What tradition do you come from?

In any conversation, one might note that the positions and arguments of the other person come from a particular experience. Everyone has learned from others and read the Bible with their own eyes. Everyone has taken out what helps them. Sometimes, however, it would do us good to stop and think about our own limitations.

I myself have received an imprint from different corners. This has to do with my personal history, with the different countries I have lived in, with the many parishes and church communities where I have been in and out, often in as many towns and villages. I feel privileged that I do not know only one direction from my own experience. By no means, however, did I see, hear or understand everything. I just mean I’ve seen some, enough so that I look at black and white, right and wrong a little more differentiated.

In conversation with theologians or with church members, with pastors of free churches or the people there, one faces a different world every time. If you have never been a border crosser between several of these worlds, it is often difficult to imagine how others come to this or that view. One’s view is the familiar view, whether that view was formed in the university, the free church, or the local Pietist Bible study. It is then often difficult to engage with the arguments of the other person because you yourself are not receptive to them, do not have the appropriate outlet for the plug offered, or do not understand the inner struggle or spasm of the other person. A different path has been taken. Perhaps one has not yet arrived where the other stands, or was already decades ago where the counterpart stands today.

I myself was shaped most strongly in an evangelical environment. That’s why I write here the way I write. This is not of interest to everyone and is not understood by everyone. Not everyone has had the same experiences, not everyone has suffered or walked the same path. My arguments are not comprehensible to some because they have never been in the tight spot I was in. However, anyone who knows the same tightness knows what I’m talking about. It is these people for whom I write. Like myself, they have set out on the path to freedom.

Freedom, however, not as misunderstood “liberality”, but as “freedom from constricting thoughts”. In my case, it was the Bible itself that showed me the absurdity of some ideas. I left these ideas, using the Bible as a guide. Precisely because I started from the Bible, I retained my congruence and faith, which had been almost lost through church and free-church imprints. However, it is precisely this reference to the Bible that is unbearable for some. For some I am too evangelical, for others too liberal, and still others cannot do anything with the Bible because they have defined the Bible as an “enemy book” for themselves. So be it – everyone thinks and lives himself first. For me, the reference to the Bible is important, because I draw richness and confidence from it.

Is the Bible dangerous?

Oh, yes, the Bible is red hot. It can inspire you, turn your life upside down. It is a danger to all ignorance and resists ideological imprinting. The Bible is true, but maybe different than you think. God’s Spirit blows through the pages, not so that we beat each other over the head with Bible texts or look down on other people and opinions in theological arrogance, but so that we live lives pleasing to God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Bible leads into relationship – relationship with yourself, with God, with other believers, and with the world around you.

The Bible does not argue with you and me. It is a testimony. They are written down accounts that were much later compiled into this library we call the “Bible.” Today we speak of something being “biblical” if it is “in the Bible.” However, it is not quite that simple. It is not a neutral statement. “Biblical” means an understanding about what the Bible says and it is thus an interpretation. Those who always counter with “biblical truth” but only hold up a dogmatic view have probably never seriously thought about it.

The Bible is dangerous because it does not gloss over this world, but invites sobriety, shows God’s love in it, and speaks of a solution and redemption. Unfortunately, this sobriety has been lost on people in many a performance. This is what happens when the Bible is seen only as a moral compass, dividing the world into good and bad, black and white.

Because I myself am most influenced by a free-church theology, I see most sharply here. I see the good things, like the emphasis on a personal faith, but also the problematic narrowness, shaped by theological ideas. Many things were sold as “biblical”, although they have nothing to do with the Bible. This is not a peculiarity of Free Church thinking alone, but – as I said – it is the place where I was most shaped. In that respect, it relates to my personal history. I’m writing this because everyone can only have one personal story, and I’m sharing it so it might help you in a reflection.

I began to see more clearly the differences between the ideas proclaimed on the one hand and the Bible on the other. In doing so, I realized that no questions were allowed to be asked about these human ideas. I had many questions! In addition, there was a subculture, with behaviors that people liked to try to impose as “biblical truth,” even though there were no statements in the Bible about it.

If you think of things like “no sex before marriage,” you won’t find any statements about this in the Bible. They are human opinions. One tries to justify them with the Bible, but can only do so by inference. These are often deficient. You can become aware of that.

You end up in the middle of a subculture that sets up a religious framework for what you can and can’t do, coupled with horrific scenarios of what will happen if you don’t follow the self-imposed rules. At this point, I do not want to evaluate that, because that is beyond the scope of this article. My point here is only to point out that not everything has to do with the Bible where you stick the label “biblical” on it. For those who care about the Bible, it helps to pay attention to the difference.

If I become aware that some things are merely human opinion and have no direct biblical reference, I can think about them more freely. It is the prerequisite for forming one’s own opinion. In doing so, you may decide to let the Bible speak for itself for once. But beware: this is dangerous because it could set thinking on a new track.

Differentiation is required

When dealing with the meaning of the Bible, I have made a first distinction here above: the distinction between what is directly in the Bible and what is inferred about the Bible. Many people are not aware that there is a difference here, or they know it but don’t talk about it. Who likes to be disturbed in their own view?

Unfortunately, this differentiation alone is not enough. The principle is good and helpful, but still incomplete. Especially in evangelical circles, people like to fix “what the Bible says.” I learned to question such a statement only with time. Gradually, I discovered that some things in the Bible are readily interpreted from today’s point of view. In doing so, one projects thoughts onto the Bible that are not there at all.

