Too much bible study

[Gary Creely]

Here is a blog post from the pastor of a rather successful church in my area.

http://www.brianjones.com/2008/07/christians-spend-too-much-time-studying.html

What are your thoughts on this, keep in mind many of his parishioners read it.

[Jamie Wayne]

He makes some very good points, I think, and his blog should provoke thought.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Here is a blog post from the pastor of a rather successful church in my area.

http://www.brianjones.com/2008/07/christians-spend-too-much-time-studying.html

What are your thoughts on this, keep in mind many of his parishioners read it.

I almost agree with him. But not quite.

I don't think we study scripture too much, on the contrary, not enough.

However, if he were to have said primarily that we rely too much on scripture as the authoritative source, I'd agree with him.

At the same time, part of his reasoning is "the early Church did fine without the Bible, so can we." We are not the early Church, and have vastly different needs, especially as broken as the Body is today. We need canonicity.

We've had good conversation around here on the balance or better yet, interplay, between the authority of the Church and scripture (here are but two threads):
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=12147
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=7976

[Hans Deventer]

What are your thoughts on this, keep in mind many of his parishioners read it.

I agree with this man. And Jeremy, we may need canonicity, but while a strong Calvinist and I may agree on the 66 books, we don't agree on how they are to be read.
I think what we need more than Bible study is living examples of how to live the Christian life in the 21st century. As the early church had them, but of course relating to their time.

Jesus indeed didn't write a book, but He did train 12 men to follow "the way". I think we could do with that as well.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

And Jeremy, we may need canonicity, but while a strong Calvinist and I may agree on the 66 books, we don't agree on how they are to be read.

Yes, but is concluding that we need less of the Bible the answer?

[Jamie Wayne]

I totally agree with everything that you said, Jeremy.

A friend of mine, who attends a Church of Christ, where they emphasize the Bible at the exclusion of even the Creeds, struggles with putting too much of an emphasis on Scripture.

The author of that blog makes a good point, though, about the Church making it for 3 centuries without the canon of Scripture, though I would add that the Rule of Faith existed before the canon of Scripture did. My point being that Scripture is to be interpreted by the Rule of Faith, and that becomes problematic when Scripture is elevated higher than the Rule of Faith - especially to the point where the Creeds aren't even recognized at all!

[Hans Deventer]

Yes, but is concluding that we need less of the Bible the answer?

You know the answer to that question ;)

Of course it is not less Bible and nothing else, it is more of something else in stead of Bible study.

I've been wondering for quite a while if we have a good focus on our problems as church. Is our main problem our lack in knowledge of theology? Considering that we train pastors mostly in that field, the answer apparently is yes for many people. I disagree, however. We can do with a lot less theology, but we need more praxis. And I wish the focus on training pastors was on following Christ and be able to say with Paul: "follow me, as I follow Jesus". That does not exclude theology, but it need certainly not be the main focus it has become.
I think this is also a remnant of Modernism we need to get rid of. We aren't saved by our theology. We're saved by a living faith in Jesus, which means following the Master.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I agree with this man. And Jeremy, we may need canonicity, but while a strong Calvinist and I may agree on the 66 books, we don't agree on how they are to be read.

You know the answer to that question ;)

Of course it is not less Bible and nothing else, it is more of something else in stead of Bible study.

I guess I don't understand the nature of the "but" in the first quote above. You agreed that we need canonicity, but not that it comes from scripture because people disagree within the bounds of scripture? I really am just trying to figure out where we disagree (where the "but" comes in).

[Steven Martinez]

As far as the article, I think it is interesting. I think Hauerwas already said something in that line in his book Unleashing the Scriptures. I think Brian Jones is arguing a similar theme that we have forsaken our call to live in community as we create a community between ourselves and the Bible. It seems that his issue is that he is combatting fundamentalism and a Bible only mentality, not that we should stop reading and studying the Bible. I do not know how theology got in this discussion since Jones does not mention theology but personal Bible study.
I do disagree with Mr. Jones in that he assumes that just because there was not an offical canon of scripture that there was not a scripture being used. There was the Septuigant and the 2nd century Church were familiar with Paul's writings and the Gospels (Ignatious of Antioch and Clement of Rome quote Paul for example) as well as the other 27 books of the New Testament. All New Testament writers seem to quote or allude to Old Testament passages so they obviously felt that studying the Scriptures was important.

