This post should provide plenty of interesting data for those wishing to psychoanalyze my conversion to Catholicism, as I could’ve written this at probably any point as an Evangelical from age 16 on, if I had had the courage.
Most times, I don’t love the Bible.
When I try to read it, which isn’t often, I can’t seem to relax. It’s like my brain has to go into doctrine mode or something, systematizing what I read and matching it to beliefs of mine or others. Then I start analyzing my analyzing…
I read a passage or two and can easily come up with a couple hundred questions. Who’s supposed to answer these? Ever since I was introduced to the “Study Bible”, I’ve found its notes and outlines and essays much more interesting. At least it explains concepts, “compares scripture with scripture”, establishes historical context, etc.
If I think I understand something, I remember the myriad of times I’ve heard sermons or read explanations that helpfully contradict (often using other scripture) what seemed so obvious before.
Very little of it appeals to me stylistically. If I want some Jesus, I’m more likely to pick up Benedict, Guardini, Sheed, or even Rice. If I want some OT action, I’d much rather read something like Buechner’s Son of Laughter about Jacob.
I can say I do love to hear the Scriptures read in the context of the liturgy. My brain doesn’t have time to get bogged down in all that chaotic interpretation. I can relax. Simply listening can be an act of worship.
Some online articles concerning the Bible that I’ve enjoyed:
Pontficator.
Enloe On the O vs. the A.
Papist.
Our Own David Bennett the Eisegete.
cross-posted at cine
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
March 12, 2008 at 1:00 am
Chad,
I’ll post what I posted at your personal blog and add a few thoughts.
Hmm, What would Freud say?? Tsk, Tsk…a Catholic who would rather read Anne Rice than the Bible…Jack Chick couldn’t make up something better (you may make it into his next tract…be warned)!
Joking aside, I think what you experience, more or less, is what many of us have gone through. Today I am not too freaked out by it, because I understand the Bible as a book of the Church, interpreted by the Church.
But nonetheless, I think a big reason evangelicals take an interest in the Fathers and the Catholic Church is because evangelicals can’t just give up on Scripture, but have no choice but to give up on some “plain meaning” of Scripture that is so obvious everybody will just figure it out from reading it. By this I mean that there comes a point in time when you realize that there are hundreds of folks arguing all over the net, all telling you “Scripture clearly says…” Initially you may think, “well, they just read it wrong,” but soon you wonder, “why am I somehow different from the rest? I wrote something about a few years ago that expresses it better than my comment here: It’s the Authority Stupid.
BTW, join me in coming out as an eisegete. National coming out (as an eisegete) day is tomorrow.
March 12, 2008 at 1:19 am
Hey Chad,
Excellent post and very honest. You capture perhaps without realizing it two fundamental issues which are interrelated.
First, scripture is open to all kinds of interpretation, and not just the kinds you are referring to. The Evangelical mind approaches scripture with an anxiety in large part because it really is a doctrinal minefield. It is open to all kinds of hermeneutics, methods, biases, pre-determined doctrines etc. all of which the reader brings to the text. And, the more one is knowledgeable (which is a good thing) the more lines of thought/reasoning are triggered in the reading.
Second, Catholics, unless they are academics, generally do not read scripture this way. And even a Catholic theologian has to learn to turn this very superficial, analytical mind off in order to gain anything spiritual/personal from the text. This is not the same thing as a “plain reading” of the text but is a wholely different attitute toward the text and what is to be gained. While Protestant often have learned to use the Bible as a weapon for argument, Catholics understand it first as a sacred text both liturgically and personally. I wish I was where you are so I could give you a couple of sessions on Lectio Divina, which is a method for praying over a passage, savoring it, “letting it come to you” as it were rather than you to it. Yes, that sounds kinda kooky, I know, but Catholicism can be explained as centuries of spiritual movements each with its own methods of prayer and meditation. L. D. is a basic method and comes from St. Benedict, but there are others: Augustinian, Franciscan, Ignatian, French School, Carmelite–you name it.
Anyway, I just say this so you know that you problem with reading scripture is as old as the Church Fathers and that as a Catholic you dont have to be trapped in your Evangelical mind when you read scripture.
I dont know if you are an eisegete, but if you are, we all probably are. Still, the first purpose of scripture has never been to erect grand theological schemes, but rather to edify ones spirit and to draw one into a relationship with the Lord.
March 12, 2008 at 1:31 am
Odd thing. Anne Rice helped me come to terms emotionally with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Sometimes fiction can convince me of something a few thousand apologetic books cannot.
I once heard a reformed fellow say that Flannery O’Connor’s short story Parker’s Back about a byzantine Christ tattoo convinced him to drop the iconoclasm.
March 12, 2008 at 2:29 am
–I wish I was where you are so I could give you a couple of sessions on Lectio Divina, which is a method for praying over a passage, savoring it, “letting it come to you” as it were rather than you to it.–
As a matter of fact, I posted something about Lectio Divina on this blog. I think it may be found by clicking on my profile.
March 12, 2008 at 2:33 am
Don’t try to trick me into reading the Bible by giving Quiet Time a Latin name!
;)
March 12, 2008 at 3:05 am
LOL Chad, you’re cracking me up, man.
I’m gonna get that evangelical out of you, yet, dude.
Flannery is my personal muse. I just re-read Parker’s Back. It’s an old favorite. Simply stunning. Anybody else a fan?
March 12, 2008 at 3:16 am
I’ve read Wise Blood, about 4 short stories, and about 1/8 of her letters. So I guess I’m a beginner fan.
March 12, 2008 at 5:14 am
I am strickly a short stories fan. Read her novels a long time ago and they did nothing for me. Fav shorts: Revelation, Everything That Rises Must Converge, A Good Man is Hard to Find, The Displaced Person.
Opening of Parker’s Back:
“Parker’s wife was sitting on the front porch floor snapping beans. Parker was sitting on the step, some distance away, watching her sullenly. She was plain, plain. The skin on her face was thin and drawn as tight as the skin on an onion, and her eyes were gray and sharp like the points of two ice picks.”
Flannery is so cool, efficient, vivid and grim. She slays me.
March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Chad:
Which “study Bible” do you use?
Pax,
Ruth
March 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The first Study Bibles I was exposed to were Ryrie’s and the NIV. I still have them and refer to them at times. Lately, most of my scripture reading has been from a simple RSV-CE without any notes or from the Liturgy of the Hours.
I do like my Orthodox Study Bible (NT and Psalms), but lately if I want more background on a passage, I look online. Phatcatholic’s blog has a great list of online resources in his sidebar under “Scripture Study” http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/
March 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Good. I was afraid you were using the dreaded “Catholic Study Bible” from the NAB translation. Ooooh, shudder.
March 12, 2008 at 4:39 pm
If y’all are interested, my good friend Nathan commented on this on the cross-posted version at Ye Olde Personal Blogge. He helped me clarify some of my ideas:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ronrule/3436569151973729996/
March 17, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“While Protestant often have learned to use the Bible as a weapon”
Perhaps it is because the Bible refers to itself as a two - edged sword?