« The Very Serious Deficiencies of Lay Led Small Group Bible Studies | Main | The Biblical Qualifications for the Teaching Office in the Church »


Glenn E. Chatfield

No lay-led Bible study I ever attended tried to figure the Bible this way. These general statements are really saying the same as Roman Catholicism - you need the clergy to help you understand the Bible. Oh, wait - isn't that the Jehovah's Witness claim also - that without them you can't understand the Scripture. Elitism at its finest.

Andrew, Esq.

Glenn, perhaps you stopped reading before the parenthetical comment, which explicitly encourages that you do the studying on your own? I think the contrast between studying the Bible by "feelings" and studying the Bible exegetically is quite clear. Seems to me your Roman Catholic/J.W. criticism is completely wide of the mark. But hey, at least you got that "elitism" zinger in there.


Yeah, these are kind of offensive. Chris, you make a point to present the fact of how simple the Gospel is. If it's so simple to understand, how are all lay believers, who have come into a relationship with God, unqualified to teach it?

We can pray because we have a high priest in Jesus Christ. We can also read the Bible, this wonderful gift of God to us. If it's impossible for a lay person to know the Bible enough to teach it, how much can each of us really know? We can all know God and His Holy Word, not just pastors.

If we really understand what has been taught to us, the true Word of God, we will be qualified to teach others. There are reliable men out there.(2 Timothy 2:2)

Andrew, Esq.

Joel, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe you need to just read more carefully. The poster doesn't call laypersons or lay leaders of Bible studies "stupidheads" who are incapable of understanding Scripture. The point is to contrast how Scripture is read and understood: by feelings? or by proper exegetics? A lay person CAN lead a study, but not by asking people to use their feelings to determine what the Bible means. Unfortunately, many of these leaders do exactly that.


Clearly, he is highlighting the "Lay Lead" aspect of it. Like that means anything whatsoever. Lay and clergy are man-made, hierarchical distinctions. The real issues are misinterpretation and incorrect teaching of Scripture.

Steve Newell

When I was in Bible Study Fellowship, the question was asked "What does this passage mean to you" which is the wrong question. The correct correct is "What does this passage mean." The first is a subjective reading of scripture while the second is an objective reading of Scripture.

Now, how we apply the meaning of scripture may vary by individual, the meaning doesn't change either from person to person or over the course of time.

Glenn E. Chatfield

I did indeed catch the parenthetical phrase, however the main theme is what seems to be the issue, as with the previous posters shown. The issue seems to me to be that lay-led Bible studies are dangerous. My point is that it doesn't matter if it's lay-led or clergy-led or clergy-approved, there is major error in all versions. You can't single out just lay-led for criticism. The problem is with the lacking of discernment, lacking spiritual maturity, and that problem exists in all types of Bible studies. These posters are condescending to only one type - the stereotype lay-led.

John Ireland

Your point is well taken Chris, but did you really need to mock Star Wars to do it? Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter