Reprise: quality in study methodology (1 of 2)

A recent post on “quality” and “better methods” prompted a thoughtful challenge from a regular reader.  Generally, I took the interlocution as probing my assessment of Bible study methods:  “Who sets the standard for ‘better’?”  Specifically,¹ Rick Warren’s published methods (which I’d identified as being of uneven quality) were mentioned, and I’ll deal with those more in the next post.

My post on 10/14 was not one of my “better” (ha) ones, and I was probably scapegoating, to some extent.  (Maybe I’d do “better” to bemoan the lack of quality in other areas:  conductor selection processes, auto insurance departments’ lack of communication with each other, fast food touch-screen programming, etc.)  Quality and substance are always of concern to me, not just in Christian arenas.

I’m not prepared to ease up much on—much less to retract—the basic call for utilizing the best known methods in Bible study.  In the spirit of discussion, I’m setting out here to identify what I see as the hows and whats and whys (the whos aren’t the issue) of quality in Bible study.

What’s paramount?
wpid-img_20151023_090040_001.jpgOne problem with most Bible Study “methods” and practices is that they simply don’t expend energy on context.  In the “general church folks” milieu, not taking textual scholarship into consideration is probably secondary, but it is also significant.  I believe these two items are of paramount importance.  Methods that do not scratch the surface of either 1) context or 2) responsible scholarship are inherently of lesser quality.

In giving Warren’s list of study methods a once-over, I thought the dozen was neatly and readily marketed, but only 1/3 to 1/2 seemed to have authentic merit.  One evening, I was in a group that used one of Warren’s methods—one of his better ones (or so I’d thought)—but the discussion ended up majoring heavily in vague, nearly baseless opinions, teased out by the question “Which word stood out to you in this chapter?”

  • One strong pro several people in the group seemed to have read the whole chapter at least once, in preparation (!).  They actually had ready answers to the above question!  Wow!
  • A few cons: 1) book-level context was ignored; 2) the range of meaning of the original-language word was not on the table; 3) the situation into which the letter had been directed was presumed impertinent by default (not by direct statement); and 4) no textual structuring within the document was considered.

May people’s faith be stimulated by activities that don’t have biblical text as their basis?  Of course, yes.  On the other hand, if it walks like a cat, it’s not a duck.  If it’s more devotion- or inspirational theme-based, it’s probably not be Bible study per se.  Such motivations for living Christianly may be great, and I’d accept that they can be God-originated.  More often, I observe that they are synthetic, and I’d suggest that apparent “spiritual growth hormones,” synthesized by humans, are not organically grown out of the text.  They can produce artificial results.  Such insights might well be valuable, but why call them “Bible study”?

Some may not be “into” responsible, contextual handling of Biblical texts
In his response to the earlier post, my esteemed interlocutor speculated on the needs of young believers, as well as women’s take on things.  He would never have been attempting to paint an entire gender pink, but I took it that he was (rightly) saying, “Not everyone’s like you, Brian.”  Another relatively academic friend’s wife, the guy says, isn’t interested in anything that seems “academic,” and more women may indeed feel that way than men.  To the extent that it’s a women thing, it may be because of bad male behavior—blustering through dogma and other junk under the macho guise of scholarship, rather than purveying genuine academic insights.

Personally, I’m glad my wife is more into context than in typical “let go and let God” fluff or jumping around through different biblical books to find bits about love, joy, peace, faith, and goodness.  I do not judge the hearts of the women or men who are inspired and spurred on to good by such things, but I am not myself drawn by non-contextual study, and I do think there are more viable, more valid ways of going about edification, to boot.

I’m happy to report that quite a few other insightful women with whom I’ve had the privilege of studying would also prefer to be honest and responsible with one text on its own.  I’m sure it’s the same just about anywhere, although we also know some others (women and men) who reject anything that seems academic to the slightest degree.Barton

As for new believers, there is certainly a need for good study methods appropriate for baby Christians.  What is not OK is using bad methods that lead to invalid conclusions that in turn lead to shallow Churchians.  The alternative is good methods—methods that help to produce lifelong learner-disciples who over the years come to understand more and more of how history and ancient texts inform authentic faith.

