Recollection
“We need to talk!” With these words I would like to address many people. We need to talk about the Bible. Because what is thought about the Bible, how it is read and interpreted, often happens “automatically”, without much thought. Yet there are vast differences in the way we approach the Bible.
From man’s word to God’s word, from error-free to unreliable – how Christians read the Bible cannot be more different. This then goes so far that Christians reject each other. Someone who does not read the Bible as I read it myself is denied faith. Or those who think “more freely” look down condescendingly on a more conservative view. I have already experienced both. Right and wrong, black and white. However, this serves no one.
What one expects from the Bible and how one sees this book of books is a point of view, an interpretation and an understanding. The Bible polarizes. Christians take this side or that side of understanding. We need to talk about the way we read the Bible and why that is, because that is what feeds our faith. This also determines the conversation culture we cultivate, the goals we pursue, and why this is so. When we address, clarify, and discuss our view of the Bible in conversation, much of our understanding of faith becomes visible. If we do this together, we deepen our lives, give each other insight and perspective, and enrich our faith.
5 ways of reading the Bible
How then do Christians read the Bible? The following approaches are not comprehensive, but may serve as a guide:
- The Bible is God’s Word – every word is inspired, it is without error. A miracle of God’s revelation.
- The Bible is God’s Word – it is reliable because it is imbued with God’s Spirit, but not every word has to be error-free (there are minor variations between copies)
- The Bible is man’s word – everything is fake. The Bible as God’s word is a forgery.
- The Bible is people’s words – people write only from their experience. God is only a projection.
- Ordinary people, sustained by God’s Spirit, have each written parts of the Bible. Didn’t Peter say something like this? (2Pet 1:21)
Nothing is black and white
It is easy to see that there are more than two opinions. There are not simply the good guys and the bad guys. There are not only those who trust the Bible and others who fundamentally distrust the Bible. Such an assumption does not do justice to reality. One can also trust the Bible, if one admits that here or there also sometimes something “human word” is in it. Indeed, this is demonstrably the case (cf. Acts 17:28 and others).
Those who assume that the Bible is 100% inspired word of God have good indications for this. Those who recognize in the light of biblical scholarship that perhaps we do need to “go over the books” again here or there also have good indications. For me as a Bible reader, it should not be a matter of deciding on the front foot, so to speak, that “a real Christian” or “an enlightened Christian” will take this side or that side. This does not do justice to the Bible. Ideological imprints are not helpful in Bible viewing.
Ideological imprints are not helpful in Bible viewing.
How one “should” read the Bible is a question that can be answered in several ways. I would like to start here from my own experience, because it allows me to point out something that is sometimes forgotten in the polarization of viewpoints. There is no simple answer.
The search for reliability
My personal search for God began when I realized my own limitations. My understanding or recognition is fragmentary. This is true for every human being. But at the same time, I couldn’t imagine the world being disconnected. This contradicts the perception. So would there be a supporting and stable, true and reliable constant in this world? Is there a God? And if there is a God, where and how do I learn about Him? Those were some of the questions I set out with.
Later, I went from asking about God to longing for God. This ultimately led to a relationship with God (cf. Eph. 2:8 and Rom. 8:16). When I experienced this reliability and constancy in Him, so to speak, I transferred this experience to the Bible.
On the one hand, it was the Bible that made this clear to me, and on the other hand, I had realized that the Bible speaks reliably about this world and about God. That was and is my experience. However, this is neither a dogmatic position nor is it an ideology. I cannot explain or transfigure everything in the world with the Bible. The experience of the Bible, however, is real and it is having an impact in my life. With regard to God’s nature and work, I have gratefully been able to take new and connecting information from the Book of Books again and again.
Read text as text
From personal experience, I have always read the Bible first simply as a text. I was curious to see what was written there. I just wanted to know more. This is, in my opinion, the only basis on which one can approach the Bible objectively. The first step: read the Bible. Just read it as it is written. Try to understand the context, the text in context. Do not interpret anything. Let the stories, the testimonies, the reports themselves have their say. That should be the normal thing. I even bring this attitude to a daily newspaper, a non-fiction book, a novel. That is the least I can say about the Bible. Does that seem reasonable? In many cases, this approach is immediately torpedoed by opinions and ideologies. What can this look like?
The conservative Christian will object that the Bible is not a normal book after all. Because the Bible, as God’s Word, is without error, shaking the Scriptures causes fear. You read the Bible through the lens of your own understanding. One confuses one’s own ideology, one’s own doctrinal edifice, with the Bible. This comes out most clearly when a supposedly “biblical” doctrine is exposed as an ideology on the basis of the Bible (see the article “The Conversation about Heaven and Hell”). You are not free to just read the Bible, but you can only read it from a certain point of view. That’s really weird. One is not free.
Theologians can argue from another side, which is equally not free. A few months ago I gave a devotion on a psalm. Various theologians were present. I read the few opening verses of the psalm that began with the words, “A Psalm of David.” Later came the criticism. There was mention that I should not have done it that way, but should have mentioned that David might not have written that psalm. I was shocked. David, after all, was not the subject. Nor was it a question of the historicity of the Psalms, of the historical context. It was a devotional. It was about the Psalm and what we can learn from the text. The reaction was strange, inappropriate, arrogant and misleading in my eyes. Experience shows me that even in supposedly “professional circles” ideologies can be formative. I am not surprised if neither questions of life nor questions of faith come to the fore in this way of looking at things. Strange that in the national churches faith sometimes has no expression anymore.
If the Bible is indeed “God-breathed,” as Paul writes to his co-worker Timothy in reference to the Old Testament (1 Tim. 3:16. (Greek: theopneustos, “breathed through by God’s spirit”), I should show a minimum of respect for the word. Bible readers are not by definition minors, nor should we underestimate God’s Spirit in us. At least we should be able to read the Bible. That doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical, but it doesn’t help to approach Scripture with preconceived notions, whether that’s theological arrogance or doctrinal stubbornness. Of course, we should study the Bible openly and thoroughly. However, this has only marginally to do with the actual reading of the Bible (the subject of this article).
The conversation about the Bible
I meet people who find it infinitely difficult to read the Bible without bias. The imprint from the past can be so great that a simple and inwardly free reading of the text often does not succeed at all. Assumptions about the Bible, ideologies and doctrines still resonate. That’s what this is all about. If we want to be a living community, there needs to be an openness and freedom to the Bible. However, we only gain openness and freedom when we acknowledge our own limitations. We do not know everything. Nobody knows everything. But we may learn, even learn together.
Is it important to talk about the reliability of the Bible? Of course. Is the verbal inspiration of Scripture an ideology or a fact? There should be an exchange of views on this. Is there a willingness to learn? How we read the Bible is not a default, but at best the achievement of an argument. There is no need for polarization. There is no need for isolation from those who think differently, nor for arrogance because of alleged competence. When we read the Bible, it is never about the Bible itself, or about an opinion or ideology, but about knowing God.
