In about eighth or ninth grade, I began a spiritual
discipline of regular Scripture reading.
Throughout high school and college, it was a powerful mainstay for my
faith as it developed and grew. I didn’t
discover powerful insights every day, but spending time daily (or almost daily)
in God’s word helped me learn about and explore God’s place in my life and my
place in his will.
Then I went to seminary.
Suddenly, the Bible was no longer a resource for my
devotional life; it was an object of analysis and study. I was taught to read the Bible in an entirely
different way. It was no longer simply
God’s message to my heart; now I explored its historical setting, the literary
forms that it contains, and a whole host of other “critical” skills. Things that I had taken for granted were
called into question. Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and the other patriarchs were “eponymous folk heroes” who very possibly
weren’t actual historical people. The Pentateuch
wasn’t written by Moses, but by a nameless committee called “the redactors” who
pieced it together from at least four different sources. Two or three different people wrote Isaiah. Daniel didn’t write Daniel, John didn’t write
John, and Paul didn’t write Ephesians. I
was taught not simply to read what the text said, but to explore the
historical, literary, and social issues that underlie it. I learned that the “unique word of God” was
surprisingly similar to tales from other cultures of the time and region that
we call myths. I was getting to know the
Bible in a new way and on a different level from how I had ever read it before.
In the process, something troubling began to happen with my
daily devotional times. When I picked
up the Bible to discover God’s message for me, it had become an object for
analysis instead of a resource for spiritual development. Instead of hearing what the Spirit had to say
to me, I could only hear the voices of my professors and seminary textbooks,
pointing out the underlying tradition streams and historical nuances of the
text. My time with Scripture was no
longer a spiritual retreat; it was a time for analysis and criticism.
It took me years to find my way out of this quandary, but
it’s a struggle that many seminarians, and college students who take religion
courses, encounter. As my student pastor
put it, “When I pick up the Bible with one hand to read it devotionally, my
other hand knocks it away.” Our
devotional “hand” and our critical-thinking “hand” are at odds with each
other. One wants to pull the Bible into
myself and identify fully with it. The
other holds it at arm’s length to examine like a rare fossil or exotic gem.
I suspect that many people who find themselves in this
situation choose one hand or the other with which to hold the Bible, and ignore
or cut off the other hand. One choice is
to repudiate everything we pick up from our academic study of the Bible. We may write it off as an irrelevant
distraction or react against it as an attack on our faith. Those professors and egg-head scholars are
just trying to tear the Bible apart! We
can seek to reclaim the simplicity and innocence with which I read the Bible in
high school and college. Another choice
is to embrace critical insights and dismiss our earlier encounters with
Scripture as foolish ignorance. Maybe
that was helpful when I was a youth, but now that I’m wiser and more mature I
can put such childish things behind me.
In other words, we can either be intellectually dishonest, or we can
turn our back on our spiritual heritage.
I can tie up one of my hands (either the devotional one or the critical
one) and hold the Bible with the other.
But this is our challenge: how can we grab the Bible with both hands?
Before ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) took away much of his
manual dexterity, my brother was a highly skilled head and neck cancer
surgeon. Part of why he was so skilled
was because he had taught himself to be ambidextrous. He grew up right-handed, but discovered that
some surgical procedures are very difficult to execute with the right
hand. After he learned to be adept with
both hands, he could approach situations and be able to use the hand that made
the most sense for what was in front of him.
In the same way, when we are able to grab the Bible with both hands, we
are more adept at understanding it and what it has to say to us.
When my brother faced a particular situation in the
operating room, he would decide which hand it made the most sense to use in
order to accomplish whatever it was he wanted to do. Because he could use either hand, he could
efficiently and effectively do wonderful things for his patients. In the same way, if we are skilled at using
both of our “hands” when reading the Bible, we will be much more effective and
successful at whatever we seek to gain from that time.
Grabbing the Bible with both hands is different from being a
switch-hitter: gauging your approach the Bible according to the situation and
then using the suitable “hand” to do it well.
