We each bring all of our lives beliefs and convictions to what we read. Some of us are more aware of them than others. Larry and I for example often get into minor tussles over the assumptions we bring to scripture.
Paradoxically Larry and I agree in the basics and disagree in the details. Larry says something like all scripture is poetry and I say all scripture is parable. Our differences are not diatant at all.
Some assumptions we bring aren’t about scripture at all: like the divinity of Christ or the facts of history. And still they impinge on how we read the texts we are looking at.
Someone calling themsleves Brandon attracted by our deliberations asked a rather pointed question:
How can we look at HUMAN history, and make any inferences as to what the kingdom is like?
It opened up for me that some assumptions I take for granted may not be shared by everyone. Like the idea that God reveals Godself through human history. No passage of scripture declares it but the whole breadth of scripture implies it. For me.
It seems to me this is an opportunity for us to lay our cards on the table so to speak. What do we bring to our reading of scripture? Something perhaps we haven’t spoken of here before. It doesn’t need to be monumental (or even secretly personal).
We’ve alraedy sort of rehashed the Triunity/Unitarian thing and the divine inspiration thing. And the metaphorical/literal thing. What else makes the way you read unique?