The Bible & Life Change
This may seem simple, but I suppose I have a difficult time living it out.Often I feel like I try to live a sinless life so that my life will have changed. I will be a good person. Little did I realize that I have that notion when I read the bible too.
I suppose it comes from the fact that people say you gotta get to know God. The more time you spend with him the more you’ll become like him. So I figure the more I read the bible the more my life should change.
(Skip the italics if you want a shorter read)
Thus when I read the bible, I am always searching for principles and application that I can bring back to my own life. Generally, that seems to be the way most people that I’ve encountered interpret the bible. It seems like the end goal is to get to the application. Bible studies, you figure out what’s happening, and then you apply it to your own lives. Sermons are chock full of application.
But then being exposed to literature in the secular world, they read books in generally completely differently. They don’t try to take the text out of it’s context. Yet we seem to always try to draw the principle out of the bible that can be applied to our context. Secular literary theorists hate didactic (teaching) type of texts. They don’t read texts like that.
Which made me think, if the bible is made to give out principles the way I’ve been reading it, then why is the bible written in poetic, narrative, prophetic and other genres? Why isn’t everything written like a textbook? I concluded that the reason must be because there is much more than just the principle in the a particlular biblical passage. The context must matter just like it matters in other literature. The bible is for us to experience God not for us to “principlize.”
In an IM conversation with Nick, I recently realized that the purpose of reading the bible is to experience God, not necessarily to change my life. Yes life change is good and God wants that to happen and that is one way you experience God, but that’s not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is just to know him experience him, and remain in him.
Thus it’s not necessary to “principlize” some passages. Some passages can’t be “principlized.” We just need to look at God in those passages and think “wow, God is awesome.”
Powered by FireStats
18 Comments, Comment or Ping
IM4GMG
This Jason guy seems to have rather interesting comments to make in response to some of your deeper posts, Daniel. There are definitely principals to be found in Scripture–the author does not tell the story just for the sake of telling us “a feel-good story” (as too often it seems the Emergent movement would have it). And it contains didactic truth. Yet the ultimate point of Scripture is to reveal a living God that we might stand in awe and worship him–and live like it. We ought to see God and think/feel/believe/know/reflect that he–and he alone–is awesome. Good thoughts, Daniel. Thanks for sharing them.
Apr 27th, 2006
IM4GMG
I would say, though, that the Bible is a unique book because its Author is eternal and wrote it with us in mind as well as those ANE readers. Proper interpretation, then, will involve an acknowledgment of all contexts of the Scripture–including its eternal and present one. Thus, while it is no excuse for poor exegesis, a certain degree of chronological anachronism is appropriate.
Apr 27th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
You are right. Context is everything. Now go read NT Wright, and the rest of the Context group. It will blow your mind away when you understand the context of ANE and First Century Judaism.
Apr 27th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
Context Authors = Malina, Metzger (for the Greek), Witherington, for starters. If you want online stuff, try JP Holding, for one.
In fact, you should read a book by NT Wright called
“The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture.”
I’ve read a bunch of essays this book is based off of, and I am certain you will have a greater understanding of Biblical context. One of the biggest peeves of mine is when people interpret scriptures anachronistically. (Yet I do it myself, too)
Apr 27th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
I don’t disagree with you, but that criteion is too hand-wavy for me to see it as a very useful guideline. We should know the original context because when you do, the Scripture will be brightly illuminated.
The Emergent Church, I’m afraid, is not quite what you are thinking about, though they are kind of “out there” in some respects which I cannot necessarily agree.
Yes, the Bible contains didactic truth, and yes you will probably find ideas of “timeless” truth to be very much desired… but if that is simply the case, then we have problems. Certainly the Bible is not simply about teaching morals…
I like the metanarrative approach, and this is what NT Wright argues for. On one hand, Wright is a monocovenantalist, and I don’t know if I agree with that, but if you read his scholarship, you will be amazed.
Apr 27th, 2006
ECSUPA
you can only apply the contextual type of analysis on historial text eg. the Gospels, historical accounts.
but the contextual type of analysis doesn’t always apply to everything such as the book of Psalms. often times we dont know the context of which the poetry was written, so how can we analyze it contextually? poetry is written out of emotional response to God. i think it can be interpreted with a broader spectrum of analysis.
its kinda like worship music. the purpose of psalms and poetry and music is the express what logic and reason cannot. i feel as if the psalmists want the readers to connect to the poetry through emotion. that is the most powerful way the reader can relate and gain anything from the text.
thats why i love any kind of worship music. songs with lyrical substance or not, the emotional expression to our God is the key.
Apr 27th, 2006
kanfood
I like Nat’s comment! I love how he tied this post with worship!
