If we intend to read the Bible through the lens of Christ, as I have suggested me must, then it is imperative that we focus our attention on the central message Jesus proclaimed.
In order to avert the many perils of Biblicism which we have discussed previously, many contemporary biblical thinkers are accepting the centuries-old Anabaptist perspective that all of Scripture must be read through the lens of Christ.
When reading the biblical text, it is helpful to understand how language works. Seen simplistically, language is one-dimensional – what you see is what you get.
It seems that some contemporary Christians make claims to much greater clarity about biblical truth than the writers of the biblical text do themselves.
The presence of ambiguity and multivocality in the Bible, as we have discussed in the previous two essays, forces us to step back from the biblical text to ask some serious questions.
In many circles it is generally accepted that the Bible speaks with one voice. But the fact remains that while the Bible points to some central strands of history, theology and meaning, not all is crystal clear.
A rejection of ambiguity places a demand on the biblical text that it simply cannot deliver. Furthermore, it places personal faith on thin ice.
In this essay I will discuss two ways of reading the Bible, the strengths and weaknesses of each especially when used exclusively, and how they can work together to enliven Bible reading in our contemporary context.
We have reached a tipping point in this series of essays on Rediscovering the Bible. It is time to move on from critique of how the Bible has been read, especially in conservative evangelical churches, to a quest for a better way.
Before we move on to proposing alternatives to Biblicism, we first need to spend some time asking a critical question: Why are Evangelicals not bothered more than they are by the “pervasive interpretive pluralism” in their ranks even though they hold to an “inerrant” biblical text.
