R esearch R ep o rt

The Role of the Bible in

Religious Education Reconsidered
R isks a n d C hallenges in T eaching th e Bible

D idier ?ollefeyt and R eim und Bieringer

If our thoughts are not G od’s thoughts, if there is a strange and alien quality
to the message of the scripture, then relevance is not the issue: the address
is the issue. The factual address of the N ew Testament cannot be know n by
a reliance upon the past, since tbe fact of faith is tb at tbe kingdom of God
always breaks in upon tbis present age tbrougb the deatb and resurrection of
Cbrist; this inbreaking always comes from G od’s future to sbatter and rebuild
the meaning of our present!

R ecent research in prim ary and secondary schools in various E uropean

countries has show n a sharp decrease in interest for the Bible in religious
education.^ As a consequence of fois, and com bined w ifo m any religious
a nd nonreligious fram es of reference, the Bible is no longer taken for
g ran ted as the fo u n d atio n of religious education. M oreover, the gap be-
tw een biblical culture and co n tem porary culture is w idening to such an
extent th a t the relevance of the Bible for cu rren t education is increasingly
p u t into question. Teachers of religion are co n fronted w ifo the disinterest
of their students w hen they ask them to tu rn to their Bibles, let alone
w hen texts are read and analyzed in class.3 In addition, even positively
disposed listeners to d ay frequently experience difficulties w hen listening to
certain biblical passages. Teachers of the Bible are frequently confronted
by their students w ifo p roblem atic passages. If reduced to such a selec-
tio n of passages, it becom es virtually im possible to w o rk w ifo the Bible.
Erom the perspective of m odern readers, the Bible is seen by m any as
sup p o rtin g patriarchy, anti-Judaism , slavery, anforopocentrism , violence,
or intolerance. These perceived difficulties are the sym ptom s of a deeper

1 David McL. Gracie, Meditating on the Word. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cambridge (Cowley
Publications) 2000, 45.
2 Christine Reents, “Bibel weg - hat kein ,n Zweck! ” ? Zwölf Argumente und zwölf Gegen-
argumente, in: Bibeldidaktik in der Postmoderne. Klans Wegenast zum 70. Geburtstag,
eds. Godwin Lämmermann /Klans Wegenast, Stuttgart (Kohlhammer) 1999, 337-344.
3 Horst Klaus Berg, Grundriss der Biheldidaktik. Konzepte - Modelle - Methoden, Handhuch
des Biblischen Unterrichts 2, Stuttgart (Kösel/Calwer) 1993, 174-175 (s.v. “Relevanz-
Verlust”).

IJPT, vol. 9, pp. 117-139

© W alter de G ruyter 2005
118 Research R eport

crisis and p o in t to fun d am ental problem s for practical theology in deal-

ing w ith questions related to revelation, authority, identity, and religious
education.
W hile there m ay be m any problem s w ith com m unicating the biblical
message in the co n tem p o rary context, from the perspective of theology
and religious pedagogy we can n o t do w ith o u t the Bible. C hristianity, like
Judaism , is a religion of the book, in w hich G od speaks to the people
th ro u g h the w o rd . C h ristian religious pedagogy is confronted w ith the
question of h o w to com m unicate the biblical m essage in to d a y ’s context.
H ow ever, teachers of religion often express their uncertainty a b o u t how
to com m unicate faith w ith the help of the Bible. Frequently, their ow n
theological and, m ore particularly, exegetical fo rm atio n is experienced as
being of little help for the realization of this task.
In this study, we analyze the causes of this uneasiness w ith the Bible
and suggest w ays of restoring the relevance of teaching the Bible in a
p o stm o d ern context. A fter analyzing the causes of the problem , an al-
ternative ap p ro ach is presented th a t is designed to help m ake the Bible
relevant. T he first cause to be discussed is biblical fundam entalism . We
p resent the literal m eaning of the Bible as a developm ental stage of every
h u m an person. Froblem s arise w hen people refuse to grow beyond this
stage or w hen, n o t having h ad the o p p o rtu n ity to learn ab o u t alternative
ap proaches, they reject the Bible together w ith the fundam entalist ap-
p roach. T he second cause of the problem in teaching the Bible to day is
called “ scientific” fundam entalism . This refers to a specific w ay of using
the historical-critical m ethod th a t accepts nothing but its ow n m ethodology
as a herm eneutic ap p ro ach and ends up w ith a fundam entalist reading of
its ow n research results. T he th ird cause of the problem is the w idespread
m oralizing use of the biblical message. This app ro ach tends to reduce the
biblical m essage to its ethical dim ension and to reduce the ethical dim en-
sion to m oralizing. In the fo u rth section, we present the opportunities
and dangers presented by the digitalization of the biblical text, w h ile we
acknow ledge th a t the inherent dangers m entioned in the three preceding
sections can all find their w ay into the digital p resentation of the Bible,
w e nevertheless recognize the great opportunities th a t new m edia provide
in m aking an ap p ro ach to the Bible m ore dynam ic and interactive. In the
final section, we present an alternative m odel. We propose an understand-
ing of the Bible and its genesis as w itness to the ongoing dialogue betw een
G od and h u m an persons in com m unity. W ith the w riting of the last w o rd
of the Bible and the closing of the canon, revelation has n o t com e to its
end. R eading the Bible does n o t excuse us from having to enter into a
p ersonal relationship w ith G od. The Bible itself leaves m uch ro o m for
creative in terp retatio n and invites critical dialogue. As a criterion for the
reading of the Bible, we p ropose the question w hether a reading opens
up a future for all or w hether it helps some gain advantages at the cost
of others. We are convinced th a t the Bible will have a future if its reading
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 119

and in terp retatio n enables people to partieipate in building a future th a t

is aeeording to G o d ’s design.

The Literal M eaning of the Text as Loeus of R evelation

F u ndam entalist readings of the Bible elaim th a t the Bible, seen as the
infallible expression of G o d ’s w o rd , has to be read literally dow n to the
last detail. Biblieal fundam entalism opposes the idea th a t G o d ’s w o rd
is being expressed by people w ho h ad only lim ited possibilities and re-
sourees. T he Bible is treated as if G od dietated the entire book w o rd by
w o rd . The positio n expressed in a biblieal tex t is uneritieally aeeepted as
the tru th , w ith o u t any aw areness th a t biblieal texts speak from the p o int
of view of their h u m an authors. M oreover, fundam entalism uncritically
em braces the arehaie m ythology and eosm ology of the Bible, as if we were
dealing w ith historieal facts expressed in seientifie language. This m akes
a b ro ad er u n d erstan d in g of the relationship betw een biblical culture and
c o n tem p o rary faith difficult, if n o t impossible.4
U nfortunately, m any contem poraries have only k n o w n a fundam en-
talist reading of the Bible. This leads even positively disposed people to
develop an aversion to the Bible. The rejection of fundam entalism and
the rejection of the Bible go h an d in hand. The ever m ore com plex post-
m o d ern w o rld seems increasingly rem oved from the w orld of the Bible.
The grad u al developm ents since the Industrial R evolution in p articu lar
have estranged o u r w o rld from the w o rld of the Bible.5 In addition, his-
teU cal-critical studies have m ore forcefully bro u g h t to m ind the w idening
historical gap betw een th en and now .6 W eary of such esteangem ent, some
contem poraries bru sh aside all historical and contextual considerations. In
their longing for security, albeit false, they display a surprising propensity
to expect from the Bible ready-m ade and unam biguous answ ers to all
their existential questions.
T he consequences of “hard-line fu n d am en talism ” are well know n.
Specific biblical passages are used in order to legitimize certain ideologies
and u njust social practices, such as racism , anti-Judaism , or discrim ination
against w om en. T here is, however, also a m ild form of biblical funda-
m entalism th a t we frequently m eet and of w hich we also find ourselves
guilty at tim es. We easily fall prey to fois kind of reading of the Bible
w henever we find su p p o rt for our ow n strong convictions in a verse or

