“Just let it wash over you.”
June 28
This evening, the leaders of my small group announced that we would be disbanding as a community in favor of informal get-togethers with three or four people for the summer. I’ll not offer my thoughts on the switch - instead, I’m intrigued by the new plan. We’ll be reading through the New Testament over the summer and meeting to discuss it once a week (this breaks down to a very reasonable four chapters each day).
“This isn’t about formal exegesis or study or anything like that,” he said. “Just let it wash over you.”
During the run up to the new plan (prefaced by no fewer than twenty verses, some a bit iffy), he emphasized the importance of truth, meaning, and the authority of scripture - all of which I absolutely affirm. However, I’d suggest that in de-emphasizing formal study and focusing upon a cursory read-through, the very real danger of implying that “the text interprets itself” looms.
Before I began a more focused study of scripture and the historical context in which it was written, previous read-throughs such as this had affirmed problematic theological positions such as the rapture and concomitant destruction of all things (rather than their renewal by a creator who plans to redeem his creation), an over-simplified understanding of “hell” (catch-all vs. multiple interpretive possibilities), and so on. In each case, the text read me, confirming what I already “knew.” By plowing through it, I failed to challenge myself to re-think where I was. In short, I found myself more secure in areas which I now recognize as dangerous.
Each time I stumble upon a new insight, I find myself wishing I could re-read all the rest in light of what I learned.
This will be a good opportunity, and you’re welcome to join. I met a few great people that I can’t wait to get to know better. I’m looking forward to revisit the old in light of the new and expect this won’t be the last time. Odds are decent that I’ll post whatever thoughts escape now and then, too.
I have to chuckle a little though. As some rail against “postmodernity” as a vague “relativism” empowered by the infinite interpretability of a text and an emphasis upon form over content, we’ll be letting it “wash over” us - engaging with the form of the words and narrative at the formal and narratival levels rather than striving endlessly after what we call authorial intent (and revising the author’s intent every few years). I can’t wait.
I’m reminded of a rabbinic saying - “G-d looked at the letters of Torah and thus created the world.” In saying this, the rabbi (I’ve lost the name) suggested that the beauty of the language spoken by the creator orders the cosmos. The words of Torah do not merely explain the world - their perfection continually brings it into being and determines its shape. Perhaps we have discovered something equally pre- and post-modern.
I’ll not miss a jot or tittle.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:23 am
well, i know that i don’t know a thing about a thing, but part of this ‘just let it wash over you’ business doesn’t sound so terrible to me. i know, i know–it leads to bad theology! what about authorship? what about audience? but i think there’s something about just reading, for instance, something jesus said:
“you have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ but i say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” matt. 5:43-44
and yes, letting it wash over you without…i don’t know…turning it into an intellectual exercise? creating an idea that has no consequences in our real lives, maybe? i think there’s some value in allowing yourself to be affected by the word without rushing to analyze it. i’m not saying there’s no time or place for formal exegesis, but…have you ever read the word and just cried? i have. maybe that just illustrates my spiritual and theological immaturity. but it’s hard to be moved (for me, at least) in the middle of rigorous study. and when i say “moved,” i mean both emotionally affected and moved to action.
you already know this, but i’ll say it anyway: there are a lot of christians in the world who just have the plain old bible–no sources for historical context–to rely on. there are a lot of christians who aren’t even literate, so they don’t even have that. i’m not saying we shouldn’t make use of our access to historical context or that it doesn’t not only greatly enhance but allow us to truly understand the author’s intentions and a bunch of other important stuff…it’s just that…based on the little i understand about the character of god, i don’t think he’d let his word be distributed to millions of people without a theological or textual lifeboat if it didn’t, *to an extent*, speak for itself. i mean, isn’t it a little culturally elitist to assume that you can’t truly access the meaning of the holy book unless you have acces to a bunch of secondary sources and the educational background/intellectual abilities to understand them?
i know you know a lot more about all this than i do, and i probably sound really dumb…but i think this is just my knee-jerk reaction to analysis and theology and blahblahblah as a replacement for just doing the d*mn thing.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Scott, I thought of your post here when I read Scot McKnight’s post this morning re. “Eat This Book” by Eugene Peterson:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2569
I’m ordering it… How can I not buy “the best book ever on the Bible”? It will be interesting to see whether Peterson deals with concerns you raise here.
Later,
Earl