Bestseller or unread behemoth?

This article on the BBC news website made me think about people's perceptions of the Bible, and of the church in general. What interested me most was that the author seemed to assume that Christians would be against the Bible being presented in unusual ways. Yet again someone has failed to grasp that it's not the manner something is presented in that matters, but the message contained in that presentation. The media like reporting on Christians disagreeing with each other, or condemning what other people are doing. Sadly we give them a lot of scope for that.

The Bible is not a nice book. There are plenty of bits we'd all rather gloss over. Here's some examples:
"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."
"They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

The Bible and its interpretation cause Christians to disagree with each other more than almost anything else (as is demonstrated by some of the comments on the article). But as the guy from the Bible Society comments in the article, the idea of the Bible as a big book with small print has only been around for four centuries or so. Before that highly decorated manuscripts were the norm, for example the York Gospels which can be seen here. Having been lucky enough to see the manuscript in real life (a history degree is useful for something!) I can safely say it's a real work of art and a thing of beauty. Before that, the texts were written on scrolls in the same way Jewish holy texts still are.

During the Reformation, one of the main aims of the reformers was to make the Bible text accessible to everyone . So as well as translating it from Latin into commonly spoken languages such as English and German, the text was printed in as small (and therefore cheap) a format as possible, allowing ordinary people to afford one. Thousands of people were able to read it for themselves (assuming, of course, they were able to read at all) and judge for themselves the truth (or otherwise) of what they read. The examples given in the article of different ways of presenting the Bible's message (such as this, although I'm not sure that "your beliefs are silly" or "he says we are to be judged by a zombie" are the most tactful way of explaining the gospel!) at least help to counter the claim that "the Bible isn't relevant today."

But all the modern translations and presentations are no good unless people think about what they read (or see in pictures, or hear on their ipods). Which is why an organisation I'm part of, Scripture Union, launched its WordLive website last year to get people reading the Bible, thinking about it in a way that's relevant to them, and applying what they read to their own lives.

This is a book that has shaped our culture, influenced our history and had an effect on countless lives. If you're not familiar with it, I'd suggest taking a look- whether it's on the web, in bricks, in pictures or cartoons, or even- to be controvertial- in print.