4 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, in: Origins
‫ال‬ 509-510
1993)
.(,
5 Ingo Baldermann, Einführung in die Biblische Didaktik, Darmstadt (Primus) 1996, 39.
6 The idea of a “garstiger Craben” is connected with Cotthold E. Lessing, über den Beweis
des Ceistes und der Kraft (1777), in: Werke Band VIII. Theologiekritische Schriften 111,
ed. Herbert G. Göpfert, München (Hanser) 1979, 12. Lessing spoke about a terrible gap
between “n U ^ M ig e r Vernu^U^ahrheit” and “zufälligen Geschichtswahrheiten” .
120 Research R eport

passage of seripture. T hen we tend to quote isolated verses in su p p o rt

of our ow n views (“ D oes n o t the Bible say th a t O nee in a w hile,
we are all “ anonym ous fu nd am en talists,” espeeially w hen this use of the
Bible suits our purposes. Implieitly, biblieal w ords are then eonsidered to
be the u nm ediated revelation of G o d ’s will w ith no need of interpreta-
tion. Sueh “ m ild fu n d am en talism ” ean quiekly tu rn into relativism w hen
people beeom e aw are of the eontradietions th a t are found in the Bible.
They easily eonelude, “You can prove anything w ith the Bible, and thus
it is of no u se.” A teacher of religion m ight be tem pted to counter a
Bible q u o ta tio n w ith w hich a student tries to prove a po in t by quoting a
biblical tex t th a t says the opposite. This will either reinforce the polarized
p ositions or lead the stu d ent to relativism and disinterest.
A special form of this m ild fundam entalism is w h at we m ight call
“ atheist biblical fu n d am en talism .” Self-professed atheists in the classroom
carefully select Bible verses. O n the assum ption th a t a literal reading is the
only possible reading, they use these verses to p o in t to contradictions in
the C h ristian m essage or even to ridicule it. C onfronted w ith the seemingly
self-evident fu ndam entalism of unbelieving as well as believing students,
teachers of religion face a dilem m a. If they respond by introducing the
students to n o n -fu n d am en talist w ays of reading the Bible, they ru n the
risk of being accused of apologetics, trying to save the C hristian m essage
th ro u g h contrived or far-fetched argum ents. O n the other h and, students
w ho tend to w a rd fu ndam entalism will accuse them of w atering dow n the
m essage of the Bible and selling out to liberal relativism . This difficult
situ atio n is reinforced by the grow ing influence of scientific la n g u a g e / This
p ta n o m e n o n is also reflected in continental secondary school curricula,
for they increasingly tend to lim it language to a vehicle th a t describes
m aterial reality in binary codes (true/false, 0 /1 ). School education ignores
th a t language can n o t be reduced to its descriptive or em pirical function
and can n o t do w ith o u t m etaphors to express the m ystery th a t it hears.
In the co n tex t of education, the aforem entioned dilem m a is a herm e-
neutical challenge. T he dilem m a can be aggravated in the classroom by
students in p u b erty and adolescence. For them , the pow erlessness of the
teacher in facing this dilem m a adequately can be a reason for rejecting
w h a t they have been tau g h t ab o u t the Bible since childhood, especially if
they w ere raised w ith a literal understanding. Biblical catechesis for chil-
dren is n o t necessarily fundam entalist, b u t a purely literal w ay of dealing
w ith biblical texts runs the risk of being associated w ith fundam entalism .
Introducing children to the Bible at a very young age leads to charac-
teristic problem s for the instruction of teenagers in the Bible. T he Bible
can only be tau g h t to children if the teachers a d ap t the biblical texts to
the cognitive capacities and lim its of children. As teenagers grow o u t of

7 Marianne Moyaert/Didier Pollefeyt, De pédagogie tussen maakbaarheid en verbeelding, in:

Ethische perspectieven 14 (^004), 87-93.
 Bieringr/P(311efeyt, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 121

childhood, frequently they also p a rt w ith the Bible. The Bible appears to
them as a child ren ’s bo o k , w orst of all even as a childish book. This is a
m isconception, how ever, for the Bible is neither a children’s book n o r a
childish book. The very existence of children’s Bibles and the effort they
all m ake to render the Bible u n derstandable for children indicates th a t
the Bible is a b o o k for ad u lts.8
This illustrates th a t the tendency to read the Bible literally originates
n either only in specific circum stances (such as a sect) n o r in certain
sociocultural situations (such as the need for security in po stm o d ern
uncertainty), b u t is p a rt and parcel of the faith developm ent of every
person. R eading the Bible literally (or other texts for th a t m atter) is a
developm ental stage in an yone’s gro w th of fa ith . ‫ و‬At some p o in t in lifo,
how ever, we need to m ove beyond fois stage to a m ore m ature w ay of
reading texts. T herefore, discussions in class a b o u t the literal m eaning of
the Bible are n o t necessarily a sym ptom of the crisis in teaching the Bible,
b u t are the unavoidable grow ing pains of m oving from an adolescent to
an ad u lt w ay of reading the Bible. For teachers, it m ay well be a tiring
enterprise to journey repeatedly w ifo new students along a p ath they
have them selves traveled long ago. T he struggle w ifo biblical literalism
or fu ndam entalism is n o t a prolegom enon to biblical instruction but an
integral p a rt of it.

T he H istorical R econstruction of the (C on)text as Tocus of R evelation

H istorical criticism is certainly an excellent antidote to biblical literalism

or fundam entalism . T he h istó rica ١-critical m ethod therefore needs to be
folly integrated into the study of the Bible and into biblical instruction.
H istorical criticism ad o p ts scientific m ethods in its ap p ro ach to the Bible
as a historical book. It reveals the im portance of the historically situated
origin, co n tex t and m eaning of the texts. T he historical situatedness (as
well as g ^ m a tic a l- p h ilo lo g ic a l structure) of the tex t implies th a t the text
resists certain readings and can n o t be interpreted at will. Sacred scrip-
tu re is G o d ’s w o rd in h u m an language . ! ٥ In all its p arts, it is w ritten by
h u m an au th o rs w ho lived in different landscapes and w ho m ade use of
diverse sources and linguistic com ponents. T he tex t is tran sm itted to us
in different m anuscripts w ifo m any v arian t readings. H istorical criticism
can keep readers from projecting their ow n problem s back into the Bible,
forcing them to leave behind the idea th a t biblical texts are autom atically
relevant to their lives w hile inviting them to respect the tex t in its other­

8 Burkard Porzelt, Bibeldidaktik in ^ ttra d itio n a le n Zeiten, in: Religionspdd^gogische

Beiträge 49 (2 ‫ ﻣﻢ‬2 ‫ ر‬384-‫م‬, .
9 James Fowler, Stages of Faith. The Fsychology of Human Development and the Quest for
Meaning, San Francisco (Harper and Row) 1981.
10 Fontifical Biblical Commission, Interpretation, 499-500.
122 Research R eport

ness. T he tex t eseapes h u m an control and does n o t allow easy a d a p tatio n

to o n e’s ow n individual or political w orlds. In other w ords, historical
criticism creates a distance betw een now and then, betw een biblical and
co n tem p o rary contexts.
A ^ e -c ritic a l reading of the Bible naively presupposed, for instance,
th a t all the sayings of Jesus in the gospels are literal quo tatio n s of w ords
spoken by the earthly Jesus and directly tran sm itted to us. T herefore,
some editions of the Bible p rin t the w ords of Jesus (taken at face value,
n o t based on f o s ^ ic a l-c ritic a l study) in re d .11 H ow ever, historical critics
are firmly convinced th a t m any w ords of the Jesus of the gospels were
never spoken by the earthly Jesus, b u t w ere p u t into his m o u th by the
evangelists and therefore reflect the views of second or th ird generation
C hristians.
T he historical distance betw een then and now is an enorm ous chal-
lenge for biblical instruction. A ccording to some exegetes, it is becom ing
an ever greater p roblem for C hristianity as tim e goes o n .12 Some scholars
p o in t o u t th a t the m ore tim e passes betw een the original setting of the
Bible and later readers, the m ore the historical conditions and lim itations
of the Bible render it incom prehensible. For them , this is the co ntext of
the problem s th a t arise w hen we try to use the Bible to com m unicate
the C h ristian faith to the next generation. The question m ight be raised
w h eth er such a positio n is n o t in danger of becom ing locked into a herm e-
neutical circle. W hoever assum es th a t the biblical tex t is a thoroughly
and alm ost exclusively historical tex t is left to assum e th a t once nothing
of the original historical situation rem ains, com m unication w ith the text
will no longer be possible. Is it possible th a t such a degree of historical
discontinuity could bring all com m unication to an end? C an the biblical
tex t be reduced solely to its historical dim ension?
T he central objective of m any ^ a c titio n e rs of the h s ^ ic a l- c r itic a l
m eth o d is to go back to the historical bedrock of the Bible, despite and
th ro u g h its layered and constructed nature. C oncerning the N ew Testa-
m ent, this ap p ro ach sees its m ain task in reconstructing Jesus’ very ow n
w ords (ipsissima verba) as precisely as possible.*2 This is the w ay historical
criticism attem p ts to bridge the gap betw een fact and fiction. In our view,
this show s th a t historical criticism has never freed itself com pletely from

