I’m Catholic and attend weekly. I’d say the Bible is extremely important but I think I read it once last month. I go to adoration twice a week (prayer before the blessed sacrament) pray the rosary 2-3 times a week, plus attend daily mass once a week. I do tend to do more spiritual reading than read the Bible.
My two cents is we just spend our devotional time in other ways. It would be interesting to see a graph of how much time different denominations spend on devotions outside of Sunday attendance. I bet it would be way closer.
Your response is fascinating to me. You're obviously very religious and devoted to your faith, but in a way (and speaking kindly) you're a different species than an evangelical. Meant to be funny, not offensive. :)
Ash, our Parish has signed up for the Reach More program and embraced a vision of “go out in the community to make disciples” … I think it may be more accurate to restate as follows: “Make disciples of Jesus Christ and invite them into the fullness of the Catholic faith.” I assume the other denominations might consider a similar strategy.
Would have been interesting to add the Jews to the mix, as our relation to Hebrew Bible seems quite different, though we have a wide spectrum of attendance at worship. Torah is central to the religion, liturgy is dominated by copy & paste from Biblical sources, so centrality has a high consensus. And Torah plus a section of Prophets is read publicly weekly as part of worship. Self-study seems a little different. It happens widely, across denominations, but we tend not to take the Old Testament that we all got as Bar Mitzvah gifts off the shelf and read from it. What we do instead is seek out commentaries by rabbis or other scholars who have already digested a section of the weekly portion to which they share their insights. It's more like reading op-eds than Cliff Notes, but it's also not reading a primary source that we will hear verbally and follow along in the Books, either in Hebrew or translation, as the reader chants each section.
How well that correlates with attendance is hard to guess. Much of this exposure is passive, the public reading and the rabbi's comments at worship, though many synagogues have classes where the weekly portion is discussed with questions offered to those who attend them. Individual study, likely minimal.
It has always puzzled me why Jews would read the "op-eds" (rabbinic commentaries) more than the primary source. Could you expound on this and explain or guess why this is?
Lots of reasons. First, we do not ignore the primary sources, which are read each Saturday and which they have as part of our religious school curriculum. But for individual ongoing study, the commentaries are much greater in volume, in their spectrum of ideas, and merge better with other parts of education. Our teachers assing us novels and history texts, but our required papers and exams test our interpretations of what we have read. Jewish mental function, embedded in our liturgy, is divided into three parts: da-at or core knowledge, binah or insight, and saichel or good judment. The ability to function this way depends on creating our own opinions of a primary source and appreciating the insights of those who have accumulated greater wisdom. So the commentaries are what we mostly use as learning resources.
It could be because there is no "primary source" as the books in the various bibles are all interpreted, and those interpretations are different depending on a lot of factors. Just my two cents as they say.
As a mainline Protestant pastor CC (DOC) I would guess most of our members fall toward the Catholic bible ownership pattern (family bible, Bible given at baptism, etc) despite us saying we are “people of the book” and “we take the bible seriously, not literally).
Speaking as a Catholic, yes we're certainly not "people of the book".
If you hold a Catholic pastor or theologian's feet to the fire, he would have to admit that in Catholic doctrine, it is not strictly necessary for non-clergy to spend ANY time personally reading Scripture — I mean, necessary for one's salvation and sanctification. It's obviously encouraged by the Church nowadays, but only since around the 1890s; there hasn't been as much time for it to permeate Catholic culture.
And personal Scripture reading won't ever occupy quite the same space in a Catholic's heart or mind as it does for a Protestant's because for a Catholic, it's one activity among many that fall under the broader heading of private _devotional_ time.
Ask a Protestant about how much time they spend each week in personal devotions, and the question is practically equivalent to asking how much time they spend reading / studying / meditating on the Bible on their own. But to put the same kind of question fairly to a Catholic, you'd have to ask how much time or how frequently each week they read the Bible OR pray the Rosary OR read some book on the lives of the saints or a Life of Christ or… you get the idea. Because in the minds of most Catholics, all of those activities and more "count" in the same way as "stuff I do by myself to try to get closer to God" i.e. private devotion.
