I'm not at all familiar with Rohr or his work and I am fairly certain that these paragraphs are not intended to be stand alone statements. I am quite certain that Mr. Rohr would argue that presenting these two paragraphs is an unfairly limited presentation of his point-of-view (and I would agree with him) so my sentiments are more of a response to the statements above and not to Rohr's actual beliefs.
- What do you think of Rohr’s overall point? How would you respond to the two bolded sentences?
Initially Rohr claims that Jesus consistently ignored certain parts of scripture. This could be true, however this statement makes incredibly inaccurate assumption about our knowledge of Jesus' teachings. A (potentially) accurate way to state this is that the gospel authors present Jesus as ignoring certain parts of scripture. It is important to remember that we do not have all of Jesus' statements or teachings. Instead what we have are carefully crafted narratives that are not intended as historical documentaries but are making distinctive claims about the life of Jesus. That means the authors may well have left out much of Jesus' teachings that were not pertinent to their objective. (I Recommend How God Became King by NT Wright).
For one thing the author, rather than taking an objective stance and drawing deductions from facts, has already assumed that it is "pretend" to read scripture as inspired and equally important. Additionally there is a false equivalency made between inspiration and importance though no internal . That is to say a Christian may well believe that all scripture is equally inspired and yet believe that not all is equally important.
- Are there parts of the Bible that are less important?
It is difficult to imagine that anyone would claim that "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13), however valuable, is as important as, "From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mt. 26:64; Jesus referencing Dan. 7). In addition Jesus himself does not claim all of scripture as equally important. Of the 613 laws of the Torah he identifies two as the greatest. It would be illogical, however, to conclude from that statement that Jesus does not consider all of the Torah to be inspired.
- How do you think Jesus read and talked about Scripture?
One of the clearest references to Jesus' understanding of scripture is in Luke 24. On the road Jesus begins explaining "...what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Jesus references Moses, the Prophets and Psalms, a common way of referring to the TaNaK, i.e. Jewish Bible). It seems as though Jesus finds all of (Hebrew) scripture valuable and specifically (though not necessarily exclusively) in the way they point to Him.
This of course does not have any bearing on the NT writings as those came well after Jesus, however as a side note the author of 2 Peter (2 Peter 3:16) is of the opinion that at least some of Paul's letters are on the same level as the other scriptures.
- What else do Rohr’s words bring up for you?
First and foremost Rohr's words are a caution about drawing conclusions first... As we learned from Sherlock "Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
In addition the importance of applying logic as, at least the two paragraphs presented, are dependent on illogical arguments, i.e. that we know Jesus ignored or denied Hebrew texts when likely the large majority of his teachings are unavailable to us or making a claim that the reason Jesus was seen as teaching with authority is because he saw the Hebrew bible as unequally important and unequally inspired... it is possible that this could be true, but there is nothing in the Mt. 7 passage that makes this claim. Indeed it actually gives the opposite impression, the people are amazed and the reason Matthew gives is simply that Jesus teaches with authority, not that He is making any bold or unusual teachings. (Almost certainly his teachings are unusual for the time, but here Matthew makes no claim to that). So Rohr is making a bold leap with no textual evidence cited.
This is, without a doubt, a very incomplete critique. (we could for example discuss that Jesus himself, while he may ignore Hebrew texts that are exclusive, remains quite exclusive in his own teachings).
I am quite certain that Mr. Rohr would argue that presenting these two paragraphs is an unfairly limited presentation of his point-of-view (and I would agree with him) so my sentiments are more of a response to the statements above and not to Rohr's actual beliefs.
Hey Josh. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a lengthy response.
As far as I can tell from reading several of Rohr's books, (especially "What Do We Do With The Bible?") the paragraphs I quoted are a pretty fair sample of his views on the subject. If I remember correctly, he says something almost exactly the same in WDWDWTB. (Note: That title really doesn't acronym-ize well, but there it is.)
I think you made a good point reminding us that the gospels are a selection of Jesus' teachings, not an exhaustive account. So our understanding of his teachings has to be in dialogue with the aims of the authors of the gospels.
I also think you made a good point about how Paul wanting his cloak is probably not as important as Jesus announcing himself as the Son of Man from Daniel 7. However, I think what Rohr is getting at when he says, "When Christians pretend that every line in the Bible is of equal importance and inspiration, they are being very unlike Jesus" is something that reaches even farther than what we might think of as "normal judgment" when assigning importance to various passages (cloak vs. Son of Man).
