• Choose a Show
• Brian McLaren
• Think Fwd:

Community interpretation of the Bible helps balance our inherent biases, and we become part of the story of the book, says author Tim Conder in an interview for ThinkFWD with host Spencer Burke. Tim’s book, Free for All, posits that reading the Bible with community interpretation is dangerous . . . in a good way!

There are three communities involved in reading and interpreting the Bible: the text itself; the historical church—the cloud of witnesses; and practicing communities of today.

Sometimes, says Tim, the Bible is held captive (often by the people who love it the most). In fact, scripture has been used powerfully throughout history as a way to exclude people or groups. But when communities interpret the Bible, it can liberate the Bible. What does this mean? Do we need to fear that liberation will turn to chaos?

Tim suggests that the Bible is never read objectively and that there is always some interpretation, because we are humans reading and interpreting it. To some degree, we all have the tendency to say, “Read it my way;” “Interpret it my way.” So by interpreting in community in the context of the Spirit, our individual biases are countered. When we are living in a community with many differences, the very presence of community prevents our differences from becoming the agenda, keeps us from acts of violence against others, and allows us to be open to God’s voice.

Personal Reflections

What does it mean to you to liberate the scriptures from outside forces, e.g. letting God’s voice or Spirit speak?

Do you agree that reading the Bible is a dangerous event if you engage the Community in its interpretation?

Small Group Study

As a community, how can we host the sacred text while engaging it ethically and with hospitality?

How can we move beyond a reactive posture to an informed posture using the historical practice of dialogue in community?

Resources

Tim’s book site

One Response to “Tim Conder – Making the Bible Dangerous Again”

1. Joe Baker Says:
   June 15th, 2010 at 7:33 am

   What Tim’s suggesting here is hugely positive, but it does have significant risks. Many, if not most, interpretive and interpreting communities share a degree of homogeneity – that’s one of the factors that make them work as communities. In such groups it is very easy for the group to travel a long way down a particular interpretive path, especially if there are a few charismatic characters within the community pushing the community down that path.

   The 16th Century Anabaptists discovered this to their horror in the tragedy of Münster – an interpretive community that were too easily guided by a charismatic leader into a millenarian position that brought about violence within and violence without, and its eventual destruction under siege.

   Community interpretation is not enough, and, whilst potentially mystically beautiful, is also potentially very damaging.

   The Anabaptists recovered from the disaster of Münster to adopt a four-dimensioned hermeneutic approach: 1) high regard for the Bible (as with mainstream Protestantism); 2) community interpretation (as with early Anabaptism); 3) by those full of the Spirit of God (as with Münster-era Radical Reformation groups); and 4) in harmony with the character and person of Jesus (in post-Münster chastened Anabaptism, under the guidance of Menno Simons and others).

   This is more akin to the community hermeneutics of Stanley Hauerwas, in our era, drawing on but extending beyond the approaches of Stanley Fish or Alasdair MacIntyre.

   The Bible is dangerous because Jesus is dangerous, and people who take his life, as well as his death, seriously themselves become dangerous people. The role of the Church as interpretive community is to create safe place in which dangerous things can happen.

Leave a Reply