# Bible Study Fellowship (Men's)



## ericfromcowtown (May 4, 2010)

I've just finished studying the Gospel of John with Bible Study Fellowship's (BSF) men's group, and I thought I would give everyone my impression and see what others think of this organization.

First off, it is wonderful to see 150 men gathered on a Monday night to study God's word and sing hymns together. It's also a healthy experience, I believe, to occassionally go outside of your comfort zone and fellowship with those outside of the reformed camp. It was interesting to study and fellowship with men who I ordinarily would not come into contact with.

While BSF defines itself as non-denominational, it is probably more acurately "conservative evangelical" in its slant. I would occassionally circle something questionable (most often Arminian) in the lecture notes, but for the most part I found the teaching sound. 

Where I do have some concern is with the structure of the organization. While they thankfully and with credit have created a separate men's ministry within BSF, led by men, the larger organization is primarily led and filled with women. Besides the odd reference to the female leader of BSF, this doesn't trickle down very often to the Monday night lectures and studies. However, on two occasions it did, and this gave me cause for concern. On one occasion, we were invited to attend a seminar session with other BSF participants (women from their various studies) on "leadershp." The seminar was to be led by a woman. That made me a little uneasy, so I didn't attend. Last night (the last study of the year), our normal leader was out of town on business. So, they brought in one of the woman's bible study leaders to lead the men in their study of John 21. I stayed for the small group session, but left before the lecture with the female leader. Did I over-react? I didn't see too many people heading to their cars before the lecture...

Does anyone else have any experiences with BSF? I wouldn't discourage anyone from going to their men's study. I have friends who love it and have been blessed by their time there, but I couldn't offer an unqualified recommendation because of the above.


----------



## reformedminister (May 4, 2010)

I was involved in BSF about seventeen years ago, while I was in my early twenties. I didn't care for it. While they labeled it as Non-denominational, the teaching seemed to reflect mostly an Arminian Baptist persuasion.


----------



## ubermadchen (May 4, 2010)

I'm a discussion leader for the women's group. I really enjoy it as there aren't too many real Bible studies directed or open to women. I guess our group is an anomaly as our teaching leader is reformed and is a member of a reformed church. It was explained to me that BSF was originally designed for women to encourage them to be informed participants in their church. That's essentially our mission statement. Later on, men were attracted to the structure of BSF and they were added on as they requested. I think most people on this board are against parachurch organizations in general so it will be useless for me to defend it on that level. But if you're wondering why there are so many women in BSF running around, it's because it was originally for women.


----------



## westminken (May 4, 2010)

My wife and I were involved in BSF before we were married. We attended the Dallas TX Young Singles group. We met on Thursday nights at one of the local churches that could accommodate us. I remember it being very informative. The men in the groups I was put in were very friendly and willing to answer a young Christian's questions. 

The instructors were a husband and wife team. They would each teach about 15 or 20 minutes each, taking turns. 

What I enjoyed about it was the concept of studying a book of the Bible every year. All in all I thought it was a good experience and would recommend it.


----------



## Jack K (May 4, 2010)

My wife attends and generally likes it for the fellowship with other women, and because it gets her to study the Bible when otherwise she might put it off. Now and then she finds something in the teaching that concerns her. This happens just often enough that she has resisted becoming a group leader, since the leaders are expected to follow the study notes closely when they teach.

As for Calvinist/Arminian, I think the statement of faith could be stronger when it comes to asserting God's initiative in an individual's coming to Christ, though I've seen worse:



> We believe that salvation from everlasting punishment and entrance into a state of fellowship with God are secured only by a personal belief that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the cross and by a definite receiving of Christ, through the Person of the Holy Spirit, into one's inner being. This is to receive eternal life and to be sealed unto the Day of Redemption.
> 
> We believe that the Holy Spirit thus indwells all who receive Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord.
> 
> We believe that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the quickening from death into life and for the continuing of the work of sanctification in the believer.


 
My main concern is that one of the many rules for the studies is that participants must refrain from mentioning where they attend church. That's to avoid arguments over doctrines unrelated to the passage at hand. I can understand that to a point, but a result is that my wife doesn't even know where or if many of her BSF friends are part of a church. She's had to agree never to ask them. BSF does believe in church membership and attendance. But this policy seems to suggest it's incidental to organized Bible study and the building of Christian fellowship.


