Skip to main content

Blue Parakeet: A Midway Reflection

Why is it that when a cooperation rethinks how they make their product people generally get excited. I mean, case and point, the iPod. Its been rethought, redesigned, and repacked numerous times and those little devices get eaten up like candy. But, just because something gets rethought doesn't necessarily mean the rethinking is better rethinking. For Apple, it generally is... minus the iPod Mini. That's the risk you have to take when you rethink something. Nonetheless most people get excited when something gets rethought, especially when they participate in the rethinking itself.

However I have a premonition that there are people who don't like the title of Scot McKnight's newest publication: The Blue Parakeet - Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I often sense that people get nervous or defensive or downright feisty when they see "rethinking" and "Bible" in the same phrase. Why is that? I guess, from experience, it generally has something to do with our fear of being told something we haven't heard before or being told that what we originally thought was misguided or even wrong, and who wants to believe they've been wrong all these years? I mean, seriously, who is Scot McKnight to tell us that we've been reading the Bible wrongly and that we need to read it differently. After all, I learned to read when I was a small boy, how hard can it be?

Well, after having read midway at this point (p. 112) I have found Scot's book to be very informative and, yes, even formative. But why the title Blue Parakeet? It kind of reminds me of another way of saying "the elephant in the room" but not exactly. The blue parakeet is the bird that escaped someones domesticated cage that doesn't belong in Scot's backyard around the bird feeder. It's in the way and it's annoying because it's scaring off all the other indigenous birds that really belong in his backyard. They are like the passages in the Bible that we know are there, but they are annoying us and scaring off the nicely designed "systems" of interpretation.

He suggests there are three typical ways of reading the Bible.

First, typically of protestants, is the "Read and Retrieve" way. That is, take everything the Bible says and apply it to the 21st century world. He quickly shows how this is inadequate. We cannot take everything from the Bible and apply to our lives, literally. We don't stone homosexuals or adulterers. We don't tithe biblically, we don't tell women to shut up in church.

Second, is the "Reading through Tradition" way. This way is static. It does not let the Bible be what it is. It reads the Bible as if it were only a Catechism. Sure it has those intents in places, but not in all places. The Bible is one big Story. This way is unhelpful because it does not allow time to change nor people to change. It does not allow people to think about the Bible their way in their day.

Third, is the "Reading with Tradition" way. This way is dynamic. It lets the Bible be what it is, it lets the Blue Parakeets annoy us and puzzle us, but it lets us deal with the Bible in a dynamic and fluid way. It lets us deal with the Bible in our day in our way, but not forgetting the other ways in the other days.

Scot's McKnight's thesis' at this point is the Bible is a Story. It is a Story made up of several "wiki-stories", and needs to be read as such. God speaks in every generation in every generation's way. The Story is the overall plan of God as he works in the world as recorded in Scripture. The wiki-stories are the "anecdotal evidences" of God working his overall Story in the daily lives of individuals who were in relationship with Him. The little wiki-stories reflect the Story. The Bible was read in Moses' day in Moses' way, in David's day in David's way, in Isaiah's day in Isaiah's way, in Jesus' day in Jesus' way, in Paul's day in Paul's way. His point is not so much that we read the Bible however we want, but to say that reading the Bible happens in specific contexts and specific times. The Bible is dynamic, not static because God is dynamic and not static.

Instead of reading the Bible for what it is - a Story - most people are trained to read the Bible inadequately through shortcuts. This happens when people read the Bible as: 1)Morsels of Law 2) Morsels of Blessing and Promise 3) Mirrors and Inkblots (seeing what you want to see) 4) Puzzling together the pieces that map God's mind (finding the key to unlock the mystery it all) or 5) Maestros (thinking about the Bible in a specifically Pauline way or specifically Jesus way). The five ways are short-cuts to dealing with the Bible as a whole made of many contextualized events, wiki-stories. One of the greatest contributor to these shortcuts was the "versification" of the Bible. Adding chapters and verses was beneficial so the average guy could find portions of the Bible quickly, but it was unfortunate because people began to read the Bible in bits and pieces and not in wholes. The doctrine of the Rapture, at least to me, is an example of the unhelpful effect of "versifying" the Bible. Pull a verse here, add a verse there, interpret a verse this way, and vwa-lla, the Rapture! That's my thinking, as far as I know not McKnight's.

