rabbi Chava Bahle, Joretta Marshall, Grace Imathiu and Loyd Allen.

Christianity is not about seeking information; but being in formation

Lately I have been engaged in a book by Mike McHargue called, God in the Waves. While reading this book I am reminded that the divide in the world between the Christian and the Scientist is a false distinction. There are more than McHargue who work to talk about religion and science as compatible and those are interesting conversations. What McHargue makes the case for in this book is the approach of an individual to life and that being a person who seeks out information is not necessarily the same person who seeks out being in formation. 

The great Abraham Joshua Heschel said that the action purifies the motive. Neuroscientist Dr. Adele Diamond gives this example of what Heschel meant: 

He (Heschel) said, “I don't care why you're doing the good deed. Do the good deed.” And the example he gives is a musician may be playing a concert to earn a lot of money. But if when he’s playing the concert he’s concentrating on all of the money he’s going to make, he’s going to play a lousy concert. While he’s playing the concert, he has to be in the moment. He has to be concentrated on the music. And if he’s concentrated on the music, he’ll play well. So he talks about how the act can purify the motive if you really do the act fully.

McHargue speaks of prayer and invites the reader to practice prayer even if you are atheist. This may make little sense to some people but the point that I think that McHargue is making is that we often think that Christianity is the pursuit of information about a particular understanding of God. Thus, if one rejects the Christian information then one rejects Christianity. The problem is that Christianity is not the pursuit of information but the pursuit of being in formation.

Being in formation is taking on practices that mold and shape our heart, brain and spirit. The difference between information and being in formation is that one does not have be believe in order to be in formation. This is the hope that I want my Christian sisters and brothers to understand - belief is not the essential matter to be a disciple of Christ because Practice purifies the motive. We are called to follow Christ, we are called to be in formation; not to seek the right information. 

Nutritional Guidelines and the Bible

One of the characteristics of modernity is the idea of rationalization (that reason alone can help us discover truth). In order to be "rational" it is important to have all the facts, or evidence. Being obsessed with evidence is another imprint of modernity on our culture. The pursuit of evidence in order to make a "rational" decision is also the underlying assumption of traditional economic thought. That is to say that there is an economic theory that states that people are rational and given enough information then people will make the best possible choices. 

This sort of thought is underlying the way we talk about eating. Specifically, we have been told that we need to look at nutritional labels before we buy our foodstuff. Putting calories on the menu at Starbucks or Applebee's, the theory goes, will help people make healthier choices because we can see more evidence and information.

This just is not the case.

Studies have come out and articles have expressed that begin to show that nutritional labels do not result in behavior change. Some say we need more information such as information for take out food or salt levels. Some say the information displayed is due for a makeover. Others say that we need different information, such as fullness factor.

All this information seems like a great idea, but it could also lead to paralysis by analysis (the paradox of choice).

The idea that information acquisition leads to behavioral change has always been a way to learn new things, but it is not the only way. Modernity has pushed out other ways to learn and this is where religion steps into the frame. 

Religion understands that information acquisition can only affect someone so much. Religion, at its best, knows what social psychologists have just discovered and named attitude polarization and confirmation bias. Religion, at its best, encourages a number of different ""practices" in order to form people and shape behavior. Here are the spiritual practices of Christianity as laid out in the Christian classic by Richard Foster. I have italicized the ones that focus on information acquisition:

• meditation
• prayer
• fasting
• study
• simplicity
• solitude
• submission
• service
• confession
• worship
• guidance
• celebration

One. The majority of disciplines force behavior change.

And yet, the majority of us Christians think that the primary way we are "transformed" or changed is through the following practices. I have italicized the ones that focus on information acquisition:

• listening to sermons
• bible studies
• reading a daily devotion
• highlighting our bibles
• worship
• service
• reading pastors blog *wink*

Christian spiritual formation, at it's best, focuses on the practices and less about the acquisition of information. However, we as a Church have been teaching the way to changed behavior (repentance) is through gathering more information. 

That is like reading nutritional guidelines and expecting a behavioral change. This is the promise of modernity, not the promise of Christian spiritual formation. 

Portlandia and Spiritual Formation

For many people, spiritual formation is about reading the Bible in 90 days. I am not discounting that reading the Bible in 90 days is not a fine thing, but I am more concerned about what one does on the 91st day. ​

Reading the Bible at such a pace makes me wonder how does it form us? Does it render the Bible as just another source to get information and then move onto the next source? ​

Have you seen this sketch by Portlandia?​

Of course Christians should read the Bible, but is it worth seeing the Bible as something that we need to conquer? Or is the Bible something that conquers us?  ​

As a person who rarely reads a book more than one time, I can be at fault for reading the Bible as an "information source" rather than a source of formation. ​

Karl Barth was right, read the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other. One for information, and one for formation. ​

Let us not be formed by the shallower source.​