You could say that Catholics may perceive it as "devotion gap" with Protestants, in which we both use Scripture a ton in our public worship, but the big bushy tree of private devotion has been pruned down to only one branch.
By your definition, I am an evangelical although I wrestle with that term. But it is interesting to me what you have discovered in your research, viz. how little devout Catholics (and others) read their Bibles. This is odd to me, because that is the central practice of my Christian faith.
I am not writing to draw attention to myself, but perhaps to exhibit myself as a typical evangelical. Many years ago I adopted a Bible-reading methodology based on Billy Graham's daily practice: Starting in Genesis and Matthew, I read four chapters of the OT and four chapters of the NT (I omit the daily 7 chapters of Psalms as Billy Graham did, I read Psalms in the course of reading). The next day I resume where I left off. And I enjoy reading different versions (except the old King James!). By this method, I read the Bible more than twice through a year. It's fascinating and I learn so much. And I frequent compare verses between different versions, very illuminating. And I am not unique in my church world.
I guess that is why I am dumbfounded when I meet Christians who rarely read their Bibles and have never read it through completely, or only once as some form of box checking ("I did it, I read the Bible all the way through!" type of thing).
If I am a typical evangelical, then this helps to explain the head-shaking that many evangelicals might hold toward, say, Catholics, who are less interested in their Bibles. I have a very devout Catholic friend and we can talk frankly of such things and he simply is not interested in reading the Bible and if he does, it's maybe once a week (I know, a sample of one).
Great post. It exposes the way different Christian denominations (groups) approach the Bible. I guess that is why, in part, my Catholic friend cannot get his head around sola scriptura. :)
Ryan, your data raise an important question: What are the implications of these different postures toward Scripture for the shared mission of Catholics and evangelicals?
Both traditions are called to make disciples, yet they approach that mission from substantially different perspectives. Using a military metaphor, it is difficult for allies to win a war when they cannot agree on the mission or how best to accomplish it.
Perhaps the greater danger is not that Christians disagree, but that our differences become so important that we lose sight of the mission we share. Division can become a weakness that is exploited—and we can then rationalize our separate positions rather than honestly asking whether our approach is producing the results Christ commanded.
I explored this question in Christian Unity: Can We Disagree Without Dividing? The central question is simple: Can Christians with important theological differences work together to fulfill the Great Commission?
I think it would be worth evaluating within Catholics those who grew up in a pre-Vatican II experience vs. a post-Vatican II experience. Is there a change in Bible usage by Roman Catholics along generational lines once the Magisterium opened up Mass and Scripture reading to the vernacular languages?
Black and Evangelical Christians appear to be reading different parts of the Bible or interpreting content differently. Overall, Black Christians are far more accepting of same-sex relationships and abortion than Evangelicals (also than Mormons and Muslims). Undoubtedly other differences on faith-based values?
Black protestants might be close on the yes/no of abortion to evangelicals, but they would also be more likely to believe in universal healthcare, so they are more true pro-life and not just "pro-birth" like we see in white evangelical churches.
From other charts I have seen, the more both Black Prot. and Evangelicals (30% of "plain" evangelicals are not white) read the Bible, the closer they are in beliefs and values. The more Black Christians read the Bible and attend church, the more they believe abortion is wrong - although the numbers are still nowhere near as high as in the "regular" evangelical community. I could be wrong on this but I believe Black Protestants are more likely to give 10% of their money away than evangelicals but this difference also gets closer together when surveying evangelicals who read the Bible more and attend church more frequently.
I’m Catholic and attend weekly. I’d say the Bible is extremely important but I think I read it once last month. I go to adoration twice a week (prayer before the blessed sacrament) pray the rosary 2-3 times a week, plus attend daily mass once a week. I do tend to do more spiritual reading than read the Bible.
