What if the way evangelicals learned to defend the Bible actually corrupted the way we read it?
That’s not a hostile question from a skeptic on the outside. That’s the argument my friend, Tyler Bream, makes from inside the tradition — carefully, historically, and, dare I say, convincingly. He wrote about this at Regent University tracing how evangelical hermeneutics developed, and his conclusion is a little uncomfortable: that in borrowing the tools of the Enlightenment to defeat the Enlightenment, evangelicals accidentally absorbed its assumptions too. And those assumptions have been quietly distorting the way we interpret Scripture ever since.
It’s a historical argument, but it’s not just an academic one. Because if he’s right, it has real implications for how the church reads Scripture today — and what a healthier path forward might actually look like.
I think you’re really going to enjoy this one.
Note: please forgive the bad video quality. Substack studio gave no indication there were network issues, so I’m not sure what happened.