11 See for instance New American Standard Bible. Containing the Old and New Testaments,
ref. ed., Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 1 7 7 ‫ و‬.
12 Peter Schmidt, Bijbel, waarheid en kunst. Bronnen van leven?, in: Leren aan de wer-
kelijkheid. Celoofscommunicatie in een wereld van verschil, ed. Didier Pollefeyt, Leuven
(Acco) 2003, 118-11‫ و‬: “Secundo, dat de bijbel door en door historisch bepaald is, en
dat het probleem van zijn bruikbaarheid als geloofsvehikel met het voortschrijden van de
geschiedenis alsmaar zal groeien.”
13 See for instance Robert w. Funk/Thomas Sheehan/Marcus ]. Borg, The Once and Future
Jesus. The Jesus Seminar, Santa Rosa (Polebridge Press) 2000; Robert w. Funk, A Credible
Jesus. Fragments of a Vision, Santa Rosa (Polebridge Press) 2002.
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 123

a basic fundam en talist im petus. H istorical critics are well aw are th a t the
Bible is to a large degree n o t a history book b u t a literary construct, i.e.,
the result of fiction and reconstruction th ro u g h the eyes of faith. Never-
theless, they do n o t spare efforts to find the historical bedrock of these
reco m tru ctio n s, obviously w ith the assum ption th a t only or prim arily
there the u nm ediated tru th of faith can be found. We suggest th a t such
an ap p ro ach could be called “ scientific fu n d am en talism ” if it is driven
by the idea th a t, as soon as we have reliably reconstructed the w ords
and deeds of the historical Jesus, we have direct and unfailing guidelines
for our faith and m orals th a t need no in terp retatio n . The origin of such
scientific fundam entalism is m ostly fear of relativism . It is an attem p t to
identify a h a rd core in the Bible and in biblical faith th a t can be touched
by neither the fleeting ch aracter of history n o r the w him s of h um an sub-
jectivity. Even so, historical criticism has to face the fact th a t it rem ains
intrinsically im possible to reconstruct and fully grasp the historical core
of the Bible. M oreover, historical critics them selves have been the first
to p o in t o u t th a t reco m tru ctio n s of the historical Jesus alw ays bear the
m ark of the one w ho reconstructs. T he image of the historical Jesus th a t
em erges has the features of the one draw ing the im age.14
T he underlying p resuppositions of the position outlined above could be
term ed “Jesus fu n d am en talism .” This ap p ro ach seems to presuppose th a t
in terp retatio n is no longer needed once one has been able to reconstruct
the w ords and deeds of the historical Jesus. This is based on a theology
of im itatio n th a t assum es the historically authentic sayings of the earthly
Jesus dem and unquestioning atten tio n and im itation, w hile later literary
constructs have no (or at least considerably less) value. In stronger term s,
only w hatever is original is accepted as inspired, w h a te v e r com es later is
seen as w atering dow n or even betraying the original message. Such an
ap p ro ach looks for tru th in the past, n o t in the future. T here is a persist-
ent p roblem , however. Even if we could succeed in m aking a perfectly
faithful reco n stru ctio n of the w ords of the earthly Jesus, even if we had
tape recordings of his w o rds, Jesus’ ipsissitna verba w ould still need to be
interp reted and applied to ever new situations and circum stances. A few
exam ples m ay help to illustrate this. If our reconstruction of Jesus’ very
ow n w o rd s d em o n strated th a t he w as influenced by the p atriarch al society
in w hich he lived, w o u ld th a t m ean th a t we h ad to accept uncritically
the p atriarch al structures in our societies today? If Jesus had intended

14 George Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross-roads, London (Longmans, Green) 1909, reprint
London (G. Allen & Unwin) 1963, 49: “The Christ that Harnaek sees, looking baek
through nineteen centuries of Catholic darkness, is only the reflection of a liberal Protestant
face, seen at the bottom of a deep well.” See also Alben Schweitzer, The Quest of the
Historical Jesus. A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, London (SCM
Press) 31981, 6: “Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus;
that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make him alive. But it was not only each
epoch that found hs reflection in Jesus; each individual created Jesus in accordance with
his own character.”
124 Research R eport

th a t his follow ers radieally sell all their possessions as a eondition for
being diseiples, there w o u ld have been no one to provide for Jesus and
his follow ers “ o u t of their resourees” (Luke 8:3), n o r w ould there have
been anyone to offer hospitality to early C hristian m issionaries or to host
house ehurehes. T hings w o uld have gone differently during Jesus’ earthly
life and the Bible w ould have been w ritten differently. A nother exam ple
m ay illustrate o u r point. It seems th a t Jesus u n d ersto o d his m ission ex-
elusively as a m ission to the people of Israel, but the early ehureh did
n o t follow him in fois respeet. The first C hristians did n o t say, “Jesus
eonfined him self to Israel, therefore we also eonfine ourselves to Israel.”
If we eoneentrate exelusively on foe earthly Jesus, we forget foe risen
C hrist, foe H oly Spirit, the ehureh, and trad itio n .
Exclusive reliance on attem pts to bridge foe historical gap betw een then
and n o w seriously lim its our ap p ro aeh to foe Bible. T he Bible is m ore
th a n a history book. It is instead foe historical and literary result of foe
faith w itness of foe early C hristian com m unities. The Bible does n o t w ait
for us to bridge foe historical gap b u t contains a force th a t enables it to
reach o u t to people. C ertain kinds of exegesis ru n foe risk of m aking foe
historical gap unbridgeable, alienating people from foe Bible. As a result,
it becom es h a rd and often frustrating w o rk to read and und erstan d foe
Bible. T he spontaneous a ttractio n to the Bible gets lost. This has im p o rtan t
consequences for teaching the Bible, w hich should n o t be restricted to
speaking a b o u t the Bible. C hristian religious education should also start
fro m w ith in the Bible. In view of the struggle w ifo biblical fondam en-
talism , it is of great im portance to acquaint people w ifo the historical
back g ro u n d , contex t, and literary genres of biblical texts. The unsettling
co n fro n tatio n w ifo the Bible as “ o th e r” needs to be an integral p a rt of
any biblical instruction. A com plete reconstruction of the historical con-
tex t of the Bible is im possible, ^ v e r th e le s s , we need to do all we can in
getting as close as possible to the historical setting of our texts. H istori-
cal criticism should therefore n o t lim it itself to attem pts to reconstruct
the historical genesis of the text. Exam ples are legion ab o u t how the
fo s ^ ic a l-c ritic a l ap p ro ach influenced religious education in schools and
created m ini-exegesis courses. We k now of instances w here fifteen year
old students w ere tau g h t to distinguish the Y ahw ist and Eriestly w riters
in the Genesis account and to highlight these w ifo different colors, or
sixteen year old students w ere introduced to the secrets of the synoptic
problem . T here is the danger th a t w ifo fois ap p roach, the underlying
scientific fu ndam entalism is h anded on to the younger generations, and
th a t teachers do n o t teach the Bible fro m w ith in b u t sim ply speak a b o u t
the Bible. T he consequence is a reification of the Bible. T he Bible runs
the risk of being reduced to an arena of literary and linguistic exercises,
w hile the investigation of fts m eaning is largely neglected.
Einally, we need to ask ourselves w hether in to d a y ’s culture, historical
criticism does n o t per se lead to dissatisfaction. E ost-C hristian culture does
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 125

n o t attach m uch im portance to history any longer. Instead of understand-

ing reality as C hristianity does, in term s of a linear, chronological evolution
(from creation to the end tim es), p o st-C hristian culture prefers to th ink
in term s of cyclic events (based on the rhythm s of nature). D istrust of or
co n tem p t for the past, for tra d itio n , and for old age is com m on, w hile
creativity, renew al, fashion, hype, etc. are the order of the day. This cultural
co n tex t does n o t allow easy com m unication a b o u t the Bible from a m ainly
historical perspective, referring back to the p ast rath e r th an pointing to
a new future. Exclusive em phasis on the historical character of the Bible
will lead young people (given their fading historical consciousness) to
perceive of the biblical m essage as o u td ated and lacking any perspective
on the (i.e., their) future.
In fois cultural clim ate, biblical instruction is a w elcom e o p p o rtu n ity
for countering fois ahistorical tendency. An historical perspective on reality,
som ething th a t is typically C hristian, has its ow n value. T he m ore th a t
fam iliarity w ifo C hristianity decreases, the less people are fam iliar w ifo
historical consciousness, for historical consciousness is n o t a n atu ral given
b u t the result of a p articu lar e d u c atio n .^ In fois respect, biblical instruction
based on the fostorical-critical m ethod offers great potential. T he historical-
critical m eth o d and consciousness are an acfoevem ent of C hristianity th a t
has lasting value. This is tru e even if a one-sided use of fois m ethod is likely
to provoke disinterest in the Bible by pretending to have all the answ ers to
q uestions ab o u t scripture or by locking scripture in the past.

