@Gamma Gamaliel often adult confirmation is treated as a mere formality, at least in my (English) Anglican experience. While confirmation is - strictly speaking - required for taking communion, many churches never check that an adult is confirmed before allowing them to take communion. I've attended many churches as a visitor and I've never even had it checked as to whether or not I'm baptised, it's just assumed that an adult communicant will be baptised and confirmed. If you become a Christian as an adult, there is much less of an emphasis on confirmation.
Sure. I get that. I was never confirmed in either the Church in Wales or the Church of England but regularly received communion in Anglican settings because they had adopted a more 'open communion' policy by the time I re-engaged with the Christian faith as an adult.
Around 1972 or so when they mentioned 'confirmation classes', my brother and I stopped attending our Anglican parish. This was partly because I was shy and didn't want to get up in front of a whole load of people, partly because our mates used to take the mickey when they saw us walking to church and partly because I didn't really understand what was expected and why.
I felt 'moved' in carol services and sometimes school assemblies and was stirred to some extent by the hymns and Bible stories, and whilst I always retained a respect for Christ and for Christian belief in general, I couldn't really see what it had to do with me.
I attended a 'higher' parish for about 4 weeks when I was 16 but didn't pursue things any further until I was at university - although my interest had been kindled by a Christian teacher when I was in the 6th form.
Anyhow, there were classes of some kind associated with confirmation, or at least there were back then.
Speaking from an American and Lutheran background, adult converts may or may not get confirmed, because we consider confirmation a useful but non-sacramental rite. For us it's mainly an opportunity for young adults who were baptized as infants to profess their faith as instructed adults in their own voices, and to mark the point at which they can assume adult church responsibilities. Since an adult convert has already covered all that (through baptism or profession of faith) it doesn't feel necessary to most (not all) of us. Mr Lamb has confirmed any number of people without ever having been confirmed himself. (He is, of course, both baptized and ordained.)
@Lamb Chopped, I can't speak for Lutheranism, whether in the US or elsewhere but what you describe is very reminiscent of the 'low' to 'middle' end of Anglicanism, I think.
Anglican clergy would all be confirmed though, unlike Mr Lamb. Other than that, it sounds pretty 'close'.
It's often said that confirmation within Anglicanism is a rite in search of a theology.
I'm wondering how it's viewed in Big R Reformed circles?
I can certainly understand how it functions as an affirmation of faith as a teen/adult in paedobaptist settings, but I'd always assumed - wrongly it seems - that it was accompanied by catechesis in Anglican circles.
I was 'chrismated' without any formal catechesis as our parish priest reckoned I'd been 'ready' for about 10 years. Not that I've got everything sussed by any manner of means.
In all of this and right across the board, I'm not sure there's any uniform, cookie cutter approach to determine what counts as sufficient or insufficient levels of catechesis or understanding.
Which may sound contradictory against some things I've posted here.
In all of this and right across the board, I'm not sure there's any uniform, cookie cutter approach to determine what counts as sufficient or insufficient levels of catechesis or understanding.
One would assume the bar for ministry would be somewhat higher, albeit maybe not always judged on entrance.
I'm now wondering where that 'bar' should be placed.
Of course, we have no way of knowing where it will be on entrance as it were.
However we cut it, academic qualifications or some kind of tick-box exercise on the Creeds, for those who 'use' them, aren't sufficient in and of themselves.
I'm told that a significant proportion of Greek monks have higher level qualifications these days compared to hardly any at all about a century ago.
Not that degrees are essential to a monastic vocation.
A friend who teaches in a Pentecostal seminary tells me that there's less anti-intellectualism in those circles these days and they are more aware of church history beyond their own tradition - and indeed even beyond Protestantism in general.
It's very patchy though and they tend to pick up on individual 'charismatic' figures like St Francis of Assissi or George Fox or 'enthusiastic' movements of one form or other.
I think that was the case back in my 'neo-pentecostal' days but get the impression that things have broadened out to some extent since then.
Ok. Reformed do not distinguish between Church Membership and Confirmation. It's therefore the admittance to the full rights and responsibilities of being a member in a local congregation and normally involves a formal preparation and also a formal statement of faith and public commitment to keep the faith .
While granted only by that congregation it is transferable, at least to other congregations within the same denomination but sometimes by letter to congregations outside the denomination who accept the letter of transfer. It would be normal for a URC to accept into membership someone from a CofS congregation on receiving a letter recommending them from the CofS congregation without anything more than extending the right hand of fellowship at a service.
