How is everyone getting along with the book? I've read a bit ahead and feel like I ought to go ahead and post about the next few chapters. Not everyone will want to comment on every chapter so this will give most people an opportunity to comment.
-------Chapter 2------
The opening of chapter 2 is one that I like. I've heard many times from non-Catholic Christians about the limits they place on God. It has never been something I've ever been comfortable with. I was happy to see the words, "The Creator of our universe is infinite."
The bit about the "contextual" approach to reading the Bible is interesting. Personally, this is how I generally approach my reading. I know there are a lot of Catholics who do belive in a literal approach.
It would be interesting to see how many Catholics read the Bible contextually and how many read it literally.
At the end of the chapter there are the Questions for Discussion. I'd heard that "How do you like My book?" question during a talk Matthew Kelley gave. I have to get busy and finish it one day. The last time I sat down with it I only got as far as King David's reign.
I very much appreciated the differentiation between "fundamentalist" reading and "contextual" reading, coming from a non-denominational/Protestant background. Dh and I have never known anything but a literal reading of the Bible. It is what made us walk away from Christianity seven years ago. We could no longer make the pieces fit together by taking each piece as literal truth dictated by God.
I am now having to learn how to read contextually and am looking forward to joining the Bible study one of the Sisters at my parish leads. I have read about 95% of the Protestant Bible, close to three times through. I do appreciate the Biblical knowledge ... I can find most passages without having to think much and I can still quote quite a bit even being away for so long. But the down side is having to relearn what those passages mean ...
I think if I had to answer the question, "How do you like My book?" I'd have to tell God that parts were inspiring, some were confusing, and some were a bit boring, but that overall, I found great Truth in it.
My goal is to read through the seven books in the Catholic Bible that I have not read before.
I have always had a strong distrust of the fundamentalist approach to reading the bible-even back in hisgh school. So it was actually a huge relief when I was given the freedom to read contextually.
MLW, I'm the same with the goal of reading the 7 books I've never read before. And I'm wth you on the frustration about relearning what those verses mean.
I would tell Him I loved his book, but I'm even more grateful for the people that have been recently placed in my life to help me understand it.
It's been a very humbling thing to admit that I can't understand it all on my own (which is the prevailing Protestant thought) and I still have to work to get out of that mindset most times.
I was in a fundamental, non-denom. church for several years so I saw the problems of that approach to reading the Bible as well. And, I also am in the process of reading those books. I've only read and listened to parts of them and my dh has read them since that was a bit of an obstacle for him when I told him about wanting to go back to the Church. He'd been brought up with the "sixty-six" books mentality. During sermons, our former pastor would take verses and specifically explain how they disproved Catholicism and proved that it was an evil cult. Looking back, he was totally sincere in his belief but they amounted to cheap shots that made it seem like most Catholics didn't read the Bible and those who did were not intelligent enough to understand it.
I'd gotten some books recommended by several of you at the WTM board, and hearing of this approach to reading the Bible was huge for us. It helped that my dh has struggled with distrusting the literal approach in high school, too.
I like that Fr. Lukefahr presented the contextual approach as something to learn to do intelligently instead of fearing that it will turn the Bible into less than what it is. In the town that I lived in as a child, there were a few Catholics and fundamental Baptists that banded together about some issues going on the school. I wonder if they were both "literal" versus contextual. And seeing what the literal approach has done to some people, I actually distrust it far more.
Anyway, I also appreciate that he said that some parts are not going to be of equal interest to everyone. Not to go on too hard against the fundamentalist approach, but there was a huge weakness in trying to convince people that they should read through the Bible in a year, every day (not all of them felt this way) and a lot of people (esp. teens) felt guilty about their boredom or utter confusion about certain passages. In general, I try to talk more about what I like about Catholicism and less about what I disliked about fundamentalism, but this chapter did bring out a lot of the latter while making me also grateful for the people who are helping me understand.
-- Edited by Clairelise on Monday 16th of January 2012 10:15:43 PM
Our old church would push the read through the Bible in a year almost every year. Now, I can understand why ... it is important to know what it say, but the push and then the reading plan, which basically started at Genesis and ended with Relevation, was daunting to say the least. Being in a literal-minded church, it was hard to skip any parts because we were supposed to see it all as God's literal word for how we were to literally believe and if we skipped, we might miss something huge, if that makes sense.
I like that Fr. Lukefahr presented the contextual approach as something to learn to do intelligently instead of fearing that it will turn the Bible into less than what it us.