The word “eternity” is a vivid example of this. The Hebrew spoke of “olam” in the Tenach, and the New Testament writers used the Greek “aion.” Today it is often translated as “eternity”, but the words acquired this meaning centuries later. The original meaning nowhere has the meaning of endlessness. Without regard to the original meaning, people like to refer to today’s translations and say, “See! Eternity is written in the Bible!

This is problematic.

It needs further differentiation. The principle of “reading text in context” is not solved by interpreting the context according to today’s understanding, but I must learn to understand the text in the context of that time. Am I aware that every text was meant for someone at some point, and I was not that person or target audience? What did these people understand at that time? Do I understand reading along with the story? Am I clear about what happened before and what followed after in the biblical account? Jumping to conclusions about “what the Bible says” is often not helpful, but rather a hindrance to better understanding.

Evangelicals often evade this question with the claim: “God is eternal, His word is eternal. Everything is valid today”. This is pure ignorance. One denies a meaning for the first readers and catapults the Bible into a category of “eternal relevance.” Of course, there are things that are permanent. Other things, however, are not. These can often be derived directly from the text.

Then there is the fact that often large parts of the Bible are blindly projected onto the present time, although they speak of something else. When the Bible says “Israel”, it does not say “church”. Such things should be obvious. And if Peter’s “speech at Pentecost” is explicitly addressed to the people of Israel (Acts 2:36), we cannot simply apply such a text to today’s church from all nations, otherwise the text will not be taken seriously. Still, these things happen by the meter. These are traditions that are usually not questioned. They influence our thinking.

Does the Bible speak for itself?

It does. The Bible is a record and a testimony. It speaks for itself. We do not have to defend the Bible. The Bible says what it says. No more and no less. Whether I or anyone else understands that is irrelevant. It does not depend on what I think of the Bible or what I do with it.

What people defend is not the Bible, but usually only their own understanding, their interpretation. This is particularly evident in many of the letters I receive. If I take apart a doctrine and show on the basis of the Bible that one is far from the original thought, some experience this as a frontal attack on their own orthodoxy. The reaction is accordingly. This has nothing to do with the Bible or with me, but with the internalized thoughts of the other person.

The Bible is a record and testimony. Therefore, from the point of view of the Bible, there is no need for clarification. The Bible is simply the Bible. We can try to present them better, to stay closer to the context and basic text, we can try to understand them, but we don’t have to defend them. Nor do we have to defend our own view (cf. 1 Cor. 4:3). That’s not going to get you anywhere.

What is done in the Bible is a reporting and proclamation. We can imitate them. It is not the preaching of what is right and wrong, or how to behave morally (we know from the Bible that such legalistic views do not lead to success. Rom 3:20). It is the proclamation of the good news that God is for you, not against you (Rom 8:31). A proclamation does not have to defend itself. She proclaims and tells. It reports and testifies.

As far as I understand the Bible, I can articulate that in my writing, in conversation, or even in preaching. This is only as far as my understanding goes. Furthermore, I cannot contribute anything (yet). To refer to “absolute truth” would perhaps have to be formulated a little more modestly. This would not mean that there is no truth, but only that my understanding remains fragmentary.

Tips for better handling of teaching buildings

Those who want to take a critical look at their own religious environment can perhaps make use of these key points:

• Distinguish between what is in the Bible and what is tradition
• If something is not clearly described in the Bible, one may examine it critically
• Attempts to read the Bible with an open mind (without already knowing everything before starting)
• Differences between the present time and the time of the past
• Try to understand what the first listeners understood
• Recognize the historical development
• Believe what you can believe, not what others dictate to you
• Don’t be fooled.
• If questions are not satisfactorily resolved, find the courage to leave them open for now.

Taking these things into account does not mean that you will come to the same conclusion. That is not a goal. But what is gained by considering these few clues is this:

• One gains confidence in the statements of the Bible
• You learn to read the Bible on your own
• You learn to answer your own questions
• You no longer have to represent the opinion of others
• You can no longer be taken for a fool
• You can tell who is ready for an open culture of conversation
• One recognizes on the basis of which assumptions one’s own community is founded
• You learn to stand out where you need to.

Rethinking is sometimes more important

Earlier I mentioned that sometimes it is inevitable to stand apart. I don’t have every conversation anymore. I think it is amazing how some people dare to consider their own understanding as the only correct one and to go to (supposedly) holy war against others. Those who only put themselves forward in arrogant self-righteousness do not deserve attention. They not only get in the way of themselves, but any healthy debate.

Of course, such a thing is not taken in thanks. Those who advocate for a more open and healthy culture of conversation and a liberated approach to important issues can usually only do so with those who are open to sharing. Sometimes, decisions force themselves upon you that you might have preferred to avoid. This can be a difficult step. You step out of the conversation, leave the house group, the congregation, and set out to rediscover the Bible, faith, life. I don’t want to conjure it up, but it is the experience of many people that sometimes there is no way around a courageous decision.

What one may be aware of: Such a decision is usually not against something, but for something. It is not against the community, but for a change. It is not against an old situation, but for a better situation. One chooses for life, allows for doubt, but takes responsibility for one’s own (and perfectly imperfect) understanding.

For me, it started when I trusted the Bible more than the opinions I learned about it. Since then I have been learning and finding it easier to confide in Him. I found my way back to the beginning of faith, to curiosity, to gratitude. I was able to turn back to my God.

Using a biblical word, this change is called “conversion” (Gr. metanoia, rethinking).