Excerpt from Self-Examination – How to Read the Bible

I have not commented on the Bible in quite a long time. I have been focusing much on doctrine and differences between churches. I want to return to the Scriptures, however, I thought to first post an excerpt from Søren Kierkegaard's edifying discourse Self-Examination. Here, he uses the metaphor of a lover attempting to read a love-letter from his beloved to explain to Christians what it really means to read the Bible. Biblical scholarship has contributed positively to our understanding of the message contained in the Scriptures; however, there is a growing group of scholars who don't study the Bible to understand what God is telling them, but try to disprove it. I find that I too have a tendency to read the Bible as a history book or as a book addressed to people living thousands of years ago rather than read it as a the Word of God addressed to me. I must read the Scriptures to hear what God wants me to do today and then I must go off and do it right away. The excerpt is below. 

Imagine a lover who has received a letter from his beloved – I assume that God’s Word is just as precious to you as this letter is to the lover. I assume that you read and think you ought to read God’s Word in the same way the lover reads this letter.

Yet you perhaps say, “Yes, but Holy Scripture is written in a foreign language.” But it is really only scholars who need to read Holy Scripture in the original language. If, however, you will not have it any other way, if you insist upon reading Scripture in the original language, well, we can still keep the metaphor of the letter from the beloved, except that we will add a little stipulation.

I assume, then, that this letter from the beloved is written in a language that the lover does not understand, and there is no one around who can translate it for him, and perhaps he would not even want any such help lest a stranger be initiated into his secrets. What does he do? He takes a dictionary, begins to spell his way through the letter, looks up every word in order to obtain a translation. Let us assume that, as he sits there busy with his task, an acquaintance comes in. He knows that this letter has come, because he sees it on the table, sees it lying there, and says, “Well, so you are reading a letter from your beloved” – what do you think the other will say? He answers, “Have you gone mad? Do you think this is reading a letter from my beloved! No, my friend, I am sitting here toiling and moiling with a dictionary to get it translated. At times I am ready to explode with impatience; the blood rushes to my head and I would just as soon hurl the dictionary on the floor – and you call that reading – you must be joking! No, thank God, I am soon finished with the translation and then, yes, then, I shall read my beloved’s letter; that is something altogether different. But to whom am I speaking…..stupid fellow, get out of my sight; I would rather not see you – how could you think of insulting my beloved and me by calling this reading a letter from her! And yet, stay, stay – you know very well I am only joking. I would ever so much like to have you stay, but, to be honest, I have no time. There is still something left to translate and I am so impatient to begin reading it – therefore do not be angry, but please go so I can finish.”

So, then, with regard to the letter from his beloved, the lover distinguishes between reading and reading, between reading with a dictionary and reading the letter from his beloved. The blood rushes to his head in his impatience when he sits and grinds away at reading with the dictionary; he becomes furious when his friend dares to call this learned reading a reading of the letter from his beloved. Now he is finished with the translation – now he reads his beloved’s letter. He regarded, if you please, all these scholarly preliminaries as a necessary evil so that he can come to the point – of reading the letter from his beloved.

Let us not discard the metaphor too soon. Let us assume that this letter from the beloved contained not only an  expression of affection, as such letters ordinarily do, but that it contained a wish, something the beloved wished her lover to do. It was, let us assume, much that was required of him, very much; any third party would consider that there was good reason to think better of it, but the lover – he is off at once to fulfill his beloved’s wish. Let us assume that after some time the lovers met and the beloved said, “But, my dear, that was not at all what I asked you to do; you must have misunderstood the word or translated it incorrectly.” Do you think that the lover would now regret rushing off straightway that very second to obey the wish instead of first entertaining some doubts, and then perhaps getting the help of a few additional dictionaries, and then having some more misgivings, and then perhaps getting the word translated correctly and consequently being exempt – do you believe that he regrets the mistake, do you believe that he pleases his beloved less?

