I love this interview with pastor and author Eugene Peterson. The whole thing is a treasure regarding story and writing and translation. But the real gem is in the middle – at about minute 11:45. If you have three minutes, enjoy. It’s a laugh, but also a serious challenge to one’s heart priorities.
I’m skipping church this morning.
Well, not precisely. I’m skipping MY church. I’m skipping the church where my heart is. I’m skipping worshipping with the community I have come to love and appreciate.
I’m skipping because people tell me I must. That I need to be on vacation. That I need to take a break. And so, I, with my family, will worship with others today, in a place where I can be relatively anonymous, which is somewhat contrary, in my mind, to what church is supposed to be.
Because of that, I have a bit more time on my hands – time I rarely have on a Sunday morning. It is the Lord’s day, and so to turn my thoughts in His direction I casually picked up Kathleen Norris’ book Amazing Grace, one which I’ve been working through occasionally over the past few months. Her perspective, different as it is from my own, is often stimulating. (Previous comments here and here and here.)
It only took a few paragraphs (pages 189-190, if you are following along at home) for me to be impacted. She notes the irony that in Protestant churches, especially those of the more evangelical type, worship consists of so little reading of Scripture. In the history of protestant churches men and women died to secure the right to have the Scriptures in the language of the people, died to have access to the Bible. In evangelical churches, we speak of the centrality of Scripture and call ourselves Bible-believing and toss the Reformation slogan Sola Scriptura around like a talisman. But one would be hard pressed to prove that the Bible means anything to us judging from the amount that is read in worship.
Our contemporary services of worship don’t allow for the tedious and drawn out reading of Scripture. We sing about Jesus, but do not listen to his words or the prophets who spoke about him. We read the text given for the sermon, but little more. If the pastor does not preach on the prophet Isaiah, which I’ve not done for many years, a congregation will never hear its promises and warnings and rhythms and tone.
But they can read it at home, no? Perhaps. But that cannot be taken for granted. And what they read, they often do not understand. The Bible was never meant to be a private book. It belongs to the church and needs to be read in the church. I’m saddened and somewhat embarrassed by this lack in my own congregation. It takes time, it may seem tedious, it may seem opaque. But is it not worth it if in so doing we build a growing rootedness in the book from which we learn of life?
My own, admittedly private, reading of Scripture earlier this morning came from, ironically (or providentially!), Psalm 119. I was struck with this verse:
How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth! (Psalm 119:103)
I wondered how one comes to view God’s word with such longing. Perhaps God is pointing me in at least one direction toward an answer.
As one committed to historic Christianity I believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture – that God so moved the writers that what was written was precisely what he wanted written. But I also believe that what was written, being written by human beings in human language, is to be approached and read in most respects as we would approach and read any other book. We need not apply any special code or method (and we certainly don’t need bibles edited for every possible demographic, but that’s for another post).
Years ago, I read what I thought to be a curiously titled book, Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book. The premise of the book was that though most of us can ‘read’ words on a page, few of us have developed the ability to read for understanding. I found to be extremely helpful on a number of levels.
It struck me as I read it that if any of us were to apply his insights to the simple reading of the Bible we would come away with a good bit more understanding and, perhaps more importantly, far less mis-understanding.
I get giddy when really smart people agree with me. How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth is an excellent little book on understanding the Bible written by Douglas Stuart and Gordon Fee. They ask, “How do we learn to do good exegesis? (“Exegesis” is a fancy word for the process of understanding the Bible.) Their answer, among other insights, includes this:
“The key to good exegesis, and therefore to a more intelligent reading of the Bible, is to learn to read the text carefully and to ask the right questions of the text. One of the best things one could do in this regard would be to read Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Read a Book (1940, rev. ed. With Charles Van Doren, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972). Our experience over many years in college and seminary teaching is that many people simply do not know how to read well. To read or study the Bible intelligently demands careful reading, and that includes learning to ask the right questions of the text.”