YES! Yes, I didn't know (understand) how I felt about why -but you nailed it, this is why. Fear that it will make the bible into less than what it is.
That is profound.
-- Edited by Brianamouse on Monday 16th of January 2012 05:50:10 PM
I know that in many circles (almost all?!) Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are seen as heretical for what they write, but I have to say there books helped me bridge that gap between a literalist approach and a contextual approach. Coming out of our old church, when I first read Marcus Borg, it was like someone gave me permission to see that there might be a different way to read the Bible. I started understanding the importance of looking deeper than just the printed words on the page. I still have so much to learn, but I am very thankful for their writings in helping me, at least, make my way back.
I met with our priest the other night to discuss a few things, and one of the things he spoke of was the importance of realizing the Bible is much more than just the words on the page - that there's an entire library inside the Bible, including poetry, prehistory, prayers, allegory, etc. Reading this chapter just helped to reaffirm that initial feeling I had when reading Marcus Borg and J. D. Crossan ... permission to see things so much differently, and for me, so much better.
The beginning of finally being done with the literalism/Bible-alone approach was watching the Bible being exalted as the perfect Word but used as less than and more than what it is. It was used as less than what it is when used in what I called "verse-slinging", putting down other Christians (specifically Catholics, but also mainline Protestants) and used to excuse judging people's spirituality by their music or clothing.
When I say the literal/Bible-alone approach made it more than what it is, I hope it doesn't sound like I think the Bible is uninspired. I mean that this approach taught that to look outside of Scripture was wrong. Somehow it was ok to use Bible studies and Bible reading guides but something like the Catechism was instantly unbiblical.
I found this, among many other quotes, from SWB in one of her blog posts interesting: "Christians, particularly Protestant Christians, are Bible-centered." And that was something I thought about as one of my fundamentalist friends went on about how the best someone could do was buy another copy of the Bible. Most homes in that church had multiple copies and the pastor bragged about how superior they were since they didn't resort to pew Bibles -- everyone brought their own to study during his sermons. So much of their faith was formed around having a Bible, reading it every day, reading it through the year every year (only sixty-six books to get through, of course), collecting Bibles, etc. that at one point I asked, "What about before the Bible? And what about before you could have one personal copy, let alone ten?"
Not long after I started getting answers that made sense (and much as I tried, the fundamentalists didn't have ones that worked for me), I was in an art museum at the sacred art area. One particularly old scene had a description inscribed on a plaque that invited the viewer to sit and contemplate, imagining a community of visually literate, pre-printing press believers using this image to help nurture and re-tell the stories of faith. While the fundamentalist may think it is idol worship to have stained glass, paintings, and statues in church, I think he would miss the point. We went on a tour of our parish church as part of RCIA tonight and our priest talked about how an illiterate mother could bring her children to the stained glass and use it to pass on the stories of the Bible so of course, those things have a place in the church.
And since much of the fundamentalist beliefs about getting to heaven (salvation, justification, etc) seemed almost formed against, rather than on something -- specifically against Tradition, infant baptism, Eucharist -- there was a genuine fear. Because for many, if Catholicism is true, their doctrines are not. They do not realize that Catholicism recognizes their baptism and Christian faith, however, and miss an opportunity. So because of that fear, I don't do much talking with the fundamentalists unless they ask because it would be so deeply disturbing for some of them.
Great googly-moogly, I'm rambling. And off-topic. Sorry. (The beauty of these is that you can skip over this post!) Final SWB quote to bring it somewhat back to the topic of the Bible:
"You can be a Christian and never read; before the printing press, when, contrary what many historians will tell you, God was alive and work in the world, many Christians were unable to read and yet were drawn to God, nurtured by a faithful Christian community and a priest.
And of course they were also nurtured by the Word of God, read aloud in the parish church. I repeat again: I am not saying that the Bible is unimportant, or that God’s choice to give us words is incidental, or that we should give up reading the Bible."
-- Edited by Clairelise on Tuesday 17th of January 2012 10:08:20 AM
I understand that feeling of it seeming like you've gotten permission. Especially for my dh, it was like he finally was able to admit that something just hadn't been right with the way he'd been told he had to read and stand on the Bible alone for his faith.
MyLittleWonders wrote:
Coming out of our old church, when I first read Marcus Borg, it was like someone gave me permission to see that there might be a different way to read the Bible.
