Like Ryan Miller ("Catholicism must stick to all Bible teachings," Feb. 18), I, too, "am a professing Christian who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God." But regrettably, religion and politics too often function like the classic ink blot test, sometimes prompting one to see what is in fact not there. Renée Petrina's keen, thorough and (here's the miracle) balanced feature article, "Renewing faith," in Tuesday's edition never mentioned, much less, advocated "practice" anywhere in the article.

Behavior, activity and "practice" was beside the point and beyond the nicely focused scope of her story. We have to read what's there. Reading a text accurately and understanding the context in which and for which something was articulated, is essential -- whether it be the text of a Dickinson poem, a Milton epic, Steinbeck novel, Genesis or one of the gospels. If we don't do that, we've got no intelligent way to begin to communicate, much less continue the conversation. When we read -- in class or out, secular texts or sacred -- it's crucial and humane (Christians would call it "charitable" or "loving") to maintain our equanimity, scholarly precision and intellectual objectivity, especially in a university of Penn State's caliber. We must do this all the more when we feel passionately about a pressing, promising and knotty issue.

Reading Jesus' welcome -- or Renew's -- for encouraging what would ever fragment, hurt, make one miserable or leave one ultimately unsatisfied is simply a bad read -- an inaccurate, unfair false read. Of the three Rs in matters of religion, "readin' " could benefit from serious new attention, if not re-mediation. It seems, in some circles, to be trailing way behind.