Support the Café

Search our Site

Encourage People to Read the Bible? Maybe not

Encourage People to Read the Bible? Maybe not

by George Clifford

For years, I, like most clergy, frequently and indiscriminately exhorted Christians to pick up a Bible and read it. No more. I have realized that this advice, although well intentioned, is usually counterproductive, causing more disaffection from Christianity and guilt than spiritual growth.

The Bible, written over a period of more than one thousand years, contains multiple diverse worldviews, all of them foreign to twenty-first century life in the United States. The person who genuinely wants to understand the biblical text benefits by beginning with good introductions to both the Old Testament and New Testament. These provide overviews of important historical, linguistic, textual, and literary issues. Commentaries and Bible dictionaries offer more specific assistance related to particular passages.

In other words, to read the Bible with even a moderate level of informed comprehension, a reader needs to invest substantial time and effort in acquiring the knowledge and skills that seminarians generally learn in their first year or two of biblical studies. In contrast to the pseudo-scholars with their interlinear versions, developing the linguistic knowledge to appreciate and ponder the text in Hebrew or Greek requires even more years of work.

Beginning when I was in seminary over three decades ago, I have frequently heard seminarians lament the alienation and disaffection that they experienced as they began their biblical studies. Devotional reading of the Bible had nurtured their faith and often played an instrumental role in the spiritual journey that led them to seminary en route to seeking ordination. Now their academic studies challenged, if not actually contradicted, what they believed was the Word of God they had previously heard in their devotional reading of beloved texts.

Devotional reading of the Bible naively presumes that a person, by reading the text, will hear God speak. Meaning depends upon the reader’s modern worldview, the plain sense of the English text, and the reader’s existing theological biases.

Devotional reading was the pervasive approach among Bible reading Protestants – whether mainline Church members, evangelicals, or fundamentalists – to whom I ministered in the Navy. These good people considered themselves Christians in spite of both their theological ignorance and (being kind) eccentricities. They invariably and insistently assured me that the Holy Spirit guided their reading of Scripture, leading them into the truth and the correct understanding of Scripture. They almost universally believed that consulting scholarly resources such as commentaries and Bible dictionaries disadvantageously increased the distance between the believer and God.

Yet the sad truth is that a straightforward, uneducated reading of the text, even with a supposed assist from the Holy Spirit, presents most readers with an unfortunate choice.

On the one hand, the reader may uncritically accept the text as authoritative and adopt an unscientific (creation in seven days; people walking on water), unhistorical (hundreds of thousands of slaves exiting Egypt; the slaughter of innocents), and theologically bogus (God ordering mass slaughter; women subservient to men) reading.

Thoughtful readers find this choice uncomfortable, even unacceptable. It jars with the rest of what they have learned. But their faith is important to them. So they divorce their faith from other aspects of life, naively privileging Scripture as true. These readers may believe that God moved differently in Bible times than God does today. Alternatively, they may accept the dissonance between their faith and the rest of life, adopting one worldview in Church and another outside of Church, without reconciling the two. These readers tend to focus on the parts of the Bible that appear most readily understood and most congruent with the world (e.g., people generally read and study the gospels and Pauline epistles more than the prophets or Leviticus).

On the other hand, the reader may set the text aside as incomprehensible. Some who choose this option will abandon religion as anachronistic in the modern era, implicitly characterizing the chasm that separates them from the biblical text and worldviews as impassable. Other readers will cling to their faith in spite of the Bible, rarely read it, and feel guilty about both not reading the Bible and not finding it more inspiring when they do read it.

Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church is complicit in giving people this unfortunate choice. In sermons, confirmation classes, and other venues – most recently, a campaign to get people to read the Bible through in a year – we regularly encourage people to pick up the Bible and read it. Bible studies typically consist of the blind leading the blind: well-meaning, devout believers telling one another what God is saying to them through a particular text. Lectio divina is similar: listen to the text and hear the Holy Spirit speak to you.

We have largely failed to offer the substantive religious education programs that would empower people to read the Bible informed by the benefits of modern scholarship. (The four-year Education for Ministry program from the University of the South is a notable exception to this generalization.)

If we really believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation (Book of Common Prayer, 513, 526, 538), then the Church needs to get serious about Bible study. Classes for youths and adults could offer the substantive introduction to the Old and the New Testaments similar to those in seminaries but appropriately geared to level of academic achievement.

Ironically, encouraging devotional reading of the Bible, with its implicit promise of relatively effortless access to God, devalues Scripture and insultingly presumes that people lack the intellectual ability and spiritual commitment to engage in serious Bible study. As a constructive alternative, the Church could develop and promote a resource that presents the text alongside outstanding scholarship. William Barclay in his popular, although flawed, Daily Study Bible attempted such a project. Better yet, groups of Christians, after completing introductory studies, might gather for Bible study with commentaries, Bible dictionaries, historical references, and other resources.