Where then do we begin with the Bible? We Listen. It is there were we come face to face with the God of creation revealing himself to us today. It there were we see God working in the past which is always a promise of how he will work in the future though he never works in the same ways. The Story must be heard if it is to change you. Our greatest need is to develop in relationship with our God and we do this best when we listen to what God is saying. Our approach then to the Bible is relational. It is simply a misstep to study the Bible to study the Bible. That is not a relationship. All stories are about relationships (either the presence of or the lack there of). When we read the Bible for what it is and throw ourselves into it we begin to throw ourselves into our greatest good - a growing and loving relationship with God - and with our brothers and sisters.

So we listen first to what the God of the Bible is saying through the words of the Bible, but we must also listen to what the people of God who have been in relationship with God in the past are saying about what God was saying in the Bible. The Story of God's word does not stop at 100 A.D. We must also read the Bible with Tradition. The story of God's word is being played out today in our day in our ways. If we are reading the Bible and being motivated to love God and our neighbor, ultimately we are reading it correctly.

That is a summary up through the halfway point of the book. My thoughts are limited to the fact that I really believe his emphasis on the Story/Narrative nature of the Bible is really helpful for believers today though the powers that be in the authoritarian-centered power-hungry institutions and churches will disapprove of this book in the name of "faithfulness to Scripture" and "conservative theology" on grounds that the book plays down the importance of the Bible itself. That's not true, the book just doesn't speak about the Bible in authoritarian / submission language. But after all, most of those are guys are guilty of serious Biblolatry.

One of McKnight's most helpful points is that we develop in relationship with God Himself, not God's words themselves. The Bible poses difficult questions and we need to develop a way of reading the Bible that learns love the God revealed in the words of the Bible. The point is not what we know about the Bible, the point is what we do with what we know about the Bible and when we learn to love the God of the Bible (which we will do when we see the whole picture) we will live out the Bible in our way in our day. Confusing, but, nonetheless true.

Popular posts from this blog

A response to my beloved mother: part 2

READ THIS POST FIRST MY MOTHER : "I'm a registered Conservative, but my vote counted since they endorsed McCain, so I guess it all depends on who the Libertarian's endorse, and even if it were someone difference, at least you would have had a part in voting for the "most" righteous candidate, and McCain was the one even though he's still not the Christian ideal! Remember, Bill Clinton was a "pro-choice" candidate as well as one who furthered the homosexual agenda, so it wasn't surprising to me that 9/11 happened after his term was up and it's not surprising that the economy is faltering so badly now, and it won't surprise me if Obama continues the downward spiral, even if it is into socialistic policies since that's how Europe has gone since they left off looking to God. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing since the majority have been anti-God for so long and their nations have paid for that for centuries (Dark...

I don't have all the answers, but I do have two cents.

My friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist , I greet you joyously knowing the freedom you have found in leaving fundamentalism, however I am saddened by your departure as a whole from our Lord. I indeed understand the hardship which you have faced is cause for questioning God’s existence, faithfulness, and love to his creation. I would like to respond to you because I feel like I understand your socio-religious background. Let me first tell you my goal is not to re-convert you, but rather to give you a second thought from one who grew up in similar roots, whose posture of faith remains bent toward the gospel. I also grew up in ultra-conservative fundamentalism. If names like Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Arlin Horton, etc, mean anything to you than you will understand. I graduated from PCC. OMG. I cannot believe it, but it’s true. What a crazy place. Fear, guilt, shame, legalism were the name of the game! As long as you “caught the spirit” all of life would be good and God would b...

The Intolerance of Presbyterian Creeds

The bind between American political allegiance and Protestant evangelical conservatism is a key which unlocks the door of much early American civil history especially during the antebellum era through the early 20th century. To be conservative and American meant that you must regard a Protestant form of Christianity, namely the revivalistic, moral gospel which declared a morally conservative view of the socio-political system as king. In fact, not to be Protestant and politically conservative was in line with defaming the stars and stripes. Hart describes a situation in the early 20th century where the state of Utah elected and appointed a Mormon Apostle, Reed Smoot, to the U.S. Senate. Smoot underwent serious investigation from a Senate appointed committee to deliberate upon the ability of a Mormon to function in the place of a Senator given his religious views. The conservative Protestant ethos of the age was skeptical of any other religious conviction in its ability to be “American”...