My two cents is we just spend our devotional time in other ways. It would be interesting to see a graph of how much time different denominations spend on devotions outside of Sunday attendance. I bet it would be way closer.
Your response is fascinating to me. You're obviously very religious and devoted to your faith, but in a way (and speaking kindly) you're a different species than an evangelical. Meant to be funny, not offensive. :)
Ash, our Parish has signed up for the Reach More program and embraced a vision of “go out in the community to make disciples” … I think it may be more accurate to restate as follows: “Make disciples of Jesus Christ and invite them into the fullness of the Catholic faith.” I assume the other denominations might consider a similar strategy.
https://evangelicalcatholic.org/reachmore/
Would have been interesting to add the Jews to the mix, as our relation to Hebrew Bible seems quite different, though we have a wide spectrum of attendance at worship. Torah is central to the religion, liturgy is dominated by copy & paste from Biblical sources, so centrality has a high consensus. And Torah plus a section of Prophets is read publicly weekly as part of worship. Self-study seems a little different. It happens widely, across denominations, but we tend not to take the Old Testament that we all got as Bar Mitzvah gifts off the shelf and read from it. What we do instead is seek out commentaries by rabbis or other scholars who have already digested a section of the weekly portion to which they share their insights. It's more like reading op-eds than Cliff Notes, but it's also not reading a primary source that we will hear verbally and follow along in the Books, either in Hebrew or translation, as the reader chants each section.
How well that correlates with attendance is hard to guess. Much of this exposure is passive, the public reading and the rabbi's comments at worship, though many synagogues have classes where the weekly portion is discussed with questions offered to those who attend them. Individual study, likely minimal.
It has always puzzled me why Jews would read the "op-eds" (rabbinic commentaries) more than the primary source. Could you expound on this and explain or guess why this is?
Lots of reasons. First, we do not ignore the primary sources, which are read each Saturday and which they have as part of our religious school curriculum. But for individual ongoing study, the commentaries are much greater in volume, in their spectrum of ideas, and merge better with other parts of education. Our teachers assing us novels and history texts, but our required papers and exams test our interpretations of what we have read. Jewish mental function, embedded in our liturgy, is divided into three parts: da-at or core knowledge, binah or insight, and saichel or good judment. The ability to function this way depends on creating our own opinions of a primary source and appreciating the insights of those who have accumulated greater wisdom. So the commentaries are what we mostly use as learning resources.
Thank you!
It could be because there is no "primary source" as the books in the various bibles are all interpreted, and those interpretations are different depending on a lot of factors. Just my two cents as they say.
As a mainline Protestant pastor CC (DOC) I would guess most of our members fall toward the Catholic bible ownership pattern (family bible, Bible given at baptism, etc) despite us saying we are “people of the book” and “we take the bible seriously, not literally).
Speaking as a Catholic, yes we're certainly not "people of the book".
If you hold a Catholic pastor or theologian's feet to the fire, he would have to admit that in Catholic doctrine, it is not strictly necessary for non-clergy to spend ANY time personally reading Scripture — I mean, necessary for one's salvation and sanctification. It's obviously encouraged by the Church nowadays, but only since around the 1890s; there hasn't been as much time for it to permeate Catholic culture.
And personal Scripture reading won't ever occupy quite the same space in a Catholic's heart or mind as it does for a Protestant's because for a Catholic, it's one activity among many that fall under the broader heading of private _devotional_ time.
Ask a Protestant about how much time they spend each week in personal devotions, and the question is practically equivalent to asking how much time they spend reading / studying / meditating on the Bible on their own. But to put the same kind of question fairly to a Catholic, you'd have to ask how much time or how frequently each week they read the Bible OR pray the Rosary OR read some book on the lives of the saints or a Life of Christ or… you get the idea. Because in the minds of most Catholics, all of those activities and more "count" in the same way as "stuff I do by myself to try to get closer to God" i.e. private devotion.