Rohr is talking about picking and choosing what is a valuable part of Scripture based on an intuitive sense of which passages "create a path for God" and which can be de-emphasized or excluded altogether. The onus is on the reader to make that judgment based on his or her own response to the text. I wonder if that is really the best way to describe the way Jesus interacted with the Scriptures?
Very interesting! Rohr seems big for folks in my age bracket and has seemed appealing to a number of my former classmates (from a conservative Christian college).
My first thought after reading that excerpt was how protestant Rohr sounds. The approach feels very much like: "Let's take scripture on its own and take a look at what Jesus says and then make some very bold conclusions about the entirety of Holy Scripture as a result of our own personal analysis."
This is one of the dangers (in my slowly forming opinion) of studying Scripture apart from a recognition of its purpose as a liturgical book that's best understood/learned through the liturgical life/services of the Church. Not saying that we should do away with private/devotional reading at all. Just seems pretty clear (from the Bible—lol) that Scripture is not meant to be understood through "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1). In the same way that Jesus explained the Scriptures to his disciples, the Church continues to explain them.
Grace, have you ever come across Timothy Ward's book Words of Life? I have read no better book on the Bible and it has helped me immensely with these questions, particularly the relationship of church and Scripture. It's a very catholic, Protestant book.
Anyway, there is a section at the end on Scripture and the individual Christian where the author posits "the individual reading of Scripture as derivative of, and dependent on, the corporate reading and proclamation of Scripture in the Christian assembly." The church is "the crucial means" by which the "historic consensus on Scripture's meaning is conveyed to individual believers." Is this a perspective you've encountered much in your Protestant experience?
Ohhhh I haven't read that but that bit you quoted seems spot on to me! Just put the book on my reading list. Thank you!
I'll be interested to see which church(es) he thinks are proclaiming that "historic consensus" and how we'd know if one was not. That's the bit that keeps tripping me up about protestantism (and Catholicism, to be honest). So much variation (or "development") in liturgical practice and core beliefs. Makes that "historic consensus" feel a bit squishy.
That said, I haven't personally encountered that "individual reading as derivative of/dependent on corporate reading" sentiment often, although I have had a few conversations along those lines with some Protestant friends. Oddly, I can't remember anyone ever mentioning the importance (never mind the centrality) of participation in a local church at my Christian college...even in doctrine/Bible classes. That could just be my bad memory, though :).
Thanks for sharing. That's very interesting that you see Rohr as being very protestant. I suppose I can see that from your statement, however as a protestant I wouldn't think he falls into that category. He seems rather to be making assumptions and claims about the meaning of scripture without any real basis. that, in my opinion does not fit a protestant (or Christian) way of interpreting scripture.
Also can you explain further the reference to 2 Peter 1 discouraging private interpretation?
i find this really interesting especially in light of passages in the Hebrew Bible such as Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 that encourage people to meditate (hebrew 'haga' - a personal thing from my understanding) on scripture consistently.
Hi, Josh! Right back at you! Good question(s). I'm reflecting on what made that thought come to mind while reading. I think it was the sense I had that Rohr is relying primarily on scriptural text + personal reasoning to come to his conclusions. I see that same impulse/framework in my own protestant circles. (Full disclosure: I'm also a protestant...for now! Although very interested in the Orthodox Church.)
I think we agree that searching and meditating on the Scriptures is a good thing. Where I start to feel a bit unsure is in *how* that meditating/searching is approached. Am I expecting to be able to read/understand on my own apart from the handed-down teachings of the church over the ages? Am I in a position to better understand the Holy Scriptures than the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? I think that gets at the underlying question I'm wrestling with.
When I mentioned 2 Peter 1, I wasn't intending to disparage personal reflection on Scripture at all. I was thinking about that passage in reference to Peter's warning about false teachers/doctrine and connecting that with the idea that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..." It does seem (to me) that divorcing Scripture from the Church is a step toward becoming more susceptible to false teaching.
I think my overall thought process boils down to: when Church and Scripture are separated, there's trouble. Haha.
I understand why Rohr would make this argument and how he would get there, but I think this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of what scripture actually is. Last year, I read //Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch// by John Webster and it completely revolutionized the way I understand what Scripture is and what we mean when we say it is “Holy.” Webster asserts that Scripture is God’s self-revelation to His people (not the full self-revelation that happens in the Incarnation, but the purpose of God’s Word is to reveal Himself to us. If we make the claim that Scripture is Holy, we mean that every part of it contributes to that revelation. Every word, every contradiction (because there are some, as much as we want to believe there aren’t), every difficult passage, ALL of it is meant to reveal the Person of God to us. We are meant to grapple with the difficult passages and the contradictions because in doing so we are drawn closer to the very heart of God. So no, we can’t ignore parts of scripture. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, bears ALL of the seeming contradictions/paradoxes/difficulties in Himself, redeeming and redefining them.
