I sometimes hear it said that we Christians must be diligent in reading our Bibles. There is some urging in this direction from the platform on occasion, invariably accompanied by some self-effacing aside to the effect that the speaker is most certainly addressing himself more than any.
This, this later statement about addressing himself, isn't at all true, because everyone including the speaker knows very well that the best place to be when talking to oneself is in one's own home or shed when no one else is within earshot, or near a lake or in a field on a rainy day so there's no one around except you. It's just a sort of convention that exists in church.
If you really did start talking to yourself in church to any great degree, clear of it being a Pentecostal sort of place where you might gain some small credit for such antics, I think it would be a matter of great concern to the rest of the congregation and might lead to cups of tea and visits to the doctor.
Back on point. Mentioning Bible reading and words like should, ought and need is, in my mind, an indication that the power and true character of the Bible have somehow eluded the mentioner, because once it becomes fixed clearly in a man's mind that the Bible is the Word of the Living God, and that every word in the Bible is true and is provided to teach us wisdom, to comfort us, to guide us in our lives and unravel the mysteries of the world by shining the clear light of Jesus Christ into the very darkness, I think it would be quite hard to prevent him from reading the Bible as a matter of urgency and with great regularity and no urging whatsoever would be required.
If I feel I should do something but tend not to do it, then generally it means my tornaconto, my self interest, is poorly recompensed by the action. I often feel I should get on with my translation work, but I dawdle and dally before cracking down to it. But I get paid for that: my self interest is quite clear - although I do admit to enjoying it somewhat too, depending to some extent on the translation in question. Anyway, that's work. But so is doing anything that we feel somewhat disinclined to do but have to persuade ourselves to crack on with it. I don't wish to denigrate the very honourable act of working... I am simply differentiating work and the slaking of thirst and filling of the belly.
So what's the tornaconto of a man who feels he should read the Bible more? Surely he seeks to please God, since he is not precisely pleasing himself because he isn't "hooked" As though you would have to persuade Mrs Stokes to listen to The Archers, she having not missed a single episode for a period of several decades out of her simple self-interest (and why not indeed).
But if the true identity of the Bible is but glimpsed, all men will bask in its glory with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction whenever the occasion arises, and no chiding, urging or bullying will be required at all, so those types of coercion can be reserved for filling in tax returns and such matters that entail some objective degree of nuisance.
Ah, but how do we glimpse this true identity you mention Prod? Surely it's a no true Scotsman you are positing here, since the Bible is the Bible and to preface it with clauses speaking of its true nature, as though it were a thing concealed, is bordering on mysticism or at least esotericism.
Look, I hear you and I think I understand. So of course I am wrong all in all, because we can glimpse the truth of which I speak by by actually reading the Bible somewhat diligently, a matter that at first might be accompanied by a degree of tedium because our understanding is minimal and the Bible quite a hard book in some places.
But I usually hear such urgings and self criticism in the mouths of people who do indeed know the Bible very well indeed and understand quite a lot of it. So what then? I do wonder, in such cases, whether the person in question has understood in his heart, because our minds are quite fickle sometimes and our imaginations always so vain. I do hear a lot of preaching in which it is the objective of the speaker to somewhat urge the congregation in this direction or the other, always backed up by much Scripture of course. It seems to me that the preachers in question think God needs a hand with his unruly flock, and that having read the Bible we mainly forget what it said by the time Friday night comes around, the pubs are open, and we have just been paid.
In the Evangelical church everyone I have spoken to professes to understand and believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works (and the Bible does indeed clearly state that), so why do they then so often preach works?
It is a great mystery.
This, this later statement about addressing himself, isn't at all true, because everyone including the speaker knows very well that the best place to be when talking to oneself is in one's own home or shed when no one else is within earshot, or near a lake or in a field on a rainy day so there's no one around except you. It's just a sort of convention that exists in church.
If you really did start talking to yourself in church to any great degree, clear of it being a Pentecostal sort of place where you might gain some small credit for such antics, I think it would be a matter of great concern to the rest of the congregation and might lead to cups of tea and visits to the doctor.
Back on point. Mentioning Bible reading and words like should, ought and need is, in my mind, an indication that the power and true character of the Bible have somehow eluded the mentioner, because once it becomes fixed clearly in a man's mind that the Bible is the Word of the Living God, and that every word in the Bible is true and is provided to teach us wisdom, to comfort us, to guide us in our lives and unravel the mysteries of the world by shining the clear light of Jesus Christ into the very darkness, I think it would be quite hard to prevent him from reading the Bible as a matter of urgency and with great regularity and no urging whatsoever would be required.
If I feel I should do something but tend not to do it, then generally it means my tornaconto, my self interest, is poorly recompensed by the action. I often feel I should get on with my translation work, but I dawdle and dally before cracking down to it. But I get paid for that: my self interest is quite clear - although I do admit to enjoying it somewhat too, depending to some extent on the translation in question. Anyway, that's work. But so is doing anything that we feel somewhat disinclined to do but have to persuade ourselves to crack on with it. I don't wish to denigrate the very honourable act of working... I am simply differentiating work and the slaking of thirst and filling of the belly.
So what's the tornaconto of a man who feels he should read the Bible more? Surely he seeks to please God, since he is not precisely pleasing himself because he isn't "hooked" As though you would have to persuade Mrs Stokes to listen to The Archers, she having not missed a single episode for a period of several decades out of her simple self-interest (and why not indeed).
But if the true identity of the Bible is but glimpsed, all men will bask in its glory with the utmost pleasure and satisfaction whenever the occasion arises, and no chiding, urging or bullying will be required at all, so those types of coercion can be reserved for filling in tax returns and such matters that entail some objective degree of nuisance.
Ah, but how do we glimpse this true identity you mention Prod? Surely it's a no true Scotsman you are positing here, since the Bible is the Bible and to preface it with clauses speaking of its true nature, as though it were a thing concealed, is bordering on mysticism or at least esotericism.
Look, I hear you and I think I understand. So of course I am wrong all in all, because we can glimpse the truth of which I speak by by actually reading the Bible somewhat diligently, a matter that at first might be accompanied by a degree of tedium because our understanding is minimal and the Bible quite a hard book in some places.
But I usually hear such urgings and self criticism in the mouths of people who do indeed know the Bible very well indeed and understand quite a lot of it. So what then? I do wonder, in such cases, whether the person in question has understood in his heart, because our minds are quite fickle sometimes and our imaginations always so vain. I do hear a lot of preaching in which it is the objective of the speaker to somewhat urge the congregation in this direction or the other, always backed up by much Scripture of course. It seems to me that the preachers in question think God needs a hand with his unruly flock, and that having read the Bible we mainly forget what it said by the time Friday night comes around, the pubs are open, and we have just been paid.
In the Evangelical church everyone I have spoken to professes to understand and believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works (and the Bible does indeed clearly state that), so why do they then so often preach works?
It is a great mystery.