It means that you use both hands, both your critical and your devotional
self, when you engage with the text. My
brother used both hands to operate. In a
particular situation, it may make more sense to make the incision with his left
hand, but he would still use his right hand during the procedure, to do things
like set a clamp (or whatever else surgeons do during an operation). When he stopped doing surgery because of the
effects of ALS, he still had full use of his left hand. But he was too wise of a surgeon to think
that he could get the job done with only one hand. In the same way, we who approach the Bible
with both devotional and critical skills are able to “get the job done” better
than if we did it with only one “hand” or the other. But we need to keep in mind what “job” we are
trying to “get done,” and make the decision about which hand should be primary.
It takes time to become ambidextrous and be able to grab the
Bible with both hands. At first, our two
hands aren’t able to work well together.
One hand tries to pick up the Bible, and the other one slaps it away. Our devotional attitude and our critical
skills work at cross purposes with each other, and we are clumsier with the
Bible than we were when we only held it with one hand. But, as in most situations, time and practice
help. We learn how to read the Bible
devotionally, with our critical insights helping us to discern more of God’s
message for our lives. We learn how our
devotional relationship with the Bible enhances our critical analysis. It takes time, and it takes patience. But if we are hasty and impulsive, we end up
being one-handed Bible-readers.
Hermeneutics is a philosophical discipline that explores how
we can gain understanding from things that we read. My two favorite hermeneutics philosophers
both offer insights into how we can grab the Bible with both hands.
Hans-Georg Gadamer explained that when you read a book, it’s like making a decision to
play by the rules of a particular game.
You “enter into the world” of the text, just like a basketball player
enters into the world of basketball when she decides to play the game. Basketball creates its own little world with
its rules, and you’re only playing basketball if you play by those rules. You can’t tackle someone from the other who
has the ball (that’s the world of football) and you can’t kick the ball down
the court (that would be soccer). When
we held soccer practices in our church gym, the ball would occasionally go
through one of the basketball hoops on either side of the gym. It was a source of amusement when that
happened, but it had nothing to do with the game-world of soccer. When the basketball players got the ball
through hoop, however, that was the point of the whole game.
Gadamer compared reading a text to playing a game because it
only makes sense if you enter the world of the text you’re reading. You can only appreciate the book it you set
aside your objections to things that you think are silly or false about it; if
you suspend your judgment about that world.
To pick a much less profound example than the Bible, the “Twilight” book
series creates a world in which vampires sparkle in the sunlight, make treaties
with werewolves, and fall in love with teenage girls. In order to appreciate and enjoy these books,
you can’t keep complaining that vampires, if they exist, would never act like
that. It’s like watching an action movie
in which the hero should probably be dead or critically injured after what he
goes through, but keeps going full speed without even a limp. You can complain that “this could never
happen!” but you can only enjoy the movie if you suspend judgment. In the same way, we can enter the world of
the Bible, a world that we understand more completely because of our critical
analysis of it, by making the decision to “play by its rules.”
Paul Ricoeur described the process of understanding a text
as the process of moving from a “first naiveté” to a “second naiveté.” The “first naiveté” is the initial innocence
we have about the book we’re reading.
This is how I read the Bible in high school and college. I accepted at face value the world that it
presented. I entered its world, as
Gadamer would put it, without really
understanding it or grasping the nuances of it.
To use another analogy, I was like an audience member at the magic show
who believed that the volunteer from the audience actually was sawn in half and
that the pretty lady really was changed into a tiger. What Ricoeur calls “explanation” is the
pursuit of discovering what’s really going on.
This is where academic-style critical study of the Bible comes in. We become more savvy about what is being
presented to it. We question it, we dig
deeply into it, and we learn more about the situation. We learn more about the magician and know
that somehow he’s tricking us. We may
even learn some of the secrets of the magician’s craft. But then we can enter into Ricoeur’s “second
naiveté.” We can use the insights we’ve
gained from “explanation” to have a richer, more informed appreciation of what
the text is presenting to us. Even if
you know that there’s some trick to the magician appearing to make a freight
train float in mid-air, you can still marvel at what he’s done. Even when you know the
historical-literary-social factors that underlie the composition of the Bible,
you can still hear God speak to you through it.
And in fact, your awareness of these factors will help you hear God more
clearly.