How do we read and use the Bible?

[Ernie]

Over the last ten years on MD and MN, I and others have often commented that many evangelicals read the Bible very differently from how early Anabaptists and early Christians commonly read the Bible.

It seems to me that rather than systematizing the content or reading it to see what is explicitly not forbidden, early Christians and early Anabaptists read the text with the goal of getting into the proper frame of mind to carry out God's will on the earth. By absorbing the tenor of the New Testament, they believed they were in position to make applications to scripture that would be God-honoring. They didn't seem to avoid calling people to follow them as they followed Christ in places the scriptures didn't give specific direction.

This thread is to explore this subject further.

[joshuabgood]

Seems right to me.

I think we should be careful though, as Paul exhorts, against getting too carried away with the "practical applications" - where the "practical applications" become too onerous.

[Josh]

As a tool to restrict others from doing things we don't want them to do and as a licence to permit ourselves to do things we want to do.

[KingdomBuilder]

One impression I've gotten is that [Anabaptists] read the Scripture and then strive to apply- this usually results in a modifying of one's conduct or expressions.
In Protestant churches (referring to my SBC upbringing and experiences), the Bible is read and is "applied" to ones life/ interests in a positive light, regardless of whether or not it should be. For example, the classic 2 Chronicles 7:14. More often and more subtle, though, is that nothing is challengedor challenging. Whether or not the congregation is actually in obedience to the Word, the sermon will be articulated in an assuring way that the congregation is, indeed, meeting the command. As if the mere fact that they're in church and carry the title "Christian" is enough to "meet the criteria".
Not sure if I made sense... will elaborate if needed.

[Ernie]

One impression I've gotten is that [Anabaptists] read the Scripture and then strive to apply- this usually results in a modifying of one's conduct or expressions.

This has been my experience in CA churches. The leaders who were most respected were those who preached as though they were in need of modifying their conduct and expressions just like everybody they were preaching to.
Unfortunately, there were certain topics and commands of Jesus that were rarely preached about such as "When you make a dinner, do not invite your kinsfolk or rich neighbors."
Others such as "do not lay up treasure on earth" were reinterpreted to mean something that Jesus probably didn't intend.

More often and more subtle, though, is that nothing is challenged or challenging. Whether or not the congregation is actually in obedience to the Word, the sermon will be articulated in an assuring way that the congregation is, indeed, meeting the command. As if the mere fact that they're in church and carry the title "Christian" is enough to "meet the criteria".

These kinds of comments are sometimes made in CA churches also. A common phrase was, "I trust that none of us are...."
As a child and youth I was sitting there thinking, "It must be nice to go through life having such a sense of trust in people, because I certainly knew of people who would not have fit the condition being described."

[MaxPC]

My own experience is that we read the Bible in two ways.

...systematizing the content or reading it to see what is explicitly not forbidden....

This approach we would employ for exegesis, parsing exact meanings and correlatives both contextually (within the Bible) and comparatively (with other ancient texts). It's used mainly by academics in our church.

...read the text with the goal of getting into the proper frame of mind to carry out God's will on the earth. By absorbing the tenor of the New Testament, they believed they were in position to make applications to scripture that would be God-honoring.

This approach we call Lectio divina. It's purpose is to have a daily prayerful honest conversation with God so that we can grow and mature as His disciples. The Bible is read slowly, similar to a conversation between the individual and God, so that we can listen and learn His Heart for us. In turn, we can express our innermost thoughts with Him. It's a practice encouraged for everyone in our church, not just vowed religious or academics.

The struggle we tend to have within academia is to turn off our exegesis mindset and turn on our conversation with God (stop the teaching voice in our heads and turn on the listening and learning mode.)

[cmbl]

Others such as "do not lay up treasure on earth" were reinterpreted to mean something that Jesus probably didn't intend.

What was it reinterpreted to mean?

[cmbl]

An evangelical Protestant when asked what is meant by "the will of my Father who is in heaven" in Matthew 7, is likely to turn two and a half books later in the Bible to John 6 and say "to believe in the one he has sent."

That is the effect of a fundamentalist view of the Bible.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's really helpful to read over and over again until we know what the text is really about, which things are said in every book of the New Testament or at least most of them, and which things are held out as centrally important.

And to do that, maybe we need to put our own issues on the back burner. The New Testament probably wasn't written to resolve most of the things we choose to argue about today. And it's not there to tell us which one of us is right about theological disputes or religious practices.

When we read about the things they wrestled with, some things that were really important back then - like circumcision - just aren't that important to us now. But we can learn a lot from the values behind that dispute and the way that the dealt with the people involved while being true to their theological understandings, seeking God's voice on it. And if we let that seep in, it affects us when we seek God's voice for our own situations today.

To me, a lot of it comes down to the three things Richard Hays highlighted - Community, Cross, and New Creation, the three things you find in every book of the New Testament. And all three of these are deeply rooted in this text:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”

[Neto]

My own experience is that we read the Bible in two ways.

...systematizing the content or reading it to see what is explicitly not forbidden....

This approach we would employ for exegesis, parsing exact meanings and correlatives both contextually (within the Bible) and comparatively (with other ancient texts). It's used mainly by academics in our church.

...read the text with the goal of getting into the proper frame of mind to carry out God's will on the earth. By absorbing the tenor of the New Testament, they believed they were in position to make applications to scripture that would be God-honoring.

This approach we call Lectio divina. It's purpose is to have a daily prayerful honest conversation with God so that we can grow and mature as His disciples. The Bible is read slowly, similar to a conversation between the individual and God, so that we can listen and learn His Heart for us. In turn, we can express our innermost thoughts with Him. It's a practice encouraged for everyone in our church, not just vowed religious or academics.

The struggle we tend to have within academia is to turn off our exegesis mindset and turn on our conversation with God (stop the teaching voice in our heads and turn on the listening and learning mode.)

As a Bible translator, I can REALLY identify with this, especially the part I underlined. (In translation work, it is the analytical nitty gritty work of small variations in meanings that can side-track an attempt to read for devotion sake. Even though I have not been doing translation work now for over 10 years, I still catch myself thinking, "Now how would I translate this into ____?" - instead of "How should knowing this change me?")