Amen.
Heh – one man came to me with questions during coffee hour because he said if he disagreed with his wife during the class he would get lectured at home.
2 Likes
When I have stood “up front” and been given the privilege of speaking either short form or long form. I use any and all of the commentaries that are available for a particular verse or series of verses.
You don’t need to have explained how to study the Bible; you just need to find a relatively easy and all encompassing way.
Commentaries are a good way of doing so; rather than the inconsistencies casting doubt, they reinforce the concept that there is always a certain amount of “wiggle room” when looking at the text through a modern lens.
3 Likes
Hi - just here checking in with you again to see if you have any bible study updates that your care to share. It’s alright if you don’t - don’t let my pestering bother you.
What brought this back to my mind was that I just now listened to a 5 minute “advice-ish” video from HolyPost media titled “How do I avoid political conflict in my bible study group?” I thought it was well done, and I could easily summarize the couple of take-aways here since it is unfortunately behind a “Holy Post Plus” subscription wall. (though I will shamelessly plug here that it doesn’t take much $ to get you to that tier). And I could even do one better … I’ve got an open link to share up to 5 free months of HPM plus membership with any friends. So if anybody reading here is interested in that and wants to share their email for that purpose, I’d happily put you in, and then you could watch stuff like this for yourself!
1 Like
I’ve been following this thread even though I haven’t commented until now. I think that establishing safe processes for potentially controversial discussions is a really important subject. So I’d encourage you to summarize the article. Maybe even go further: is this a resource that should be developed and pinned permanently for Biologos followers?
And there you landed on the speakers main point made (it was only a five minute talk, not an article). He emphasized the importance of establishing, before you attempt to broach any hard subjects, that you will all mutually commit to practicing the gifts of the spirit with each other and 1 Corinthians 13 love. Only within that context can disagreeing Christians begin to grant each other permission to disagree over very emotionally invested things and still remain in fellowship with each other. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Also plan ahead of time with each other that if you sense the temperature in the room getting too high, that you will agree to “push the pause button” on it and only return to that subject later after a cool down period, maybe days or a week later, after everyone has had a chance for reflection and prayer.
I’ll add some personal observations here not mentioned in that video, but certainly in the same spirit. Think of your fellow members (if you don’t already) as beloved family with whom you would feel obliged to continue mutual care with, even across any most extreme political disagreement. Exhort one as you would your own elderly father, as Paul advises somewhere. If people live in fear of being socially cast into outer darkness as a result of a view they hold, then they don’t feel safe enough to address anything around that subject at all. And the speaker in the video above lavished praise on the the questioner for even just having a politically diverse Bible study at all. What a precious and needed rarity these days, to have a study asking how scriptures can be applied to every area of our lives including our political lives!
2 Likes
This only works in situations where the participants and teachers/leaders all see themselves on equal footing. That is often not the case. The Teacher - Student model is more predominant in many church and study settings, which implies the students are there to receive and accept what is taught. Period.
Discussions are aimed at bringing the student around to the view of the teacher, ostensibly the “official” and therefore “correct” view.
2 Likes
Yep! Definitely so, and the short video I referenced did not address that at all. It would only work for a pre-existing “small group” kind of peer intimacy. Good point.
And even as you bring this up, most of us here are probably imagining ourselves as being in the receiving (not leading) role in this more heirarchical kind of gathering. But what if you were the convener (leader) gathering a group together, and you tried to lay these ground rules down up front (commitment to each other and all that) , and now some of the “we just want the right answers” crowd are feeling like some squishy, seeker friendly, or “woke” study is being imposed on them? How could that be addressed? Or are these two groups just doomed to never darken the doors of the “other kind” of gathering?
1 Like
Imaginary follow-up conversation I have with very real friend(s) of mine regarding what I just posted above; (I usually win all my imaginary conversation arguments with myself - funny that! - but maybe not this time.)
Friend: Okay, Merv, so you’re thinking “my” kind of bible study is the “authoritarian” or “hierarchical” kind and yours isn’t? So … are you saying you aren’t interested in right answers then? I bet if I was in your bible study, and I suddenly started wanting to push that the bible actually condones slavery - I bet you’d suddenly have an interest in helping me see the light! So let’s just dispense with all this pretension that “my” kind of study has an authoritarian bent and yours doesn’t! In fact, at least in mine, the ‘authority’ is claimed and openly declared up front, whereas you’re trying to slip yours in more implicitly - as in you would claim “reality” (i.e. - really “God”) as your ultimate authority in your study which is likely the more dangerous kind of authoritarianism - the kind that masquerades as something else “kinder and gentler”.
Me: Of course I’m interested in truth! Truth seeking is just that after all! Wanting to always be pushing for ever more truth! So - I guess - yes; I do concede your point: I shouldn’t say yours is the exclusive “we just want the right answers” group. Mine is too. But to push a bit more then, it’s an admission on my part that I have less confidence in answers given by those who embrace an absolute confidence that they’ve already arrived at all those answers (the important ones anyway), and have nothing important left to learn from other perspectives around them! Those who aren’t willing to allow continued self-examination and continued input from other perspectives seem least likely to me to have actually found and grasped very many “eternally enduring truths”! And yes - none of us has that ultimate God-like perspective for ourselves (excepting Christ). And that is precisely why we will always need each other. Yes - there is authority that exists, but one person, one group, one tribe, one organization that claims to have it, or uniquely represent it, has crossed a line.