Speaking from an American and Lutheran background, adult converts may or may not get confirmed, because we consider confirmation a useful but non-sacramental rite. For us it's mainly an opportunity for young adults who were baptized as infants to profess their faith as instructed adults in their own voices, and to mark the point at which they can assume adult church responsibilities. Since an adult convert has already covered all that (through baptism or profession of faith) it doesn't feel necessary to most (not all) of us.
That sounds similar to how confirmation is treated in the PC(USA), except with regard to the last sentence, as we’d say “confirmation” and “profession of faith” are two different ways of referring to essentially the same thing. It tends to get called confirmation when it’s youth and profession of faith when it’s an adult.
That said, adults making a profession of faith are not likely to go through the same degree of “formal education” as youth doing confirmation might. For adults, it may be some classes and some conversations with the minister(s). For youth, it’s likely to be a more extensive and formalized program.
Exactly what confirmation class looks like will vary from congregation to congregation. When I was confirmed, it was a 10-week program. (There was also a separate catechism class.) When my kids were confirmed, the program spanned two academic years. Conversations with people in other congregations leads me to think that isn’t unusual.
It is a long time ago now, but my recollection of Confirmation classes in the CofE in the early 1960s was that they were fairly thorough and built round the creeds. They also included an explanation of the atonement. In those days, Confirmation was usually about 15-16, was a fundamental part of the duties of a bishop and was obligatory for admission to Communion.
Boys were admonished not to wear brylcreem - does any other shipmate remember that and what it was - and girls wore white shawls over their heads.
It also involved working through the Catechism in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer - there was no other prayer book in those days - though we did not still have to learn it by heart as I believe had been the case for parents and grandparents.
Confirmation is often much younger now, and in many churches children are admitted to Communion before Confirmation.
I think I caught the tail end of that, @Enoch. Late '60s/early 70s. It was all collapsing back then.
Although confirmation was expected for 11 to 12 year old as I remember it.
The Orthodox view of 'chrismation' is rather more 'mystical' and pneumatic than its Reformed equivalent as you've described it, @Jengie Jon and @Nick Tamen.
That doesn't mean that those elements aren't present in the Reformed tradition of course.
Nor does it mean that the Orthodox practice is so heeby-geeby and whishty-whishty in the 'mystical' sense that we don’t get a nice certificate to show to anyone who asks for our credentials.
'Orthodox are we, mate? Who's your bishop?'
'Here's my certificate.'
'Ah, that'll do nicely...'
I was given to understand that Orthodox chrismation was all about being filled with the Holy Spirit and not really about confirming baptismal vows, and that there was no reason not to do "infant chrismation" except that it would be logistically difficult for the bishop.
I was given to understand that Orthodox chrismation was all about being filled with the Holy Spirit and not really about confirming baptismal vows, and that there was no reason not to do "infant chrismation" except that it would be logistically difficult for the bishop.
My understanding is that priests rather than bishops typically chrismate in Orthodoxy, and that infants who are baptized are then immediately chrismated, and then receive Communion in the same service. My understanding is that reception of those three mysteries—baptism, charismatic and Communion—constitute initiation into the Church.
I don't think I said anything about fulfilling baptism vows.
The first part of my post was a response to Enoch and how things had changed in Anglicanism between the early 60s and early 70s. Rightly or wrongly Brylcreem or no Brylcreem, things were more robust earlier on. So it seems to me.
The second a reflection on how Orthodox chrismation differs from confirmation in the Reformed tradition, although we all end up with a certificate or letter of some 😇 kind.
I'd like to explore the pneumatic element in the new thread about sacraments and ordinances.
Brylcreem is still around, popular hairstyles have just changed. Pomade is still popular with people with short curly or Afro-type hair, but specific moisturising types are usually chosen.
I think a lack of knowledge amongst ordinands (and clergy) is a different issue to changing standards around confirmation. I also think that a situation where a lot of confirmation candidates are adults from a non-Christian background is naturally very different from the 50s/60s/70s situation.
I think a lack of knowledge amongst ordinands (and clergy) is a different issue to changing standards around confirmation.
