Since I have left the institutional church, I am able to read and believe the Bible in a way that is honest and viable. I was not fully allowed to do that when I was an elder in the local parish; before I could register my points of view I had to anticipate how my views would be accepted by the local pastor or other authorities in the church.
Most of my leaders and peers would insist on a literal interpretation of scripture, though none of them really applied it across the board. There were many inconsistencies and exceptions to their rule; I could list dozens of them off the top of my head, but I'm not going to get started here, although I have cited some of them in earlier posts.
Basically, I concluded a long time ago, that absolute literalists were hypocrites to the extent that they did not apply a literal interpretation to all scripture and lifestyle.
So, I have not held an across-the-board literal interpretation of the Bible for much of my life. Years ago, my dad, a life-long minister in the same denomination, gave me permission to approach the scriptures through a more liberal filter, starting with Genesis chapter one and a creation account that allows for an old universe.
Basically, I concluded a long time ago, that absolute literalists were hypocrites to the extent that they did not apply a literal interpretation to all scripture and lifestyle.
So, I have not held an across-the-board literal interpretation of the Bible for much of my life. Years ago, my dad, a life-long minister in the same denomination, gave me permission to approach the scriptures through a more liberal filter, starting with Genesis chapter one and a creation account that allows for an old universe.
The problem with the liberal approach, of course, is that when you question the application of one passage of scripture, you open all of it to new scrutiny. Hence, the slippery slope of which conservatives are so fearful.
Over the years I have proved to myself that I do not need to view every verse through the same lens. In fact, I can be more honest about all of it if I recognize the varying and unique purposes of contrasting passages. Some of it I see literally, some of it I see symbolically. Really, the literalists do the same thing - they just don't admit it.
I suppose the danger is real, but that's why God has given us the Holy Spirit "who will lead us into all truth." God's Old Testament people who wondered how to live right would go to the Law for answers. God's New Testament people who wonder how to live right go to the Holy Spirit. This method has worked for me for a lifetime. Honestly.
Last week I happened upon this beautiful and insightful post from Brian McLaren on Patheos.com that I found very helpful in pinpointing my own position from which I read the Bible. I copied and pasted his text along with the accompanying chart for the benefit of my readers. I am a visual thinker, so this was like discovering gold for me.
Here's Brian:
"Earlier this year, I blogged my hunch that this would be the year of the Bible. I felt we were reaching a tipping point after which the cat would be out of the bag, by which I meant that important conversations about the Bible would escape from the seminary classroom to the local congregation. With important releases by Adam Hamilton, Peter Enns, Steve Chalke, and many others (including, I hope, my newest book), that hunch seems to be coming true.
Many people, of course, think there are only two ways to read the Bible: their way and the wrong way. But there are actually multiple options, as this matrix shows.
Within these four general categories there are countless locations or points of view, and many of us move back and forth from one quadrant to another, depending on our mood or context.
There's one other feature to the diagram that's relevant to ways the Bible is being re-thought. While some people read the Bible as an academic or intellectual exercise only, many of us - as indicated by the shaded circular space that overlaps all four quadrants - read it with some sense of personal need, maybe even desperation. In this circle, we are seeking guidance and wisdom for how to live our lives because we are aware that as individuals, families, communities, nations, and civilizations, we are always on the verge of tipping over into self-destruction.
In other words, those of us in the gray circle aren't primarily seeking information from the Bible. Rather, we're seeking meaning, hope, guidance, perhaps even salvation from something that threatens to destroy us. And -- dare we say it? -- we may even be seeking revelation, some encounter that gets our minds into realities too big to be contained within our minds. We feel ourselves to be in trouble, in a predicament, on a quest, and we're ever vigilant for news that might help us cope with the mysteries and challenges in which we find ourselves. So the shaded circle represents a personal or predicamental approach, as opposed to merely an academic, doctrinal, analytic, political, or informational approach. It can bring people from all four quadrants together.
As a boy, I was introduced to the Bible from the lower left quadrant. When I got older, I moved to the lower right quadrant and gained new insights. I was never attracted to the upper left quadrant, but I read many authors who wrote from that quadrant. From them I gained the freedom to apply critical thinking to this text that I had come to love. Finally, I found myself at home in the upper right quadrant, where I can enter the Bible as a library, a literary collection containing poetry, fiction, nonfiction, and other genres, and where I have complete freedom to ask questions about the Bible's sources, development, internal tensions, biases, accuracy, cultural context, and genre. In my movement from quadrant to quadrant, I have remained in that shaded circle of reading personally, because I still feel myself deep in the mysteries, dangers, and wonders of the human predicament."
(End McLaren's text)
My Position on the Matrix
Now I am going to tell you that, for the most part, I think my own location on this chart is the lower right: Innocent/Literary. Though I have thought about it many times and am not afraid to ask questions, I don't really care about the reliability of the source or cultural context of the scriptures, because I have a personal relationship with the Lord through the Holy Spirit that bears witness to the validity (I didn't say "inerrancy") of the Bible. The proof is in the pudding, if you will (I'm inside the gray inner circle of experience on the chart). I have personally experienced miracles and countless answers to prayer. As with almost all people, my experience influences my beliefs. Hence, my position on the chart is Innocent.