…

Now think of God’s Word. When you read God’s Word in a scholarly way – we do no disparage scholarship, no, far from it, but do bear this in mind: when you are reading God’s Word in a scholarly way, with a dictionary etc., then you are not reading God’s Word – remember what the lover said: “This is not reading the letter from the beloved.” If you happen to be a scholar, then please do see to it that in all this learned reading (which is not reading God’s Word) you do not forget to read God’s Word. If you are not a scholar, do not envy him: be glad that you can start reading God’s Word right away! And if there happens to be a wish, a command, an order, then – remember the lover! – then off with you at once to do what it asks. “But”, you perhaps say, “there are so many obscure passages in the Bible, whole books that are practically riddles.” To that I would answer: Before I have anything to do with this objection, it must be made by someone whose life manifests that he has scrupulously complied with all the passages that are easy to understand; is this the case with you? Yet this is how the lover would respond to the letter – if there were obscure passages, but also clearly expressed wishes, he would say, “I must immediately comply with the wish – then I will see about the obscure parts. How could I ever sit down and ponder the obscure passages and not comply with the wish, the wish that I clearly understood.”

Excerpt taken from For Self-Examination, translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong, Princeton 1990

What is God Really Saying?

This has been taken from a Wikipedia article on SpongeBob SquarePants:

In 2005, a promotional video which showed SpongeBob along with other characters from children's shows singing together to promote diversity and tolerance, was attacked by an evangelical group in the United States because they saw the character SpongeBob being used as an advocate for homosexuality. James Dobson of Focus on the Family accused the makers of the video of promoting homosexuality due to a pro-homosexual group sponsoring the video.

The incident led to questions to whether or not SpongeBob is homosexual. Creator of the character, Stephen Hillenburg, had previously denied that SpongeBob was gay in 2002 when SpongeBob's popularity with gay men grew. He clarified that he considers the character to be "almost asexual". After Dobson made the comments, Hillenburg repeated this assertion that sexual preference was never considered during the creation of the show. Tom Kenny and other production members were shocked and surprised that such an issue had arisen.

Dobson later asserted that his comments were taken out of context and that his original complaints were not with SpongeBob, the video, or any of the characters in the video but with the organization that sponsored the video, We Are Family Foundation. Dobson indicated that the We Are Family Foundation posted pro-homosexual material on their website, but later removed it. After the controversy, John H. Thomas, the United Church of Christ's general minister and president, said they would welcome SpongeBob into their ministry. He said "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we".

Did it ever occur to anyone that SpongeBob is just a silly cartoon? Certainly, there is a lot of trash on television, but I can honestly say that SpongeBob is one of the few clean shows available for all people, young and old. I think that this controversy brings up a pretty important issue. Many groups and organizations, it seems, want to find support for their agendas in everything they see or experience. Why?

In my opinion, SpongeBob was barely the issue for any of the different groups mentioned in the passage above. There were three groups with three agendas, and these three groups wanted reasons to bring attention to themselves. Firstly, the Focus on the Family spokesman saw the SpongeBob ad as a way of promoting his organization. I don't doubt that he was worried about the moral statement the advertisement seemed to be making, but he was more interested in bringing attention to himself. He later even said that he wasn't even criticizing the show. He just wanted to find a way to attack the gay community and promote his own organization. The gay community was of course trying to find a way to get its agenda across: acceptance of homosexuality. None of this would have been an issue if the gay community was not trying to find a "gay" character to support its cause. And finally, the UCC minister was trying to advertise his denomination. In 2005, the general synod of the UCC officially recognized gay marriage. Rev. Thomas probably did not care much about the SpongeBob ad, but since the issue arose he used the controversy as a way of promoting his church. 

But why is this important? Often, when we read and interpret the Bible we become guilty of eisegesis, defined by wikipedia as "misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas". The issue in the SpongeBob controversy is not who was right or wrong, but the reason behind the controversy in the first place. Obviously, no one, except the creator of the show, pointed out that SpongeBob was merely a sponge and that promoting homosexuality was not the intention of the maker . There would have been no controversy if the show was seen the way it really was intended to be seen. 

So when we read the Bible we must ask the right question. What was the intention of the Creator? What is God trying to tell us, and not what can we find in the Bible that will support our cause? I sometimes find that I am looking for something in the Bible to support my belief and prove it to others instead of allowing the Bible to speak for itself--- instead of allowing God to speak. Let's open our hearts to what God has to say. You may be surprised at what you hear.