When we read our Bibles what are we listening for?
If you hang around us Reformed types for very long, you'll soon begin to hear things like, "We need to understand this in the context of the rest of Scripture," or "We shouldn't read this story moralistically," or "Calvin has this to say about this verse..."
If you hang around us charismatic types very long you'll soon begin to hear things like, "As I was reading this verse this morning, the Lord spoke to me about...," or "As I was praying this phrase came to mind, I found it in Scripture, where there was this prophetic word. I think what God is saying in this is...," or "This verse keeps coming back to me, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean."
And although it would be easy to caricature, we find these two tendencies in these two camps. By exaggerating them only slightly, we could name one the tendency toward scholarship and the other the tendency toward serendipity. I'm going to discuss those tendencies below.
Before I do, I want to say that I know Reformed types who, in addition to a keen sense of scholarship, are also quick to come to more than merely scholarly conclusions as they read the Bible. I also know of charismatics who are serious students of the Bible and are quite adept at understanding the literary, historical and cultural nuances that can inform the study of Scripture. And I know of average people in both these movements with a genuine appreciation of both of these styles, if you will, of reading Scripture. So I'm talking about tendencies, not anything more.
Why talk about this at all?
Before going on, I'd like to talk about why I think we should talk about how we read the Bible. It's my belief that both camps have something to learn from each other here. Which is to say, both the Reformed camp and the charismatic camps have some weak spots in how we read the Bible. By joining the strengths of each (and identifying and setting aside the weaknesses of each), both groups can find in Scripture reading, more than we realized that God wants us to have. Today, I'm writing to both groups.
Reformed Biblical Scholarship
Us Reformed types love to study the Bible. We do. We love to study it in every way we can think of: in all it's literary forms, as the unfolding of the redeeming work of God from beginning to end, as God's self-revelation, as the only final authority for this life and the next, and more. The inspired Word of God, breathed into its human authors by the Holy Spirit Himself.
And when we read the Bible, we read it theocentrically: we see God as the central character in every story, the One always acting, if not in the lines, between the lines. We love to stand in awe and wonder at the way He keeps moving history and His people forward, and at the ways in which His people resist Him, reject Him, and follow other gods. Yet God's sovereignty and grace keep showing up as the Story unfolds.
Because we see the Bible theocentrically, and as our only final authority, we don't want to miss anything. So we study it. And study it. And study it. We use all the tools we can find: lingustic, literary, cultural, historical, theological, and combine these (and perhaps other disciplines) in an attempt to tease out every nuance we can find.
But there's a down side. All of this study, all of this effort goes on and on, even when our personal and spiritual lives remain unaffected by what we're reading. Not that this always happens, but when it does, we don't always notice. It's been said, "No one can go down deeper, stay down longer and come up drier than [certain] theologians." (I'll not name the "certain" theologians in the quote as I heard it.) Sometimes Reformed Biblical scholarship can be like that. Hours of work teasing out the slightest nuance that doesn't make the slightest difference in the life of the scholar, nor the student.
I'm reminded of the story of the cartographers who spent their lives making the finest maps, but were aghast at the thought of leaving their desks to go to the places they so carefully documented: they were cartographers, not "explorers" (a word they spoke with a sense of disdain born of a sense of superiority).
Okay. Yes, that's a bit unfair to many, many Reformed scholars and pastors, who are geniuses at application. Who see not only the truths, but their value for us as people living today.
And yet, there still often seems to be a disconnect between the truth of the inspiration of Scripture and the on-going work of the Holy Spirit to breathe these words into us anew. We do not expect that a primary source for understanding Scripture is the Spirit Who lives within us. We sort of think His work with Scripture is done, and if He is involved in some way with His Word today, it's in a mystical, hidden sense, that seems so utterly subjective as to not be available for study or even much serious comment.
Charismatic Serendipity
Charismatics aren't the only people who read the Bible for serendipitous experiences. (Serendipity refers to finding unplanned, pleasant surprises.) But charismatics often prefer to read the Bible this way. We like to read Scripture "until God says something to us." In contrast to the theocentric reading in Reformed circles, in charismatic circles the Bible is often seen primarily as God's Word to us. The reading is anthropocentric (people-centered). Charismatics don't just read the Bible in the sense that God wants to speak to people in general, nor even to the Church in particular, but in the sense that when I read the Bible, I expect God to speak to me.