Further, I have never really interpreted all of the scripture in a literal manner, so my position is also Literary because I allow that much of scripture may be poetic or allegorical and not meant to be taken at face value.
The big picture is important to me. I believe in the Redemption Story of the Bible. I have experienced it in my life a thousand times over. This is reality for me, so I am not troubled by the many inconsistencies of the scriptures; I filter them through the cross and the redemption of Christ -- and my own experience.
Since leaving the church I no longer feel the pressure to conform to the platform of my literalist friends. I never did conform, really, being the independent thinker that I am, but there was always a pressure for unanimity (called "unity") in the church that came from the pulpit and from my fellow constituents, and that is not present where I am now in the post-church wilderness (although it sometimes rears its ugly head in Facebook posts).
So, where do you find yourself on the chart? Do you actually "move back and forth from one quadrant to another, depending on... mood or context" as McLaren says? Have you migrated from one place on the matrix to another during your lifetime?
This is good stuff, man!
Here's the link to McLaren's original post.
Last week I happened upon this beautiful and insightful post from Brian McLaren on Patheos.com that I found very helpful in pinpointing my own position from which I read the Bible. I copied and pasted his text along with the accompanying chart for the benefit of my readers. I am a visual thinker, so this was like discovering gold for me.
Here's Brian:
"Earlier this year, I blogged my hunch that this would be the year of the Bible. I felt we were reaching a tipping point after which the cat would be out of the bag, by which I meant that important conversations about the Bible would escape from the seminary classroom to the local congregation. With important releases by Adam Hamilton, Peter Enns, Steve Chalke, and many others (including, I hope, my newest book), that hunch seems to be coming true.
Many people, of course, think there are only two ways to read the Bible: their way and the wrong way. But there are actually multiple options, as this matrix shows.
Within these four general categories there are countless locations or points of view, and many of us move back and forth from one quadrant to another, depending on our mood or context.
There's one other feature to the diagram that's relevant to ways the Bible is being re-thought. While some people read the Bible as an academic or intellectual exercise only, many of us - as indicated by the shaded circular space that overlaps all four quadrants - read it with some sense of personal need, maybe even desperation. In this circle, we are seeking guidance and wisdom for how to live our lives because we are aware that as individuals, families, communities, nations, and civilizations, we are always on the verge of tipping over into self-destruction.
In other words, those of us in the gray circle aren't primarily seeking information from the Bible. Rather, we're seeking meaning, hope, guidance, perhaps even salvation from something that threatens to destroy us. And -- dare we say it? -- we may even be seeking revelation, some encounter that gets our minds into realities too big to be contained within our minds. We feel ourselves to be in trouble, in a predicament, on a quest, and we're ever vigilant for news that might help us cope with the mysteries and challenges in which we find ourselves. So the shaded circle represents a personal or predicamental approach, as opposed to merely an academic, doctrinal, analytic, political, or informational approach. It can bring people from all four quadrants together.
As a boy, I was introduced to the Bible from the lower left quadrant. When I got older, I moved to the lower right quadrant and gained new insights. I was never attracted to the upper left quadrant, but I read many authors who wrote from that quadrant. From them I gained the freedom to apply critical thinking to this text that I had come to love. Finally, I found myself at home in the upper right quadrant, where I can enter the Bible as a library, a literary collection containing poetry, fiction, nonfiction, and other genres, and where I have complete freedom to ask questions about the Bible's sources, development, internal tensions, biases, accuracy, cultural context, and genre. In my movement from quadrant to quadrant, I have remained in that shaded circle of reading personally, because I still feel myself deep in the mysteries, dangers, and wonders of the human predicament."
(End McLaren's text)
My Position on the Matrix
Now I am going to tell you that, for the most part, I think my own location on this chart is the lower right: Innocent/Literary. Though I have thought about it many times and am not afraid to ask questions, I don't really care about the reliability of the source or cultural context of the scriptures, because I have a personal relationship with the Lord through the Holy Spirit that bears witness to the validity (I didn't say "inerrancy") of the Bible. The proof is in the pudding, if you will (I'm inside the gray inner circle of experience on the chart). I have personally experienced miracles and countless answers to prayer. As with almost all people, my experience influences my beliefs. Hence, my position on the chart is Innocent.
Further, I have never really interpreted all of the scripture in a literal manner, so my position is also Literary because I allow that much of scripture may be poetic or allegorical and not meant to be taken at face value.
The big picture is important to me. I believe in the Redemption Story of the Bible. I have experienced it in my life a thousand times over. This is reality for me, so I am not troubled by the many inconsistencies of the scriptures; I filter them through the cross and the redemption of Christ -- and my own experience.
Since leaving the church I no longer feel the pressure to conform to the platform of my literalist friends. I never did conform, really, being the independent thinker that I am, but there was always a pressure for unanimity (called "unity") in the church that came from the pulpit and from my fellow constituents, and that is not present where I am now in the post-church wilderness (although it sometimes rears its ugly head in Facebook posts).
So, where do you find yourself on the chart? Do you actually "move back and forth from one quadrant to another, depending on... mood or context" as McLaren says? Have you migrated from one place on the matrix to another during your lifetime?
This is good stuff, man!
Here's the link to McLaren's original post.
