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.

Comic-Con Teaches Us About Bible Reading

Recently I came across a 2009 post which highlights for me a larger conversation in the world of fans. The post speaks of two different types of fans - affirmational fandom and transformational fandom.

(Hang with me this is really about how we read the Bible.)

As I understand it, these two types of fandom relate the the source material differently. Affirmational fans will memorize the source material and correct you if you are wrong. Affirmational fans might tell you that Dumbledore is an Old English word for “bumblebee and would be able to tell you what Voldemort would see if he looked at a boggart. The affirmational fan is about details and more details. They get these details from source material. The Harry Potter books, J.K. Rolling interviews, reading and making connections that are justified by the original source. The affirmational fan is what we think of when we think of a fan.

If affirmational fans see the source material as the end of the conversation on a topic, the transformational fans sees the same material as a jumping off point. If is the transformational fan that might write fan-fiction, stories inspired by but not rigidly bound to the source. It is the transformational fan that might point out some of the shortcomings and oversights in the original and make a case to correct it. For instance, the transformational fan might point out the lack of racial diversity in the Harry Potter series and make a story of the founding wizards being people from non-anglo DNA.

You can see where the affirmational fan might take offense. What sort of person would take it upon themselves to make up a story about Ravenclaw being from China when clearly she was from England.

Here is the kicker - Affirmation and transformative fans are both fans. They are both expressing their devotion to a story in very beautiful ways. It might be said that one might not be able to be a transformative fan without appreciating the affirmational fan. And even the most ardent affirmational fan likes to imagine themselves in the story (even though they clearly are not a character in the book).

Likewise, Affirmational Bible readers and Transformational Bible readers are still big Bible readers. You may think that being a Christian is to know the details and the specific rules as a way to mark you as a true disciple. You might think that being a Christian means to know the stories of Jesus and then to have the imagination to dream what new thing God might be doing - even if it is seen as a deviation from the affirmational Bible readers idea of what it means to be a Christian.

Too often I find people who want to be a transformational bible reader but are squashed by the affirmational bible reader. Too often I find transformational bible readers rolling their eyes at the affirmational bible reader. The truth is that we need both the affirmational and the transformational bible readers. We need people to lift up the details and the source canon and we need others who will point out the flaws within the canon and imagine stories that can address the flaws.

Giving up Bible Reading in 2019

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

Reading the Bible is a time honored tradition in the life of the Christian and this year I think I am giving it up. I am giving up reading the Bible for scripture reading.

Reading the Bible and scripture reading are different not in content but in posture. The same words are engaged but it is a different approach. When we read the Bible we tend to look for what we can learn or what we can gain. We look for the teaching or the wisdom we need to get through the moment. We find something that can challenge us or stimulate our thinking. The vast majority of Bible studies that I have been apart are interested in expanding your thinking in order to shore up belief structures. Reading the Bible puts the reader as the protagonist (the main actor) in the process.

Reading scripture is different.

First of all, we do not read scripture - scripture reads us. Scripture exposes to us the things in our life and world that we are blind to and even need to repent of. However the primary difference is that scripture reading means that we are open to (and expectant of) an encounter with the living Christ. This means scripture reading is not an action but an event. It is a “happening”. It is a theophany.

Shifting from reading the Bible to scripture reading is ultimately differentiated by the fruit each practice bears. If we are not transformed by the words we read, then we are reading the Bible. And so, as a start consider this scripture reading:

“But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the guiltless. ”

— Jesus, Matthew 12:7

"Reading the Statisticians of Our Predicament Rather Than the Prophets of Our Deliverance"

R.R. Reno

Give and Take is a conversation podcast that can be very heady and wonky for those who love theology. Frankly, the people on this podcast are too smart for me to always follow and I am humbled every time I listen - I just am not as smart as I want to think that I am.

Recently, Scott Jones (the host) had a conversation with R. R. Reno (AKA Rusty). I was introduced to R. R. Reno in Seminary via a book he wrote called In the Ruins of the Church. When I heard this podcast, I wanted to just jot down a few great ideas that came from this conversation, so that I don't forget them. I hope these notes are as inspiring to you as there are for me. 

Among the gems that I found in this conversation was the idea that too much of our time is spent reading the statisticians of our predicament rather than the prophets of our deliverance. I am aware of how much I spend reading about the "predicament" we are in. I know that it is critical to diagnose the illness before treatment can begin. It seems clear to me that too many of us (self included) are parsing diagnostic words but few prophets are discussing what the treatment is for such ills. 

We are not able to listen to these prophets for at least two reasons. First is human nature. Prophets call us to account and call us to change. Humans have done a very good job at killing prophets in our world; this is an ancient problem.

The other reason we don't listen to prophets sharing solutions feels newer. We may not listen to the prophets of our deliverance because we do not have consensus on what the problem is. 

Moses was a prophet and he was not killed by his people. Why? Perhaps it is because there was a consensus on what the problem was - the people were enslaved. There was a deep agreement that slavery is the "predicament" and so it is easier to hear the prophet who is speaking deliverance to that predicament.

I grow frustrated about how much time I spend on understanding the predicament, I also know that until there is a sense of what the "problem is" we will never be able to hear the prophet lead us toward the path of healing.