T he M o ral M essage of the Text as Eocus of R evelation

C ertain circles of believers cling to the conviction th a t w ifo regard to

ethics, the Bible is a com pletely tra n sp are n t and uniform book offering
simple and clear solutions to all ethical problem s. W hen it is used in
teaching children, the Bible is presented as a “holy b o o k ” w here every-
thing is perfect. Ereachers and scholars suggest th a t the Bible contains
a beautiful ethical message, at tim es severe, at tim es rom anticized. In
ord er to u p h o ld the conviction of the ethical uniform ity of the biblical
m essage, Bible didactics has no choice b u t to m ake selective use of the
Bible. C h ild ren ’s Bibles are frequently p u t together in a w ay th a t leads
to an ethically corrected (i.e., m ore idealized) version of the Bible. The
tendency is to select biblical texts th a t su p p o rt a m oralizing p resentation
of Jew ish and C hristian messages. Such a selective ap p ro ach reduces the
Jew ish and C h ristian faiths to ethics, since the texts a b o u t h u m an encoun-
ter w ifo C o d are edited out. Such selective treatm ent of the Bible leads

15 Werner G. Ieanr©nd, After Hermeneutics. The Relati©nship between Theology and Biblical
Studies, in: The o p en Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies?, ed. Francis Watson,
London (SCM Fress) 188 ,3 ‫ وو‬.
126 Research R eport

to a decrease of interest in the Bible, because the same stories are used
over and over again in classes and liturgies, and are im ttu m en talized for
the sam e m oralizing lessons. Young people w ho grow up w ith a post-en-
lightenm ent m entality alw ays expect som ething new. For them , repetition
is intolerable and the slightest overlap leads to boredom . They do n o t
find value in the p atien t rereading of the same text. Religious education
aims at teaching the ability truly to enter into texts and at discouraging
a redu ctio n of texts to consum er goods, b u t this goal can n o t alw ays be
reached in a p o stm o d ern classroom .
From this perspective, it is revealing to look at the place of the Bible in
religious ed ucation curricula. In m any cases, one will see th a t a system atic
search for alternative, less fam iliar biblical texts has n o t been undertaken.
A (tem porary) co n cen tration on a select num ber of biblical texts and thus
the quasi-creation of a canon w ithin the canon can be advantageous for
deepening o n e’s know ledge of individual texts. In to d a y ’s w orld, however,
it is m ost likely to create decreased interest in the Bible.
M o ral indignation is great w hen young people or adults find out th a t
biblical texts are n o t alw ays in line w ith the m oral norm s they learned as
children in biblical instruction. They are shocked w hen they realize th a t
the Bible contains expressions of bru tal violence and th a t biblical texts
frequently seem to lack an understanding of the com plexity of the h um an
c o n d itio n . ‫ ئ‬If the Bible is held up to teenagers as a stainless m oral m irror,
one m ay n o t be surprised if they in tu rn capitalize on the m oral failures
they discover in the Bible in an attem p t to deflect a tten tio n from their
ow n. They can be merciless in pointing a finger at m orally objectionable
and som etim es co n trad icto ry statem ents and practices in the Bible. In reply
to such criticism , the Bible is often defended by explaining aw ay these
difficulties using all kinds of com plicated exegetical strategies ultim ately
driven by the apologetic conviction of the Bible’s historical tr u th . ٧ w h e n
these strategies to o easily push aside the prim a facie m eaning of the text
or neglect its som etim es destructive effective history, they tu rn o u t to be
c o u n te r^ o d u c tiv e .
Teaching the Bible is n o t m erely a m atter of ratio n al explanations,
even if in som e cases they are plausible and reliable in approaching the
historical tru th . Biblical in struction is also a m atter of w restling w ith the
text. From the p o in t of view of religious education, a resistant reading
of the tex t is as valuable as a com pliant reading.18 In some cases, it is
b etter to teach young people to read “ against the grain of the te x t” - for

16 For instance, the invitation to forgive seventy-seven times in Matt. 18:21-22 (cf. Luke
17:4) gives no evidence of being aware of the existence of abusive relationships in which
such forgiveness is destructive.
17 Werner Keller, The Bible as History. A Confirmation of the Book of Books, trans. William
Neil, New York (W. Morrow) 1956.
18 Adele Reinhartz, Befriending the Beloved Disciple. A Jewisb Reading of the Cospel of
John, New York (Continuum) 2001, 81-98.
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 127

instance, from the perspective of the underdog. H ow ever, this w ould

require th a t the Bible is presented from childhood as a com plex book
th a t reflects both the holiness and the sinfulness of hu m an life, and every
shade in betw een. T he Bible needs to be presented as a book ab o u t the
h u m an cond itio n in the largest sense of th a t w ord. T here is no reason
w hy child ren ’s Bibles should n o t contain stories a b o u t unholy people
and events, faithfully representing how the Bible presents life in all its
ups and dow ns, d isturbed by w ar and violence, at tim es satisfying and at
tim es h u rtfu l, at tim es tragic and at tim es fulfilling, tran sito ry and often
irreversible. From this perspective, the Bible is seen as a book in w hich
G od speaks th ro u g h all things, because the w orld as a w hole becom es a
m etaphor. In this, people experience th a t despite their sinfulness, G od is
present in their lives even if G od is som etim es presented in m orally ob-
jectionable contexts. A “m ultidirectional re ad in g ” of biblical texts can be
helpful in discovering the h um an condition and the active im age of G od
as they are reflected in the text. In this kind of reading, there is n o t just
one single c ^ tu ra l-h isto ric a l canonized perspective, b u t there are several
perspectives, voices, and actors in the story. B ibliodram a has proved to
be a w ay of enacting such a read in g . ‫و ا‬
A m u ltidirectional reading presupposes th a t we acknow ledge, do justice
to , and positively affirm the internal ethical and religious plurality of the
biblical m essage.^ Biblical instruction needs to m ove from the idea of one
“grand story”^ to the reality ofm any, often unknow n, little stories. A ccording
to D irk W ürsten, the Bihle is to he ta u g h t as “ a m ulti-faceted book, w ith
m any tendencies, directions and m essages” th a t can n o t he reduced to one
single m e ta n a rra tiv e .^ This will pro h ah ly prove to he attractive to young
people in a p o stm o d ern age, encountering a G od w ho opted to he revealed
in such a com plex book. This is a G od w ho voices the greatest possihle
p ro test against the pow er claims of m onolithic thinking.
Such a theology th a t dares to persevere in the m idst of diversity and
thus accepts to endure in the m idst of the enorm ous tensions often expe­

19 Herman Andriessen/Nicolaas Derksen, Lebendige Glaubensvermittlung im Bibliodrama,

Mainz (Grünewald) 21991; Gudrun Lohkemper-Sobiech, Bibliodrama im Religionsunterricht,
2 vols., Mainz (Grünewald) 1998; Heiner Aldebert, spielend Gott kennenlernen. Bibliodrama
in rehgionspädagogischer Perspektive, Rissen (Ebv) 2001.
20 Denise Dombkowski Hopkins/Sharon H. Ringe/Frederick C. Tiffany, Reading the Bible
in the Global Context. Issues in Methodology and Pedagogy, in: Teaching the Bible. The
Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy, eds. Fernando F. Segovia/Mary Ann Tolbert,
Maryknoll (Orbis Books) 1998, 314.
21 Jean François Lyotard, La condition postmoderne. Rapport sur le savoir, Paris (Éditions
de Minuit), 1979.
22 Dirk W ürsten, W aarom protestantism e past bij een postm oderne tijd, bron: http://
h o r a .t is c a h .b e /w u r s ^ ^ ^ s tt^ d /^ s ^ O .h tt n (accessed 16 January 2005). Cf. Dirk
Würsten, Geloven in stukken en brokken. God ter sprake brengen in een postmodern
klimaat, in: Pastor in de weer. Predikant zijn tussen vraag en antwoord. Vriendenboek
G.R.A. Schouten, ed. c . Liagre, Brussel (PRODOC) 1999, 133.
128 Research R eport

rienced there can rightfully call itself “ biblical theology.” Indeed it is true:
to live in the m idst of plurality is n o t easy, ?h ilosophy of difference is
m uch m ore com plex th a n m onolithic philosophy. T heology th a t intensifies
the differences is exceptionally uncom fortable - just as the p rophets w ere
tto u b lem ak ers and dissidents, because over and over again they called
their people back to the unrelinquishable prim ordial event of the Jew ish
religion, w hen kings, rulers, and others tried to tran sfo rm religion into a
“ system ” in ord er to m ake it m an ag eab le.^
In this co n tex t, we have to p o in t to the dangers of an instrum entalized
use of the Bible in religious education th a t im poses an absolute m eaning
on a text. O ne could say th a t the biblical tex t is then m ade into a ven-
trilo q u ist of a priori fixed views. In religious education curricula, m any
texts seem to have been selected because of the association of a w ord,
a parallel th o u g h t, an accidental link w ith other areas in the curricula.
Such selection hard ly takes into account the larger contexts of the Bible
passages. In fact, the p ro p er co n textual m eaning of the tex t is obviously
considered to be of secondary im portance. T hus, students do n o t get
the o p p o rtu n ity to learn fro m w ithin the Bible or to discover their ow n
in terp retatio n s. In such cases, au th o rs of school curricula have left noth-
ing to chance: the “c o rre c t” answ ers are already k n o w n beforehand. The
danger of this ap p ro ach is a one-sided in terp retatio n th ro u g h the lens of
a p articu lar culture or w ay of thinking. Affective and depth-psychological
dim ensions of the story often go unnoticed. In m any people’s experience,
how ever, these dim ensions carry the com plex and rich m eaning of the text
th a t o u r preprogram m ed educational activities are unable to access.