I still get giddy when I read that. But I’m weird that way.
In the previous post, I mentioned my hesitancy regarding study bibles. Continuing to quote from my response to my friend, I consider the alternatives, if there are any.
But is there an alternative?
A great alternative would be for a publisher to publish the Bible and the notes separately. This would satisfy my concerns. I wish someone would publish a book called “The Reformation Bible Study Companion” or something like that which would print the notes from a study bible in its own stand alone format. This would make the valuable content available but would keep it separate from the text of Scripture itself.
But no one in our modern era has done that. However, in my mind, there is a great alternative. If one was not to buy a study bible, I would recommend this that as a companion to your bible you have at hand a copy of IVP’s New Bible Commentary.
This is a commentary on the whole bible written by some of the best of conservative evangelical scholars. The editors themselves are worthy of note. Donald Carson, Alec Motyer, Gordon Wenham, and RT France are all trustworthy guides with no axe to grind other than a love for the biblical text. It does use the NIV as its base text, but that is not really a problem as the commentators themselves take the original text into consideration as they comment.
The only downside is that it is hard to carry with you. Anyone caught carrying this to a bible study would be instantly labeled as one slightly left of normal, whereas carting in a study bible raises no eyebrows. It is strictly a ‘look it up at home’ kind of resource. But at the same time, you have at hand thoughtful reflection on every passage of the bible and not just those the editors of the study bibles think need explication.
So, for what it is worth, my recommendation would be to keep your own bible in hand, and instead of spending $30 on a study bible, spend it on this commentary. If, on the other hand, one wants the more theologically oriented commentary found in a study bible, then buy the one you are looking at, but use it as a reference and not as your primary portal into God’s word.
[There is another resource I’d pick up if I were you. R. C. Sproul’s book Knowing Scripture really is a great tool for learning how to read scripture. I’d recommend you get this as well, regardless of what route you take in study bibles or alternatives.]
Thanks for trusting me enough to ask my opinion.
I was asked recently by a friend what I thought of his purchasing the ESV Study Bible. If he thought that I had perused and had an informed opinion on this particular study bible, he was wrong. If, though, he imagined that I had an opinion, well, on that score he was not far off. I reproduce my (slightly edited) answer here and in a subsequent post because I think there are some important matters the very existence of study bibles raises.
Several responses come to mind.
1) Since I don’t use a study bible, I’m not a good one to review this one for you. I’ve never held a copy in my hand, never flipped through the pages, never looked directly at any of the notes. So, I have no personal knowledge of it. That said, I can’t imagine where I would quibble with it. I’m sure the comments are sound and trustworthy. I suspect that in the study bible world, you could do much worse.
2) That said, I’m not a big fan of study bibles in general. You may write this off as one of Randy’s many idiosyncrasies, a word which has a lot in common with ‘idiot’ and ‘crazy’, but I think I have some good reasons for my tepid attitude.
a. Study bibles are heavy. Probably not the best reason, but it does play into my thoughts on the matter. People don’t normally spend the money for a study bible and then more money for one to cart around – they cart around the large study bible. There is I suppose the cardio-vascular benefits to consider here, but aside from that, it is something to take into consideration. (Wouldn’t it be great to be able to leave the notes at home and use them only when you needed them? More on that later.)
b. More important reasons for questioning study bibles are these:
i. When studying a text of Scripture, what is the best way to approach a difficult section? The best way is to stare at it, ask questions about it, ponder it, wrestle with it, and think through a few ways of unraveling the puzzle. That is hard, but it is the best way to really chew on scripture and allow scripture to get into our heads and hearts. It’s after wrestling with a text’s possible meanings ourselves, that there is value in consulting what others have said about the text. The major and most weighty problem I have with study bibles is that they encourage laziness in confronting the text. They allow us to too swiftly find an answer, and not just any answer, but, if we are not careful, an answer we consider to be THE answer because RC Sproul (or Charles Ryrie, or whomever) said it.
ii. A subtle but consequent result is that the lines between the text of scripture (fully authoritative) and a given interpretation of that text (not necessarily authoritative) begin to blur because the two occur on the same printed page between covers that are stamped ‘Holy Bible’. This is subtle, I know, but I think it is an issue. Months, years later, we may find ourselves searching for something we read in the Bible, when, in reality, it’s not in the Bible at all – it was in a footnote or a side bar in a study bible we once owned.
