Bible,  Nonfiction

Two Ways of Reading

…I believe that most people who read the Bible as Scripture do so in one of two ways: compliantly or conversantly…

Compliant readers are individuals whose basic instinct is to read the Bible trustingly. Those who read this way accept the Bible’s claims, adopt its values, and embrace its assumptions without necessarily giving serious consideration to the implications of their consent. Rather than questioning or challenging the text, compliant readers take what the Bible says — or at least what they think it says — for granted. Their reading is appreciative and accommodating. It is neither confrontational nor contentious. Rather, they embrace the text “as is.”  Therefore, they choose to agree with — and submit to — the Bible’s assessment of things, even when this may be difficult to understand or morally troubling…

Conversant readers, on the other hand, are not constrained in the same kind of way. Rather than simply acquiescing to the text, their fundamental disposition is one of active engagement, sustained conversation, and critical evaluation. Conversant readers are ready to engage the Bible in a genuine dialogue whose outcome is not predetermined by the ideology of the biblical text. While they might agree with the views and values on this or that Old Testament text, they are just as likely to disagree. Conversant readers are discerning readers who accept what they can and resist what they must… Conversant readers do not feel obligated to agree with texts that violate the most basic dictates of human decency, and they are not prepared to remain obsequiously silent…

From The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy, by Eric Seibert.

Obviously this passage raises a question: what kind of readers are we? What kind of readers do we want to be? It’s worth thinking about. I would have said I was a conversant reader of my Bible — but after reading Dr Seibert’s book, I realize that I have missed an awful lot.

I would like to include more excerpts here from books I’m reading. I have numerous passages underlined and highlighted for further reflection, but I don’t always get back to them. I reviewed this book earlier this week, but there is always so much more to a book than can be discussed in a review. My Kindle informs me that I highlighted or bookmarked 76 passages in this book! That’s more than I’ll ever be able to quote here. But I’d like to lift a few of them at least to help round out the very limited perspective my review provided, and to stimulate thought.

2 Comments

  • Barbara H.

    I think I am somewhere inbetween the two. I read it trustingly as the inspired Word of God it claims to be. That doesn’t mean I gloss over the troubling parts, but I trust there is a reason for them even if I don’t know or understand what it is, but I do give thought and attention to them.

    I do have trouble with “readers who accept what they can and resist what they must… Conversant readers do not feel obligated to agree with texts that violate the most basic dictates of human decency” in regard to the Scripture. I suppose it depends a lot on one’s view of exactly what inspiration means, but if one believes that not just the overarching message or moral concepts are divinely inspired, but the very words are, then that doesn’t leave room for picking and choosing what to accept or reject. God doesn’t really have to explain Himself to us, and if He did, we couldn’t comprehend it all. We need to adjust our way of thinking to His, not try to conform His to ours.

    There is also a difference between what is described and proscribed in the Bible. There is a lot of human behavior recorded that does not mean God approves of it, but it is recorded to show the desperateness and depth of human need and sinfulness, as the comment in Judges that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” rather than God’s. One former pastor said that one reason the Bible goes through the failures of the judges, kings, prophets, and priests was to show that even at their best, they fall short, and He is the only One in all of those offices who does not, and therefore the only One we can completely trust in.

  • Janet

    I know what you mean about hesitating at that phrase “resist what they must…” Yet even in the Bible itself we see characters do this. Abraham argues with God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. And Moses argues with God about being too severe in judging the Israelites.

    I think one point worth remembering is that “resisting” the Bible is, in practical terms, resisting our understanding of it. Our interpretations are not infallible.

    I also think that if we believe God wants us to do something immoral (genocide, infanticide, rape, child sacrifice, etc.), he would WANT us to “resist” and say, in effect, “Say again?” (When I read of Jephthah in the Judges, for example, I wish that he had done this!)

    Sure there is a difference between descriptive and prescriptive violence in the Bible. This book really deals at length with the “prescriptive” kind — the places in the Bible where God is recorded to have commanded or approved of some of those immoral acts. They are much harder to deal with than humans behaving badly, and they make me think long and hard about what I believe when it comes to inspiration.