In the age of information overload, instant gratification and distraction, the art of reading comprehension is rapidly disappearing. Nothing engages the modern reader for more than five minutes anyway and (particularly with the Internet) authors resort to shock value and novelty to promote their views. This results in ever decreasing attention spans – research shows that people have become “multi-taskers” with rewiring of the brain occurring in younger generations. However, doing many things simultaneously (but poorly) comes at the cost of the concentration required to maintain sustained reasoning and this cannot be a good thing.
This brings into question the whole value of Biblical writing. Does it matter? Most written material that is offered is of no lasting value anyway and the authors (along with their important works) are retired to the land of forgetfulness and consigned to the dustbin of history where they reside alongside the dogmatic controversies of another era. Surely pastoral work (face to face) is more value to the ecclesia than any written work?
This seems to me to be a false distinction. Much of the apostles pastoral work involved writing epistles to the ecclesia’s and much of those epistles consisted of interpreting Scripture (the OT) in the light of the Christ event. Paul’s epistles were considered “weighty and powerful” (2 Cor. 10:10) and contained interpretation combined with exhortation. His writings were “academic” (he was after all a trained rabbi) and he took it for granted that his audience had an extensive background knowledge of the OT. What is surprising is that Paul did not “dumb down” his writings for his gentile readers. A consequence of this approach is that some of Paul’s writings were deliberately “wrested” as even Peter had to admit that Paul often wrote “things hard to be understood” (2 Pet.3:15).
Paul was however following a long tradition of Scriptural interpretation where the word of God is read “distinctly” (giving the sense and causing them to understand, Neh. 8:8). Biblical writing has at its core the promotion of textual comprehension (Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? Acts 8: 30, 31). If that is not the case the vision becomes “like the words of a book that is sealed”; which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned (Isa 29:11-13). Ultimately, both the “learned” and “unlearned” need God’s help to understand the vision.
The fact that much writing is of no lasting value cannot be used as justification not to write (or not to read). Bible study is integral to the health of a faith community particularly one that faces enormous internal and external challenges. We can conclude from this that writing forms an integral part of pastoral care. Both the writer and the reader are engaged in a mutual endeavour to explain/comprehend the “word”.
This is not a passive endeavour, for the reader is required to respond by questioning and testing what the writer has produced. Only in this manner can both reader and writer hope to progress understanding. The reader must learn to “discern” (and progress from milk to meat) so that he/she can filter that which has lasting value from the dross. The writer must react to the intellectual needs of the community. The readers must develop the ability to think for themselves. Writers must adjust their view when new evidence presents itself. Understanding can only be advanced if both writer and reader are engaged in a dynamic process that is performed with respect and without dogma.
The Solution