I’m probably not even close to doing Webster’s work justice, so the best I can say is, read his book on Holy Scripture. All of Scripture matters. All of it is important. All of it is God’s self-revelation to us.
Such a good book. Your comment reminds of the bit where Webster describes the primary relationship of the church to the Bible as a relationship *hearing* – one in which scripture “is as much a de-stabilising factor” as it is an element of “cohesion and unity”. This is quite different from Rohr's relationship to the text!
I don't recall anything in this particular book about the issue of contradictions or Christ's "redeeming and redefining them." Is it possible you're thinking of a different book?
It's possible I'm remembering our discussion of the book rather than the contents. I read this in a Biblical Theology class in seminary, and my professor (who is our resident canon theologian and got his PhD from St. Andrews) worked with Webster a bit before he died, so it's definitely possible that I'm remembering his lecture rather than Webster's actual text!
"Jesus had a deeper and wider eye that knew which passages were creating a path for God and which passages were merely cultural, self-serving, and legalistic additions."
That is quite a statement. I'd be interested to see hear how he justifies that claim that portions of the Bible were merely "self-serving and legalist additions", much less that he knows which ones Jesus would say were not "God-breathed"
Here is a summary of the analogy. A tricycle has three wheels, so also we should read the Bible with three factors in mind: tradition, the text, and our experience. Tradition is the way the church has understood various passages. The text is, of course, the words of the passage. Experience is the reactions the text provokes in us and the ways in which it interacts with what we know to be true.
It is a tricycle because, of the three wheels of text, tradition, and experience, the Experience Wheel is at the front and steers the others. In my reading of Rohr, it often seems like he leans heavily into the Experience Wheel, even to the point of disregarding the context or (seeming) plain readings of the text if they go against his intuitions.
With that framework in place, it is a small step to imagine that Jesus had the same approach to the Scriptures. He read them, in Rohr's view, with a "deeper and wider eye" (the Experience Wheel) that could discern between what was good and bad in the Scriptures.
I'm not at all familiar with Rohr or his work and I am fairly certain that these paragraphs are not intended to be stand alone statements. I am quite certain that Mr. Rohr would argue that presenting these two paragraphs is an unfairly limited presentation of his point-of-view (and I would agree with him) so my sentiments are more of a response to the statements above and not to Rohr's actual beliefs.
- What do you think of Rohr’s overall point? How would you respond to the two bolded sentences?
Initially Rohr claims that Jesus consistently ignored certain parts of scripture. This could be true, however this statement makes incredibly inaccurate assumption about our knowledge of Jesus' teachings. A (potentially) accurate way to state this is that the gospel authors present Jesus as ignoring certain parts of scripture. It is important to remember that we do not have all of Jesus' statements or teachings. Instead what we have are carefully crafted narratives that are not intended as historical documentaries but are making distinctive claims about the life of Jesus. That means the authors may well have left out much of Jesus' teachings that were not pertinent to their objective. (I Recommend How God Became King by NT Wright).
For one thing the author, rather than taking an objective stance and drawing deductions from facts, has already assumed that it is "pretend" to read scripture as inspired and equally important. Additionally there is a false equivalency made between inspiration and importance though no internal . That is to say a Christian may well believe that all scripture is equally inspired and yet believe that not all is equally important.
- Are there parts of the Bible that are less important?
It is difficult to imagine that anyone would claim that "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13), however valuable, is as important as, "From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mt. 26:64; Jesus referencing Dan. 7). In addition Jesus himself does not claim all of scripture as equally important. Of the 613 laws of the Torah he identifies two as the greatest. It would be illogical, however, to conclude from that statement that Jesus does not consider all of the Torah to be inspired.
- How do you think Jesus read and talked about Scripture?
One of the clearest references to Jesus' understanding of scripture is in Luke 24. On the road Jesus begins explaining "...what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Jesus references Moses, the Prophets and Psalms, a common way of referring to the TaNaK, i.e. Jewish Bible). It seems as though Jesus finds all of (Hebrew) scripture valuable and specifically (though not necessarily exclusively) in the way they point to Him.
This of course does not have any bearing on the NT writings as those came well after Jesus, however as a side note the author of 2 Peter (2 Peter 3:16) is of the opinion that at least some of Paul's letters are on the same level as the other scriptures.
- What else do Rohr’s words bring up for you?
