For the first 2/3rds of my life I mostly read the scriptures informationally. The last third I've mostly read the scriptures formationally. Both are helpful, but they are different. The difference has to do with how we read the Bible and why we read it. Either we read the Bible informationally to learn, or we read it formationally to be changed. M. Robert Mulholland characterizes the different approaches like this:
In informaional (I) reading we...
In formational (f) reading we...
(I) Cover as much text as possible
(F) Cover what we need to
(I) Read line by line
(F) Read for depth, maybe only a phrase or two
(I) Have a goal of mastering the text
(F) Have a goal of being mastered by the text
(I) Treat the text as an object
(F) Treat ourselves as the object of the text
(I) Read analytically
(F) Read receptively
(I) Solve problems
(F) Are open to mystery
Mulholland obviously tilts the scale in favor of reading formationally, which I'd have to agree with. But I want to learn too, and I've got more than a few problems I wouldn't mind solving. So I'm not going to abandon reading informationally, but I suspect I'll probbaly keep spending most of my time in the Bible reading it to be formed.