Hmmmmm. I must have left something off of what you quoted. I looked back to see what the context was, and there are no written clues. THey must have been in my head a tthe time and failed to make it to the screen. Sorry.
I like your overview of types of studies, and I have been in many of these type myself. As a Baptist in the U.S. you graduated from Sunday School upon death. And many of the groups you describe are much like adult Sunday School classes I’ve been a part of.
We go to a Presbyterian church now. There is no regular, long-term adult Sunday School, which has been a hard adjustment for me. Although there are lots of Bible studies and book studies and doctrinal studies and small groups, which I no longer go to much.
Because they fit the description you had quoted from my earlier post. The book or the speaker is the expert, and the group is encouraged to conform to whatever is being taught. Not growing up with a formal confession or formal catechesis I see all of the content as up for discussion, not as for automatic assent and adoption.
I’ve generally stopped going to the studies, conferences, and groups. I find them even more alienating that doing something else.
I remember an adult once ruefully remarking how depressing it was for them to realize that they were now in the Sunday school class that would be their final one till death. There were no more classes left for them to graduate in to.
My experiences are mainly from such contexts that encourage the use of brains, questioning and learning together (3 congregations + sporadic ecumenical groups). Some interpretations have been told like they were the truth but anybody could question these interpretations and those telling the interpretations/doctrines needed to be able to justify what they said. Otherwise, questioning turned to an interactive study of the question. Challenging and demands a humble attitude from those teaching but such is possible in churches that do not have other written confessions than the biblical scriptures and the acceptance of the earliest ecumenically accepted creeds. All churches have some kind of tradition in how they interpret the scriptures but if that tradition has not been decided and petrified centuries ago in a strict written confession, there is more space for questioning and learning together.
I hope you find a group where you can feel both freedom and support.
I don’t mean anything grim. We just don’t stop going to Sunday school until we can’t anymore. With death.
I mean this with humor. Not all Baptists go to Sunday school, but those of us who do, stay for a really long time.
Every church I have been to organizes adult classes differently. Our most recent old church had for years remixed classes periodically, which I thought was a good idea. Later they let people decide whether to move around or not. My husband and I stayed with one or another group for years and generally moved on when that teacher resigned from teaching.
I really liked that the classes were mixed age, too. And the format of the groups was more discussion than lecture which I really value. This helps prevent the teacher controlling the content as dogma, and exposes people to a variety of perspectives. I miss it.
Our church (pre-split) used to do Sunday School before church every Sunday morning. Ours seemed a similar concept to a Bible study as far as content goes, but more akin to a lecture. Although, some studies are just as lecture-like except sitting at a table . Aside from some doctrinal differences, the Church of God denomination/movement has similarities to the Baptist tradition. Is Sunday School primarily a Baptist thing, or do other larger denominations do that?
The study is twice a month, and this week’s has been canceled to make room for an Independence Day cookout. So I’ll catch up on the next lesson and see what we’ll be talking about at the next study night!
We (Baptist) have about 4 adult Sunday School classes, with one of them being college and career (but the others actually often have the college and career mixed in, too). Most of the time, there’s a facilitator for discussion about a given topic or book. More recently, we’ve used Kyle Idleman and some others. There’s a fairly wide range of opinions that they listen to–I am afraid I am a bit of the more liberal, loose cannon (my wife said that she’s always saying to herself, “O, Lord, what will my husband say next?”). But folks know me, and some of them know I believe in evolution. I haven’t been kicked out yet. I do like hearing different views.
Our church has a bunch of classes, dominant of which are some big lecture type classes, but the one in attend is a small discussion group. I tend to ‘poke the bear’ a lot as well.
Took me a while to get back to this! Life gets busy so fast.
We had another Bible study meeting in which we discussed the following:
We opened with a quote. I cannot remember who said it or what the quote was verbatim, but it basically said that belief can only be come to by faith, not argument (our pastor replaced the word “argument” with “logic”). We were asked whether or not we agree. I said that I did, but that doesn’t mean logic isn’t a factor. I think it’s a tool in making the decision of what to have faith in, but it’s not the ultimate reason we believe.
Anyway, in regard to the content of the study, we discussed natural revelation and special revelation, and then how to handle special revelation (the Bible) in the proper way to gain the best understanding.
The study guide described natural revelation as something that anyone can observe with the five senses, rationality, or human intuition.
Special revelation was said to offer greater insight to questions that natural revelation cannot plainly answer, such as: “Who is God?” “Why are we here?” “What are we here for?” This special revelation was provided to inspired men by the Spirit “so that they wrote just what God wanted them to write, without error.”
When delving into how to absorb special revelation, three basic guidelines were given (that I’m sure most are familiar with). First was to keep context, like time, author, and recipient, in mind for everything read; Second was to read the whole of scripture to let it speak to itself about what it means; Third was to remember that the Bible is a library of different styles and literature, which reflect the creativity and expertise of the author (God).
