Having been a seminary student (briefly, and no telling if I'll be going back anytime soon), I can tell you that there are a tremendous and disturbing amount of books written about every aspect of the Bible you can possibly image, and then several dozen more that wouldn't even occur to you.
I have loosely designated them into two groups--books about the Bible, and books on the Bible. Books about the Bible are full of facts, history, tidbits, and general knowledge that are really useful and make reading the Bible a more pleasurable activity. The books on the Bible are people's commentaries about what it means, or what it should mean, or how it really is.
Those books also come in the guise of cultural books, or social books, or single issue treaties, and they use the Bible to support or justify their perspective. Walk into any Christian book store and pick up five non-fiction books. Go ahead and just guess what the odds are that four or all five of them are going to be the latter type.
Now, in case you couldn't guess from the previous paragraph, I have issues with the books which amount to essentially nothing but one person's commentary on what the Bible means. LOTS of issues. Painful, glaring, gnarly, nasty issues that begin with squinted eyes and end with me praying that God would bless my heart that I would one day have love for those I currently don't love.
There is a theory that some of these books aren't about people pushing their own perspective--that they actually feel as though the point they are pushing is something they have discovered in the Bible, and they have to tell the world about it! And bless their hearts, I'll bet they really believe that.
Trouble is that the Bible is a very big book, and it says lots and lots of things, and so what one person may have taken to heart because of their life, position, and introspection may not be what calls out to another. And even if it is an eternal and vital principle, taking it out of the Bible--which is filled to the brim with other vital eternal principles--almost always puts too much emphasis on a single aspect to the detriment of whole world-view advocated by the Bible. We become unbalanced in our thinking, and that can lead to toxic views about God and religion.
More to the point--if the aspect you are advocating is found in the Bible, why would you need to write another book on it? Couldn't believers just go to the Bible and read it for themselves?
Not all "Bible commentary" books are bad. Not by a long shot. Nor am I saying that they should be avoided at all costs. But I am saying that anyone looking into such books should be painfully aware that by the nature of a limited book speaking to a specific aspect of the Bible, it is almost automatically out of balance, and that a diet of such books can lead to an out-of-balance understanding of what God wants.
For those who may already be suffering under a toxic view of God and religion, I would advocate a perfect fast of "Bible commentary" for at least a year. Instead indulge in a personal study of the Bible itself, use a journal to jot down what you are thinking while you are reading it, and if you want to, look into the books on the Bible that have facts and information about it. That way you have a little more when you go into it, instead of someone telling you what you should take out of it.
3 comments:
There seems to be a presumption that all God's wisdom is balanced exactly the way He wants it in the Bible. But I am skeptical that God's will is perfectly, completely, and finally expressed in the current Bible. Ideally, we can properly balance our views of the Bible, but I figure being mortals we'll mess it up a little anyway, and hope by the grace of God to get set right again.
I accept the Bible as a set of books of great wisdom, divinely inspired, imperfectly understood and transmitted. I love the idea of going back to the source of the wisdom itself, either in the book form, or if possible, in the form of personal revelation.
But I also figure learning what others believe about the Bible might help me to consider points I had possibly under valued. It certainly helps me understand a little more about human nature. If a little religious commentary causes a problem, I figure exploring more is the most likely path to better enlightenment. The best cure is usually more light. On the contrary, rejecting or shutting out further light is almost always the way to damnation. Now you are absolutely right that light of the Bible itself is purer than almost any other person's commentary. But light from even the dimmest candle is better than cursing the dark. Yah, there bad stuff, but don't give up completely on us mere mortals yet, God isn't finished with us. I look at commentaries as possibly insightful, and possibly in error, and with God's help we can hope to find the right way. I love any branch of learning and commentary that might move us closer to the source of all light.
Isn't a Sunday sermon a sort of Bible commentary? And isn't a Sunday sermon usually beneficial?
Papacito
Being aware of the tendency for commentaries to be out of balance is all that is usually required for the negative issues to be taken care of. However, large and powerful social movements may be too strong to ignore, and so a fast from commentaries might be recommended if the social movement is causing issues. For example--the suffering for God movement was the midwife for a brand of Puritanism that lead to a type of life you won't find me volunteering for, and if it comes round again I won't read those books because they are likely to inflame my perfectionist tendencies.
Now if you don't believe that the Bible is a balanced account of what God wants us to know, I can't change your mind. However, to my perspective--if you buy the idea that it's a sacred book AT ALL, then it's going to be far more in balance than what we are likely to come up with on our own.
And judging from your reaction to my post it apparently sounds more extreme than I feel. I do read commentary books--just far, far fewer, and ones I hope won't be so . . . uh . . . problematic.
Also, it is a question of how one spends their time; comparing the books in question to candles: do they have SOME light? Uh, probably. Hopefully? But twisted truth can be harmful. Whereas (if you trust the Bible) reading it should provide a balanced perspective of what God wants you to know. If you are only going to be reading X amount of religious material a day--I would recommend the majority of it (if not all of it) come from the Bible itself, or from the informational books which enrich your knowledge of the Bible.
Your perspective and mine are in agreement--"possibly insightful, and possibly in error . . ." My personal concern is that too many Christians are reading far too many imbalanced-perspective books, and not enough of the Bible to counter-act the imbalance.
And YES, oh YES, there are preachers who teach nothing but imbalance, and their sermons are just as dangerous as the books. And they're often the author of those books. This is why it's important for Christians to do their best to find a church where the pastor is as balanced as he can be. My ideal would be a pastor who preached from a section of the Bible each week, and allowed the section to determine the content of his talk, and not decide what the talk will be on, and find a few verses to fit it.
The Bible refers to several books and several verses that are currently missing. If we know parts of the Bible are missing it stands to reason it is not yet in its perfect balanced format. But I certainly agree that God's revealed word is more likely to be balanced even in incomplete form than the musings of uninspired mankind.
Papacito
Post a Comment