First and foremost Rohr's words are a caution about drawing conclusions first... As we learned from Sherlock "Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
In addition the importance of applying logic as, at least the two paragraphs presented, are dependent on illogical arguments, i.e. that we know Jesus ignored or denied Hebrew texts when likely the large majority of his teachings are unavailable to us or making a claim that the reason Jesus was seen as teaching with authority is because he saw the Hebrew bible as unequally important and unequally inspired... it is possible that this could be true, but there is nothing in the Mt. 7 passage that makes this claim. Indeed it actually gives the opposite impression, the people are amazed and the reason Matthew gives is simply that Jesus teaches with authority, not that He is making any bold or unusual teachings. (Almost certainly his teachings are unusual for the time, but here Matthew makes no claim to that). So Rohr is making a bold leap with no textual evidence cited.
This is, without a doubt, a very incomplete critique. (we could for example discuss that Jesus himself, while he may ignore Hebrew texts that are exclusive, remains quite exclusive in his own teachings).
I am quite certain that Mr. Rohr would argue that presenting these two paragraphs is an unfairly limited presentation of his point-of-view (and I would agree with him) so my sentiments are more of a response to the statements above and not to Rohr's actual beliefs.
Hey Josh. Thanks for taking the time to write out such a lengthy response.
As far as I can tell from reading several of Rohr's books, (especially "What Do We Do With The Bible?") the paragraphs I quoted are a pretty fair sample of his views on the subject. If I remember correctly, he says something almost exactly the same in WDWDWTB. (Note: That title really doesn't acronym-ize well, but there it is.)
I think you made a good point reminding us that the gospels are a selection of Jesus' teachings, not an exhaustive account. So our understanding of his teachings has to be in dialogue with the aims of the authors of the gospels.
I also think you made a good point about how Paul wanting his cloak is probably not as important as Jesus announcing himself as the Son of Man from Daniel 7. However, I think what Rohr is getting at when he says, "When Christians pretend that every line in the Bible is of equal importance and inspiration, they are being very unlike Jesus" is something that reaches even farther than what we might think of as "normal judgment" when assigning importance to various passages (cloak vs. Son of Man).
Rohr is talking about picking and choosing what is a valuable part of Scripture based on an intuitive sense of which passages "create a path for God" and which can be de-emphasized or excluded altogether. The onus is on the reader to make that judgment based on his or her own response to the text. I wonder if that is really the best way to describe the way Jesus interacted with the Scriptures?
Very interesting! Rohr seems big for folks in my age bracket and has seemed appealing to a number of my former classmates (from a conservative Christian college).
My first thought after reading that excerpt was how protestant Rohr sounds. The approach feels very much like: "Let's take scripture on its own and take a look at what Jesus says and then make some very bold conclusions about the entirety of Holy Scripture as a result of our own personal analysis."
This is one of the dangers (in my slowly forming opinion) of studying Scripture apart from a recognition of its purpose as a liturgical book that's best understood/learned through the liturgical life/services of the Church. Not saying that we should do away with private/devotional reading at all. Just seems pretty clear (from the Bible—lol) that Scripture is not meant to be understood through "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1). In the same way that Jesus explained the Scriptures to his disciples, the Church continues to explain them.
Grace, have you ever come across Timothy Ward's book Words of Life? I have read no better book on the Bible and it has helped me immensely with these questions, particularly the relationship of church and Scripture. It's a very catholic, Protestant book.
Anyway, there is a section at the end on Scripture and the individual Christian where the author posits "the individual reading of Scripture as derivative of, and dependent on, the corporate reading and proclamation of Scripture in the Christian assembly." The church is "the crucial means" by which the "historic consensus on Scripture's meaning is conveyed to individual believers." Is this a perspective you've encountered much in your Protestant experience?
Ohhhh I haven't read that but that bit you quoted seems spot on to me! Just put the book on my reading list. Thank you!
I'll be interested to see which church(es) he thinks are proclaiming that "historic consensus" and how we'd know if one was not. That's the bit that keeps tripping me up about protestantism (and Catholicism, to be honest). So much variation (or "development") in liturgical practice and core beliefs. Makes that "historic consensus" feel a bit squishy.
That said, I haven't personally encountered that "individual reading as derivative of/dependent on corporate reading" sentiment often, although I have had a few conversations along those lines with some Protestant friends. Oddly, I can't remember anyone ever mentioning the importance (never mind the centrality) of participation in a local church at my Christian college...even in doctrine/Bible classes. That could just be my bad memory, though :).