Reading the Bible with understanding is hard work; perceiving God’s light is even more difficult. Dumbing down the process demeans God’s people, alienates many, and forms a dead church in the image of biblical literalism rather than the living God.

George Clifford is an ethicist and Priest Associate at the Church of the Nativity, Raleigh, NC. He retired from the Navy after serving as a chaplain for twenty-four years and now blogs at Ethical Musings.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve read Romans many times for example, I read it when I was 15, 16, all the way up to 25. I understood it when I was 15, and I understood it at 25. 15 was before college and 25 after. My understanding was the same. (I cite Romans as it is our best textbook-like representation of the gospel).

Should we discourage young people from reading Tolstoy, Milton, Bunyan, or Eliot because students might misinterpret the language. And as devotionals are written by man and not God inspired it is important to back them up with Scripture as to guard against improper interpretations.

Of course, scholarship amongst the laity should be promoted as other have stated but to discourage Bible reading is abhorrent. Yes, let us place yet another barrier between man and God after the Father sent his Son to die on a cross to eliminate the obstacle of sin and provided us with the Holy Spirit.

And ultimately unless the Holy Spirit opens our minds to the Word of God we will not see success in our study.

For as Ecclesiastes 1:18 says “For in wisdom is much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”

Knowledge without the power of the Holy Spirit is pure chasing after the wind.

[Emma09 please sign your name when you comment – thanks ~ed.]

Murdoch Matthew

When he was dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Montreal, Michael Pitts preached helpfully

on this topic:

I believe it is the function of the homily to interpret the narrative of the liturgical drama in ways which speak to people involved in the world of the present day, sometimes in general, sometimes in more specific ways.

Today I am, as you might, say hoisted on my own petard. I have looked at these readings for Lent 4, especially the Hebrew scripture reading and the epistle, time and time again over the last three or four weeks, and I find very little in the first two which speaks to my faith, or which I believe is helpful for faith today.

. . . most of us in the West read these texts as members of communities, either secular and religious, which for centuries have been majority communities, which have possessed most of the wealth and power of the world and which have been the dominant force in shaping the culture, society, economics and politics of that world. We simply cannot take most of these texts and apply them directly to our situation. We cannot draw directly from them, moral, political, social or even religious and theological lessons for our own times and churches and societies. Such a process may work for the liberation theologians working with the poor of South America, but even the least powerful in our society are touched by the power of our society as a whole, and this must be taken into account in our hermeneutical method.

Pitts also touches on one of the horror texts in Numbers and questions an assumption by the author of Ephesians. I wish we’d noticed this sermon when this posting was new.

Murdoch Matthew

Thanks, Bill. I’ll work on a Rite I version. To refresh my memory, I started to look at Genesis 1 and 2, and naturally, being at my computer, I went to Google rather than to a Bible. Google pointed to a fascinating Wikipedia article: The Genesis Creation Narratives. Lots of fun stuff, including the writing in sixth century Babylon and after, and analysis of the implications of word choices.

One thing Genesis gets absolutely right for me is the creation of the universe out of chaos by language. God creates order by naming things, and that’s what human babies do, starting with “Mama” and “Papa.” Everything around us is a meaningless confusion; we sort it out by naming and narrative. (John’s Gospel should have stopped with the first sentence.) Anyway, the Wikipedia article is lovely; read it if you like that sort of thing.

Concerning the original discussion, it occurred to my husband, Gary, that North American slaves may have valued the Exodus story less for its historicity than for its usefulness in screwing the Master: Turn the slave owners own narrative against him. Here in New York State recently, a preacher actually was barred from working in prisons because guards noticed that his talk about “Pharaoh” sounded too much like “Pataki,” the Republican governor at the time.

Jim Clark

I find this article sadly misrepresenting various ways of reading, praying, and studying the Bible. It presumes the worst of “devotional” reading and the best of “scholarly” reading. Neither of which is necessarily the case. The reality for me is much more nuanced, especially among Episcopalians. I would rather say scholarship is essential — and just by participating in the worshiping community we are exposed to lots of scholarship! — and devotional reading in which the Holy Spirit “speaks to me” is essential. I would add that I think devotional and scholarly reading in a context where genuine sharing and listening occurs within the faith community provides the most holistic context for hearing the story and being transformed by the story and the God of the story.

Bill Dilworth

Murdoch, I love the reworking of the Creation story; does it come in a Rite One version?

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café