(1) Do your homework. While the Spirit can point out insights to people who have only just flipped their bibles open because they need a teaching in a hurry, He prefers to give insight to those people who take His word seriously. Those folks who actually want to understand a verse have to put in the necessary time looking at the text, analyzing the words, looking at the context, learning the history behind the verse, looking at the overall theology of the book or letter, and understanding all this in the light of God’s love and encouragement and self-revelation thru Jesus. Only after all these things are done will the Spirit reward the patient, diligent seeker with insight.

(2) The Spirit does not quote Himself out of context. I have found, to my surprise, that a lot of verses where it appears Paul or Matthew or the other writers of scripture were just yanking verses from the OT willy-nilly to support their views, have a profound and deeper meaning when you look at the whole passage from where the NT writers pulled it. This wasn’t the all-too-common Talmudic practice of anything-goes context-free quotations. I was actually taught so in college, but the more I analyze these passages, the more I realize how wrong it is… and the more I realize the Spirit has the intent, with these quotes, to get the readers and listeners to read the OT passages and see what He was trying to convey there.

Anyway, the same principle applies to present-day “Spirit-inspired” interpretations. If it’s out of context, it’s not from the Spirit.

(3) The insight connects the situation of the reader to the bible. And again, not out of context. It is a real-life application that doesn’t require verbal or contextual gymnastics. It is so obvious and life-impacting that the reader goes, “Holy frijoles, how could I miss this?”

While the insight is profound to the reader, others might not necessarily react with the same degree of surprised recognition. They will, at least, recognize the understanding is valid. But the Spirit tends to customize revelation to the hearer, so while people will recognize the truth of the interpretation, it just won’t hit ‘em like a punch to the stomach. If that’s what you’re seeing—a lack of awe on your part—it’s ’cause the message was generically for you, but not specifically for you. But that’s another issue altogether.

(4) The insight, like prophecy and all other works of the Spirit, promotes strengthening, encouragement, and comfort in the Church. It only creates division among those who show no fruit of the Spirit, who resist Him in one way or another. Among Christians it edifies, empowers, demonstrates the love of God, glorifies Jesus, and brings peace.

That’s just off the top of my head. There’s a lot more detail, but this isn’t my blog and I have no business dumping all of that here.

I think that, if we look at the history of the Church, there has always been a tradition of oral reading of scripture and of preaching, as well as catechesis, more in-depth teaching. These were/are the sources for the illiterate to grapple with Scripture. Many of them, such as St. Antony of the Desert, having heard the Scriptures read aloud, meditated on the words that they had heard. Illiterate Egyptian monks would memorise the entire book of Psalms and other important passages of Scripture.

Perhaps this is also a major reason for the development of the spiritual father/director/mentor. Many people simply couldn’t read their Bibles, so guidance from someone who is more spiritually mature is almost a necessity.

Nonetheless, you raise a good point. Ultimately, it is Christ and Christ alone, indwelling us by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who can make us whole and spiritually mature. He is the only resource we need. That said, to quote a Desert Father, “prayer is hard work”; that goes for the whole spiritual life.

As far as we literate folk are concerned, there seems to be an emphasis within the Bible and within the tradition that we ought to be reading the Bible. John Cassian, one of the founding fathers of Western monasticism, only recommends the reading of the Scriptures, although he himself is clearly well-read and does not discourage reading of other spiritual writers (one does not write books to discourage the reading of books). It seems that the Fathers, the mediaeval writers, the Reformers, the Counter-Reformers, right up until now, all expect that literate Christians will use the Bible in spiritual formation.

And illiterate Christians will use it in their own way as well, meditating on it, memorising it, and applying it to their lives.

I agree with everything you said (ref. your comment on 03 Sep 2008 at 5:25 pm). It’s refreshing when these back-and-forths can end on a good note!

Even now, reading the Bible, the BCP, and so on is not an option for millions of Christian people. What are they supposed to do?

I hear you, and I do agree that Todd should not have spoken so broadly and without clarification. There are many reasons for spiritually dry times, and lack of Bible reading is only one of them.

On another note though, I do think that lack of Bible reading, and/or mechanical, dutiful Bible reading without passion and prayer, are likely at the root of so many American evangelicals’ obsessions with fads and silliness. If more people read their Bibles carefully *and* passionately, with prayer, there might be much less evangelical doctrinal confusion and also less general malaise. On the other hand, there might be also be much more “trouble” in local churches, because Christians would be waking up and questioning more of what they hear and see on Sundays! That would be a good trouble to have though!

I completely agree with you that we shouldn’t mindlessly *rely* on other people, including preachers, for our spiritual understanding and growth. Such a mindless reliance produces people who “rely” on terrible TV preachers who are often in error!

We should definitely be Bereans– Christians who test *all teaching* by the Word to see if it is true. I was just concerned, because some of your comments seemed to be downplaying the role of the local church, and the thinking of Christians of the past, in understanding Scripture and in growing spiritually in other ways. I’m happy to see that I was wrong about what you meant!

Christ is also the basis of my faith, not the Reformers. It’s because He is the basis of my faith, though, that I love to read the Reformers!

I appreciate your comment and I want to be fair, even to someone who ticked me off as much as Friel did.

So, to clarify: My comment was admittedly tangential to the topic at hand. Friel is not “Bible only” in the sense that a few of the commenters here seem to be. (Notice, I did not name names here, folks! So keep your flames directed at Micahel! )

Now, my comment was tangential, but still related, in that Friel did make one of these comments about the Bible that come out of evangelical circles alot and, like the “Bible only” mantras, really make me crazy: He said in no uncertain terms that if you’re going through a dry spell, it’s probably because you Aren’t. Reading. Your. Bible. Enough. Now, this was of course, in the context of a “point … about a lack of daily Bible reading being dangerous for a Christian’s spiritual health” as you put it. (A general point that I agree with, BTW.) But he still said what he said and there Was. No. Mistaking. his intentions. He meant it. And he is wrong.

And by the way, you sound like an OK guy. Friel is the one I had the beef with. Hope my firmness in our discussion doesn’t sound like anger directed toward you. Blog comments are such a wonderfully screwed up communcation mechanism sometimes.