Like most other human I like to feel needed. I also like to be viewed as knowledgeable (even as an expert) in certain fields. Both of those desires can be incredibly dangerous for pastoral ministry. One thing I’ve found, in all my studies as a history nerd, is that experts don’t make good pastors. The guy who follows the guy who followed THE GUY seldom properly carries the mantle. Scripture calls us to think about how our handling of the gospel, and how our discipling of others, will impact future generations. We are to work today so that Jesus will be not only the only boast of our generation but also the ones to come.

There is something I’m seeing in my own generation and even more in the generations after me, that has me a bit concerned. In the past I called it The Googlization of Bible Study. Our tendency to Google everything short circuits our ability to engage in deep thought. Rather than wrestling with the Scriptures or engaging in the deep work of intense focused thinking we settle for social media conversations and the dissemination of information. We are losing our ability to think deeply.

I believe we are fast approaching a culture defined by an intellectual poverty that comes from this Googlization. Since we are to love God with our minds, such a climate will have adverse on our experience of the gospel. As one who wants to have a lasting impact for the sake of the gospel I have to ask whether or not there are ways in which I might be perpetuating intellectual poverty.

At present our church is thinking through how we ought to do benevolence and trying to develop a healthy benevolence ministry. One resource that has been extremely helpful is When Helping Hurts by Steve Corbett and Brian Finkert. Corbett and Finkert argue that the way most middle-class Americans think about mercy ministry actually does more harm than good. Simply providing for peoples material needs one perpetuates poverty. One major takeaway from this book is to avoid paternalism. As the authors say, “Do not do things for people that they can do for themselves”. (109)

How does this translate to intellectual poverty?

Consider this scenario. I get an email from a student who has just skimmed an article that has interested him on the internet. He’s able to discern that the article is making an important point but he isn’t quite sure the significance of the thing. It’s put a bee in his bonnet and he needs to deal with it somehow. So what does he do? He sends a short email with a link that simply says, “Thoughts?”

Now, I love getting emails like this. (See sentence one and two). I also love interacting and talking through what someone is reading. It’s a passion of mine and I’d be sad if these types of emails ever stopped. But the way I respond to this email will say a good deal about whether I’m pouring into another generation or just perpetuating intellectual poverty. I don’t help him by chewing on the article myself and then giving him a cliffs notes version of the significance of the thing. I’m not teaching him how to think for himself.

So, if I want to reach a generation I may never see and not perpetuate intellectual poverty, I’ll respond to his email by putting the ball back in his court. “Intriguing article, I have a few thoughts but I’d love to hear your thoughts first.” Or I could ask more probing questions to lead the horse to water. Of course I can lead the horse to water but I can’t make him drink. He can get annoyed and just Google some sort of answer or ask someone who will just give him the answer. But at least by doing this I’m not contributing to intellectual poverty.

—

Photo source: here