Ecclesiology 14 - A Practical Approach to Small Groups: The Bible Study

    Today we shall take up the subject of small group Bible study, but there is a matter we must deal with first.  Any sort of study requires a study teacher or guide, and this guide will, ideally, know something more about the topic than the other group members.  That is to say that the learning process cannot take place without the possibility of asking questions and receiving answers.  Someone must be able to answer those questions, so some form of student/teacher relationship becomes inevitable.  This begs the question "whom shall be our teacher?"

    From the very beginning, then, we have need to select leaders from within the group, and for that we must determine a method for doing so.  I think it is safe to assume that the Holy Spirit has some opinions regarding group leadership and I further find it safe to assume the Holy Spirit's choice will be the correct one.  The only real issue becomes how we mere mortals will be able to divine the Holy Spirit's selection.

    I don't know.

    Following in line behind someone who simply shows up and announces him/herself to be the designated leader has proven catastrophic so often so as not to even be worth considering.  On the other hand, our human attempts at divining the will of God may or may not be disastrous but neither have they proven universally fruitful.  When the 11 surviving disciples of Christ decided to find a replacement for the deceased Judas, they settled on casting lots as a means of divining the Holy Spirit's choice, a process which resulted in the selection of Matthias as the new 12th apostle.  After the selection process, the Bible doesn't mention Matthias' name again.  So far as we know, he went on to do a perfectly commendable job in his leadership capacity.  What Scripture does make clear, however, is that Matthias was not the Holy Spirit's choice for a new apostle; that responsibility fell instead to Paul.  This leaves us with the impression that games of chance are also not a useful method by which the church chooses its leaders.

    I can say that determining our leaders is a job that must be done with some patience.  Looking again at Paul's selection as an apostle, Acts tells us that the Holy Spirit did not consult with the apostles before selecting Paul, nor was any confirming sign offered when Paul showed up at the Temple announcing his miraculous selection.  In fact, there was a 14-year gap between Paul's roadside experience and his ordination to actually preach.  We can only speculate everything Paul endured during these 14 years, but I feel sure of at least two things: he learned about his subject and he proved his worth to the apostles.

    I do have a few more thoughts regarding church leadership, but I believe I will save them for a subsequent post or in response to any questions that come up in the comments.  The bottom line is this: while the renewed church must select its own leaders, I do not know by what process the selections must be made.  I can only advise the church in as far as which processes have historically not worked.  From there, the Holy Spirit has undoubtedly illuminated someone (or someones) else.

    Now, moving on to the topic at hand: small group Bible study.  Obviously, to engage in any sort of Bible study at least one member of our group must first have read and understood the Bible.  This in itself is no mean feat as the plethora of biblical interpretations attest.  I will herein describe my own method of interpreting Scripture - a process referred to in academic circles as exegesis, by the way -  with the understanding once again of my position as a layman, not a scholar.

    Let us begin by discussing biblical translations, for these, too, are in abundance.  Which does one choose and how does one go about making this choice?

    Translating any literary work from one language to another is a task of herculean proportion.  Even if one attempts a reasonably simple word-for-word translation, there are already dangers at every turn, as Kentucky Fried Chicken learned the hard way when they opened their first unit in Beijing.  It turns out that the English phrase "It's Finger-Lickin' Good"  translates into Mandarin as "Eat your fingers off."  Then there is the matter of having no translation at all, or at least no equivalent one.  The Greek word "apostle," for example, has no English equivalent.  The word "ambassador" comes close, but the latter carries very little of the nuance of the former, so much of the effect is "lost in translation."

     Adding to this difficulty is the translator's need to decide if a word-for-word translation is even a legitimate path to follow.  All literary works, regardless of their form, contain some elements of poetry, using the accents, intonations and syllable-counts of words to create certain rhythms and phrases.  Words are combined in very intentional ways so as to create images in the minds of the readers.  Often when the work is translated into another language, these nuances are lost unless the editor is willing to play a bit fast and loose with the actual word-for-word translation to maintain the literary intent of the piece.  Then, too, is the social and historical context of the work, the local idioms and colloquialisms.  Translating Don Quixote into modern English, the editor must decide if a modern English audience will even know what it means to "tilt at windmills," a common enough idiom at the time of Cervantes' writing. If I told a native Maori that something "runs like an Edsel," would they know what I mean?

