Scripture Without Tribe

Why Discernment Requires Separating the Word of God from Our Interpretations

Discernment begins where certainty ends. Many affirm, rightly, that Scripture is the standard, yet far fewer are willing to examine how often that standard is quietly bent to fit preexisting loyalties. The problem is not reverence for the Word; it is the unexamined habit of confusing Scripture itself with the interpretations we project onto it. History makes this unavoidable: the same texts have been used to justify mercy and cruelty, humility and domination, repentance and self-righteousness. That reality does not weaken Scripture’s authority; it exposes the danger of reading it without discernment.

At the core of the issue is a category error. Scripture is revelation; interpretation is human activity. The two are not identical, yet they are frequently treated as interchangeable, especially when interpretation aligns comfortably with one’s political, cultural, or theological tribe. Discernment requires holding these apart. The Word may be fixed, but our readings are not. They are shaped by fear, identity, ambition, and the subtle desire to be affirmed rather than transformed. When those forces go unexamined, Scripture ceases to function as a mirror and becomes a shield.

Daily engagement with the text matters, but frequency alone does not guarantee faithfulness. Repetition without self-scrutiny can harden distortion rather than correct it. Familiarity breeds confidence, and confidence, when untested, hardens into certainty. Discernment therefore asks harder questions than what does this verse say. It asks why this verse stands out to me, what it allows me to defend, and what it quietly permits me to avoid. Where Scripture genuinely confronts the reader, it unsettles before it reassures.

This is where misuse tends to follow predictable patterns across the ideological spectrum.

Left-leaning misuse often filters Scripture through a therapeutic and harm-avoidance lens, where inclusion, affirmation, and emotional safety quietly become the interpretive authorities. Passages that challenge behavior, call for repentance, or assert moral limits are reframed as symbolic, culturally bound, or overridden by a higher ethic of compassion. The issue is not mercy, which is deeply biblical, but the assumption that Scripture must always confirm contemporary moral intuitions. Discernment notices when the text is allowed to comfort but not to correct.

Right-leaning misuse often treats Scripture as an instrument of moral enforcement, used to establish order, boundaries, and certainty in a disordered world. Verses about authority, obedience, and judgment are emphasized, while those that demand humility, self-examination, and sacrificial love are downplayed or selectively applied. The issue is not moral seriousness, which Scripture requires, but the quiet exemption of the interpreter from the same scrutiny imposed on others. Discernment notices when Scripture is used to secure identity rather than dismantle pride.

In both cases, the failure is the same despite its different expressions. The Word is not permitted to stand over the reader; it is conscripted to stand beside them. One tendency domesticates Scripture into reassurance, the other weaponizes it into certainty, but both protect the self from transformation. Discernment refuses both reductions. It insists that Scripture retain its authority to disrupt, expose, and demand repentance where it is least convenient.

The weaponization of Scripture is not always loud or cruel; often it is quiet and respectable. Verses are detached from context, moral weight is redistributed selectively, and fidelity is measured by alignment rather than obedience. Throughout history, appeals to divine authority have accompanied some of the Church’s gravest failures, not because Scripture demanded them, but because interpretation was subordinated to identity preservation. Discernment draws a firm line between being judged by the Word and using the Word to judge others.

Reading Scripture without tribal lenses does not mean reading without conviction. It means allowing conviction to be shaped by truth rather than allegiance. It requires the humility to admit that some interpretations feel right precisely because they flatter us, and others feel threatening because they call something in us to die. Discernment resists collapsing complex moral demands into slogans that conveniently mirror our politics or social location.

Ultimately, discernment is not merely about knowing Scripture, but about refusing to twist it to bless our biases. It is an ascetic discipline as much as an intellectual one, requiring the renunciation of interpretive convenience and moral exemption. To read Scripture faithfully is to place oneself under it, not above it. Where that posture is maintained, the Word retains its power to judge, heal, and transform. Where it is abandoned, even the most orthodox language becomes hollow, serving not the truth it claims to defend, but the self it was meant to expose.