How to Read the Bible
An Argument for a Middle Way Between Essential Christian Doctrine and Open Hermeneutic Interpretation
Nearly every Christian will agree that reading the Bible is an important spiritual discipline (something that draws you closer to God). I have found, however, that individual Christians differ wildly regarding the approach one should take to reading the Bible. I do not mean here simply what passages to read when, although there are many methods one can follow to systematically read through the entire Bible. Instead I mean the interpretive work and the hermeneutics involved when one interacts with such an important text (arguably the most important text ever created insofar as it constitutes God's plan for salvation for us, his creations).
I advocate a position involving a middle way (media via) between two opposing extremes or dangers when reading the Bible. These two extremes are over-flexibility in interpretation and under-flexibility in interpretation. On the one hand, I find it too naive to think that there is no interpretive work done when reading the Bible. The doctrinal distinctions and differences from Christian denomination to Christian denomination are enough to show that there is a fair amount of interpretive work to be done when encountering ancient texts, even texts that one believes to be divinely inspired. I have met Christians, bless their hearts, who are literalists and hold that every word, in English no less (forgetting that the Bible is a culmination of different texts from different time periods in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic), is a direct communication from God.
I can appreciate the heart of the literalist position, although I disagree with it, since to hold such a view is to have a rock solid foundation in an ever-changing and morally-bankrupt world. While I agree with the need for the rock, the rock should be none other than Christ himself rather than the literal interpretation of ancient texts. Only Christ is qualified to be the foundation of Christian faith, and I do not believe one's faith should stand or fall based on whether every word in the Bible is literally true. To do so actually places Christian faith on shaky foundations (especially if one's faith could be disproved by showing that specific claims were actually false) rather than on the true foundation of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
So it seems clear that the need for some level of interpretation ought to be allowed or even encouraged. The disagreements Christians have among themselves about certain textual passages from the Bible is enough to show that there are already competing interpretations abounding. The question is: how much interpretation should be allowed in Christian beliefs and doctrine? In other words, is there a point at which the interpretation has diverged too far to the point that the new interpretation has lost what was essentially (i.e., indispensably) Christian about the gospel? Another way to put this is to ask whether there any central tenets of Christian faith without which one ceases to be a Christian altogether? You can see the problem already forming once the door is allowed for interpretation. How does one allow for competing interpretations to allow for human fallibility while not compromising about the heart of being a follower of Jesus? While I do not have a well-worked out answer to this question, I do suggest a few things to keep in mind when you yourself are faced with the question of interpretation and when encountering others who do not share your interpretation.
I think the most important factor to keep in mind when reading the Bible is to read with a spirit of humility and an open heart. All too often religion has been used to propagate an individual's or an institution's individual agenda. In other words, people try to make the Bible conform to their own priorities and beliefs rather than to let themselves be guided by the Holy Spirit working within them. It is only God who is an omniscient (all-knowing) and perfect being. By definition, then, humans in general are limited in their knowledge and imperfect in their natures (God called Adam good, not perfect). All too often Christians will fail to keep these considerations in mind when reading the Bible (and especially when expounding their own beliefs of the meaning contained therein). So the first thing to keep in mind is to have a humble spirit when reading and interpreting the Bible, remembering that only God knows all things. It is also important to remember that the Holy Spirit dwells within us and will guide our hearts when we are receptive to its movements. Only the spirit should guide one's interpretation of the Bible, never one's self, ego, or prejudices (especially those from your particular tradition and which you are most likely to be blinded to the presence of).
The next thing to keep in mind is that the Bible is viewed by a majority of Christians to be a divinely inspired book written by fallible human beings. There is a point at which it is possible to sacrifice too much to the sake of interpretation and at which the essential message of the Bible is lost. If I had to retain one principle that is central to Christian belief, it would be Jesus' claim in John 14:6: "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In other words, there is only one path to salvation, through Jesus Christ. This I find to be the one central tenet without which one ceases to be a Christian. Paul knew this when he wrote to the Corinthians that ..."if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14) Paul saw that if the uniqueness of Christ as the paschal lamb for our salvation is not retained, then Christ's death on the cross was neither necessary nor worth our faith.
This last point has immediate relevance for today's multiculturalism. One often hears people say that the Christian way is only one path to God, but is not the only path. Paul saw that if this perspective were taken, then Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection would all have been in vain. For if there were another path to salvation available, then why would the Father God sacrifice Christ his Son? I do not intend to go into the theological reasons for the necessity of a sacrifice and resurrection of a messiah, but hopefully you see the force of this argument (given originally by Paul). With other paths to salvation freely available, Christ's entire ministry, life, death, and resurrection become meaningless and arbitrary. Paul also uses this rationale to justify the necessity of taking a missional, evangelistic stance towards people who do not yet know of the good news (literally "Gospel") of Jesus Christ. God provided the path to salvation, and it is up to us to make it known to the world (although with a spirit of humility and imperfection ourselves).
Different Christian denominations and movements have differed about how to walk this line between interpretation and Christological foundations, but Christians are at their best when they retain the self-sacrificing spirit of our Lord Jesus and are humble about their own correctness. I believe it is possible to promote Christ as the one and only path to salvation out of a sense of love, compassion, and understanding for those who do not yet know Christ. This does not mean we should all be relativists and believe that all beliefs are correct or valuable just because they are beliefs. I do not believe this to be a coherent position anyways. Rather it means that we should not be so forceful in promoting our own beliefs that we lose the forgiving and humble spirit of Christ himself, guided by the Holy Spirit within us. The same should be true of our own devotional time reading the Bible. The essential message of the Bible should be quite apparent, but remember to be humble about the details, for only God has complete knowledge of all things.
Need a Bible?