Apr 27th, 2006
ECSUPA
sorry above was kind of a tangent
so about experiencing God through his Word…
analyzing scripture and doing intensive biblestudies during devotional time is out of place. there is a time and place for biblestudies (sunday school, fellowship etc), and it is necessary in understanding who God is. but my personal devotional time, its more a time of prayer and intimate worship. its like calling your long distance sweetheart every night. you don’t spend that time analyzing every word he or she says and and examining the context in which she said it, what word they use and in which tense form he or she said it in. that time is sacred and personal. its a time to give yourself emotionally to who He is.
but i still do biblestudy at other times. both are necessary of course, but both have different functions and a different place in our walk with God. its kinda like the difference between a sermon and worship time in music. one is more logical and practical, one is more emotional and personal.
i like reading the book of Psalms for devotional time. bustin’ out a guitar and singing to God is cool too, or like…journaling, praying and writing out prayers are good for devotional time.
wow, i have too much time in my Imaging class. ahaaa
Apr 27th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
Uh, you’re totally wrong.
“you can only apply the contextual type of analysis on historial text eg. the Gospels, historical accounts.”
No. That’s untrue. How are you supposed to interpret the Psalms and Proverbs correctly? If you knew and understood the Wisdom genre, then you could see more clearly how the Proverbs apply and how the Psalms apply, for example. In fact, the book of Psalms is very well studied contextually if you look into the research.
“but the contextual type of analysis doesn’t always apply to everything such as the book of Psalms. often times we dont know the context of which the poetry was written, so how can we analyze it contextually? poetry is written out of emotional response to God. i think it can be interpreted with a broader spectrum of analysis.”
Show me that David’s writings were merely emotional poetry. That’s absurd, and I cannot agree with you, especially looking through the Psalms. That’s why you should do some study (perhaps not during your quiet time) on the background of the Psalms and how it utilizes texts of its time. Here’s one example of context that no one can deny: don’t you sometimes look at how the Psalms are written in the CONTEXT of what David was doing? For example, a Psalm written after the incident with Bathsheba? Isn’t that CONTEXT? Are you telling me you just read the Psalms without any contextual meaning whatsoever? That you interpret their idea of “faithfulness” “love” and “mercy” in the way you interpret “love” and “faithfulness” and “mercy?” If you do, then I don’t agree with you and think you should look at what the author was originally talking about. That’s contextual study, sir.
“its kinda like worship music. the purpose of psalms and poetry and music is the express what logic and reason cannot. i feel as if the psalmists want the readers to connect to the poetry through emotion. that is the most powerful way the reader can relate and gain anything from the text.”
No, you’re wrong again, since your basis isn’t correct.
“thats why i love any kind of worship music. songs with lyrical substance or not, the emotional expression to our God is the key.”
You kind of went into a red herring; I never disputed worship music and I have my own opinions about Worship music that aren’t related necessarily to this.
Apr 27th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
“analyzing scripture and doing intensive biblestudies during devotional time is out of place. there is a time and place for biblestudies (sunday school, fellowship etc), and it is necessary in understanding who God is. but my personal devotional time, its more a time of prayer and intimate worship. its like calling your long distance sweetheart every night. you don’t spend that time analyzing every word he or she says and and examining the context in which she said it, what word they use and in which tense form he or she said it in. that time is sacred and personal. its a time to give yourself emotionally to who He is.”
I don’t know if I agree with that compartmentalization. So are you saying that theologians and historians who look at the scriptures with intensive study are not being intimate with God? Are you saying that they’re not experiencing the beauty of the Lord as He illuminates the scriptures to them in new ways? Does our quiet time have to completely be an emotional experience devoid of reason and thinking?
Though as a tangent - I can understand your point of view in that there are necessary times to let the scriptures speak to you; I don’t disagree with that. Sometimes study does exactly that. But understanding God makes my personal times with HIM so much more valued to me.
“but i still do biblestudy at other times. both are necessary of course, but both have different functions and a different place in our walk with God. its kinda like the difference between a sermon and worship time in music. one is more logical and practical, one is more emotional and personal.”
No… I disagree with that. I don’t want to compartmentalize my reason and emotion. I find them going hand-in-hand and working together always. I agree that waiting on Him and studying the scripture both is necessary. I agree that approaching the scripture prayerfully and humbly is good. But I also think both can be done without compartmentalizing your faculties.
“i like reading the book of Psalms for devotional time. bustin’ out a guitar and singing to God is cool too, or like…journaling, praying and writing out prayers are good for devotional time.”
That’s cool. I do that, too.
