Reading Scripture Series Introduction - Alec Bussen

Reading Scripture is the backbone of the Christian spiritual disciplines. Whether we are in prayer, looking for ways to repent and improve, want to contemplate God, desire to serve others, or want to know why we do what we do as the Church, we somehow make our way back to the Scriptures. With this as the case, we should find it odd when we read a biblical study that does not attempt to lead us to Christ. I think we should find it equally odd when we read the Bible as though it is not about Christ, or as though the events behind Scripture’s text, the raw historical data, is the real stuff of theology. Why is it that when we are taught to read the Bible in the Church we are taught how to pray the Scripture and use it as a means to hear God speaking in our lives, but when we read the highest level of scholarship we often find the Scriptures sucked dry of life? More importantly, if we are reading the Bible in this way, how do we read it better?

At this point, someone might defend reading the Bible on a scholarly level, as they should. But my problem is not so much with reading the Bible deeply, but the way we go about that deep reading and our sources for reading Scripture deeply. I realize that if the Bible can mean anything, and I mean anything, then it means nothing and cannot structure our lives as Christians. Yet I do not think that it is appropriate to Scripture to read it like we would any other book. We should not study the history behind the text of Scripture in order to stop at what the human author intended to communicate to his original audience. As some modern theoreticians have been pointing out for years, we do not even read normal books as though all of their meaning stops there. If we do not do this with normal books, then how much more should we read Scripture as meaning more than the original author intended?

At this point, I hear the smack of my old professor’s palms against their heads. I was taught by at least a few of my old teachers that if Scripture means more than one thing, then it can mean anything and that we interpret the Bible through a historical-grammatical method in order to understand what the author meant. We can apply that meaning in a variety of ways, but the words mean one thing. I sympathize with these concerns, but I think they are suspect. Why must history be the guide? Why not Christ? Why not the Church? Cannot God intend meanings that the human author was not aware of? He is beyond time and therefore present with all peoples at all times at once. What meaning could we find that he could not have intended with our cultures and contexts in mind? That does not even mention the fact that we have been using historical interpretation to limit what Scripture can mean for over 200 years and are as far from a consensus on key doctrinal issues as we have ever been. How many different positions do people applying the same interpretative methodology hold over doctrines like salvation, atonement, and the Trinity? Historical-grammatical interpretation has not provided certainty or unity to our interpretations of Scripture.

My criticism here begs a ton of questions. In fact, way more questions that I have the competency to answer, but over the course of a few blogs I want to address four big ones. What is Scripture? If Scripture means more than one thing, does it mean anything? What is the history of historical interpretation? And how do I read Scripture spiritually? My hope is that this will generate some helpful dialogue and offer resources for reading Scripture responsibly and spiritually. Until then, I wish all my readers well and pray you benefit from what comes next.