Next:  Rick Warren’s methods


¹  Caveat lector:  I had originally also called out Joel Osteen’s fluff, and that stuff deserves no more comment—not while discussing Bible study, at least.  Arguably, the Gospel Advocate (a sectarian publication) does major in Bible study, but its tenor has in much of the past been more geared to watch-dogging and propping up denominational tenets than to digging into texts without prejudice.  On this my friend Steve and I agree.  One thing further here:  I shouldn’t have named the Beth Moore material, not having had any personal experience with it.  I imagine it is some of the better devotion-based material out there, and I presume it gets into real Bible exegesis at least some.  My wife, having had two experiences with Beth Moore material, has now supported my impression in general terms.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Reprise: quality in study methodology (1 of 2)

  1. Gary D. Collier 10/27/2015 / 7:27 am

    Brian, since I am outside of the study context you are reporting, and since you are reporting what someone said, rather than directly quoting it (that is not a criticism, just a fact of your post), then my comment could be entirely off-base to what you are after. (I am context deprived, here.)

    So here is a general comment on “context”: I am certain (yes) that the word “context” does not imply “academic.” To necessarily link them as your friend has seemed to do (??), is a mistake. It is an often used excuse (hardly ever intentionally that) for poor Bible reading habits.

    This is easy to show. Nobody likes to be taken out of context. Take people out of context and watch what they do. They won’t get academic at all. But they will let you know that they don’t like what you did. However, those same people love reading the Bible without paying any overt attention to context because, they say, “I am not interested in academics.” What they really mean is, “I want to provide my own context for this text.” Because that is exactly what will happen. Every time. When we don’t know a biblical context, we provide our own. In that case, we might as well be reading a song by the Beatles.

    For God so loved the world.
    He loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah,
    that he gave his only son,
    and with a love like that,
    you know you should be glad.

    And that is exactly what will happen, it just won’t be this black and white. The less we are concerned with the context of a biblical text, the more we assume our own context. This has got nothing to do with women vs men. This has to do with respect. Find someone who doesn’t like to read the Bible contextually, and you have found someone who will talk highly about the Bible, but who is more interested in themselves (what the Bible means to me).

    I am not accusing your friend of anything at all. I don’t even know what your friend actually said, and I sure don’t know what s/he meant. So this is not a personal slam against anyone. But on the subject of context generally, paying attention to another’s context is to show respect. It is true with people; and it is true with reading anything–including the Bible.

    Academics is a different subject. If I think they are the same, I do not understand either. I intend no disrespect to anyone here. I am talking about a principle for understanding another.

    Gary

    PS: I agree with you about Rick Warren’s material. Do people like it? Of course! Is it contextually responsible? Sometimes. Does it encourage contextual Bible study? No, of course not, it demonstrates the opposite.

    Like

    • Brian Casey 10/27/2015 / 8:23 am

      Gary, many thanks for offering all you have offered here — and for giving the caveat that you are not entirely within one level context. Your words of course resonate with me regarding the general context of how most Christians read, or don’t read, scripture.

      I believe Steve will generally agree, as well — he’s a responsible, dedicated servant and student with a good range of experiences, too. He’s more well-read than I (which isn’t necessarily saying much … I merely mean to be putting him in some “context” for you). [Steve can speak (very well) for himself, but if he doesn’t have time in the near future to respond, perhaps the above will be of some use.]

      I had actually wondered how you might read my prioritizing of context over “academics,” if you read it. Your clarifying and delineating them help here. And I loved your statement about what “people” will do when people take them out of context — nothing academic.

      BTW, my follow-up post in a couple days treats some things about individual Warren methods. In writing the 2nd one, I was 1) trying to become more familiar myself with something that presumably has influenced more people than I’d realized, and 2) trying to highlight some strengths and a lot of flaws for the general purpose of saying, “This seems contextually aware; that does not.”

      If we didn’t try to “provide our own contexts,” we might listen more than we speak . . . and we might, as Greg Fay puts it, stop interrupting God. This ideal, it seems, is very hard to achieve. I must hold out hope that there is a way to be very contextually responsible in every setting — whether “academics” are of interest or not.

      Like

Please share your thoughts. I read every comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s