It seems to me there are (at least) three different issues swirling around in this thread:
What should those who have been through confirmation, or the equivalent in churches that don’t do confirmation as such, be expected to know, and is what such people typically know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
What should those who are seeking ordination be expected to know, and is what such people typically know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
What is it reasonable to expect the average person outside the church to know about Christianity, and is what such people know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
And, of course, there’s the additional question of the degree to which our answers to these questions are based only on subjective perception and anecdata, and the degree to which they are based on actual research and data.
I think also there's the difference between those seeking ordination, and those who are in the process of training or who have been ordained. I don't think a lack of knowledge should bar one from training, but training should include teaching on church history.
As an aside, one of the concerns I've heard expressed by RC clergy - including some bishops - about current Anglican ordination training is that they feel it is losing the 'formation' aspect it used to have.
I take that to mean 'spiritual formation' - the development of an 'inner life' as it were of prayer and spirituality (as it were). Their contention, as I've heard it expressed, is that the current Anglican emphasis on non-residential training and part-time courses, whilst understandable in economic terms, diminishes the collective and transformative aspect of life together in community - such as they believe exists in residential seminary settings.
I've heard them say that elements of Anglican training for ordination were the envy of the Catholic world and they are sad to see those aspects compromised.
I have no idea whether these are legitimate concerns or simply a kind of 'old boys' nostalgia for an idealised past.
I don't think there is a one-size fits all approach to ordination/ministerial/theological training. If it can be done through distance-learning, part-time or modular study or 'on the job' then that broadens the scope beyond those who are able to take time out and live in a cloistered seminary for a few years.
I remember the late sociologist / canon-theologian Dr Andrew Walker saying that theology should be 'done in the churches' - and I agree with him.
What form that takes is going to be determined by a whole range of factors - economic, social, cultural, theological etc etc etc.
I s'pose the bottom line for me isn't how it happens or where it happens but that it happens at all.
I think also there's the difference between those seeking ordination, and those who are in the process of training or who have been ordained. I don't think a lack of knowledge should bar one from training, but training should include teaching on church history.
I've just always been autistic about history and especially church history
Tangent: if your self-describing adjective is based on a diagnosis or a self-diagnosis, that's one thing. If it is a casual descriptor, could you please not? IMO to use this casually is to trivialize it.
Sorry, I thought I had talked enough about my autism that it was well-known hereabouts. I would never use "autistic" as a casual descriptor, and I apologise if it seemed like I was doing so.
To return to the OP all the recently ordained/approved for training folk I know personally are longstanding Christians who know stuff about theology, they are all already graduates (one in theology from Durham) have practiced medicine or law, have been teachers or ministers (lead elders) in other networks (let the reader understand).
My diocese insists that anyone considering pursuing discernment to any kind of commissioned, licensed or ordained ministry undertakes a year long (very part-time) locally run theology course.
I don't expect my anecdotal evidence is unusual.
The Church in the UK is half a century behind when it should be. The grip of Christian knowledge was already losing hold in my teens.
Even further back, C.S. Lewis talked about a lack of basic knowledge of the Christian faith in the early 1940s. (This might have helped inspire him to do the radio talks that became the excellent Mere Christianity.)
I know this is pretty much a UK-only kind of discussion, but for what it's worth, I've taught students at a Roman Catholic university, and we did a basic Bible knowledge test as the prelude to sophomore literature. (Ever try to analyze English short stories and poetry without any knowledge of the Bible or of Greek/Roman mythology? It totally sucks, you spend all your time explaining the allusions.)
It's been 35 years, and I'm pretty sure the majority of them couldn't tell me who Adam and Eve were. And quite a few of these kids came up through parochial schools!
I'm unable to compare notes across the Pond. I've come across RCs who are pretty well versed in the scriptures, others who don't seem to have the foggiest.
Same with the Orthodox, particularly when it comes to the Old Testament.
Bible knowledge seems to have declined to some extent among evangelicals in recent years, but it will vary of course.
I think there's certainly value to Christian education (both for children and for adults, at all life stages) that is more experiential and less cerebral - but there does need to be some 'book learning'. Otherwise how can you really understand a faith where a library plays a prominent role?
I've always wanted to compare notes with a believer from a language where there is very little reading access to the Scriptures, let alone Christian literature. I imagine the experience of getting everything by translation and/or listening in church must make things a bit different.