    So, how does one go about selecting a translation to use for Bible study?  For me, the first step is to eliminate any "translations-of-translations," because these will double the likely inaccuracies.  For example, the King James Version is not a translation from the Greek or Hebrew originals but is an English translation of the Vulgate, the Latin Bible commonly in use at the time.  It is a translation of a translation.  By extension, the NKJV, the RSV, the NRSV, the Living Bible, the Good News Bible and The Message are all paraphrases of the King James, so these represent "translations-of-a-translation-of-a-translation."

    Once I've eliminated "translations-of-translations," my next step is to look into the scholastic background of the translator or translators.  Is the translator actually fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek (assuming one can even be fluent in ancient Hebrew; what a dumb language!)?  Are they translating from the oldest possible sources?  Is the translator familiar with the historical and social context of the passage being translated?  Once we've satisfactorily answered these questions, we can perhaps select a few translations and have a fair level of confidence in our selections.  I personally like the Barclay and Phillips translations, although both of these translators confine themselves to the New Testament (Phillips was working on a translation of the Old Testament when he passed away, leaving the project incomplete).  For Old Testament studies, I admit to a fondness for Moffatt, Wycliff and the Common English translations.  I'm also fond of the Douay-Rheims Bible, even though it is also a translation of the Vulgate.  It is a Catholic Bible and therefore contains the Apocrypha and the Maccabees, books that are unavailable in the Protestant version, hence my fondness.  As with any serious research, I find that looking up at least three independent sources (five would be better)  provides me with a reasonable level of confidence in the interpretation.

    "But how does one know how to interpret what one reads?  Even a simple, straightforward verse can often mean different things to different people!"  True, and to an extent this is as it should be.  The Bible contains a number of different books and it addresses the entire gambit of human existence.  Passages will not only mean different things to different individuals, but the same passage may mean different things to the same person at different stages of his/her development.  

There are basically four ways of looking at a passage of Scripture (or any other writing, for that matter).  They are known as the literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical interpretations.   A literal interpretation means, as one might suspect, a verbatim rendering of a passage as acute historical record.  An allegorical (or metaphorical) interpretation will view the people and actions contained within a passage as symbolic of a central spiritual truth.  The moral, or tropological, reading of a text, such as one of Jesus' parables, provides a lesson for right living, much as would an Aesop fable.  The anagogical sense of the same text may reveal some prophetic insight into such ideas as the end times and Final Judgement.    By way of example, whenever one encounters the word Jerusalem in Scripture, it may mean the city physically located in Judea (literal), or The Church (allegorical), or the person's soul (tropological) or even Heaven (anagogical).  So, which interpretation is right?  Actually, all four will have benefit to the student at various points along their individual learning curve, thus the great number of arguments in interpretation among both scholars and laity.

Still, we need some sort of anchor lest we create an endless array of sects and denominations based on our various interpretations of Scripture.  I can only offer up those methods I employ when I get stuck.

(1) I usually start with the old seminarian questions: "Who's speaking?" "To whom is he speaking?" and "Against what cultural and historical backdrop is it being spoken?"  Discerning the answers to these three questions will usually be enough to get me along on my way.

(2) If those first three questions don't make the passage abundantly clear, I then move on to asking a fourth: "How does this relate to what I know of Jesus' teachings?"  As an example used by Jesus himself - "You have heard it said 'an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth [Lev. 24:20],' but I tell you... If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matt. 5:38,39)  There's nothing wrong with the Mosaic Law; it was at the time of its writing an unusually merciful bit of adjudication (in this particular case, borrowing from Hammurabi).  But Jesus' emphasis on human love ups the ante and makes a more literal interpretation of the Leviticus passage moot.  Conversely, I believe that if a certain idea or philosophy meets with Jesus' silence, then it is, in all likelihood, because Jesus found the matter unimportant, as should we.

