I remember going to a session with Bruce Metzger during Fitz's orientation week at PTS. He had just one thing he really wanted everyone to take to heart that day: You're about to embark on 3 years in which the Bible will be used primarily as a tool; whatever you do, don't neglect to spend time in Scripture devotionally while you're a seminary student.
What is the difference between Scripture as "informational" and Scripture as "formational"? After all, this was the difference Bruce Metzger was getting at that day, and it really was quite impressive to have one of the giants of NT scholarship subordinate the academic study of scripture to the intimacies of what happens in our "quiet times." But there it was, and in the form, really, of a plea.
I'm wondering how this distinction between an informational approach and a formational approach plays out in our personal lives: which approach to Scripture does each of us tend to take? And, how has this changed, perhaps, over the course of our Christian lives? But I'm also wondering what we notice about this in the way that we (and others) preach and teach; in what people in our congregations seem to want, and maybe even explicitly ask for, when it comes to "Bible study"; how this distinction informs our critique of published resources for studying Scripture; and where this idea fits into our denominational tensions (or not).
Who's someone (besides Eugene) who models well for you what it means to treat Scripture as the primary formational text for life -- someone who isn't quite as interested in knowing more as in becoming more? What is this person actually like??
To what degree does each of us think about being such a person ourselves, and how does ministry promote or subvert our commitments and efforts along these lines?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment