SCM Research

Biblical Engagement and Transformation

Anna Creedon

• Publisher: SCM Press
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780334060543
• eBook ISBN: 9780334060567
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

Engaging with the Bible in a small group context has the potential to be transformative, but the picture is not without some complications. Key factors in determining whether a small group can be transformed through scripture include the use (or abuse) of 'experts', the opportunity for challenge in the group, and how study materials are used."Do Small Groups Work" not only presents extensive research into these questions, with the potential to transform practice, but also offers a unique window into how practical theological research can productively encounter scripture.

1. Introduction

‘A lot has been written about transforming reading but very little about the conditions that reading (the Bible) must meet if change is intended.’

(Hans de Wit, 2004a, p. 30)1

These words summarize well the focus of this book. My intention is to explore whether the context of a small group provides the necessary conditions for transformative biblical engagement to take place.

My initial interest in this area grew out of a long-running fascination with how peoples’ behaviours are shaped by their beliefs. My preliminary thinking focused on the idea of biblical literacy and how someone’s level of biblical knowledge and understanding shaped how they lived. This issue is also raised by Peter Phillips: ‘how might an improvement in our biblical literacy impact the way we follow Jesus? Can we be better Christians by engaging more with the Bible?’ (2017, p. 7). This developed into an interest in how people engaged with the Bible and how the Bible initiated theological reflection. While my first thought was to consider how theological reflection might be reshaped to begin with the Bible rather than experience, it became clear that this is already practised by many Christians on a weekly basis, though not necessarily described as such, in their small groups or Bible study groups. Groups meet together to read the Bible and use it as a source of challenge, encouragement, information, inspiration. Thus, my two interests were brought together: what impact does reading the Bible in a small group have on people? However, this needed to become more nuanced, and this is when an interest in the concept of transformation emerged. The word ‘transformation’ is used frequently in the Church – by church leaders, Christian writers and speakers, and so-called ‘ordinary’ Christians themselves (the use of the term ‘ordinary’ is explored further below). Indeed, Elaine Graham’s work on reconstructing Christian practice for a postmodern age is entitled Transforming Practice (1996). But what does transformation mean? What does it look like? How does it happen? What stops it happening? And how might the Bible and small groups be involved in transformation? This is what I set out to find out: What factors in small groups might hinder or facilitate transformative biblical engagement?2

As Hans de Wit (2004a) notes, there appears to be a general consensus that reading the Bible can be transformative. Indeed, Anthony Thiselton suggests the Bible ‘may be read and understood with transforming effects’ (1992, p. 2). Also, Peter Phillips states, ‘We open ourselves to the transformative power of the Word only to find the Word transforming us to see the Bible in new ways’ (2017, p. 49). However, as de Wit notes in a later work, ‘immediate transformation’ represents an ‘ideal description’ of the consequence of biblical engagement (2015, p. 55). Nevertheless, this immediate transformation does not appear to be the norm. Paul Ballard is therefore correct to assert that ‘greater attention be paid to how the Bible actually functions and how it acts as Scripture’ (2014, p. 171). This book seeks to pay greater attention to how the Bible might become a transformative text as it is read by ‘ordinary’ Christians.

The context of this biblical engagement is small groups. Small groups are a model of church that has grown significantly during the twentieth century (Croft, 2002). Small groups are seen to offer opportunities for ‘concrete experiences of community’ (Kleisser et al., 1991, p. 2), ‘to become present in the environment of the workaday world’ (Hopewell, 1988, p. 21), and ‘discipleship within structures of mutual accountability’ (Croft, 2002, p. 72). Christian small groups exist for a variety of purposes and thus are referred to by a range of different names: house groups, cell groups, Bible-study groups, formation groups, to name a few. It is suggested that approximately 40% of church members are part of a small group (Heywood, 2017), and while this is often presented as a low figure, this still represents a significant group that is under-researched. In the British context, a limited number of studies have been carried out into small groups, and in the Church of England context, which is the focus this research, this is even more limited.

This research, which is based on data drawn from three small groups associated with Church of England churches, seeks to explore in depth how the processes and dynamics at work in small groups might hinder or facilitate transformative biblical engagement. From the data, it is possible to gain a much deeper understanding of how ‘ordinary’ Christians understand the concept of transformation, and also to identify a number of themes that relate to the facilitation and hindrance of transformative biblical engagement. These themes are expert, challenge and use of materials.

The rest of this chapter will offer an introduction to the wider field in which this research is situated. This includes the ‘turn to the reader’ within hermeneutics, and the increasing interest in the context of the reader. Following this, attention will be paid to the emergence of ‘ordinary theology’ as a field of study, and the growth of research with ‘ordinary readers’. The term ‘ordinary reader’ will also be explored, as this is seen by some to be a pejorative term. The final part of this introductory chapter will consist of an overview of the rest of the chapters that make up this book.

Biblical hermeneutics: ‘the turn to the reader’

The so-called turn to the reader in biblical hermeneutics developed out of the emergence of reader-response criticism in the 1970s and 1980s (Fowler, 2008). This was the result of a shift of emphasis away from the text and towards the reader that had been propelled by the work of writers such as Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur prompted a movement in interpretation by suggesting that ‘the meaning of a text lies not behind the text but in front of it’ (1981, p. 177). By this, Ricoeur meant that the meaning of a text was not something to be excavated but to be experienced: ‘The meaning is not something hidden but something disclosed’ (1981, p. 177). Ricoeur referred to the ‘world’ that was created by the text, and into which readers might step: ‘Beyond my situation as reader, beyond the situation of the author, I offer myself to the possible mode of being-in-the-world which the text opens up and discloses to me’ (1981, p. 177). Ricoeur emphasized the effect of the text on a reader as a key part of the process of interpretation. George Steiner puts this well when he says that ‘interpretation’ is ‘that which gives language life beyond the moment and place of immediate utterance or transcription’ (1975, p. 27). Indeed, Ricoeur suggested that it was the response of the readers that determined the value of a text: ‘it is the response of the audience which makes the text important and therefore significant’ (1976, p. 31) – hence the term ‘reader-response’ criticism. Terry Eagleton, writing at a similar time to Ricoeur, argued for a return to the use of rhetoric to analyse the way that literature is formed in order to create a particular outcome or response (1983). Thus, a common view in reader-response criticism is that ‘literature is what happens when we read’ (Tompkins, 1988, p. xvi, emphasis in original). In biblical studies, this meant that there was a shift away from considering texts as composed of various sources, and instead focusing on the text as a whole (Firth and Grant, 2008), and the effect that the text had on the reader. Indeed, Mark Bowald suggests there should be greater recognition that reading the Bible ‘is always a response to the free and gracious speech action of God’ (2015, p. 2).

With the shift of focus from the text to the reader, interesting questions emerge about the meaning of biblical texts. Kevin Vanhoozer summarizes one of these questions when he asks, ‘Is there something in the text that reflects a reality independent of the reader’s interpretive activity, or does the text only reflect the reality of the reader?’ (1998, p. 15). For some, texts, including biblical texts, hold no inherent meaning beyond the meaning ascribed to them in the process of reading and interpretation (Tompkins, 1988). Whereas others, those who Vanhoozer would describe as a ‘hermeneutical realist’, maintain that there is meaning inherent in the text; there is ‘something “there” in the text’ (Vanhoozer, 1998, p. 26). Stanley Fish wrestled with the question of whether meaning lay with the text or with the reader, and over the course of his career developed the concept of interpretive communities: ‘it is interpretive communities, rather than either the text or the reader, that produce meanings’ (Fish, 1980, p. 14). For Fish, communities are responsible for both the writing and the interpretation of texts, because even though an individual may write a text, they are still a ‘product’ of an interpretive community (1980). Indeed, Gerard Loughlin expresses this in a compelling way: ‘It is said that each individual is now his or her own storyteller, his or her own source of legitimacy: I author myself. But this is a delusion, for no one stands alone’ (1999, p. 32). By focusing on the role of interpretive communities, Fish (1980) sought to move the emphasis away from a dichotomy between seeing meaning as either being somehow objectively inherent in the text or being subjectively created by the reader. Instead, the interpretive community both constructs the meaning in the text and interprets the meaning of the text.

Reader-response criticism often refers to the ‘implied reader’, which is a term popularized by Wolfsgang Iser, to refer to the reader that the original author intended to read their work (Fowler, 2008). However, due in part to the influence of the Enlightenment, there emerged an ideal of the ‘singular unaffected reader’ (Bowald, 2015, p. 2), despite the work of those such as Fish (1980) who focused on the role of communities in the process of interpretation. As well as this, biblical hermeneutics generally ‘works with ideal, rather than real, readers’ (Todd, 2009, p. 24). This ideal or ‘normal’ reader has tended to be presumed in modern times to be a ‘white European or North American male’ (Kessler, 2004, p. 453). However, this has been challenged by work that has sought to focus on ‘how flesh-and-blood readers deal with texts’ (de Wit, 2012, p. 17), which has been termed by some ‘the turn to the empirical reader’ (de Wit, 2012, p. 9). Indeed, Hans de Wit states that since the 1970s there has been a growth of interest in real readers emerging, and this has been acknowledged more fully in the Southern Hemisphere than in the West (de Wit, 2004a). These readers have come to be commonly referred to as ‘ordinary readers’, and it is to this area of research that we now turn our attention.

Ordinary readers

The term ‘ordinary reader’ originally emerged in the work of Gerald West (1993), who developed an approach to small group Bible study known as Contextual Bible Study (CBS). In West’s The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible he offers a detailed definition of what he means by ‘ordinary reader’:

The term ‘reader’ alludes to the well-chartered shift in hermeneutics towards the reader. However, I place the term in inverted commas to signal that my use of the term ‘reader’ is both literal and metaphoric in that it includes the many who are illiterate, but who listen to, retell and remake the Bible. The other term in the phrase, the term ‘ordinary’, is used in a general and a specific sense. The general usage includes all readers who read the Bible pre-critically. But I also use the term ‘ordinary’ to designate a particular sector of pre-critical readers, those readers who are poor and marginalized. (1999, p. 10, emphasis in original)

West acknowledges that many ordinary readers will often hear the Bible, rather than necessarily read it for themselves; this is the case even in more literate contexts, where the Bible is commonly read aloud by one individual as part of Sunday worship. That not all those who engage with the Bible read it has led some to suggest that another term might be helpful, such as ‘interpreter’ (Kahl, 2007, p. 148). The second part of West’s definition focuses on the designation ‘ordinary’, which is used to suggest that these individuals read the Bible in an ‘untrained’ or ‘pre-critical’ way, which is in contrast to ‘trained’ readers (1993, pp. 8–9), or biblical scholars: ‘Biblical scholars are those readers who have been trained in the use of the tools and resources of biblical scholarship and who read the Bible “critically”’ (West, 1999, pp.10–11). While comfortable with the designation of biblical scholars as ‘critical’ readers, Kahl suggests that rather than ‘ordinary’ the term ‘intuitive’ might be used instead (2007, p. 148). Some have specified that ordinary readers are only those in ‘situations of poverty, exclusion, persecution, illness and apartheid’ (de Wit, 2004a, p. 6), but the term has been used more widely.

In the British context, Jeff Astley defines ordinary theology as ‘the theological beliefs and processes of believing that find expression in the God-talk of those believers who have received no scholarly theological education’ (2002, p. 1). Similarly, Andrew Village, also in the British context, has defined ordinary readers as those ‘who encounter the Bible through the practice of their faith’ (2013a, p. 145). In critique of both of these conceptions of ordinary theology, as well as that of West, is Pete Ward and Sarah Dunlop’s recognition that this creates a dualistic view of theology and posits ordinary theology against a theological ‘other’:

This ‘other’ serves as a reference point and it is variously seen as formal, or academic, or of the institution, or elitist. Thus the popular, common, ordinary, or local is defined in contrast to a reference that is often conceived as negative or requiring a corrective. (Ward and Dunlop, 2011, p. 296)

Village (2013a) has also acknowledged that while many so-called ordinary readers may not have received formal training in biblical studies, they may well hold a degree-level qualification in another discipline, so he has questioned to what extent these people are ordinary readers. Indeed, Andrew Rogers (2015) has suggested that it may be more helpful to speak of ‘congregational hermeneutics’, as this recognizes the potential variety of experience and knowledge possessed by a congregation.

Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson suggest that key to theology is reflection, and that theologies ‘lie along a spectrum of reflection’ (1996, p. 26). They suggest that this spectrum includes the following forms of theology: ‘folk theology’, ‘lay theology’, ‘ministerial theology’, ‘professional theology’ to ‘academic theology’ (Grenz and Olson, 1996, p. 26), with folk theology being seen as the least reflective and academic theology being seen as the most reflective. They define folk theology as ‘unreflective believing based on blind faith in a tradition of some kind’ (1996, p. 27), and suggest that lay theology develops as Christians question this folk theology and begin to become more reflective about their faith. The next stage on from this is ministerial theology, which is ‘reflective faith as practiced by trained ministers and teachers in Christian churches’ (1996, p. 31). After this is professional theology, and professional theologians are those who teach lay people and ministers; therefore they are there to ‘aid lay and ministerial theologians in their journeys of reflection’ (1996, p. 33). But Grenz and Olson describe this as a ‘servant role and not a lordly role’ (1996, p. 33). Finally, academic theology ‘is a highly speculative, virtually philosophical theology aimed primarily at other theologians. It is often disconnected from the church and has little to do with concrete Christian living’ (1996, p. 33). As they do envisage the five forms as part of a spectrum, it is reasonable to assume that an individual may exhibit traits of a number of forms of theology, with even highly academic theologians perhaps holding to certain traditions with so-called ‘blind faith’. For Grenz and Olson, reflection is key to moving from one form of theology to another, but they are less clear about what might prompt this reflection. While Grenz and Olson are critical of both folk theology and academic theology, they see the middle three forms as ‘interdependent theologies’ (1996, p. 34) which should be mutually beneficial to one another. Similarly, West (1993) emphasizes that both ordinary readers and biblical scholars have something to offer and something to learn from one another.

A further alternative to Grenz and Olson’s spectrum of theology is the Four Voices of Theology model which was developed by Helen Cameron, Deborah Bhatti, Catherine Duce, James Sweeney and Clare Watkins as part of the Action Research: Church and Society project (ARCS). Cameron and her colleagues developed the four voices model in order to offer a framework for understanding how different and yet interrelated forms of theology may be conceived (2010). The four voices are normative theology, formal theology, espoused theology and operant theology. Normative theology is what a ‘practising group names as its theological author...

Table of contents

• Copyright information
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Transformation
• 3. Small Groups
• 4. Methodology and Methods
• 5. An ‘Ordinary’ Understanding of Transformation
• 6. Theme 1 – Expert
• 7. Theme 2 – Challenge
• 8. Theme 3 – Use of Materials
• 9. Transformation, biblical engagement and small groups: Some practical and theological implications
• 10. Conclusion
• Appendix A
• Appendix B: Questionnaire
• Appendix C: Focus Group Questions
• Bibliography