Friend: Excepting science, I bet? You’re quite willing to grant that “consensus science” or “consensus biblical scholarship” has that kind of authority, right? Once again, I’m not sure you’ve succeeded in distinguishing yourself from your allegedly “more authoritarian” neighbors.
Me: Well no. I don’t concede that point. Neither science nor scholarship ultimately run on the fuel of “authority” except maybe in short term appeal from outside themselves (as in, which of these two sources is taking consensus science into account; and maybe let’s ascribe more authority to that voice). But ultimately scholarship and research doesn’t care that “so-and-so” said so. It’s physical reality that gets the final vote - with the experiments and measuring sticks. I’m glad we can both agree that reality is a thing we should appeal to, though - even if our perceptions of it may be wrong. And in fact, modern skepticism (any good science or scholarship) even majors on this acknowledgment that “we’re pretty good at fooling ourselves”, and then subjecting our understandings to critical scrutiny accordingly. Why can’t our bible studies take on that more robust approach to faith as well?
Friend: Well, you’re a Christian, right? Don’t you still allow for special revelation? Revelation given us ultimately from God? What about that? The prophets and apostles are telling us things from and about God in the Bible which you do accept as authoritative, right? If you have a misunderstanding of something in the Bible, wouldn’t you want to know, and be corrected?
Me: Yes! We agree on that. I guess where we will still disagree is about who “the authority in the room” is who has a [the] God-given right to correct everyone else in the room. You tend to give a very person-centered or leadership-centered answer to that. And I still have pretensions of thinking that such authority can be more widely spread out to community.
…and the conversation hopefully continues…
2 Likes
This reminded me of Fr. Evanson, Lutheran pastor/priest of a church I attended. He didn’t need to invoke any teacher-student model; he had multiple doctoral degrees plus spoke or read at least six languages besides the “theological languages” Greek, Hebrew, and Latin – everyone knew we weren’t on the same level . . . and yet I remember one Sunday morning “adult seminar” where a lady’s grandkid piped up with a question and he addressed it no differently than if it had come from someone at a scholarly conference – seriously, patiently, and on the level from which it was asked.
If anyone I’ve ever known deserved the teacher status, it was him, yet he acted as though entirely unaware he was special.
4 Likes
A Lutheran pastor I knew in Portland, Oregon never announced any such guidelines; instead he would cut in and ask things like “What is the fourth fruit of the Spirit?” which aimed people in the right direction without any structure set out.
2 Likes
We did meet again, and I just hadn’t gotten back around to this thread. Sorry, and thanks for keeping it open!
In the last session, we went through the first lesson. It was a good run-through of different versions of the Bible, what manuscripts are, and how they are used in different versions. There were a few things I could talk about. Not all of them are questions, but things that I’ve been thinking about:
- The first section in the chapter was about how we got our Bible. It starts with crediting the Bible to a divine source, which most Christians believe. But I’ve come to see that this means very different things to different people. The most the author does to explain this is to say that all the authors were guided “by the mind of God.” I’m curious to know if any of you, through your reading of the Bible, believe God played a more direct role or if He used the product of our times and, as some Peter Enns would say, took them up into Divine service? I could see this influencing how one takes the authority of scripture. How do those perspectives change the way you guys view of the Bible?
- This ties into the first point: The second section discussed the authors of the Bible. It says: “In the biblical sense, a prophet is someone who speaks or writes a message from God.” It goes on to say that 40 prophets took part in the Bible’s creation. I think referring to all the authors as “prophets” is an interesting choice (were Kings and Chronicles written by “prophets”??), and I think that can skew a proper understanding of who the writers are—I don’t think every person mentioned in the name of a book was airdropped a message from God
. We did talk about how these people may have “heard” God in different ways and wrote their experience the best they could, but my fellow congregants seem to lean more on the side of “the authors experienced God in a more direct way.” - It was mentioned briefly that some things mentioned in the Bible are incidental—writers made references to other writings and sayings of their time (Paul quoting Greek poetry, Jude quoting Enoch, etc.). It says that these inclusions do not mean that those source materials are equal to scripture’s authority. Fair enough. But it had me thinking that I’m not sure how we should determine what is divinely inspired and what is not. Because of institutional decisions, some books are not in protestant Bibles. Should we say whether or not those are inspired? Can other works be useful, but not inspired? Is there a difference in the way we should treat other materials that are useful but not considered “inspired?”
I’ve wondered what “divine inspiration” and “authority” even mean, so this lesson stirred some of those questions again. It’s hard to think that God would stop inspiring people and giving guidance after the last book of the Bible was written.