I think there's certainly value to Christian education (both for children and for adults, at all life stages) that is more experiential and less cerebral - but there does need to be some 'book learning'. Otherwise how can you really understand a faith where a library plays a prominent role?
I wonder whether understanding it is all it's cracked up to be. I sometimes wish I had a simple faith that didn't know lots of stuff in the Bible that is so hard to wrestle with.
A well-respected seminary professor I know of counsels students to “argue with the text, confident that wrestling with Scripture is an act of faithfulness.”
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
A well-respected seminary professor I know of counsels students to “argue with the text, confident that wrestling with Scripture is an act of faithfulness.”
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
A well-respected seminary professor I know of counsels students to “argue with the text, confident that wrestling with Scripture is an act of faithfulness.”
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
How long is too long?
I suspect she’d say it may well be a lifetime of wrestling.
I don't think there is a "too long." Unless you yourself decide it's too long. But God seems to be up for a lifetime of wrestling, judging by the Bible and experience.
I don't think there is a "too long." Unless you yourself decide it's too long. But God seems to be up for a lifetime of wrestling, judging by the Bible and experience.
But unless it's a rigged match, there's a chance that you're going to beat God.
With God, it's really hard to decide what "beating him" means! I've found myself losing to him, only to be glad of the result. And at least once I think I beat him--and was glad of that result, too. I rather think he was, as well... which leads me to wonder if it was somehow set up... (looks up to heaven suspiciously).
A well-respected seminary professor I know of counsels students to “argue with the text, confident that wrestling with Scripture is an act of faithfulness.”
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
And of course, arguing with the text (albeit through a different lens and different tradition) has a strong tradition within Judaism.
A well-respected seminary professor I know of counsels students to “argue with the text, confident that wrestling with Scripture is an act of faithfulness.”
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
And of course, arguing with the text (albeit through a different lens and different tradition) has a strong tradition within Judaism.
'We shall not cease from exploring. And the end of our exploration will be to return to where we started. And to know the place for the first time.'
Something like that?
Yes, and Judaism has a lo-ooo-ong tradition of wrestling with its sacred texts and different viewpoints.
Why should the Christian faith be any different in that respect?
But what distinction is there between, OTOH, "wrestling with the text", and on the other, simply trying to figure out what the text is saying, to your own satisfaction?
Because if, and I'm saying "if', the two activities are basically synonymous, then I'll observe that Christianity does, indeed, have a long tradition of "wrestling with the text". With the pattern often being that after each successive "wrestler" successfully "wrestles with the text", they subsequently promote and/or declare an end to any further "wrestling".
I know next to nothing about Jewish theological pluralism, just that you've got a buncha rabbis tossing around competing theories in the Talmud(maybe or maybe not paralleled by the scholastic monks in Christianity), and the infamous case of Maimonides, of which I know absolutely nothing beyond that it resulted in the suppression of his views.
I don't think wrestling with God is the same thing as wrestling with the Bible text. It may be on a certain occasion; but in my experience it's more likely to be based on some issue that arises out of daily life, or out of one's thinking and trying to understand something.
Seriously though, if we are wrestling with an issue of theodicy, say, based on some issues we may have with a biblical text, could that not be a case of us wrestling with God as well as with the text itself?
Just a thought.
Also, if we are reading the scriptures regularly as part of daily lives then surely our thinking, reactions and responses to whatever we are going through - be it good, bad or indifferent - may be shaped and 'informed' by that?
As well as by liturgy, prayer, fellowship and whatever elsecwe might be involved with.
Comments
Sure. I get that. I was never confirmed in either the Church in Wales or the Church of England but regularly received communion in Anglican settings because they had adopted a more 'open communion' policy by the time I re-engaged with the Christian faith as an adult.
Around 1972 or so when they mentioned 'confirmation classes', my brother and I stopped attending our Anglican parish. This was partly because I was shy and didn't want to get up in front of a whole load of people, partly because our mates used to take the mickey when they saw us walking to church and partly because I didn't really understand what was expected and why.
I felt 'moved' in carol services and sometimes school assemblies and was stirred to some extent by the hymns and Bible stories, and whilst I always retained a respect for Christ and for Christian belief in general, I couldn't really see what it had to do with me.
I attended a 'higher' parish for about 4 weeks when I was 16 but didn't pursue things any further until I was at university - although my interest had been kindled by a Christian teacher when I was in the 6th form.