You could say that Catholics may perceive it as "devotion gap" with Protestants, in which we both use Scripture a ton in our public worship, but the big bushy tree of private devotion has been pruned down to only one branch.
By your definition, I am an evangelical although I wrestle with that term. But it is interesting to me what you have discovered in your research, viz. how little devout Catholics (and others) read their Bibles. This is odd to me, because that is the central practice of my Christian faith.
I am not writing to draw attention to myself, but perhaps to exhibit myself as a typical evangelical. Many years ago I adopted a Bible-reading methodology based on Billy Graham's daily practice: Starting in Genesis and Matthew, I read four chapters of the OT and four chapters of the NT (I omit the daily 7 chapters of Psalms as Billy Graham did, I read Psalms in the course of reading). The next day I resume where I left off. And I enjoy reading different versions (except the old King James!). By this method, I read the Bible more than twice through a year. It's fascinating and I learn so much. And I frequent compare verses between different versions, very illuminating. And I am not unique in my church world.
I guess that is why I am dumbfounded when I meet Christians who rarely read their Bibles and have never read it through completely, or only once as some form of box checking ("I did it, I read the Bible all the way through!" type of thing).
If I am a typical evangelical, then this helps to explain the head-shaking that many evangelicals might hold toward, say, Catholics, who are less interested in their Bibles. I have a very devout Catholic friend and we can talk frankly of such things and he simply is not interested in reading the Bible and if he does, it's maybe once a week (I know, a sample of one).
Great post. It exposes the way different Christian denominations (groups) approach the Bible. I guess that is why, in part, my Catholic friend cannot get his head around sola scriptura. :)
Ryan, your data raise an important question: What are the implications of these different postures toward Scripture for the shared mission of Catholics and evangelicals?
Both traditions are called to make disciples, yet they approach that mission from substantially different perspectives. Using a military metaphor, it is difficult for allies to win a war when they cannot agree on the mission or how best to accomplish it.
Perhaps the greater danger is not that Christians disagree, but that our differences become so important that we lose sight of the mission we share. Division can become a weakness that is exploited—and we can then rationalize our separate positions rather than honestly asking whether our approach is producing the results Christ commanded.
I explored this question in Christian Unity: Can We Disagree Without Dividing? The central question is simple: Can Christians with important theological differences work together to fulfill the Great Commission?
https://timjclark.substack.com/p/christian-unity-can-we-disagree-without
I think it would be worth evaluating within Catholics those who grew up in a pre-Vatican II experience vs. a post-Vatican II experience. Is there a change in Bible usage by Roman Catholics along generational lines once the Magisterium opened up Mass and Scripture reading to the vernacular languages?
Black and Evangelical Christians appear to be reading different parts of the Bible or interpreting content differently. Overall, Black Christians are far more accepting of same-sex relationships and abortion than Evangelicals (also than Mormons and Muslims). Undoubtedly other differences on faith-based values?
Black protestants might be close on the yes/no of abortion to evangelicals, but they would also be more likely to believe in universal healthcare, so they are more true pro-life and not just "pro-birth" like we see in white evangelical churches.
From other charts I have seen, the more both Black Prot. and Evangelicals (30% of "plain" evangelicals are not white) read the Bible, the closer they are in beliefs and values. The more Black Christians read the Bible and attend church, the more they believe abortion is wrong - although the numbers are still nowhere near as high as in the "regular" evangelical community. I could be wrong on this but I believe Black Protestants are more likely to give 10% of their money away than evangelicals but this difference also gets closer together when surveying evangelicals who read the Bible more and attend church more frequently.
Compare weekly attending black Protestants on abortion here https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/have-the-democrats-lost-the-black?utm_source=publication-search
To Black Protestants in general here https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/did-dobbs-have-a-noticeable-impact?utm_source=publication-search