On not reading the bible

For professional purposes, I am required to read the bible. I have a sermon to preach this Sunday, a bible study to teach next week, and I'm already looking ahead to what I'll preach during Holy Week and teach this summer. For this and other reasons I read the bible regularly.

But to be candid, I could read the bible much less than I do, and this for two reasons: first because I often read works of theology that often quote Scripture, so I come across biblical references "sideways," as it were; and second, because the memory and echo of the Scripture I have already read and heard in my lifetime is enough at this point to resonate all kinds of other biblical passages in the moment of reading a new or specific one.

All of which is to admit that, if I wanted to, I could fake it.

It's worth asking, should I? Could I?

Recently, a friend wrote and reminded me that Gary Dorrien, in his three volume history, The Making of Liberal Theology," (a great trilogy, which I reviewed for Word & World a few years back) makes the case for an authentic expression of Christian faith that doesn't rely on external authority--the Bible." Although I wouldn't state Dorrien's thesis in such stark terms (his summary of modern liberal theology is more nuanced and subtle than this), the starkness of my friend's statement made me wonder: Is that possible? Can there be Christian faith without the external authority of Scripture?

What would that look like in practice?

My friend went on to say, "[The idea] didn't sit well with me when I first heard it...increasingly though I'm finding incredible appeal. Working with students who have no biblical foundation is tough when trying to get them to become biblicists. However its easy to talk about God using their own stories, then re-telling ancient ones."

In truth, far fewer people read the bible than claim to, and it is incredibly common for active Christians to not spend time reading the bible on their own at all. I have a feeling that in point of fact, on a functional level, much of Christianity already relies on something other than external authority, because people just don't read the bible that much. The bible has authority among us more in theory than practice. Do you agree?

I'd be curious to hear responses from readers of this blog. How often do you read the bible, honestly? How much time is this, altogether, in comparison to the other reading you do?

[For full disclosure, here's what I read this week... I read 2 Corinthians in total for devotional reasons... I read the lectionary texts in preparation to preach... I read Scripture for about four of the daily offices I have prayed this week... and tonight because I was looking at the Common English Bible and reviewing it as a translation, I was reading some of the psalms, especially Psalm 119. I don't know whether this counts as a lot or a little in comparison to other clergy or Christians].

However, as I've mentioned already, it isn't completely clear to me what counts as bible reading and what doesn't, and how the reading of Scripture is or ought to be situated within the larger orbit of our reading practices. To offer just one example, I honestly believe that my own understanding of (and standing under) the authority of Scripture arises out of my practice not of reading the scriptures directly, but indirectly as it were through great works of theology. 

Furthermore, although most of the fiction I read does not quote Scripture directly, there is something about the practice of reading fiction that enlivens the mind and inspires the heart and prepares it to read the bible better. Much the same can be said for lots of other reading, including history, social criticism, and so on. 

Then recently I happened upon this brief passage in Marilynne Robinson's new collection of essays, When I Was a Child I Read Books: Essays: "For years I have been interested in ancient literature and religion. If they are not one and the same, certainly neither is imaginable without the other" (11). If ancient literature and religion are one and the same--and I am inclined to agree with Robinson on this point--then precisely how we delineate when we are "reading the bible" becomes a more complicated procedure. 

Let me offer an example. Other than the bible, what other ancient text (I'll define this in arbitrary fashion as being at least 1500 years old) of any type did you read this past week? Plato? Herodotus? Cicero? Gilgamesh? If you did, to what degree was this kind of reading "religious"? 

If you have not read any other ancient texts this week other than Scripture, has it occurred to you recently how odd this whole reading an ancient text gig is in the grand scheme of your reading and media practices?

There is a subtle and profound way in which reading the Bible (especially reading the bible in particular ways) IS Christian faith, full stop.

Or we can take Robinson's slightly less assertive position, that if they are not one and the same, certainly neither is imaginable without the other. Even my friend, who wants to put into practice Dorrien's insight, plans to talk about God by telling the communities own stories, and then re-telling ancient ones.

What I am trying to say, I think, is that often when we think we are not reading the bible, we actually are, and sometimes when we think we are reading the bible, we aren't. In fact, often precisely when readers of the bible are over confident in assuming that they get or know the bible well, and know precisely how it can be applied in given situations (biblicism) they are more distant from faithful reading of Scripture than other people who simply don't read the bible at all.

All of this, offered simply to try and complicate a bit what we all think we are doing when we are or are not reading the bible.