Biblical Confessions
This post should provide plenty of interesting data for those wishing to psychoanalyze my conversion to Catholicism, as I could've written this at probably any point as an Evangelical from age 16 on, if I had had the courage.
Most times, I don't love the Bible.
When I try to read it, which isn't often, I can't seem to relax. It's like my brain has to go into doctrine mode or something, systematizing what I read and matching it to beliefs of mine or others. Then I start analyzing my analyzing...
I read a passage or two and can easily come up with a couple hundred questions. Who's supposed to answer these? Ever since I was introduced to the "Study Bible", I've found its notes and outlines and essays much more interesting. At least it explains concepts, "compares scripture with scripture", establishes historical context, etc.
If I think I understand something, I remember the myriad of times I've heard sermons or read explanations that helpfully contradict (often using other scripture) what seemed so obvious before.
Very little of it appeals to me stylistically. If I want some Jesus, I'm more likely to pick up Benedict, Guardini, Sheed, or even Rice. If I want some OT action, I'd much rather read something like Buechner's Son of Laughter about Jacob.
I can say I do love to hear the Scriptures read in the context of the liturgy. My brain doesn't have time to get bogged down in all that chaotic interpretation. I can relax. Simply listening can be an act of worship.
Some online articles concerning the Bible that I've enjoyed:
Pontficator.
Enloe On the O vs. the A.
Papist.
Bennett the Eisegete.
Most times, I don't love the Bible.
When I try to read it, which isn't often, I can't seem to relax. It's like my brain has to go into doctrine mode or something, systematizing what I read and matching it to beliefs of mine or others. Then I start analyzing my analyzing...
I read a passage or two and can easily come up with a couple hundred questions. Who's supposed to answer these? Ever since I was introduced to the "Study Bible", I've found its notes and outlines and essays much more interesting. At least it explains concepts, "compares scripture with scripture", establishes historical context, etc.
If I think I understand something, I remember the myriad of times I've heard sermons or read explanations that helpfully contradict (often using other scripture) what seemed so obvious before.
Very little of it appeals to me stylistically. If I want some Jesus, I'm more likely to pick up Benedict, Guardini, Sheed, or even Rice. If I want some OT action, I'd much rather read something like Buechner's Son of Laughter about Jacob.
I can say I do love to hear the Scriptures read in the context of the liturgy. My brain doesn't have time to get bogged down in all that chaotic interpretation. I can relax. Simply listening can be an act of worship.
Some online articles concerning the Bible that I've enjoyed:
Pontficator.
Enloe On the O vs. the A.
Papist.
Bennett the Eisegete.
posted by Chad Toney at
4:50 PM
