How we use the Bible
Lamb Chopped
Shipmate
in Purgatory
This came from comments on the "poor fig tree" thread. Do you make use of the Bible? If so, for what, and how? Why do you use it that way?
I know I can't prevent the thread from going however it turns out, but I'm hoping we can keep the heat to a pleasant warmth as opposed to ripping people to shreds based on their view of the authority of the Scriptures, whatever that may be.
I know I can't prevent the thread from going however it turns out, but I'm hoping we can keep the heat to a pleasant warmth as opposed to ripping people to shreds based on their view of the authority of the Scriptures, whatever that may be.
Comments
Reflection-action is basically taking a selection of the bible e.g a lectionary reading and seeing how to apply to life.
Action-reflection is thinking about what is happening and reflecting on what parts of the Bible are relevant to the situation.
I find Action-Reflection preferable. It does require familiarity with the content of the bible, and I have my brethren upbringing to be thankful for that, though I differ on their views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible.
I'm not sure I'm totally convinced by that distinction. If I'm looking at lectionary readings I will often see relevance to what is happening, but that will then trigger links to other passages that speak to that situation in related ways.
It comes from the Theology of Liberation and Gustavo Gutiérrez.
Yes sometimes the lectionary is relevant to what is happening in a person's world, but often it is just a distraction. I can't see everywhere in the world having at the same time a situation that the lectionary is relevant to, not even if it is the narrative lectionary.
The triggering of links seems to imply a search for passages when the lectionary is inadequate.
At the moment I’m wrestling with “love of enemies”, and “wolves disguised as sheep”. It’s been going on a while.
The lectionary challenges us to look at our situation with passages that wouldn't be our first go-to, to come at things from a different angle. I preached on Sunday on how we ensure we can stand strong if we are put to the test. Would that have been my response to the global political situation if the lectionary hadn't led me there, to the "tree planted by the water"? I don't think it would.
Sorry. That's not enough information for me to understand what you are talking about.
I do know that many messages I've heard based on the lectionary have not been relevant to the current situation of the congregation.
The lectionary has a lot of strengths - it provides an externally defined structure so we're not constantly tempted to preach on what we're comfortable with, it covers most of the Gospels and a decent chunk of the Epistles over a three year cycle, though coverage of the OT is a lot more patchy. But it does end up with quite short sections of Scripture read at a time, breaking the books into chunks that the original authors wouldn't have considered - certainly for the Epistles it's almost certain that the intent (and earliest practice) would have been to have had the entire letter read out at once, and it's unlikely that readings of any of the Gospels or the OT would have been as short as the lectionary gives us.
As a general rule, whenever I read the Bible - whether that's what I'm preaching on, at a study group, looking up what's written about a subject, working through systematically for personal study - I would never consider the short passage before me as adequate to understand what God is saying. There will always need to be other passages to consider (whether those are explicitly looked up, or just something I know from some point earlier in my reading of the Bible). But, there is also value in expanding the reading with support from tradition (that can include hymns that come to mind, traditional prayers of the church, the output of an army of commentators and not forgetting how different translators can render a passage).
Psalm 1 was set as a lectionary reading last Sunday.
TBH I’ve heard a good few messages not based on the lectionary for which that was true.
A good preacher should be able to relate the readings to the current situation of the congregation and/or issues in wider society (and, given that the congregation are part of the wider society that would still be relevant). If you can't stand in front of a congregation for 20 minutes or so and say anything relevant then what are you doing there?
The lectionary readings this past Sunday included Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17.
I follow the lectionary readings and the themes for the services throughout the Calendar, our annual cycle.
I don't restrict it to that. I do take part in Bible studies and will occasionally chase up and study references to themes I'm thinking about or which crop up here on the Ship.
What I try not to do these days - and admittedly it can be a hard habit to break as a former charismatic evangelical - is not to treat it as some kind of personal almanac or horoscope.
Sure, I look to it for 'guidance' as it were, in a general framework sense and as fuel for prayer as I'm sure many of us here do, but I'm less inclined to see it as a something to be taken 'in isolation' outwith the broader Tradition of the Church (as understood in an Orthodox context) and the wider small t tradition that all Christian churches hold in common.
That doesn't mean I don't see the scriptures as having a personal application, far from it.
Essentially, I read the scriptures to find and meet Christ in them.