Anyhow, there were classes of some kind associated with confirmation, or at least there were back then.
@Lamb Chopped, I can't speak for Lutheranism, whether in the US or elsewhere but what you describe is very reminiscent of the 'low' to 'middle' end of Anglicanism, I think.
Anglican clergy would all be confirmed though, unlike Mr Lamb. Other than that, it sounds pretty 'close'.
It's often said that confirmation within Anglicanism is a rite in search of a theology.
I'm wondering how it's viewed in Big R Reformed circles?
I can certainly understand how it functions as an affirmation of faith as a teen/adult in paedobaptist settings, but I'd always assumed - wrongly it seems - that it was accompanied by catechesis in Anglican circles.
I was 'chrismated' without any formal catechesis as our parish priest reckoned I'd been 'ready' for about 10 years. Not that I've got everything sussed by any manner of means.
In all of this and right across the board, I'm not sure there's any uniform, cookie cutter approach to determine what counts as sufficient or insufficient levels of catechesis or understanding.
Which may sound contradictory against some things I've posted here.
But I'm thinking aloud.
One would assume the bar for ministry would be somewhat higher, albeit maybe not always judged on entrance.
I'm now wondering where that 'bar' should be placed.
Of course, we have no way of knowing where it will be on entrance as it were.
However we cut it, academic qualifications or some kind of tick-box exercise on the Creeds, for those who 'use' them, aren't sufficient in and of themselves.
I'm told that a significant proportion of Greek monks have higher level qualifications these days compared to hardly any at all about a century ago.
Not that degrees are essential to a monastic vocation.
A friend who teaches in a Pentecostal seminary tells me that there's less anti-intellectualism in those circles these days and they are more aware of church history beyond their own tradition - and indeed even beyond Protestantism in general.
It's very patchy though and they tend to pick up on individual 'charismatic' figures like St Francis of Assissi or George Fox or 'enthusiastic' movements of one form or other.
I think that was the case back in my 'neo-pentecostal' days but get the impression that things have broadened out to some extent since then.
While granted only by that congregation it is transferable, at least to other congregations within the same denomination but sometimes by letter to congregations outside the denomination who accept the letter of transfer. It would be normal for a URC to accept into membership someone from a CofS congregation on receiving a letter recommending them from the CofS congregation without anything more than extending the right hand of fellowship at a service.
That said, adults making a profession of faith are not likely to go through the same degree of “formal education” as youth doing confirmation might. For adults, it may be some classes and some conversations with the minister(s). For youth, it’s likely to be a more extensive and formalized program.
Exactly what confirmation class looks like will vary from congregation to congregation. When I was confirmed, it was a 10-week program. (There was also a separate catechism class.) When my kids were confirmed, the program spanned two academic years. Conversations with people in other congregations leads me to think that isn’t unusual.
Boys were admonished not to wear brylcreem - does any other shipmate remember that and what it was - and girls wore white shawls over their heads.
It also involved working through the Catechism in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer - there was no other prayer book in those days - though we did not still have to learn it by heart as I believe had been the case for parents and grandparents.
Confirmation is often much younger now, and in many churches children are admitted to Communion before Confirmation.
Although confirmation was expected for 11 to 12 year old as I remember it.
The Orthodox view of 'chrismation' is rather more 'mystical' and pneumatic than its Reformed equivalent as you've described it, @Jengie Jon and @Nick Tamen.
That doesn't mean that those elements aren't present in the Reformed tradition of course.
Nor does it mean that the Orthodox practice is so heeby-geeby and whishty-whishty in the 'mystical' sense that we don’t get a nice certificate to show to anyone who asks for our credentials.
'Orthodox are we, mate? Who's your bishop?'
'Here's my certificate.'
'Ah, that'll do nicely...'
😉
I don't think I said anything about fulfilling baptism vows.
The first part of my post was a response to Enoch and how things had changed in Anglicanism between the early 60s and early 70s. Rightly or wrongly Brylcreem or no Brylcreem, things were more robust earlier on. So it seems to me.
The second a reflection on how Orthodox chrismation differs from confirmation in the Reformed tradition, although we all end up with a certificate or letter of some 😇 kind.
I'd like to explore the pneumatic element in the new thread about sacraments and ordinances.
I think a lack of knowledge amongst ordinands (and clergy) is a different issue to changing standards around confirmation. I also think that a situation where a lot of confirmation candidates are adults from a non-Christian background is naturally very different from the 50s/60s/70s situation.