(3) On those rare occasions on which the first two bullet points don't get me where I need to go, a good commentary becomes invaluable.  Please note the phrase good commentary.  I've suffered through at least as many bad commentaries as good ones.  It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two; virtually all commentaries on the market are edited by people (or groups) with a long string of letters behind their names.  When looking at commentaries, I generally look to see if the editor has a particular denominational creed or agenda to be pushed and to what extent the editor presents his/her/their views through the filter of Christ's own teachings.  Does the love shine through the words?  I really love William Barclay's New Testament commentary (published in 24 volumes) entitled "Daily Bible Study."  Moffatt also has a very good commentary.  I have a Goodrick/Kohlenberger Exhaustive commentary that is thoroughly dog-eared. I also have a very old Wycliffe that I like quite a lot, but I recently purchased a newer edition that has been reworked to such a degree as to be nearly unrecognizable and with a definite Baptist agenda.  I suppose my suggestion, then, is this: when any elder or other member of the group is considering purchasing a commentary (and they ain't cheap, even used), glean what you can from any reading samples available online before investing, then follow your gut.

(4) When all else fails, go to the apologists.  This is another of those words that no longer means what it once did.  Apologetics has nothing to do with expressions of remorse.  The concept here has to do with defending the faith by explaining complex ideas to the uninitiated.  Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, could be considered an astrophysical apologist because the least knowledgeable person can understand what he's saying.  Jesus himself was an exemplary apologist.  When he tried to explain the rather complex concept of mercy to a group of illiterate peasants, he told them a story about a prodigal son.  There have been Christian apologists as long as there have been Christians.  A few names that stick out are Paul the Apostle, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr, William of Ockham (of Razor fame), Thomas Aquinas and Blaise Pascal (the computer guy).  More modern apologists include John Henry Newman, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Richard Bach.  Pick any book by any of these authors, especially, but not exclusively, their works in non-fiction (although they all make a number of excellent apologetic points within their fiction, as well).  You're sure to find brilliant insights within.

(5) If it's Saturday afternoon, you're scheduled to lead Bible study next Tuesday, and you have absolutely nothing, you might grab a study guide.  Everyone with a publishing deal and an interest in Christianity has written a study guide.  Two names that come immediately to mind are the reverends Adam Hamilton and Max Lucado.  I don't know that either of them is the best or the most authoritative study guide author, but they certainly rank among the most prolific, with so many titles between them that I cannot see how either of them ever manages to find enough time to actually attend his own church services.  (Note - in the weeks since first typing this sentence I have learned that they very often don't.)

    Lastly, let us look at how we might conduct the Bible study itself.  I absolutely hate sermons, lectures and PowerPoint presentations, nor am I particularly fond of flip charts or blackboards, although in some very extreme cases, they might be necessary.  I strongly prefer using either the Rabbinic method or the Socratic method.  In the first case, the students ask the instructor questions until an understanding is achieved.  In the latter, the process is reversed; the instructor asks the students ever more probing questions to ferret out the truth buried within.  I will offer one short tale of caution, though.  The methods of Socrates, for whom the Socratic method is named, were found to be so annoying to the people of Athens that they forced him to drink hemlock, principally (although not exclusively) just to shut him up.  I am unaware of the same fate befalling any rabbis, so maybe theirs is the safer approach.☺

    I think it is perfectly acceptable for the teaching elder to have a series of questions on a particular subject prepared ahead of the study, but if the elder is feeling confident, it might prove more enlightening for the students if the elder simply opens the study by asking the students what issues had come up for them in the preceding week that we might address, or perhaps taking a topic from the communal prayer that prefaces the Bible study (more in this regard in the next post).  The "take home message" is this: more will be learned by both the teacher and the students through a productive question-and-answer than through all the lectures and speeches in the world.  And one last word to the teacher - "I don't know" is not only a perfectly acceptable answer, but it often leads to more insight for student and teacher alike!

    That is not only all I have on planning a Bible study, it's actually a good deal more than I intended when I sat down to type this.  Next, we will look at the remaining elements of the small group meeting.

Pax

P.S.  It has now been two weeks since I first published this post.  Yesterday, I found a tiny little volume on the library shelf entitled "Understanding the Bible," written by Fred J. Denbeaux and published by Westminster Press under the Layman's Theological Library in 1958.  While the language is a bit dated, it speaks to the subject at hand far more eloquently that I have done.  If the reader can find this volume, it would prove itself worth the perusal.  I read it in just over 2 hours.