I feel like a lot can be learned about God from natural revelation, but the lenses through which we view the world are built by the special revelation. I don’t think the two “types” are as distinct as some may try to make them be. They both contribute to practical, philosophical, and existential questions, and if we are wise, we let the two converse with each other.
But I think the chapter did a good job at explaining the basics of what to expect in scripture, like the variety and the different ages of time in which books were written.
I think the idea is that we need to read all of our Bible to have context for what difficult passages mean. The overarching story told in Scripture across the books should interpret more specific passages. They did not get very particular about what that story is (I think many Christians assume the common story of our fallen nature and repetitive sins leading to the sacrifice of Jesus and founding of the church?) or how to use that story to interpret.
I know Christians with more liberal lenses (not political liberal, but more open in general) view the Bible as Pete Enns does: As humans documenting their understanding of God to the best of their ability in their culture, and those documentations being used as tools for God. But that does give you a different narrative—and even a different interpretation of atonement.
For me the point is that the Bible contains a story of God’s interaction with humanity over many times and places; a story which Christians take as authoritative. But the very nature of that story means that there are multiple voices involved. The most obvious example is that we have four gospels of Jesus’ life and they are not the same.
So yes, I embrace the truth of atonement, but I also embrace other ways of telling the story of God’s interaction.
There are two Reformation axioms here: Scripture interprets Scripture, and “difficult” passages should be understood in light of clearer passages. Standard Protestant stuff. Nothing to worry about.
Yeah, that’s where it gets sticky. What’s the overall narrative? Is it a “fall” from a state of perfection into sin that requires Jesus to “pay” for our sins on the cross? That’s one model of atonement – penal substitutionary atonement in theological jargon. There are other models that don’t require a literal fall – such as Christus Victor or Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory or Girard’s Scapegoat Theory. This seemed like a good summary:
There are also other overarching narratives that one could choose. For example, there is the theme of God’s “presence” with humanity. The Garden is modeled upon the tabernacle, the “meeting place” between God and humanity. The man and the woman are created in God’s image and placed in the Garden as God’s representatives on Earth, like an “idol” placed in a temple to represent the god. Except the true idol created by God is a living and breathing representative, unlike “man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell” (Deut 4:28).
As God’s representatives on Earth, humanity was intended to extend the Garden of God’s presence – representing his goodness and mercy and justice – throughout the earth, but instead we chose selfish interests and turned away from God, like the Prodigal Son, so God abandoned us to our own desires.
The “outreach” program began with Abraham and the Jewish people. The tabernacle and the two later temples were physical representations of Yahweh’s presence on Earth. That was a foot in the door, but it was insufficient. Ezekiel pictures God’s Shekinah glory (presence) abandoning the temple and not being confined to one place. There are no biblical stories of God’s glory descending on the second temple. Something better was on the horizon.
Jesus was God kicking in the door. He was the embodiment of God’s presence on Earth (see Hebrews), and through the Holy Spirit it was extended far beyond Israel to every nook and cranny of the globe.
The end of the story is the New Jerusalem, which is in the shape of a massive cube like the Holy of Holies in the temple. The symbolism is that God’s presence will fill the earth in the eschaton.
The reverse could only be true if a memory of the Garden was passed down verbally to Moses’ generation, yet Abram was unfamiliar with Yahweh. Hmmm?
Or one could claim God dictated the dimensions, but then one has to ask why the tabernacle and later temple followed patterns that were common in the ANE?
The simplest answer is that Gen 1-11 weren’t the first books written in the OT.
That surprised the heck out of me, and sent me googling where I found this:
The theory that the biblical Tabernacle was patterned after Egyptian military tents—specifically the war command tent of Ramesses II—is primarily championed by biblical scholars and Egyptologists. [1, 2, 3]
Notable figures who advance or popularized this comparison include:
Dr. Michael Homan: A professor and biblical scholar who extensively researched and argued that the Tabernacle’s form and tripartite function closely mirror pictorial evidence of the Egyptian military camps used during the Battle of Kadesh.
Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman: A prominent biblical scholar and author of The Exodus who points to this architectural and structural parallel as evidence supporting the historicity of the Exodus.
Dr. Jacob Milgrom: A leading scholar on biblical ritual who identified parallels between the wilderness camp formation and Egyptian military encampments. [1]
These scholars argue that the features shared by both structures include:
A strict three-room division of space.
The placement of the leader’s/deity’s most sacred space in the innermost, rear section.
The use of carrying poles for sacred objects.
The presence of winged guardian figures (cherubim). [5, 6, 7]
Would you like to explore:Specific architectural comparisons between the Tabernacle and Egyptian war tents?Other theories regarding the cultural origins of the Tabernacle design?Let me know how you’d like to narrow down the research.
. Aside from some doctrinal differences, the Church of God denomination/movement has similarities to the Baptist tradition. Is Sunday School primarily a Baptist thing, or do other larger denominations do that?