- What should those who have been through confirmation, or the equivalent in churches that don’t do confirmation as such, be expected to know, and is what such people typically know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
- What should those who are seeking ordination be expected to know, and is what such people typically know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
- What is it reasonable to expect the average person outside the church to know about Christianity, and is what such people know now different from what they typically would have known however many decades ago?
And, of course, there’s the additional question of the degree to which our answers to these questions are based only on subjective perception and anecdata, and the degree to which they are based on actual research and data.I take that to mean 'spiritual formation' - the development of an 'inner life' as it were of prayer and spirituality (as it were). Their contention, as I've heard it expressed, is that the current Anglican emphasis on non-residential training and part-time courses, whilst understandable in economic terms, diminishes the collective and transformative aspect of life together in community - such as they believe exists in residential seminary settings.
I've heard them say that elements of Anglican training for ordination were the envy of the Catholic world and they are sad to see those aspects compromised.
I have no idea whether these are legitimate concerns or simply a kind of 'old boys' nostalgia for an idealised past.
I don't think there is a one-size fits all approach to ordination/ministerial/theological training. If it can be done through distance-learning, part-time or modular study or 'on the job' then that broadens the scope beyond those who are able to take time out and live in a cloistered seminary for a few years.
I remember the late sociologist / canon-theologian Dr Andrew Walker saying that theology should be 'done in the churches' - and I agree with him.
What form that takes is going to be determined by a whole range of factors - economic, social, cultural, theological etc etc etc.
I s'pose the bottom line for me isn't how it happens or where it happens but that it happens at all.
Thank you.
My diocese insists that anyone considering pursuing discernment to any kind of commissioned, licensed or ordained ministry undertakes a year long (very part-time) locally run theology course.
I don't expect my anecdotal evidence is unusual.
In the style of Lurch from The Addams Family
Youuuuuuuu rannnnnnng?
Wanders back out of the thread
Even further back, C.S. Lewis talked about a lack of basic knowledge of the Christian faith in the early 1940s. (This might have helped inspire him to do the radio talks that became the excellent Mere Christianity.)
It's been 35 years, and I'm pretty sure the majority of them couldn't tell me who Adam and Eve were. And quite a few of these kids came up through parochial schools!
Same with the Orthodox, particularly when it comes to the Old Testament.
Bible knowledge seems to have declined to some extent among evangelicals in recent years, but it will vary of course.
I wonder whether understanding it is all it's cracked up to be. I sometimes wish I had a simple faith that didn't know lots of stuff in the Bible that is so hard to wrestle with.
At least you've only got scripture to wrestle with ... 😉
And I’ve heard her add, harkening back to Jacob wrestling with God, keep wrestling until you receive a blessing.
How long is too long?
But unless it's a rigged match, there's a chance that you're going to beat God.
And of course, arguing with the text (albeit through a different lens and different tradition) has a strong tradition within Judaism.
Something like that?
Yes, and Judaism has a lo-ooo-ong tradition of wrestling with its sacred texts and different viewpoints.
Why should the Christian faith be any different in that respect?
But what distinction is there between, OTOH, "wrestling with the text", and on the other, simply trying to figure out what the text is saying, to your own satisfaction?
Because if, and I'm saying "if', the two activities are basically synonymous, then I'll observe that Christianity does, indeed, have a long tradition of "wrestling with the text". With the pattern often being that after each successive "wrestler" successfully "wrestles with the text", they subsequently promote and/or declare an end to any further "wrestling".
I know next to nothing about Jewish theological pluralism, just that you've got a buncha rabbis tossing around competing theories in the Talmud(maybe or maybe not paralleled by the scholastic monks in Christianity), and the infamous case of Maimonides, of which I know absolutely nothing beyond that it resulted in the suppression of his views.
I'll get me coat ...
Seriously though, if we are wrestling with an issue of theodicy, say, based on some issues we may have with a biblical text, could that not be a case of us wrestling with God as well as with the text itself?
Just a thought.
Also, if we are reading the scriptures regularly as part of daily lives then surely our thinking, reactions and responses to whatever we are going through - be it good, bad or indifferent - may be shaped and 'informed' by that?
As well as by liturgy, prayer, fellowship and whatever elsecwe might be involved with.
Surely all these things are interwoven?