Chapter 1:2 a. Doctrine, Scripture, and Narrative Community

Bible Reading As a Practice
1. "Teaching" is accomplished by all that Church does through practice, but Bible study is a central practice in larger practice of doctrine.
2. Despite all methods of interpreting scripture across history, the standard of meaning for most of the centuries has been the 'plain sense' of the text. ie. the story means what it says and says what it means.
3. Yet, the reader must also ask, 'what does this mean in light of the rest of God's history with humanity?" To answer that question is to say what the "spiritual sense" of a text is.
4. The bridge between the "literal" and "spiritual" sense of the text are various devices such as allegory and typology. Sometimes these devices help determine the connection between the literal and spiritual sense.

Rules of the Practice
1. Seeking the "plain sense" is suggested as a rule in the practice of biblical reading. (cf. Hans Frei: The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative)
2. Frei suggests a Christological rule: "what scripture ascribes to Jesus must not be denied by the reading of other scripture"
3. Unity rule: no reading may deny the unity of the Old and New Testament or the congruence of the two in what is said about Jesus.
4. McClendon says there are two kinds of rules: upper level rules are those in accordance with the broad Christian convictions. Lower level rules are those guides that help with vocabulary, grammar, historical-critical readings and often are rules that Xtian and Non-Xtian alike agree upon. So, you can do lower-level practice, but if it violates upper level rules, McClendon would say that one has ceased practicing Xtn reading of scripture. Given the common use of lower level rules, JwM suggests that Xtians can benefit from the voice of those who do not claim Xtian convictions.


What's the Big Deal
In our post-modern age, we struggle with radical relativism. Can the bible be interpreted? By whom? Are all readings equal? Must we use historical critical readings to have an accurate "reading" of a text? Reading McClendon and Frei one is almost tempted to say either "Duh" or "no way man." In effect we are told that our worst fear is not true: that indeed we are able to read the bible by doing so 'plainly.' It says what it means and means what it says. It is not alien. It is not supernaturally coded. It is not a historical mystery uncovered only by the research of anthropologists, historians, and theologians.
The Church need not worry if its 'reading' isn't accepted by the 'academy.'

The Yeah, But Discussion
While I am willing to accept the above teaching based on a trust I have in JWM, I hear the multiple voices of modernity in my head that will still be hard to overcome in my reading of scripture. I assume this is partly a function of language. "Literal" has a lot of baggage attached to it. Was Job a literal person? Was the whale of Jonah literal? I assume that one can still read a passage and find the 'plain' sense without having to worry about accepting that whales can eat and spit people up.