You know the answer to that question ;)

Of course it is not less Bible and nothing else, it is more of something else in stead of Bible study.

I've been wondering for quite a while if we have a good focus on our problems as church. Is our main problem our lack in knowledge of theology? Considering that we train pastors mostly in that field, the answer apparently is yes for many people. I disagree, however. We can do with a lot less theology, but we need more praxis. And I wish the focus on training pastors was on following Christ and be able to say with Paul: "follow me, as I follow Jesus". That does not exclude theology, but it need certainly not be the main focus it has become.
I think this is also a remnant of Modernism we need to get rid of. We aren't saved by our theology. We're saved by a living faith in Jesus, which means following the Master.

As a recent graduate of NTS and PLNU I would have to disagree with the bolded section of your comments. As Wesleyans, we have a tradition that has focused mostly on praxis rather than systematics. As Nazarenes, we have often chosen the route of praxis over theology to the point that much of our history is riddled with poor theological thought that has proof texted already existing poor praxis.
The truth is, the current seminary degree requires more classes on praxis then it does on theology. It is almost 2 - 1. I will say that there is and will always remain a strugle to provide experience for students in practical ministry contexts. Currently NTS is working on that.

[Susan Unger]

Here is a blog post from the pastor of a rather successful church in my area.

http://www.brianjones.com/2008/07/christians-spend-too-much-time-studying.html

What are your thoughts on this, keep in mind many of his parishioners read it.

Nope, can't agree with it.

Some quick thoughts - the early church had scriptures - what we call the OT as well as the letters from Paul, John, etc which were read at their gatherings. Even though they didn't have the 'official canon' that we have now, they did have a lot of it available. Non-literate cultures tend to be better memorizers than us. So even though they didn't read their Bible everyday, what they did have was probably memorized and planted in their hearts for them to dwell upon.

Many people twist the Bible to mean what they want. That doesn't mean the answer is to read less of the Bible. It means we need to ask the Holy Spirit to teach us what He wants to in our Bible reading. And if possible, to study [not just read] the Bible with the help of a teacher or study materials so that we can get a better understanding of it.

And then my own personal testimony - where I used to live the church really wounded me. The anxiety from the attacks is still very strong and it has been over 2 years. But, I have realized this summer that the more I read my bible, the more healed I am become. God's annointing is truly upon me pouring healing over me as I read and read. In fact, the church that wounded me is a church that belived we pray too much [another one of this guy's posts is that we pray too much]. The word coming to my mind right now is INSANITY!

Well, I have lots more thoughts but I had better close because right now I am feeling like Jamie Wayne when he was told that there was nothing wrong with rebaptism ;) :eek:

[Hans Deventer]

IYou agreed that we need canonicity, but not that it comes from scripture because people disagree within the bounds of scripture? I really am just trying to figure out where we disagree (where the "but" comes in).

What I mean is that agreeing on the canon is great, but it hasn't stopped the church from breaking up in a myriad of denominations. That's my "but".

[Hans Deventer]

The truth is, the current seminary degree requires more classes on praxis then it does on theology. It is almost 2 - 1. I will say that there is and will always remain a strugle to provide experience for students in practical ministry contexts. Currently NTS is working on that.

Steven, I just LOVE to be proven wrong here! Thank you so much for this information. I'm very happy with it. It will take a while before it works its way in the church, but at least, we're on the right track!

[Robert de Vries]

I do disagree with Mr. Jones in that he assumes that just because there was not an offical canon of scripture that there was not a scripture being used. There was the Septuigant and the 2nd century Church were familiar with Paul's writings and the Gospels (Ignatious of Antioch and Clement of Rome quote Paul for example) as well as the other 27 books of the New Testament. All New Testament writers seem to quote or allude to Old Testament passages so they obviously felt that studying the Scriptures was important.