LC asked how we make use of the Bible. I gave my answer and explained why. I find it strange that people feel the need to object to my preferred way of using it.
You can use it however you like. I was disagreeing with the framework you presented prior to offering your preference.
20 minutes?! Blimey, I don't think I could string out what I have to say for that long. 10 is pushing it.
Then perhaps we can agree to disagree.
AFF
'Lens and mirror'. Wow! I like that.
I also tend to follow the lectionary (as C S Lewis once put it, 'we have our marching orders') plus lots of psalms with Malcolm Guite's poems therof.
For me, this thread could be titled 'How I read the Bible' or better, 'How the Bible reads me'.
For now we see in a glass (mirror) darkly ....
Yes. It's good stuff.
The thing that amazes me is that I've been doing this sort of thing for nearly 40 years now, and still haven't come to and end of what's in there to find.
* That requires a lot of memory power, as well as Biblegateway.com (thank God for the search feature!). It keeps me re-reading, for sure...
This is why I tell people that Christianity is PhD level difficult.
So many of my "new age" friends poo-poo Christianity like it's some kind of kindergarten religion for idiots. And I say "don't knock it until you've tried it".
Christianity holds the human to the highest standards of moral and spiritual probity, starting with our prayer that everything on earth should be as it is in heaven, and that we should be forgiven in the measure that we ourselves forgive. I mean - whoo - just do what's in that sentence it will take a lifetime of self mastery.
I don't know any other religion that calls us humans to actualize our divinity in such clear, unambiguous, and emphatic terms. It was a game changer in the first century A.D. and it still is.
AFF
I’m intrigued! Have you a link?
@LatchKeyKid said
What are the views of this group of Brethren on that, and how do your views differ?
https://www.northumbriacommunity.org/offices/how-to-use-daily-office/
I used a lectionary based 2 year plan for a number of years (St James Devotional) for daily reading, but at the moment am taking a break from that and reading various theological books - which then trigger some scriptural study at times.
I make semi-regular use of the Society of St Francis' Daily Office, which also contains extracts of scripture.
And so this is the continuation of many of the conversations begun in the 1st century A.D. Paul insisted that it should be a simple faith for simple people in order to attract the greatest numbers to the movement while others grappled with the personal challenges presented in the canon.
So we have a religion that is for both surfers and divers, and it's entirely up to the individual which they choose to be at what moment. Both surfing and diving require their own skill set and come with their own inherent risks and rewards.
AFF
I’m assuming you’re probably not talking about the naughty bits that never, ever get quoted in church, lol…
Thank you! (Yay! I see Cuthbert stuff!! He might be my patron…)
Wanna bet?
Absolutely. It's why I'm glad I go to the church I do, and get exposed to some of these people. Where's the :bowingdown: smiley?
Probably not the children’s Sunday school…
Anyone want a second-hand Ph.D?
I might have also said
and I wouldn't be referring to the level of physical fitness required.
Thanks for understanding.
AFF
It's complicated, just as the Bible is complicated.
First of all, I understand its writers were writing from faith for faith. As such, I believe it is more a series of books presenting the theological truths as understood by the writers or redactors.
It does tie in certain historical and geographical facts, but they are secondary to the thrust of the testimonies to God's justice and mercy.
It has a wide range of literary devices which need to be examined in order to understand what it is saying.
Ultimately, the Bible is the manger on which the Word of Christ rests.
That is the prism through which I approach the Bible.
I am not too keen when devotionals miss the intended point.
A relation of mine had a picture of picturesque hills on her mantlepiece with "I will look into the hills, from whence cometh my help." as the scripture.
I am happy that people get strength from creation, but that's a different strength than needs to be found against
"The Assyrian (that) came down like a wolf on the fold."
And asked ironically.
... with the sound of music...
I'll get me coat...
They also have eyes
So under that interpretation, the hills are not so much rhetorical scene setting as they are the place God will help us go to and return from.
But this is all probably more worthy of a Kerygmania thread; it’s veering from how we view or use Scripture, I suspect.
“For some people this sentence is their way. ‘The Bible says it. I believe it. That’s it’. It’s a bit of a conversation stopper. That’s not the way it works in Judaism. Scripture is a conversation starter”.
I think that’s helpful. It opens up the concepts of midrash and wrestling as an important part of the communal, conversational, aspects of scripture.