Writing a commentary is a strange thing for a Christian--and so is reading one for that matter. I was reading Titus today, and realized that in 5 minutes I pretty much understood the first chapter. It'd be strange to study it for 5 years. Sure, I'd learn a lot about its finer points. But its awkward. Titus was not written to be studied; it was written to be heard and obeyed. Now to any of my friends quick to defend the value of academics and to rebuke my pietistic anti-intellectualism, you just have to admit it: there is a different posture, a very different mode of engagement, between hearing a charge to receive it (or it as you understand it) and rigorously analyzing a charge to decipher its meaning. My question is: What mode of engagement do you think Titus intends?
Now, I'm just as concerned as the next guy (probably more concerned than him) about the massive swathes of scripture that the church has left unengaged and, generally speaking, has not heard or heard with understanding (90% of the prophets [heck, just about all of the OT narrative], much of the law, certain books of the NT). And I am somewhat cognizant that certain portions of scripture are pretty inaccessible to me (Revelation, for example). I have to learn a good bit more about how to read those texts and what is going on in them before I will ever understand them in the way the author, appointed by the will of God, intended me to understand them. But not all of scripture is like this to me. Much of it, perhaps more than I have admitted, is clear. ...And I think I need to read or write a commentary about it... humph. Scripture is for hearing and obeying, not for studying and commentating. The latter serve the former, when they are necessary. But they are not always necessary, and when they aren't, they are a distraction.
Now, I'm just as concerned as the next guy (probably more concerned than him) about the massive swathes of scripture that the church has left unengaged and, generally speaking, has not heard or heard with understanding (90% of the prophets [heck, just about all of the OT narrative], much of the law, certain books of the NT). And I am somewhat cognizant that certain portions of scripture are pretty inaccessible to me (Revelation, for example). I have to learn a good bit more about how to read those texts and what is going on in them before I will ever understand them in the way the author, appointed by the will of God, intended me to understand them. But not all of scripture is like this to me. Much of it, perhaps more than I have admitted, is clear. ...And I think I need to read or write a commentary about it... humph. Scripture is for hearing and obeying, not for studying and commentating. The latter serve the former, when they are necessary. But they are not always necessary, and when they aren't, they are a distraction.
No comments:
Post a Comment