These concerns, to me, are weighty and worth your consideration. But I’m not going to condemn anyone for disagreeing with me. And like I said, I think if one is going to get a study bible, this is probably a good choice.
To be continued…
I’m getting closer to the day when I will preach through the book of Revelation. It is such a fascinating book, but one about which so many people have such strong opinions. I want to make sure that I can swim before I wade into those waters.
Recently a certain motif, a certain way of looking at the book, has occupied my mind which, if justified, may be very helpful in my trying to understand and then to communicate the sense of the book. John, it seems to me, was a painter.
So much damage has been done to the book by trying to force it into a linear pre-telling of human history. The book does not bear a forced linear interpretation and those who try to treat it as an overlay of current human history are always embarrassed by the result.
We need to think of the book less like a western history and more like Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. It is a collection of images masterfully sketched and shaded and ordered to convey a grand vision of God for his people, some who are facing severe persecution and others who are in danger of allowing their passion to dry up and blow away. It is a great work of art in which a variety of images come together to form a unified whole which speaks more than the individual images isolated from one another.
I’ve not developed this much further, and would not be sharing it here were it not for some corroborative input from the late New Testament Scholar Donald Guthrie. In his New Testament Introduction he assesses the structure in this way:
The majority of interpreters of this book assume that the action is not intended to be continuously described but rather that successive groups of visions each portray similar events in different ways. (page 969)
Much time spent in the evangelical subculture would lead one to be surprised by this statement. Most, in the evangelical world ASSUME that the book contains history ‘continuously described’, and that before it happens.
I know that seeing the book as a series of images or impressions is nothing new. But I also know that it is not a view often spoken. I make mention of it here as a help for those of you reading the book and as a helpful alternative for those whose thinking is only informed by the linear approach.
I’m hoping that thinking down this line might help us make better sense of a difficult but profound book. I’m thinking I will begin to preach on the book by the end of 2014 should the Lord tarry and I not come to my sensese.
Predictably this time of year debates ramp up over the propriety of the observance of Lent in the Church. I’m not interested enough in those debates to enter into them now. What I can affirm is that properly framed, fasting is good and commended by Jesus. And I can also testify that fasting from anything is anathema to me because the stuff I love, I love. I don’t let go easily.
But I’m fasting this Lent, and am loving it.
I’m a naturally introspective person. And generally, when I turn my thoughts inward, I don’t like what I see. My sin, my weakness, my personality defects, my lack of faith, often overwhelm me. And I can’t seem to help it.
Consequently, when I read the scriptures, I don’t see the kindness and compassion of God. I see more readily my inability to hold on to God’s promises, I see my weak commitment to holiness, I see commands that I’ve been unable to keep.
THAT is what I’ve decided to give up for Lent.
My focus this season – and one hopes there is a lasting effect – is to read Scripture with the goal of simply seeing my Savior. I read and reflect upon the attributes of God. I’m not allowed to ponder long my defects along the way.
I’m not expecting this to give me a whole new personality. I’ll still be far too quick to note my faults and highlight my failures. But perhaps incremental progress will matter in the long run.
A guy who cares too much about his appearance will look in the mirror and see only the mole on his nose or the hair out of place. Such a focus will wear him down to the place he can see nothing good. The remedy is to take his eyes off himself and look at the beauty of the One who loves him without concern for his appearance.
I’ve put away the mirror for Lent. Care to join me?