Teaching the Word -- A reflection

 I am in the midst of reading through N.T. Wright's commentary on Galatians for Eerdmans' new Commentaries for Christian Formation series (a review will be forthcoming). As I near the end of the book, I encountered a Wrights reflection on Galatians 6:6. Wright's translation of the verse goes like this "If someone is being taught the word, they should share with the teacher all the good things they have." In other words, if you devote yourself to the teaching of the word you should receive sufficient recompense. As one who spent his career as a professional preacher/teacher, and even in retirement I continue to preach and receive financial provision. 

That is the context of a paragraph that I found interesting. Those who know Wright know that he is a solid biblical scholar whose place in the conservative/liberal spectrum isn't easily determined. I don't agree with him on everything, but I find him intriguing. In any case, I thought I'd share this paragraph and make a couple of concluding comments.

The need for teaching, and perhaps the careful teaching of Scripture, needs to be underlined. It is deeply counterintuitive in today's Western world. Many supposedly "biblical" or "conservative" churches suffer from a kind of anti-intellectualism; many supposedly "liberal" churches, from a kind of pseudo-intellectualism. In neither case is the Bible expected to say anything new. It is used, often enough, simply to provide weight (in the first case), or decoration (in the second), to what is already believed.  [Wright, Galatians, p. 360]

 I will continue on with the paragraph, but as I read this I'm, reminded how easy it is to proof-text. Both conservatives and liberals seem to have their go-to texts that support their positions, while the other passages are ignored. In line with this is the oft-heard statement in my circles about taking the "Bible seriously but not literally." What does that really mean? Even as no conservative takes everything literally even though they claim to take a literal interpretation of the Bible unless Liberals are reading everything in the Bible as metaphor then the liberal declaration is also meaningless. So, let's just say we read Scripture with a critical eye, seeking to read it as it is designed to be read. There is history there, though not in the modern sense. I'm not sure that there is science, except as it reflects ancient science. Let's just be more careful with our language.

Now back to Wright's paragraph:

The imperative to learn how to think Christianly could not be more urgent. This does not happen by accident. Nor is it done by people with academic and/or speaking gifts glancing at Scripture from time to time and jotting down a few happy thoughts. I write, of course, after over forty years of paid employment as a teacher in church and university settings. In both, I have seen the enormous problems that arise, in both short and long terms, when biblical teaching has been skimpy or inadequate. This may be countercultural, but for Christian formation there could not be a higher priority than the work of teaching; and for that, proper financial provision has to be made. Developing a we-formed Christian mind is not a private hobby for those who enjoy mental gymnastics on the strange apparatus called "Scripture and theology." It is the essential lifeblood of the whole church.  (p. 360).

As a pastor, I've discovered that there is a real hunger for deep study of the Bible, and that includes parts of the Bible that are difficult and challenging. That is, passages of Scripture that we struggle with because they reflect cultural/social patterns very different from our own. I have written study guides for Ephesians and the Letters of John, both of which will prove challenging to some in the church. I've taught Daniel and Revelation. Teaching of the Bible needs to be more than window dressing. Thus, I share this paragraph from a leading Biblical scholar who believes, as I do that the study of Scripture is essential to the life of the church.