Clarification and further thoughts on studying the Word...
"You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to me Me, that you may have life." -John 5:39-40
And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. -Luke 24:27
And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ"....And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they recieved the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. -Acts 17:1-3;10-11
"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -2Timothy 3:14-17
In my last post I talked about the Bible study I had with my French friends and I expressed my frustration about what I called "share time". Two clarifications need to be made: 1) I don't think every Bible study must be the equivelant of an intensive seminary course for it to have value. A study can be short and simple and still have great depth; and 2) I'm aware that what I said could be interpreted as being a little arrogant, culturally insensitive, and/or judgemental, as in "they don't know what they're doing and they need me to show them how to really study the Bible." I hope that's not what I communicated. My friends can get along very well without me, and even I don't live up to my own standards. But all this raises the very legitimate question of "Is it arrogant, culturally insensitive, and/or judgemental to say that one way of studying the Bible is better than another?"
The purpose of studying Scriptures to lead us to Christ, where true life is found. We must be careful (especially myself) not to make an idol of the Scriptures. They are not an end in and of themselves, but they lead us to something, or rather, Someone. The reason that I quoted all those versus above is to show that Scripture speaks of itself as having this role of leading us to Jesus. So, if Jesus is where we get true life, and the Scriptures are where we get Jesus, then we need to be careful about how we approach the Scriptures.
The frustration that I expressed with share time is really a frustration with the idea that religion is a completely subjective thing, and therefore there are no right answers and all opinions are equal. But if God really does exist, and if He has revealed Himself to us (as Christianity claims), then religion is something objective that we can study, and there are right and wrong answers. There is a subjective side as well, and it is very important, but what we feel subjectively about God and ourselves always needs to be rooted in what God says about Himself and about us.
In one sense, the Bible is a book just like any other book. It is written in certain languages with words and sentences and paragraphs. It is written in certain styles, such as history and poetry and teaching. We need to take all of these things into account when we read the Bible. We cannot spiritualize or subjectivize the text just because it is a 'religious' book. If we take a passage out of its context and then try to apply it directly to our lives or develop certain principles from it, then we are not really reading what it says and therefore we are not really learning what it says about Christ. We might be able to say true things when we do this, but we are not interpreting the text for what it actually says.
Take this illustration: An English teacher is teaching her sophomore class "Romeo and Juliette". After having read the text together as a class the teacher asks the students to analyze the text and talk about the themes and issues raised in the text. One girl, Sue, raises her hand and says, "I really loved this story because it reminded me of my boyfriend, Tommy, and the love that we have for one another. I think it's so romantic how they died for one another. I think I'd die for Tommy if I had to. And the scene where Romeo climbs the balcony symbolizes for me the struggles that Tommy and I face in our relationship, and how we overcome them." The next boy, Fred, raises his hand and says, "For me, Romeo's love for Juliette represents Bush's love for oil. He's totally obsessed with it and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. And the fact that they both died in the end represents how his greed is killing our economy."
I would think that any good English teacher would be less than satisfied with this 'analysis' of Romeo and Juliette. In both cases the students are using the text as a vehicle to communicate their own personal baggage. What Sue and Fred said might be true. Sue might or might not be willing to die for Tommy, and Bush might or might not be greedy for oil. But what does any of that have to do with the text? I am certain that Shakespeare had niether Sue nor Tommy nor Bush in mind when he wrote his play.
This is why I think it's not arrogant or culturally insensitive to assert that one way of studying the Bible better than another. If one only has this kind of 'share time' analysis, then at best one misses out on the beauty and wisdom of what the text actually says, and at worst one makes the text say something that it was never intended to say.
And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. -Luke 24:27
And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ"....And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they recieved the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. -Acts 17:1-3;10-11
"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -2Timothy 3:14-17
In my last post I talked about the Bible study I had with my French friends and I expressed my frustration about what I called "share time". Two clarifications need to be made: 1) I don't think every Bible study must be the equivelant of an intensive seminary course for it to have value. A study can be short and simple and still have great depth; and 2) I'm aware that what I said could be interpreted as being a little arrogant, culturally insensitive, and/or judgemental, as in "they don't know what they're doing and they need me to show them how to really study the Bible." I hope that's not what I communicated. My friends can get along very well without me, and even I don't live up to my own standards. But all this raises the very legitimate question of "Is it arrogant, culturally insensitive, and/or judgemental to say that one way of studying the Bible is better than another?"
The purpose of studying Scriptures to lead us to Christ, where true life is found. We must be careful (especially myself) not to make an idol of the Scriptures. They are not an end in and of themselves, but they lead us to something, or rather, Someone. The reason that I quoted all those versus above is to show that Scripture speaks of itself as having this role of leading us to Jesus. So, if Jesus is where we get true life, and the Scriptures are where we get Jesus, then we need to be careful about how we approach the Scriptures.
The frustration that I expressed with share time is really a frustration with the idea that religion is a completely subjective thing, and therefore there are no right answers and all opinions are equal. But if God really does exist, and if He has revealed Himself to us (as Christianity claims), then religion is something objective that we can study, and there are right and wrong answers. There is a subjective side as well, and it is very important, but what we feel subjectively about God and ourselves always needs to be rooted in what God says about Himself and about us.
In one sense, the Bible is a book just like any other book. It is written in certain languages with words and sentences and paragraphs. It is written in certain styles, such as history and poetry and teaching. We need to take all of these things into account when we read the Bible. We cannot spiritualize or subjectivize the text just because it is a 'religious' book. If we take a passage out of its context and then try to apply it directly to our lives or develop certain principles from it, then we are not really reading what it says and therefore we are not really learning what it says about Christ. We might be able to say true things when we do this, but we are not interpreting the text for what it actually says.
Take this illustration: An English teacher is teaching her sophomore class "Romeo and Juliette". After having read the text together as a class the teacher asks the students to analyze the text and talk about the themes and issues raised in the text. One girl, Sue, raises her hand and says, "I really loved this story because it reminded me of my boyfriend, Tommy, and the love that we have for one another. I think it's so romantic how they died for one another. I think I'd die for Tommy if I had to. And the scene where Romeo climbs the balcony symbolizes for me the struggles that Tommy and I face in our relationship, and how we overcome them." The next boy, Fred, raises his hand and says, "For me, Romeo's love for Juliette represents Bush's love for oil. He's totally obsessed with it and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. And the fact that they both died in the end represents how his greed is killing our economy."
I would think that any good English teacher would be less than satisfied with this 'analysis' of Romeo and Juliette. In both cases the students are using the text as a vehicle to communicate their own personal baggage. What Sue and Fred said might be true. Sue might or might not be willing to die for Tommy, and Bush might or might not be greedy for oil. But what does any of that have to do with the text? I am certain that Shakespeare had niether Sue nor Tommy nor Bush in mind when he wrote his play.
This is why I think it's not arrogant or culturally insensitive to assert that one way of studying the Bible better than another. If one only has this kind of 'share time' analysis, then at best one misses out on the beauty and wisdom of what the text actually says, and at worst one makes the text say something that it was never intended to say.
posted by Chris at 2:13 AM
1 Comments:
Enjoyed a lot! » » »
Post a Comment
<< Home