Thanks for sharing. That's very interesting that you see Rohr as being very protestant. I suppose I can see that from your statement, however as a protestant I wouldn't think he falls into that category. He seems rather to be making assumptions and claims about the meaning of scripture without any real basis. that, in my opinion does not fit a protestant (or Christian) way of interpreting scripture.
Also can you explain further the reference to 2 Peter 1 discouraging private interpretation?
i find this really interesting especially in light of passages in the Hebrew Bible such as Joshua 1 and Psalm 1 that encourage people to meditate (hebrew 'haga' - a personal thing from my understanding) on scripture consistently.
Hi, Josh! Right back at you! Good question(s). I'm reflecting on what made that thought come to mind while reading. I think it was the sense I had that Rohr is relying primarily on scriptural text + personal reasoning to come to his conclusions. I see that same impulse/framework in my own protestant circles. (Full disclosure: I'm also a protestant...for now! Although very interested in the Orthodox Church.)
I think we agree that searching and meditating on the Scriptures is a good thing. Where I start to feel a bit unsure is in *how* that meditating/searching is approached. Am I expecting to be able to read/understand on my own apart from the handed-down teachings of the church over the ages? Am I in a position to better understand the Holy Scriptures than the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? I think that gets at the underlying question I'm wrestling with.
When I mentioned 2 Peter 1, I wasn't intending to disparage personal reflection on Scripture at all. I was thinking about that passage in reference to Peter's warning about false teachers/doctrine and connecting that with the idea that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..." It does seem (to me) that divorcing Scripture from the Church is a step toward becoming more susceptible to false teaching.
I think my overall thought process boils down to: when Church and Scripture are separated, there's trouble. Haha.
I understand why Rohr would make this argument and how he would get there, but I think this line of thinking comes from a misunderstanding of what scripture actually is. Last year, I read //Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch// by John Webster and it completely revolutionized the way I understand what Scripture is and what we mean when we say it is “Holy.” Webster asserts that Scripture is God’s self-revelation to His people (not the full self-revelation that happens in the Incarnation, but the purpose of God’s Word is to reveal Himself to us. If we make the claim that Scripture is Holy, we mean that every part of it contributes to that revelation. Every word, every contradiction (because there are some, as much as we want to believe there aren’t), every difficult passage, ALL of it is meant to reveal the Person of God to us. We are meant to grapple with the difficult passages and the contradictions because in doing so we are drawn closer to the very heart of God. So no, we can’t ignore parts of scripture. Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, bears ALL of the seeming contradictions/paradoxes/difficulties in Himself, redeeming and redefining them.
I’m probably not even close to doing Webster’s work justice, so the best I can say is, read his book on Holy Scripture. All of Scripture matters. All of it is important. All of it is God’s self-revelation to us.
Such a good book. Your comment reminds of the bit where Webster describes the primary relationship of the church to the Bible as a relationship *hearing* – one in which scripture “is as much a de-stabilising factor” as it is an element of “cohesion and unity”. This is quite different from Rohr's relationship to the text!
I don't recall anything in this particular book about the issue of contradictions or Christ's "redeeming and redefining them." Is it possible you're thinking of a different book?
It's possible I'm remembering our discussion of the book rather than the contents. I read this in a Biblical Theology class in seminary, and my professor (who is our resident canon theologian and got his PhD from St. Andrews) worked with Webster a bit before he died, so it's definitely possible that I'm remembering his lecture rather than Webster's actual text!
"Jesus had a deeper and wider eye that knew which passages were creating a path for God and which passages were merely cultural, self-serving, and legalistic additions."
That is quite a statement. I'd be interested to see hear how he justifies that claim that portions of the Bible were merely "self-serving and legalist additions", much less that he knows which ones Jesus would say were not "God-breathed"
I think a lot of it goes back to Rohr's "Tricycle Analogy" for how Scripture should be read (https://cac.org/tricycle-forward-movement-2017-01-09/).
Here is a summary of the analogy. A tricycle has three wheels, so also we should read the Bible with three factors in mind: tradition, the text, and our experience. Tradition is the way the church has understood various passages. The text is, of course, the words of the passage. Experience is the reactions the text provokes in us and the ways in which it interacts with what we know to be true.
It is a tricycle because, of the three wheels of text, tradition, and experience, the Experience Wheel is at the front and steers the others. In my reading of Rohr, it often seems like he leans heavily into the Experience Wheel, even to the point of disregarding the context or (seeming) plain readings of the text if they go against his intuitions.
With that framework in place, it is a small step to imagine that Jesus had the same approach to the Scriptures. He read them, in Rohr's view, with a "deeper and wider eye" (the Experience Wheel) that could discern between what was good and bad in the Scriptures.