C yberspace as the Abyss of R evelation

The three approaches to the Bible th a t we just discussed are problem atic
because they are characterized by a static concept of the m eaning and
use of the Bible. In recent decades, technology has offered the m eans for
a m ore dynam ic interaction w ith all kinds of texts, including biblical
texts. T he consequences of the ongoing revolution in com m unications
technology, nam ely the tran sitio n from p rin ted to digital texts, will be
and to som e degree already is far-reaching. Specialists argue th a t the
im pact of this tran sitio n is com parable to the im pact of the tran sitio n
from oral tra d itio n to w ritten texts or from w ritten to p rinted te x ts.^ In

23 Würsten, Waarom protestantisme.

24 Thomas E. Boomershine, Biblical Megatrends. Towards a Paradigm for the Interpreta-
tion of the Bihle in Electronic Media, in: American Bihle Society Symposium Papers on
the Bible in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Howard Clark Kee, Philadelphia (Trinity Press
International) 1‫ وو‬223‫و‬, : “The development of electronic communications in the 20th
century is the most radical change in the primary means of communication since at least
the printing press and prohahly since the development of writing.”
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 129

the future, digital eom m unieation of the Bible will beeom e inereasingly
prevalent. T heologians will have to m ake use of the new m edia in order
n o t to lose to u eh w ith the eultural eo ntext of the w o rld in w hieh they
live and to w hieh they address the message. Similarly, biblieal instruetion
will have to m ake use of interaetive m ultim edia in order to m eet s tu d e n ts
in their ow n w orld.
W ill the Intern et be able to break open and reaetivate the stade read-
ing strategies th a t are often prevalent in biblical instruction? Does the
digitalization of texts also include dangers for the teaehing of the Bible?
T here is eertainly an enorm ous differenee betw een reading a book and
reading a tex t in an integrated, interactive, virtual electronic environm ent.
In b o o k form , the Bible presents itself to its readers w ith a certain logical
and chronological unity. H ow ever, fois is very different w hen texts are
presented as p a rt of a larger netw o rk of texts. The electronic presentation
of biblical texts replaces a sequential ap p ro ach of the Bible n o t by a non-
sequential ap p ro ach , b u t by a m ulti-sequential event.15 To the reader, fois
kind of p resen tatio n offers an o p p o rtu n ity for fast and flexible m ovem ent
th ro u g h all the texts. This requires m uch m ore responsibility and creativ-
ity from the reader in com parison w ith the use of a p rinted version of
the texts. At the initiative of the reader, tex tu al and visual inform ation
appears and disappears m uch faster th an in p rin ted texts. R eaders no
longer decide b eforehand the direction their reading process will take,
b u t in terru p t, sidetrack, or redirect their initial procedure m uch m ore
easily. In oth er w o rd s, the fingertips of the user have m uch m ore pow er
in an electronic reading co ntext th a n in the conventional reading process,
w here a re a d e r’s fingers are lim ited to turning p ag es.^
As a result, texts in the digital environm ent certainly no longer inhabit
only one w orld. They are n ow able to in h ab it m any w orlds and to a ttra ct
different and even co n trad icto ry m eanings. M oreover, the virtual w orld
tu rn s every reader into an au th o r and every a u th o r into a reader. In a
v irtual environm ent, all the readers have an aw areness th a t n o t all texts
and tran slatio n s are of equal quality. It has becom e so m uch easier to
“ p ro cess” texts, to m ove, copy, and creatively ad a p t them . It is equally
possible to add o n e’s ow n com m ents and to m ake links w ifo other texts.
C onsequently, the original tex t loses its central place and takes on the
role of providing the occasion for an involved dialogue betw een interested
p arties, at tim es superficial, at tim es substantial. T he far-reaching im plica-
tions for the concept of “ c a n o n ” can n o t be o v e rlo o k e d .^

25 George p. Landow, Hypertext, Metatext, and the Electronic Canon, in: Literacy Online.
The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers, ed. Myron c . Tuman,
Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgb Press) 1992, 70.
26 Pbil Mullins, Media Ecology and tbe New Literacy: Notes on an Electronic Hermeneutic,
in: From One Medium to Another. Communicating the Bible tbrougb Multimedia, eds.
Paul A. Soukup/Robert Hodgson, Kansas City (Sheed & Ward) 1997, 507.
27 Ibid., 320-327.
130 Research R eport

In the digital e n v io n m e n t, the Bible is fu rth er redueed to the status

of just one tex t am ong others, one story am ong m any easily aeeessible
stories. In the e n v i n m e n t of eleetronie texts, people tend no longer to
aeeept a priori stan d ard texts th a t everyone is expeeted to read and know .
All th a t will rem ain are texts read by greater or few er num bers of people
in m ore or less depth. T he eoneept of an im p o rtan t, au th o ritative book
th a t everyone is expeeted to kn o w beeom es p a rt of a vanishing w orld,
the w o rld of p rin ted books. This does n o t m ean th a t people no longer
need p oints of referenee, “eenters” of orientation. We intentionally speak
of “ cen ters” in the plural. O ne single, perm anent, fixed center can easily
beeom e tyrannieal. H ypertexts, on the contrary, offer an o p p o rtu n ity for
a dynam ic, evolving concept of center, a m ulti-centered textual universe,
even a tex tu al universe continuously re-centering itself, th ro u g h a process
th a t is guided by the com plex interaction of m illions of individual read-
ers. This way, centers will com e and go, b u t the process of continuously
form ing and identifying new centers will alw ays prove necessary.
T he increased digitalization of faith com m unication will m ake several
dem ands on teaching the Bible. Versions of the Bible in digital form will
need readily to be available. Equally, user-friendly tools for the study and
in terp retatio n of the Bible will have to be m ade available to students.
Bible courses will have to be m ade accessible online and will facilitate
individual Bible study. D em ocratization of access to the Bible will go even
fu rth er by the e s h l i s h m e n t of all kinds of electronic com m unities. It will
be essential in this environm ent to offer high quality Bible didactics th a t
enable people to find their w ay in this new w orld.
If we search the In tern et for sites on the Bible, we realize on num erous
attractive sites and interactive softw are th a t C hristians have invested huge
am o u n ts of tim e and m oney to m ake the Bible available in digital environ-
m ents. A second look reveals th a t m ore popularizing sites ftequently reflect
approaches to the Bible th a t are m ore or less explicitly fundam entalist.
D espite an attractive and dynam ic p resentation, the understanding of the
Bible on w hich they are based is frequently very static and lite ra l.^ The
historical-critical a p p ro a c h ^ (which we discussed above after the funda-
m entalist approach) and the ethical a p p ro a c h ^ (the th ird ap p ro ach we
treated above) are n o t absent from the Internet. This dem onstrates th a t
digital m edia as such offer no guarantee of a dynam ic ap p ro ach to the
text. T he Intern et itself has becom e a battlefield for diverse approaches to
the Bible. Eor biblical instruction, this m eans th a t students have to learn
h o w to recognize different approaches to the Bible underlying various
w ebsites and to assess the opportunities and dangers im plied in them .

28 See http://www.childrensbible.com/.
29 See http://ebaf.op.org/english/.
30 See h tt^ //www.str.org/ where the bible is used to take an uncompromising stand with
regard to moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.).
 Bieringr/P(311efeyt, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 131

T he F uture H o rizo n of the Text as Loeus of R evelation

Biblieal fo d a m e n ta lis m , seientifie fondam entalism , and the ap p ro aeh to

the Bible as an ethieal answ er book have one thing in eom m on. In their
ow n way, eaeh of these approaehes attem pts to identify in the Bible a se-
cure and reliable locus of revelation. Biblical fundam entalism is convinced
th a t the locus of revelation is the literal m eaning of the texts. Scientific
fu ndam entalism expects to find it by reconstructing the earliest layer of
the tex t and, w ith it, the historical core of the biblical message. T he ethi-
cal ap p ro ach is certain to find the locus of revelation in universal m oral
principles and h u m an ist m essages derived from the Bible. All these ap-
proaches sta rt from the assum ption th a t the locus of revelation is a given
in the te x t.31 In a digital ap p ro ach to scripture, however, the tex t is left
to the rules of the free m ark et of continuously changing in terpretations
of individual users. At this stage, it is im possible to identify a potential
locus of revelation in this approach.
T hree of the four ap p roaches discussed above are driven by an attem p t
to identify in the Bible a m anageable, solid core of doctrinal foundations,
historical events, or m oral tru th s. In our opinion, it is this process of
scriptural red u ctio n th a t causes the syndrom e th a t we m ight call “ Bible
b o re d o m .” From the p o in t of view of religious education, reading the
Bible takes on the ch aracter of a preprogram m ed activity. It becom es a
p rocedure w ith easily predictable results. It does n o t provide tbe o p p o rtu -
nity for active p articip atio n in tbe reading process, but provides a detailed
film script so th a t tbe actors kn o w from the very beginning how the story
will end. Young people have a strong intuitive sense for situations w here
a tru th is im posed on them and w here they are denied the possibility of
p articip atin g actively in discovering a tru th . They prefer n o t to have their
personal convictions spoon-fed to them like reheated tak e-o u t m e a l s . I t is
n o t surprising th a t students resist this kind of biblical instruction. T hose
w ho nevertheless continue to be interested in the Bible and w ho have the
technical m eans at their disposal m ight tu rn to the digital environm ent
for help. In the virtual w o rld of the Internet, however, they ru n the risk

31 John Shelby spong, Reseuing tbe Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the
Meaning of Scripture, San Francisco (HrperSanFrancisco) 11“ :245 ,1 ‫ وو‬believe that the
key to understanding how the Bible is the Word of God is found not by studying the literal
text but rather by entering the experience out of which the literal text came to be written.
The ancient words that have been employed to interpret the experience are themselves not
holy. Indeed, they have frequently even blinded us from seeing and entering the experience
they seek to describe because these words am always limited by their time, their culture,
and they apprehension of reality.”
32 Christian Bühler, Ist die Bibel wahr?, in: Bibeldidaktik in der ?ostmoderne, e d s . Lämmer-
mann/Wegenast, 48: “ [...] es zeigt sich bald, dass damit die Arbeit mit biblischen Texten
im Letzten sinnlos wird, weil sie nur noch das spiegelt, was wir bereits wissen, kennen
und was uns gerade passt. Wer nicht auf dauernde Selbstbestätigung angewiesen ist, wird
sich hier zunehmend nur noch langweilen.”
132 Research R eport

of either getting lost on f u d a m e n ta lis t w ebsites or seeking their salvation

in sites th a t laek any historieal, doetrinal, eom m unal, or m oral eontext.
U ltim ately this begs the question: H o w ean the Bible regain existential
relevanee in to d a y ’s eontext? H o w can we avoid reducing the Bible to a
set of p rep ro g ram m ed truths? At the other extrem e, how can we eseape
eom plete subjeetivity in o ur ap p ro aeh to the seriptures? A gainst eertain
pm etitio n ers of the historical-eritieal m ethod, we hold th a t the Bible does
n o t au tom atieally beeom e irrelevant sim ply because the co ntem porary
cultu ral co n tex t has m oved aw ay from the original nom adic and agrarian
cultures of the Bible. In ord er to be relevant to us, the cultural background
of the Bible does n o t need to be identical w ith our ow n. For instance, the
disappearance of shepherds and sheep from our ow n im m ediate environ-
m ent does n o t m ake an understanding of the Bible im possible, because
the essential h u m an questions th a t w ere expressed in the m etaphors of
shepherds and sheep in biblical tim es are n o t fundam entally different from
the questions of p o stm o d ern people.
H ere we find the concept of the tex t as “classic” h elp fu l.^ A classic
is a tex t th a t expresses a tru th so fundam ental th a t it can be read and
u n d ersto o d in the totally different contexts of respectively new readers.34
For instance, the w orks of Shakespeare are still read and und ersto o d
today, n o t only in B ritain b u t even in Jap an . In the language of literary
theory, this is possible because each new reader succeeds in m aking a “ fie-
tio n al c o n tra c t” w ith the classical te x t.35 T here are also, of course, texts
w ith little cultu ral ad ap tability w ith w hich only a very lim ited num ber
of people can actually succeed in m aking fictional contracts. Even in tbe
Bible, there are books or p arts of books of varying levels of adaptability.
T oday it seems to be difficult for m any W estern people to m ake fictional
co n tracts wiffi the b o o k of Leviticus, the letter to the H ehrew s, or even
some p arts of the F auhne corpus, ^ v e r th e le s s , the Bihle as a w hole
continues to a ttra c t m any people’s atten tio n and stands am ong the m ost
read books. For this to continue, however, hihheal instruction needs to
33 For the plaee of the “elassie” in hermeneuties, see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and
Method, trans. rev. Joel W insheimer/Donald G. Marshall, New York (Continuum) 21989,
285-290; David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination. Christian Theology and the Culture
of Fluralism, New York (Crossroad) 1981, 99-229; and Werner G. Jeanrond, Text and
Interpretation as Categories of Theological Thinking, trans. Thomas j. Wilson, New York
(Crossroad) 1988, 133-142. For an application of the concept of the classic to biblical
studies see Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text. Interpreting the New Testament
as Sacred Scripture, San Francisco (HarperSanFrancisco) 1991, 150-151.
34 Gadamer, Truth, 289-290: “... the classical preserves itself precisely because it is significant
in itself and interprets itself, i.e., it speaks in such a way that it is not a statement about
what is past - documentary evidence that still needs to he interpreted - rather, it says
something to the present as if it were said specifically to it. W hat we call ‘classical’ does
not first require the overcoming of historical distance, for in its own constant mediation
it overcomes this distance by itself. The classical, then, is certainly ‘timeless,’ but this
timelessness is a mode of historical being.”
35 Martin Frice, Forms of Life. Character and Moral Imagination in the Novel, New Haven
(Yale University Fress) 1983, 4.
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 133

invite young people to enter into a kind of a fietional eo n traet w ith the
Bible or at least som e eore p arts of it. This will m ost likely sueeeed if
w e do n o t reduee the Bible to a eolleetion of inspired deerees literally
d ietated by G od, to a k ind of dead fossil only good for seientifie analysis,
or to a list of m o ral panaeeas. Trying to enter into a fietional co n tract
w ith the Bible is often m ore diffieult beeause people tend to be less open
to poetie and m etap h o rieal language, due to the dom inanee of seientifie
and technical language in our w orld. T herefore, people find it diffieult
to learn to appreciate the Bible’s rich diversity of approaehes to essential
questions of life and death.
U nderstanding of the Bible as a elassie earries w ith it the risk of redue-
ing the seriptures to a vehicle of hum anist arehetypes. This n o t only ignores
the otherness b u t also the uniqueness of biblieal texts. For believers, the
Bible is m ore th a n a piece of w orld literature. They accept the Bible as
having a revelatory and transform ative m ean in g .^
This raises the question of how revelation takes place in and th ro u g h
the Bible. It is generally assum ed th a t revelation is coextensive w ith the
co n ten t of biblical texts. For exam ple, there w as a discussion several years
ago in the R o m an C atholic C hurch in the U nited States a b o u t the reading
of biblical texts during the liturgy. In the co ntext of renew al from the
Second V atican C ouncil, it had becom e custom ary in m any churches to
conclude the liturgical reading of a scripture tex t by raising the lectionary
and saying, “This is the W ord of G o d .” The gesture and w ords tended
to be u n d ersto o d as m eaning th a t the w o rd of G od w as lim ited to the
w ritten texts in the b o o k th a t h ad just been read. A fter extensive study
and discussion, it w as agreed n o t to raise the lectionary, and to conclude
the reading w ith the w o rd s, “T he W ord of G o d .” This slight alteration
w as intended to express th a t revelation is n o t only a m atter of w ritten
texts alone, b u t takes place in the entire process of reading, listening,
in terpreting, preaching, praying, and singing. In other w ords, biblical
revelation com es a b o u t in dialogue w ith, n o t sim ply in silent obedience
to , the co n ten t of scripture. R evelation n o t only involves the tex t and the
reader, b u t also G o d and the reader, w hile the tex t is a privileged m edium
th a t offers language, co n text, and a horizon of expectation.
T he Bible is a w itness to the ongoing dialogical process of revelation
and com m unication betw een G od and hum ans. In the Bible, we encounter
h o w certain representatives of our religious history interpreted G o d ’s self-
com m unication to them . O bviously, the earliest C hristians did n o t presum e
th a t they needed the precise w ords of the earthly Jesus to keep their faith
alive or to solve their problem s as they m oved into the future. T he gospel
of M a rk , the oldest of the fo u r,^ is n o t just a collection of literal quotes
36 Schneiders, Revelatory Text, 16 ‫ و‬17-‫ و‬.
37 With many critical scholars we presuppose Markan priority. See David Noel Freedman,
ed.. Anchor Bible Dictionary 6, New York (Doubleday) 1992, 263-270 (s.v. “Synoptic
Froblem,” C. M. Tuckett).
134 Research R eport

of the earthly Jesus. M a tth ew hoes n o t sim ply eopy Marie. Instead, the
gospel of M atthew , like the gospel of M ark at an earlier stage, is the
result of an aetive dialogue w ith G od, as the evangelist and his eom m u-
n ity ^ w ere struggling w ith a new situation in the light of earlier C hristian
tra d itio n (i.e., the gospel of M ark). The proeess of trad itio n , w hieh is a
eharaeteristie of the entire Bible, b o th First and Seeond Testam ents, is to
be u n d ersto o d as an ongoing, ever-new dialogue w ith C o d , telling, retell-
ing, and “tra n sla tin g ” the tra d itio n al stories. In dialogue w ith their new
situations of reeeption, new stories and new tran slatio n originate.
M an y people assum e th a t this dialogieal process of revelation cam e
to an end in the w riting of the last book of the Bible and the closing of
the canon, and all th a t is left for us to do is to read and repeat the texts.
If revelation is truly dialogieal com m unication w ith G od m ediated by
seripture, however, th en this process ean hardly com e to an end before
h u m an life and history reaehes its end. U nderstanding the Bible this w ay
results in a healthy relativization of the role biblieal texts play in the
process of revelation. T he Bible is n o t the be all and end all, as a certain
u n d erstan d in g of the principle of sola scriptura seems to suggest. Even
the Bible c an n o t excuse people from the task of entering into a personal
relationship w ith G od, albeit in dialogue w ith the Bible. In the Jew ish
tra d itio n , the T orah is said to have seventy faces. The T orah is, as it w ere,
w aiting for each g eneration of new, unique, and irreplaceable readers. The
Z ohar, the influential m ystical com m entary on the five books of M oses,
p oints to the joy th a t is experienced in heaven at each new interp retatio n
of scripture. Since the focus is n o t a literal reenactm ent of the hihheal text
b u t the p ersonal com m unication w ith G od, each reader counts. W ith o u t
in terp retatio n , w ith o u t t a ^ e n e u t i c s , the scriptures are m eaningless to
people. T he Bihle presents itself to us as a m ystery th a t challenges each
new generation to in terp ret it and p u t it into practice.
W hen we read the Bihle, we are n o t only w itnesses of the ongoing
rew riting of the tra d itio n , but we are also invited to discover new m ean-
ings and to develop new in terp retatio n s in dialogue w ith the hihheal text
and the G od of the Bihle. The dialogieal strueture of the process of tradi-
tio n w eleom es p artieip atio n in th a t dialogieal process. T he Italian m ovie
II P ostino (The P o stm a n , 1995) p o rtrays a po stm an in a small fishing
village w ho enters into dialogue w ith the poet, Fahlo N eru d a. T h ro u g h
his diseovery of m etap h o rieal language, the po stm an is em pow ered to
p artieip ate in the universe of poetry. H e learns to in terp ret and ehange
the w o rld w ith the eyes of the poet, in the sphere of interpersonal love
as well as in the sphere of social com m itm ent, even to the p o in t of a
violent death.

38 We assume here that the intended readers of the four gospels were speeifie eommunities. For
a dissenting voice, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians. Rethinking
the Cospel Audiences, Edinburgh (T&T Clark) 1 8 ‫ وو‬.
 Bieringer/P(311efeyt, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 135

Q uestions, d oubts, resistanee, indignation, and eritieism are essential

p arts of the dialogieal proeess of revelation. They should n o t be stifled
or sileneed by a m isguided sense of politeness or piety. It should n o t be
overlooked th a t the Bible leaves m ueh room for eritieal dialogue and
ereative in terp retatio n . T he elaim th a t the Bible requires absolute assent
and unquestioning obedienee is less based on seripture itself th a n the faet
th a t m any of its readers lived for eenturies under absolutist rule and the
h rm e n e u tie s eharaeteristie for sueh a form of governm ent. P ostm odern
young people w ho have experieneed only dem oeratie soeieties unsurpris-
ingly have no tim e for the exelusively unilateral and au th o rita ria n biblieal
h rm e n e u tie s of p ast centuries. The experience of entering into critical and
creative dialogue w ith biblical texts inside and outside the classroom is
therefore very liberating for them . “It is n o t a sign of failure w hen readers
of the Bible raise critical questions. Som ething rath e r goes w rong w hen
they ru n aw ay from the relationship w ith G od w ith these questions, w hen
we ask questions w hich tre at the tex t like a thing. The texts contain the
invitation to enter into dialogue w ith the one to w hom they refer . ’ ‫و ال‬
W hen we rediscover th a t the Bible contains the stories of com m on
people in dialogue w ith G od and w ith each other, reflecting their joys
and hopes, grief and anxiety, dream s and superficiality in every stage of
their lives, it will be possible to integrate the Bible again into personal
life and the life of the com m unity.40 People can then enter the biblical
w o rld w ith their ow n life stories. Identifying w ith biblical characters and
stories helps us discover a tru th th a t transcends our ow n subjectivity.
This is possible “w here ... the story becom es a ‘th o u ’ for us in w hich
some aspects of the ‘T h o u ’ appear, the ‘T h o u ’ to w hom all these stories
testify in one w ay or an o th er.”41 T he Bible does n o t im pose fois kind of
faith in an au th o rita ria n way. Instead, it speaks w ifo an au th o rity th a t
people accept and respect from w ith in .^ “ O u r freedom and independence
are respected, b u t n o t can onized . ” ٧ This implies th a t each tex t does n o t
have the sam e role or m eaning for people in each phase of their lives.
The Bible contains a m ultiplicity of stories th a t c an n o t be reduced to a

39 Wim Dekker, De bijbel als levensboek. Levenslang in gesprek, in: Wapenveld 50/4 (June
2000) 3-8, also available at hup://www.wapem^eldoHine.H/v^^^ (aeeessed
16 January 2005).
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 While this is may be true with regard to the Bible as a whole considering its many different
voices, this may not blind us to the fact that individual parts of biblical books do at times
try to wield external authority. See Reimund Bieringer, “Come and You Will See” (John
1:39). Dialogieal Authority and Normativity of the Future in the Fourth Cospel and in
Religious Education, in Hermeneutics and Religious Education, Bibliotheca Ephemeri-
dum theologicarum Eovaniensium 180, eds. Herman Lombaerts/Didier Follefeyt, Feuven
(Feeters) 2004, 179-201.
43 Dekker (n. 39), Bijbel.
136 Research R eport

single m etan arrativ e. In a po stm o d ern eontext, people ean step into the
biblieal w o rld th ro u g h a variety of different gates and travel m any dif-
ferent trajeetories in reading the texts.
T he Bible offers help to young people in th eir seareh for sp iritual
id en tity .^ As a eonsequenee of the so-ealled “tu rn to b io g rap h y ” in the
theo ry of religious edueation, religion elasses have been inereasingly seen as
e o n trib u tin g to the developm ent of eaeh stu d en t’s ow n narrative identity in
the sense o ^ n te rp re ta tiv e identity, i.e., m ediated self-know ledge.^ The m any
story lines offered in the Bible will inspire young people in giving shape to
their ow n life stories. This can only succeed if biblical instruction, like other
w ays of teaching religion, seeks to m eet young people in their ow n spiritual
and cultural contexts, and if young people are given a voice to enter into
dialogue w hen we teach the Bible. T here m ust be a m ovem ent from the text
to the w o rld of young people. A purely historical-critical or litam ry-critical
ap p ro ach to the Bible will never succeed in involving people in the w orlds
of the texts. M eth o d s need to be used th a t invite young people to bridge
the gap betw een the tex t and their lives, betw een living as individuals and
as m em bers of a com m unity.46 O nly in this w ay can biblical texts have an
im pact u p o n the fo rm atio n of the narrative identities of young people and
guide them into “ designing their ow n fu tu re . ” ٠
In the area of p asto ral ministay, a variety of m ethods has been used for
years in an a ttem p t to restore the n arrative and interactive relevance of
the Bible. Some have criticized such approaches as turning the Bible into
a self-service restau ran t. T h a t is, people then only enter the biblical w orld
th ro u g h the gata th a t looks fam iliar to them , so th a t the Bible is m isused
as a decontextualized and arb itrary solution to their ow n existential dilem-
m as. Such criticism , however, is unfounded, at least as long as the basic
acfoevem ents of the fostafecal-critical m ethod and the inner dynam ics of
a ta rm e n e u tic al reading are taken into account. R espect for the enduring
results of historical criticism guarantees respect for the otherness of the
text. H erm eneutics is n o t to be confused w ith the legitim ization of m ere
subjectivity. In co n trast w ith m any other approaches, ta rm e n eu tics has
n o t ab an d o n ed the search for the tru th of the tex t.48

44 Mark A. Pike, The Bible and the Reader’s Resp©nse, in: J©urnal of Education and Christian
Belief 7 (2003), 37-51.
45 Joke Maex, Een hermeneutisch-communicatief concept vakdidactiek godsdienst, in: Leren,
ed. Pollefeyt, 70.
46 Ingo Baldermann, Der biblische Unterricht. Ein Handbuch für den evangelischen Reli-
gionsunterricht, Grundthemen der Pädagogischen Praxis, Braunschweig (Westermann)
1‫ و‬6 ‫ و‬267-280 .,
47 Jaap G. Schaap, Interactief leren in godsdienst en levensbeschouwing. Zoeken naar zin in
religieuze communicatie binnen een multiculturele samenleving, met als Casus het bijbel-
onderwijs, Zoetermeer (Boekencentrum) 1 3 2 0 -7‫ وو‬2 ‫ و‬. 4,
48 Ilse Cornu/Didier Pollefeyt, Religieus opvoeden tussen openheid en geslotenheid. Bijbels
geloof in een Babelse wereld, in: Leren, ed. Pollefeyt, 56-58 (s.v. “Truth as u-topia”).
 Bieringer/P(311efeyt, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 137

