Many who are familiar with leafing through the pages of the Bible might claim that it’s enough to simply read it, without delving into deeper study. On the other hand, there are Christians who actively engage in a thorough examination of the sacred text, though often without a structured approach. Others choose not to read it at all, despite their connection to religious traditions. A widely accepted phrase in popular culture suggests that one must “believe and not inquire.” The implications behind this way of thinking are deeper than one might initially expect.
At first glance, the stakes may seem insignificant. But what are the consequences of a faith that is not accompanied by inquiry? Reflecting on the significance of Easter in Romania, academician Constantin Bălăceanu-Stolnici remarked in a recent video interview with the newspaper Adevărul (The Truth) that most believers are unaware of the profound meaning behind this major Christian holiday. “The celebration is reduced to the ritual of the Easter night service, the cracking of eggs, or the traditional lamb feast,” he said. In his view, for the majority, the event takes on a predominantly hedonistic aspect.
“Believe and do not inquire”
So, is there a way out of this cultivated traditionalism? A “conscious participation” could offer a fresh perspective on any religious event, the academician says. This would first require an understanding of its meanings; in other words, a deeper exploration of its complexities and subtleties. But those who seek understanding must also steer clear of the “magic hidden in today’s religious practices,” Bălăceanu-Stolnici says. In his opinion, certain aspects of Romanian rituals still evoke shamanic chants, superstitions, or self-flagellation—elements that have no connection to Christianity. This is the result of a faith where inquiry and exploration have no solid foundation. The multiplication of rituals, even good ones, without grasping their significance, can become harmful, even if this may not be immediately obvious.
Faith between ignorance and inquiry
On the other hand, diligent study of religious texts can also have consequences that are not always beneficial. According to an analysis by the Pew Forum, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organisations, all reading the same biblical text, yet interpreting it differently.
Faced with this reality, many believe that delving into the Bible can become a dangerous endeavour. The phrase “believe and do not inquire” often serves as a convenient justification for ignoring Scripture altogether. The fragmentation of Christianity and the exponential rise of Christian denominations offer strong arguments for adopting a cautious approach to biblical interpretation.
Bălăceanu-Stolnici argues that when it comes to matters concerning the “afterlife,” faith and inquiry cannot coexist. This is a common stance, suggesting the need for qualified intermediaries to help transfer the beliefs we are meant to embrace. Consequently, the professional clergy are expected to step up to this role.
Those who subscribe to this mindset often overlook the fact that the phrase “believe and do not inquire” originates from non-Christian sources. Moreover, it seems to imply an accusation against Christians for their supposed naivety in accepting what the clergy says without question. In this regard, Celsus, the ancient philosopher and critic of Christianity, may have had a point. How many people today stop to question the origins and meanings of the religious practices they follow? It’s a relevant question for anyone, regardless of their denomination.
The debate over the interpretation of biblical texts is an old one. For centuries, reading and interpreting Scripture was the exclusive domain of the clergy. However, the Protestant Reformation marked a turning point in how people engaged with the Bible. The principle of Sola Scriptura became the new motto, allowing for personal inquiry. As a result, putting the Bible in the hands of every believer became the new norm in European spirituality. Yet, even this approach has its challenges. What guarantees are there that personal Bible reading isn’t just as harmful as ignoring it altogether?
An undermined Bible
A columnist at Cross Walk attempts to address this issue of how we approach the Bible. In Kelly Givens’ view, even those with a genuine desire to study the sacred text often lack the tools or coherent principles necessary to interpret it correctly or evaluate what church leaders are teaching them. “Why do you believe what you believe? I think there are many, many Christians with deeply held convictions who have never opened the Bible to see what God actually says about those beliefs. They just accept something as true because a parent, a pastor, a religious leader, or a book told them so. We often elevate the teachings of local church leaders, the fame of certain clergy, or bestselling books above the Word of God. It shouldn’t be that way,” Givens says.
So, what’s the solution? According to the columnist, the primary focus of religious leaders should not be offering an indisputable interpretation of the Bible, but rather educating their congregations on how to read Scripture personally, in line with fundamental interpretative principles.
The risk of straying from the text
What happens if these principles are not adopted? Kerry Walters, a philosophy professor at Gettysburg College, highlights how people can read the same biblical text and not only arrive at different conclusions but also at incorrect ones. Establishing context is a critical part of interpretation. There is both a historical and cultural context that must be taken into account. The problem, however, is that readers often tend to interpret Bible verses in isolation or take them literally, ignoring their immediate context.
These misunderstandings cannot be taken lightly. Many have consequences so profound that overlooking them can be disastrous. For instance, Christians once used biblical texts to justify supporting Nazism, as well as the continuation of slavery. More recently, the identification of Gog and Magog in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has disregarded clear interpretive principles. Political support for Israel often stems from a theological framework, while the resurgence of the “symphony” dogma in Eastern Europe is built on similar biblical arguments. Likewise, the notion of the Antichrist being linked to banking microchips—fueling street protests—not only borders on the absurd but also represents a forced reading of the biblical text, twisting it into something it doesn’t actually say.
Ignoring the Bible may seem like an easy option, but is it truly effective? The search that Christ invites us to undertake should remind us that neglecting the sacred text is not a viable solution. Instead, educating ourselves on how to approach it correctly should be a priority, even for those who believe they are immune to error.