I'd like to add that in the time of which Mr. Martinez speaks there has also been found a Latin writing called the 'Canon Muratori' dated around 200 CE. In this writing the writer confirms that the following books belong without any doubt to the Holy Scriptures: the Four Gospels, Acts, the Letters of Paul and the Revelation of John. If in 200 CE there was such a list, it doesn't rule out that there are older ones.

As comment on the previous writers of this forum topic. I agree that we should put emphasis on the praxis.. read the book of James. However, you can't just act. When we act as children of God, doing the works Jesus aks us to do we can't just act out of nothing. To mention one example: When God anounces trough Hosea a judgement over the land of Israel and adds that the dreadful situation is the result of not knowing God (da'at Elohím), and the knowledge of God means knowing God from heart to heart the message for today for me is: act as a follower of Christ, do 'something' in the place I live in.. but before I can do that I have to 'know' God and in this time, although
there are many ways of interpreting the scriptures, I need the Bible.

Indeed Jesus did not write a book, and yes he did train men to follow the way.. but a number of these 12 did write books tot remember us what the Master said and how we can know him in order to act as he did.

[Hans Deventer]

Indeed Jesus did not write a book, and yes he did train men to follow the way.. but a number of these 12 did write books tot remember us what the Master said and how we can know him in order to act as he did.

I think that we must be very careful in this discussion not to run into extremes. I haven't read anyone who said we should not read the Bible at all. I would dare to say we all agree that it is good to read and study the Scriptures.

The question is, can it be too much?

It seems to me that if a congregation lacks balance (that is, only theology and no praxis), the answer is yes. In Jeremy's congregation, that doesn't seem to be an issue (which is great!).

[Robert de Vries]

I think that we must be very careful in this discussion not to run into extremes. I haven't read anyone who said we should not read the Bible at all. I would dare to say we all agree that it is good to read and study the Scriptures.

The question is, can it be too much?

It seems to me that if a congregation lacks balance (that is, only theology and no praxis), the answer is yes. In Jeremy's congregation, that doesn't seem to be an issue (which is great!).

I agree on that, thank you.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

I've been wondering for quite a while if we have a good focus on our problems as church. Is our main problem our lack in knowledge of theology? Considering that we train pastors mostly in that field, the answer apparently is yes for many people. I disagree, however. We can do with a lot less theology, but we need more praxis. And I wish the focus on training pastors was on following Christ and be able to say with Paul: "follow me, as I follow Jesus". That does not exclude theology, but it need certainly not be the main focus it has become.


I would like to think that our institutions are training pastors in a well rounded way – theology, history, sociology, psychology, counseling, etc. I know this was my experience. It was Christ-centered and not theology centered. I developed the likeness for theology and took several classes in that field. I would agree that there should be more praxis.

[Ryan Scott]

Isn't the point of this posting that we need more informed communal Bible study? It seems like we've spent many years encouraging people to read the Bible privately and with little training, leading us to the "this is what it means to me and if it means something different for you that's ok" attitude.

I've often said I think we should remove the pew bibles from our sanctuaries, they just distract people from worship.

[Tami Martin]

I kind of wondered if anyone would quote James (from chapter 1):

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

No, I don't believe we need more Bible study. We need to apply what that study has taught us.

[Glenda Harvey]

Reading the Bible keeps us grounded. Sometimes we need allow God to speak to us as we sit and read scripture. There is a tendency to over analyse scripture and to look for things that may are not be there or to use scripture to try to prove a point. In this sense it could be argued that we study the Bible too much, but I don't think we can ever read it too much.

[Jeff Scott]

I tend to agree with his point. While reading it, I got the sense that he over-emphasized his position intentionally to elicit a response from the reader. His last sentence indicated to me that he believes daily Bible study is very important. I get the idea that he believes Bible study alone is worthless without praxis.

I believe Bible study is important, but I would like to see more Christians be educated about the Bible. How it was written, who wrote the books, why some authors used imagery and poetry, what prophecy actually is, the cultural setting and expectations on the authors. The more I learn about these things, the more fascinating the Bible becomes; it becomes more alive. Understanding the historical perspectives of the authors sometimes brings certain passages into a different, more meaningful light.