In many respects, this is symptomatic of much of individualistic Evangelicalism in America. But in charismatic circles, there is a genuine expectation that every time I read the Bible God has something He wants to say to me, or perhaps through me to someone else. This expectation is directly related to how charismatics understand our relationship with God as being both dynamic and highly personal.
The downside, or weak side of this can be seen in the simple fact of this being so highly subjective. We humans often underestimate our capacity for self-deception. It's easy to find what we are looking for, to find the affirmation or justification we are looking for and expecting. We call it "confirmation."
I have read and been with charismatics who take this approach to such an extreme that they begin to read into the Bible what isn't there at all. One example is to interpret historical narrative as allegory. Sometimes these allegorical interpretations are still in line with Biblical Christianity, coming to the right conclusions with the faulty approach to Scripture. But to me, such an approach actually dishonors both the text and the Spirit Who inspired it to be written the way it actually is written.
I will also mention, but say little more than this: the level of Biblical illiteracy among some charismatic groups is head-shakingly appalling. The serendipitous expectation in reading Scripture moves some to a sort of Biblical laziness. Why do the "homework" of studying, when the Spirit will just tell me what He wants to say? There can even be a suspicion of serious study, when study is seen as mere "head knowledge," and what God supposedly wants is "to speak directly to our hearts."
Combining the Strengths of Both Approaches
As we begin to think about combining a theocentric approach to reading Scripture with an anthropocentric, way of approaching the reading of Scripture, and as we begin to think of combining a scholarly approach with a serendipitous one, it's my goal that we will find a mutual benefit in a cross-fertilization of theology and practices regarding Scripture.
Combining a Theocentric and Anthropocentric Reading of Scripture
First, let's acknowledge that Scripture should be seen from both a theocentric and anthropocentric perspective. It is God's self-revelation, and it is God's self-revelation to us. He tells us who He is, and He tells us in a way that invites us into a relationship. These are two poles that have tended to divide us into two camps, are really two aspects of the same reality.
The resulting practice from accepting this duality of approach is that we should find two complementary drives: to study the text and to listen personally to the text. The theocentric approach to Scripture ought to drive us to want to understand all of what God says about who He is. Both Reformed and charismatic want to know everything we can know about God. The study of Scripture as Gods self-revelation seems an obvious avenue to know God better and know Him more.
Also the idea that in Scripture God speaks to His people, should drive us to listen to not only what God has said, but what He is still saying. We should listen to Him speak not just in general, but to us personally. God wants us to not only know Him but also respond to Him in the ways He has revealed Himself. In the end, if my reading of Scripture doesn't transform me, I'm not reading it as God intended.
The two impulses are complementary, each driving the other. My study of the God of the Bible drives me (or should) to know and submit myself to Him. The Bible through which God speaks to me is worthy of careful study and attention, because it is God's Word to His people--to me.
The Inspiriation and Re-inspiriation of Scripture
Both Reformed and charismatics agree that the Scriptures were written as people were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:21). And we agree that All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (2Tim. 3:16). This commonality drives us in both directions (theocentric and anthropocentric) as well. But it hopefully reminds us that the origin of Scripture is the inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit. ("Inspiration" means to breathe in; God's Spirit breathed the Scriptures into people who wrote them down.)
In one sense the Scripture is a record of what God said, how He inspired His Word into people at a certain place, at a certain time, to communicate a specific message. As our esteem for God's Spirit grows, we charismatics should become more and more interested in what God's Spirit has said in the past, and we should want to know all the circumstances involved in the message and its meaning. Likewise, we in the Reformed movement should understand that God's Word in a certain time and place was intended to move people to respond (God was not simply giving them information).
In respectfully reading the inspired Word of God, we should also take into consideration the idea of re-inspiration. That is, that the same Holy Spirit who first breathed these words into the Biblical writers, now lives within us and breathes His written Word anew into us. In this way the written Word of God becomes living and active (Heb. 4:12) in us, verses merely a static object for scholarly study. As we read Scripture we can expect that God's Word is still accomplishing the purpose for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).
Wrapping This Up
There is more, much more that could be said, here. Some of this was hinted at (for example, how our differing views of how God relates to us shapes our approach to Scripture), some was not (how the Reformed movement prefers reading the Bible in community, rather than individually, and the opposite tendency among charismatics). But these basic difference will illustrate some of what we have to learn from each other. I hope it helps us sit down and start a conversation, where both sides believe we have something to contribute, and something to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment