I enjoy McGrath\u2019s blog and have learned a lot from him. And I\u2019ve been glad to get to know him a bit, digitally anyway, as a colleague on Patheos\u2019 Progressive Channel. <\/em><\/p>\n But I think he overstates his case on this one.\u00a0 I\u2019ve previously suggested<\/a> the \u201cBible as love letter\u201d analogy as one of the options with something positive to contribute to how Christians relate to the Bible.<\/p>\n Yes, the \u201cBible as love letter\u201d analogy can and has been <\/em>misused to distort what we should reasonably and reliably expect the Bible to do for us.<\/p>\n It can imply or underline a dictation theory of inspiration, in which God is presumed to be speaking words for the authors to write (to God\u2019s \u201clovers,\u201d all future readers).<\/p>\n It can blur the boundaries between the historical contexts of the Bible\u2019s origins and our own contexts as contemporary readers.<\/p>\n It can render historical, textual, canonical (etc.) criticism obsolete. Who needs critical study of the Bible when we can just read it\u00a0simply<\/em> as a love letter from God? Who needs academic study when we can simply worship, pray\u2026love?<\/p>\n These responses\u2013call them temptations or tendencies\u2013are all problematic from the standpoint of responsible approaches to an ancient document from contemporary readers.<\/p>\n The basic fact of the matter is that most of the Bible\u2019s material simply doesn\u2019t come close to fitting the \u201clove letter\u201d analogy. Legal material, genealogies and other historical records, accounts of violence and war, creation myths, even moral prescriptions seem to make the analogy a case of special pleading.<\/p>\n All that said, there are good reasons to argue for a limited use of the analogy.<\/p>\n Kierkegaard gave us a good example, in my opinion, of such a limited use. Here\u2019s what he says in For Self-Examination:<\/em><\/p>\n Imagine a lover who has received a letter from his beloved\u2013I assume that God\u2019s Word is just as precious to you as this letter is to the lover. I assume that you read and think you ought to read God\u2019s Word in the same way that the lover reads this letter. Yet you perhaps say, \u201cYes, but Holy Scripture is written in a foreign language\u201d\u2026 (p. 26)<\/p>\n Now think of God\u2019s Word. When you read God\u2019s Word in a scholarly way\u2013we do not disparage scholarship, no, far from it, but do bear this in mind: when you are reading God\u2019s Word in a scholarly way, with a dictionary, etc., then you are not reading God\u2019s Word\u2013remember what the lover said: \u201cThis is not reading the letter from the beloved.\u201d If you happen to be a scholar, then please see to it that in all this learned reading (which is not reading God\u2019s Word) you do not forget to read God\u2019s Word. (pp. 29).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s the relevant section in Emerging Prophet <\/em>where I describe his use of the analogy as a way of moving beyond the two \u201crationalisms\u201d of academic higher criticism (then in it\u2019s infancy period) and doctrinaire fundamentalism:<\/p>\n \u201cScientific scholarship,\u201d was, for Kierkegaard, mainly an excuse to avoid the strenuousness of the New Testament. [1] In a journal entry, Kierkegaard suggests that the New Testament should be read without a commentary. Using the analogy of a love letter, he wonders why anyone would read a love letter using a commentary.[2] The \u201clove letter\u201d metaphor sheds light on Kierkegaard\u2019s distaste for scholarly apparatus and third-party mediation. The Bible is written from God to the single individual, and should be read with that in mind: \u201cEvery commentary detracts. He who can sit with ten open commentaries and read the Holy Scriptures\u2014well, he probably is writing the eleventh, but he deals with the Scriptures contra naturam<\/em>.\u201d [against its nature] [3]<\/p>\n It is important to note that Kierkegaard likely did not object to the use of critical interpretive methodologies as a basic hermeneutical tool, when used for the purpose of greater biblical understanding. But he objected to the elevation of human reason as the ultimate, final arbiter of what the Bible means.[4] Most crucially, he objected to using <\/em>higher criticism as an avoidance, or distraction, tactic from its ethical and religious function. The key, he insisted, was the disposition of the interpreter and the goal of interpretation.[5] Kierkegaard did not object to the application of reason (and imagination) in the interpretation of Scripture, nor did he object to individuals interpreting Scripture and doing theology; he was a Lutheran, after all.[6] His concern was to secure the priority of divine revelation over <\/em>human rationality and to maintain a place for the Holy Spirit in guiding one\u2019s interpretation of Scripture.[7] Kierkegaard would rather see Denmark give all its Bibles back to God[8] than perpetuate a situation in which the Bible is approached as an historical curiosity, an aesthetic masterpiece, or even a doctrinal compendium, rather than for what it really is: the \u201chighway signs\u201d pointing to Christ, the way of truth and life.[9]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, this description and contextualizing may not make the analogy any more palatable to those who object to it as fundamentally misleading or to those who object to its potential and actual misuses.<\/p>\n But I do think there is something here worthy of reflection.<\/p>\n On a personal note, Kierkegaard\u2019s approach to the Bible helped me move beyond the literalism, objectivism, and doctrinalism of evangelical fundamentalism (any number of other \u201cisms\u201d could be tossed in here) into a more dynamic, relational, and contextual view of the Bible. This reflects a pietistic <\/em>(in the historical, church-history sense) approach to Scripture as meant primarily for spiritual transformation and as applicable in that spiritual sense to all readers (not just its first recipients).<\/p>\n I\u2019m currently co-authoring a commentary, so it may seem strange for me to come to the defense of Kierkegaard\u2019s analogy. Aren\u2019t I one of those who are dodging God\u2019s Word <\/em>precisely by writing academic commentary about it?<\/p>\n But it seems to me the main gist of Kierkegaard\u2019s point is that the way we relate to the Bible will evidence what we think of the Bible\u2019s role in the context of our relation to God. The ultimate objective of our reading of the Bible shouldn\u2019t be academic knowledge (information for information\u2019s sake) or doctrinal understanding, but action, <\/em>transformation, <\/em>response. The Bible is important because it derives from God and makes ultimate sense in the context of our relation to God\u2013not the other way around.<\/p>\n For all its limitations (and I admit there are certainly limitations), the analogy might be a good \u201cfirst step\u201d away from a view of the Bible as merely a historical document or as merely as doctrinal or moral handbook into a view of the Bible as instrumental for experiencing the holy and witnessing to the gospel.<\/p>\n Image Source<\/a><\/p>\n For more links and discussions on theology and society, like\/follow Unsystematic Theology on Facebook<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Bible-not-a-love-letter-from-God-1024x576\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/503\/2015\/11\/Bible-not-a-love-letter-from-God-1024x576-e1446479731541.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"Kierkegaard_20090502-DSCF1492\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/503\/2015\/11\/Kierkegaard_20090502-DSCF1492-e1446483983749.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n