Apr 27th, 2006
ECSUPA
sorry jason, you misunderstand me.
of course anything can be analyzed contextually. im talking about at the same level of which we can analyze the gospels and epistles. those books are filled with details and historical snippets. especially with the narrative format of the gospels you can analyze the characters, who Jesus is talking to, who the book is written for and what not. but when u read poetry, there is not the same level of detail and description of setting and situation. yes there are characters, but the characters usually consist of “me” “God” and some other unidentified characters. unlike the very specific pharisees, herodians, romans, and others. you can’t analyze poetry in the same way you analyze the relationships between the priests levites and pharisees and how they even had grudges against each other. you just can’t.
of course im not saying u can’t analyze it at all, and im not saying poetry is open game to any and all types of interpretation. you can analyze poetry didactically. you can TRY to poetry contextually, but its hard when ur not sure of the author, the location in which the poet writes it, the exact place in time where he write it or why he writes it. of course you can analyze the psalms in which you do know the context, but surely you dont know the context of every and all 150 psalms. theres a different level of contextual analysis, obviously.
okay about me compartmentalizing emotional and logical…
why can’t i?
haha, its my personal preference. sure you Jason can experience a supernatural and emotional catharsis when you look at the scripture intensively, but what if i can’t? every person is different. every person has their own way of reaching for God. sorry, i had to make that clear.
i dont compartmentalize reason and emotional separately. emotional expression, of course, stands within your ability to think logically. like “God is good.” that is a logical statement that i can think in my head. i can logically think that but that doesn’t mean i emotionally respond to that statement. that’s why i make the distinction.
i agree that they both come hand in hand, thats why we have sermons. thats why we have song lyrics in music. but a logical response to God’s word is inexpressibly more meaningful when emotional response is given.
we sing God is good, we know God is good, and we FEEL that God is good. then we live life like God is good.
Apr 27th, 2006
PWRCHORDS
i’m with ya on that. something cheri (ken’s wife) said to me was that quiet times should be about spending time with God.. not spending time with my Bible.. that advice has rocked my life.
Apr 27th, 2006
ELLOCOPOLLO
God will speak whenever He chooses, with or without the reader knowing the original context (that, really, scholarship does not know). In fact, I would assert that God may choose to speak more powerfully when Nat sings the Psalms, outside their authorial intent, then when I have parsed out all my Niphal Imperfects out of the same text. Why? Cuz, God’s God and will do whatever He pleases.
and yes, 2 eprops to Daniel (and Nat).
Apr 27th, 2006
TWIN_MUSTANG
i do that too.
Apr 28th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
Several points:
Because God will work with you is not an excuse to not learn and illuminate the scriptures. God gave you a mind, and with that mind you are made to reason out your faith. Of course there are things that you can’t ever figure out, and there are times in which you won’t be edified by simply learning. Of course I undersand that.
But it’s not an excuse to not to, simply waving it off and saying “Oh, God will instruct me.” There’s more to it than that.
I’ll only comment on this:
“i agree that they both come hand in hand, thats why we have sermons. thats why we have song lyrics in music. but a logical response to God’s word is inexpressibly more meaningful when emotional response is given.”
Can you back that up with scripture? I’d actually like to see some support on that, that “God’s word is INEXPRESSIBLY more meaningful when emotional response is given.” Which emotional responses? Does that mean that people who aren’t moved emotionally aren’t worshipping God with as much meaning as those who are?
Apr 28th, 2006
SC_Q_JAYCE
“God will speak whenever He chooses, with or without the reader knowing the original context (that, really, scholarship does not know). In fact, I would assert that God may choose to speak more powerfully when Nat sings the Psalms, outside their authorial intent, then when I have parsed out all my Niphal Imperfects out of the same text. Why? Cuz, God’s God and will do whatever He pleases.”
This is irrelevent to what I’m talking about, and only further shows that you’re still arguing a strawman.
Granted, what you say COULD be true. But that doesn’t legitimize the way you use the Bible. You can’t just look at things anacrhonistically and treat God like some kind of gumball machine.
A similar analogy is people who are moved by Benny Hinn. Is it wrong for people to get something truthful and edifying from him? No. Does that legitimize his ministry? No way.
Do you think that someone doesn’t get as much out of a word study of the greek word Dikaiosunh than someone just reading Psalm 77? (I love Psalm 77?) True, when we are down and depressed, we don’t have the means to do ambitious study. In our sadness, pain and trials the echoes of God’s Promise are made more clear when we understand the extent of His Promises. When we are down, we remember all that we learned of Dikaiosunh and we are comforted by His Justice.
My point is this: let’s not be lazy and limit the Bible as just a personal Gumball machine. I can’t help but get this impression from some of the responses here.
Apr 28th, 2006
kanfood
“My point is this: let’s not be lazy and limit the Bible as just a personal Gumball machine. I can’t help but get this impression from some of the responses here.”
I don’t think that the responses from all these people here. Because in reality (as oppose to this xanga world), these friends of mine have demonstrated how serious and passionate they are with God’s words - more so than most of the christians friends I know. I don’t think you need to worry about them, but thanks for your concerns and comment Jason!
Apr 28th, 2006
ECSUPA
yeah
i like the discussion…its really cool =)
im not saying lets just give our emotion response to him, im saying lets give it ALL to him. our response is a holistic response. everything. our actions, our minds, our emotions, and physical beings.
holla.
Apr 29th, 2006
Reply to “The Bible & Life Change”