Column on reading Scripture

When I was younger, lots of folks kept a large bible on a coffee table. They were imbued with a faint scent of Pledge, as they were dusted more often than they were read. At the same time, Bible reading was an important, maybe the important, spiritual practice for many Protestants. That clearly is fading. Instead of questions about interpretation, when I do get a question on Scripture, it often runs along the lines of complaint about parts of it that do not comport with the image people have of the holy book. It appears that some think of it as a moral Hints from Heloise or Emily Post’s guide to excruciatingly proper behavior or Martha Stewart, prior to jail.

Biblical inspiration and revelation does not mean divine dictation. As the confession of 1967 said: the Bible is written in the thought forms of a different culture. Second, the Bible is obviously varied in genre. With its expanse of years, it does not speak in one way or merely repeat the same point over and over.

For instance, many churches are going through some of the Jacob story in Genesis. He is presented as the progenitor of the 12 tribes of Israel. He is portrayed as a grasping deceiver. He carries on the dysfunctional family tradition of playing favorites. He is a testament that god will work through anyone. Israel’s name is translated, in the text itself, as wrestling/contending with God.

A frequent question is: why is there so much violence in the bible? First, the bible reflects human life in its relation to god and neighbor. Human life is plagued with violence. Genesis sees it as the primordial sin, as in Cain and Abel and the motivating force for the flood of Noah. Violence is sanctioned in the conquest of the land of Israel (See Lind, Yahweh as Warrior). Other than that, the bible is reticent about violence. Even the conquest story of Jericho is one where the heavenly host tear down the walls, while Israel has a religious procession. Prayers hoping for revenge are prayers, not aggrieved action.

Frances Taylor Gench, a professor at Union Seminary in Virginia, just wrote a book on some troublesome aspects of Paul’s epistles. she readily admits that its impetus comes from question form others, but from her own youthful struggles that included the temptation to do an  version of editing the bible with scissors, as opposed to the cut note on the computer. She offers some rules for difficult biblical passages: 1) remember that the difficult text is worthy of charity from its interpreters; 2) argue with the text, confident that wrestling with scripture is an act of faithfulness; 3) resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater; 4) learn from the dangers as well as the insights that biblical texts present; 5) don’t let anyone tell you that you are not taking the authority of the Bible seriously.

Ever since Augustine, we have a basic tool for reading Scripture: the rule of love. If it does not promote love of God and neighbor, then our reading of the words is suspect. Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Scripture (1983) “any interpretation of Scripture is wrong that leads to contempt for any individual or group of persons.”

Over the years, I have moderated various church meetings. More than a few times, obdurate leaders could not fathom that pastors struggle with the biblical texts in prayerful study for hours on end. Indeed, in seminary the rule was one hour of study for every minute in the pulpit. In a study, the most worn part of the carpet w should be where the pastor reads the Bible.