O u r optim ism is fo unded u p o n a “h rm e n e u tie s of alien atio n ,”^

w hieh in o u r view is eharaeteristie of the seriptures. Even if we initially
reeognize ourselves in a biblieal story, during a seeond reading we shall
eneounter the otherness of the tex t and alw ays be ehallenged by the text.
As a result, we shall n o t eom plaeently be allow ed to be at peaee w ith
o u r ow n eo m fortable in te rp re ta tio n s,^ but shall be urged to leave our
eom fo rt zone, b o th in o u r individual and soeial eontext. Eor instanee,
people to d ay ean easily relate to the diseussion betw een A braham and G od
in Gen. 18:16-33, eoneerning G o d ’s plans to destroy Sodom . A braham
argues w ith G od, “ Far be it from you to do sueh a th in g ” (18:25). Even
as we fully identify w ith A braham , however, we are eo nfronted w ith the
question of w heth er we can also leave behind our secure place and tu rn
aw ay from idolatry, just as A braham did. Even if we honestly have to
ad m it th a t we malee selective use of the A braham stories, the aspects we
neglect will keep nagging us, for the Bible resists being used à la carte.
A nother instance fu rth er illustrates this. Eeter can be a reference figure
in his betrayal of the suffering Jesus, w hen his fear is stronger th a n his
fidelity (M att. 2 6 :6 ‫ و‬- 7 5 ‫ ﻣ ﺮ‬T he figure of Peter can also rem ind us, however,
of Jesus’ invitation to com e to him across the w ater, an invitation Peter
accepted only after som e hesitation (M att. 14:2 ‫ ﻣ ﺮ و‬At a still later m om ent,
m oreover, there is the im age of Peter w ho accepts being the rock on w hich
Jesus will build his church (M att. 16:18). Both in A braham and in Peter,
contem poraries find certain dim ensions attractive and others difficult to
accept. In recom m ending th a t we take a good look at the dim ensions we
find difficult, we do n o t intend to suggest th a t we have to accept these
blindly. H ere again, reading the Bible often includes w restling wiffi G od
for the sake of G od.
A final question to be asked in ffiis context concerns the ultim ate norm
for testing in terp retatio n s. Indeed, w h a t m atters is n o t in terp retatio n for
in te rp re ta tio n ’s sake. T he tarm en e u tics of the Bible developed above is
frequently co n fro n ted wiffi the criticism th a t it leads to pure subjectivity,
individualism , and relativism , to uncom m itted Spielerei. The background
to ffiis objection is the fact th at, in our h r m e n e u tic ap p ro ach , we do n o t
accept every elem ent of the biblical tex t blindly as unquestioned authority.
This is w hy we are often co nfronted wiffi the criticism th a t calling into
question a certain aspect of the biblical tex t will lead to to tal subjectivity.
People fear the dom ino effect th a t such an ap p ro ach m ight have. If one
agrees to call into question one aspect of the Bible, one m ight soon be left
wiffi nothing. The ultim ate question rem ains: O n w h a t or w hose auth o rity
can we distinguish betw een acceptable and unacceptable in terpretations
of or elem ents in the Bffile?

49 Paul Ricœur, Le problème du fondement de la morale, in: Sapienza 28/3 (1975) 335-

50 the issue of Katechetische Blätter 128 (2003) on “Biblische Irritationen.”

138 Research R eport

A lthough o u r ap p ro ach accepts the legitim acy of a plurality of interpre-

tative p ath s for biblical texts, fois is far from saying th a t anything goes.
W hile we object to reducing the biblical tex t to one single m eaning, we
still find it very necessary to develop w ays th a t allow us to exclude cer-
tain o th er m eanings. We need tarm en e u tical rules th a t help us to identify
readings th a t are n o t acceptable. O u r app ro ach assum es th a t the criterion
should n o t only be sought in the past (for instance, in w h a t Jesus really
said), b u t also in the future th a t we encounter in the w orld of the bibli-
cal tex ts.51 T he “w o rld of the te x t” m eans the particu lar universe th a t is
created by the ch aracters, locations, tim e, plot, rules, language, etc. of a
text. In the act of reading, readers enter fois universe and at tim es lose
to u ch w ifo the m aterial w orld aro u n d them . Some literary texts offer
utopias or “ alternative w o rld s” and invite readers to assist in realizing
foem . Biblical texts co n tain these alternative w orlds as a horizon th a t
appears to readers from an eschatological future. In ? a u l’s letters, fois
alternative w o rld appears as the “new c rea tio n ” (2 Cor. 5:17 ‫ و‬C al. 6:15),
in the synoptic gospels as the “ kingdom of C o d ” (M ark 1:15), and in the
gospel of Jo h n as “ eternal life” (John 3:16). This is the horizon against
w hich each in terp retatio n needs to be tested. In our view, in terpretations
th a t th reaten fois h o rizo n are unacceptable because they deprive some
people of a future and legitimize the status quo of injustice, m aking it
im possible for certain people a n d /o r com m unities to develop to w ards
the alternative w o rld of the text. They destroy creation or usurp life at
the cost of Others.52
In terp retatio n of the Bible has alw ays ethical im plications.55 To a
g reater or lesser degree, each in terp retatio n either supports or under-
m ines the status quo. T here are no n eutral, objective observation posts,
either w ifo regard to the biblical tex t or w ifo regard to the w o rld w here
in terp retatio n occurs. Every in terp retatio n , n o t only fem inist or liberation
exegesis in general b u t also fo s ^ ic a l-c ritic a l in terp retatio n th a t pretends
to be objective and unbiased, is “ advocacy e x e g e s i s . E v e r y interpreta-
tio n takes up a p articu lar cause and is linked w ifo a particu lar ideology,
a p articu lar constellation of pow er th a t it either supports or underm ines
to a certain degree.
O u r conviction is th a t the Bible has a future if its in terp retatio n th w arts
all attem pts to deprive people of their future and if it em pow ers people

51 Reimund Bieringer, The N ^m ativity of the Future. The Authority of the Bible for Tbeol-
ogy, in: ET Bulletin. Zeitschrift für Tbeologie in Europa 8 (1997), 52-67.
52 Franees Young, Allegory and the Ethies of Reading, in: o p e n Text, ed. Watson, 1 3 ‫ م‬-
120 .
53 Daniel Fatte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation. A Réévaluation, Louisville (Westminster
Jobn Knox Fress) 1995.
54 See Walter Wink, The Bihle in Human Transformation. Toward a New Faradigm for
Bihlical Study, Fhiladelphia (Fortress Fress) 1973; Fatte, Ethics, 50.
 B ie ri^ e r/P ^ le fe y t, The Role of the Bible in Religious Education 139

to w o rk for a future in aeeordanee w ith G o d ’s dream for all people. H o w

do we eom e to k n o w w h at this future resembles? w h a t are the criteria
to test w hieh in terp retatio ns open up future and w hieh elose the do o r to
the future? w h a t we eall “ G o d ’s dream for all peo p le” ean indeed only
be k n o w n in a m ediated way. It is n o t im m ediately obvious for everyone
in the texts. It e an n o t be determ ined by one individual or by one group
of people. It can n o t be fixed once and for all. The w ay we perceive it, it
is n o t unaffected by h u m an lim itations and sin. It is our hope th a t w ith
m any generations collaborating, hum anity will see w ith increasing clarity
w h a t G o d ’s dream is and how to give it shape. Every generation in its
ow n co n tex t will have to pick up the Bible and co n fro n t it w ith trad itio n
and h u m an experience in order to keep the dream of G od alive in fois
w orld. T hen the Bible will really m ake a future.

Z s a m m e n fa s s u n g

Der Foschungsbericht nim m t seinen Ausgang bei den spezifischen EHahrungen, die Leh-
rende machen, wenn sie die Botschaft der Bibel im R b g io n su n terrich t zu kommunizie-
ren versuchen. An erster Stelle steht hier das Problem eines verbreiteten Bibelfundam en-
talismus. Das lmchstäbhche Verständnis der Bibel lässt sich nach Ansicht der A utoren
allerdings als eine bestimmte Entwicklungsstufe im religidsen Bildungsgang eines jedes
M enschen begreifen. Eine zweite Schwierigkeit ergibt sich aus einer Einstellung, die man
in einem gewissen Sinne als ‫ ״‬wissenschaftlichen T ^ a m e n ta h s m u s ” bezeichnen kdnnte.
Gemeint ist dam it eine bestimmte Weise, sich der historisch-kritischen M ethode zu be-
dienen und eben nur diesen einen m ethodischen Zugang zur Bibel als einzig zulässiges
herm eneutisches Verfahren anzuerkennen. Als ein dritter Problemkreis w ird von den
Autoren die weit verbreitete M oralisierung der biblischen Botschaft nam haft gemacht.
In einem vierten A bschnitt werden die spezifischen Chancen und Crenzen der Digita-
lisierung des biblischen Textes erwogen. Vor dem H intergrund dieser mannigfachen
H erausforderungen liegt den A utoren daran, einen alternativen Zugang zur Bibel zu
erdffnen, der den Akzent zunächst einmal darauf legt, dass die Bibel und ihre Entstehung
ganz grundsätzlich als das D okum ent eines beständigen Dialogs zwischen G ott und der
Menschengem einschaft verstanden werden müsse. Als entscheidendes Kriterium für die
Bibellektüre schlagen die A utoren darum vor, jeweils zu prüfen, ob und inwieweit diese
Lektüre eine Zukunftsperspektive für die gesamte menschliche Gemeinschaft zu erüffnen
vermag oder ob sie ledighche einigen wenigen Vorteile auf Kosten anderer verspricht.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.