4 Likes
I love the talk about how to conduct a respectful church group! There hasn’t been animosity from my church group thus far, but I suppose I’ve heard so many stories about conservative churches shutting people down that they keep me from being vocal. But I’m trying to speak up, and will continue to try and determine when is/isn’t the right time to speak.
Holy Post is a cool organization! Might be cool to sign up
2 Likes
Well - you give the word and I’ll submit your email to them! The email I see for you is a gmail address that begins with “cai…”. If you do want a free trial month, let me know if that’s the address I should use or if you want another email used instead. But I won’t do anything unless you explicitly give permission.
-Merv
-
I learned this distinction from Conservative Jewish Bible Scholar and Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Benjamin D. Sommer, who describes “a stenographic theory of revelation” and “a participatory theory of revelation”.
-
In Dr. Sommer’s book, Revelation and Authority, he writes:
Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation."
-
Personnally, at this time in my life, I subscribe to a participatory theology of revelation.
There is a considerable body of “other works”. Possibly more than what made it into the canon. I think they are useful in helping us understand the culture surrounding the early church and therefore a help in understanding the writings that made it into the canon and why some did not. Plus this has to fit in any theory of inspiration that you chose to use.
1 Like
I like that – it’s incarnational.
1 Like
We in the modern West have a binary view of inspiration; that wasn’t the case in ancient Judaism – or for that matter in the early church.
Mervin, I think you are probably the least authoritarian person on this site! I have regularly appreciated the balance and sensitivity of your posts. And this imaginary conversation just proves it. If you were truly authoritarian you wouldn’t be able to articulate both sides of the conversation in the first place.
My view is that “authoritarian” is defined by the relationship not the subject matter. I compare the structure of the Biologos and AIG websites for example. In my mind the key difference is not the content, but the fact that on Biologos people with different beliefs can actually discuss that content. Which immediately makes the environment very different, even on the tough subjects.
2 Likes
There are many types of small group meetings or ‘Bible studies’. I have limited experience from several groups. Below, I share some of those experiences in the hope that I can hear whether you have similar kind of experiences.
My limited experience is that a large part (most?) small groups turn into ‘mutual support groups’. There is sharing about life experiences and the group can be a somewhat therapeutic experience where the members give mental support to each other on the road forward. The discussions include questions about biblical teachings and these discussions can open new understanding about what the Bible teaches. Yet, the existence of the small group is dependent on sharing life experiences. After those have been discussed and the members have learned what the others are likely to say, the law of diminishing returns will lead to the end of the small group. The group has fulfilled its purpose, so it is time to step to new challenges.
Small groups focusing solely on learning the biblical teachings can be inspiring, for some time. These groups often develop along two alternative trajectories.
The other includes deepening personal relationships and sharing of life experiences. That transforms the bible study group to a mutual support group, following the trajectory described above.
The other common trajectory keeps the group focused on biblical scriptures, rather than personal life. Such a group works like interactive classroom teaching: someone tells how you should interpret the scriptures and there are questions and answers. Such a group can give much knowledge to a young believer but the formula tends to be quite limiting. The leader-teacher or the study material tells how the scriptures need to be interpreted and alternative interpretations may not always receive a positive response. In addition, the group does not necessarily meet the needs of meaningful personal relationships. Although the starting phase may be a very positive experience, the limitations may lead to people dropping out of the group after some time.
Study material with a stepwise study program and possibly given questions that should be answered before the group meeting can help to start a Bible study group, especially if the leader is not experienced. In the longer run, such a material usually proves to be too limiting. The interests of the participants do not follow the preplanned path of the study material, which either leads to following more interest-based paths or to the members being less interested about participating in the group.
One type of small groups including also Bible studies are the so called growth cells. The idea is that the group is open and should attract new members. After the group has grown to a given limit, the group should divide into two new growth cells. The basic principle is positive and many small congregations hope to have such small groups. In practice, such small groups often turn to something else, groups that are more closed than the initial hope was. To be a growth cell, the group should include both socially well-connected and talented people encouraging new members to the group and talented leader-teachers that can organize the group to an inspiring unit and provide such knowledge that is interesting to the participants.
A special type of ‘Bible studies’ are the groups that are established to convert a person. I was invited to such a group organized by JW and the experience was not positive. The core of the group is formed by firmly established members of the movement, including also persons that have long training in the biblical matters. The ‘victim’ invited to the group is usually a person with little knowledge of biblical scriptures. The purpose of the group is to show to the ‘victim’ that the interpretations of the movement are based on the biblical scriptures and the ‘victim’ should join the movement if s/he wants to obey God.
There are also other types of Bible studies in small groups but these are the types I have met.
1 Like
Thanks for your kind (and very charitable) words, Peter!
I admt it’s been some time since I’ve last looked around at AIG or other similar venues (besides just checking out some referenced link, but not exploring beyond that). So my impressions of the character of such sites is probably dated. Assuming you have been there more recently than I have, it doesn’t sound like much change has happened. It could be a matter of survival for them I guess. Once a door is opened to let people challenge any of the locally prevailing orthodoxies, that door is not easily shut. It might represent a change in relationship that they don’t feel can be allowed. Good insight.