----------



## ubermadchen (May 4, 2010)

Jack K said:


> My wife attends and generally likes it for the fellowship with other women, and because it gets her to study the Bible when otherwise she might put it off. Now and then she finds something in the teaching that concerns her. This happens just often enough that she has resisted becoming a group leader, since the leaders are expected to follow the study notes closely when they teach.
> 
> 
> My main concern is that one of the many rules for the studies is that participants must refrain from mentioning where they attend church. That's to avoid arguments over doctrines unrelated to the passage at hand. I can understand that to a point, but a result is that my wife doesn't even know where or if many of her BSF friends are part of a church. She's had to agree never to ask them. BSF does believe in church membership and attendance. But this policy seems to suggest it's incidental to organized Bible study and the building of Christian fellowship.


 
If you don't mind, I'll address that. Discussion leaders don't teach; we facilitate discussion so unless your wife were to be a teaching leader, she has no need to follow the discussion notes to lead a group. Discussion leaders are the ones trained to talk with individual group members about their membership in churches. We address scenarios every week on how talk about these things. We're taught who to direct questions to (their pastor, husband, etc). Individual group members aren't encouraged to discuss church membership and attendance because frankly, not everyone is going to give the most beneficial information. Your wife may stress the importance of church but another member may say that "church" is in her heart. Discussion leaders are taught, what we believe, are biblical positions to provide individual group members a consistent answer. As discussion leaders, we know who is going to church and where and we talk with them on an individual level during the individual meetings.


----------



## MRC (May 4, 2010)

ubermadchen said:


> If you don't mind, I'll address that. Discussion leaders don't teach; we facilitate discussion so unless your wife were to be a teaching leader, she has no need to follow the discussion notes to lead a group. Discussion leaders are the ones trained to talk with individual group members about their membership in churches. We address scenarios every week on how talk about these things. We're taught who to direct questions to (their pastor, husband, etc). Individual group members aren't encouraged to discuss church membership and attendance because frankly, not everyone is going to give the most beneficial information. Your wife may stress the importance of church but another member may say that "church" is in her heart. Discussion leaders are taught, what we believe, are biblical positions to provide individual group members a consistent answer. As discussion leaders, we know who is going to church and where and we talk with them on an individual level during the individual meetings.


 
I would suggest that this is exactly where "para-church" organizations fail. Without a clear, biblical authority structure teaching/discipline becomes very unclear and can easily lead to folk theology in the lack of clarity. If the church is doing its job properly (read: _Biblical Eldership_) then there is absolutely no need to seek "para-church" _services_.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------




ericfromcowtown said:


> I stayed for the small group session, but left before the lecture with the female leader. Did I over-react?



[BIBLE]1 Tim 2:12[/BIBLE]

This passage is difficult for our culture to accept today, but it is clear that God ordained roles for men, and other roles for women. When we rebel against God by fighting these roles it is sin. If your conscience dictated leaving then I would suggest you did not over-react. As another poster pointed out, BSF was originally a "women's ministry" organization.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (May 4, 2010)

> This passage is difficult for our culture to accept today, but it is clear that God ordained roles for men, and other roles for women. When we rebel against God by fighting these roles it is sin. If your conscience dictated leaving then I would suggest you did not over-react. As another poster pointed out, BSF was originally a "women's ministry" organization.



That's my point. I don't have a big concern with BSF originally being a woman's ministry organization, but if they want to create a BSF men's ministry that is biblical in regards to gender roles, then it appears that BSF needs to cut the apron string's entirely and create a separate organization for the men. 

I think they half get it - at least they see the need for a separate division led by men for men, but the fact that they would recruit a woman to lead a men's study "in an emergency" tells me that they don't think it's that big of a deal. Unfortunately, in an inter-denominational setting, I think that my opinion is in the minority. The fact that there were only one or two other men walking to their cars with me seems to support that view.


----------



## Carolyn (May 5, 2010)

This year BSF has created a Men's Division, with its own male leader. My husband hasn't heard how exactly the structure will change within that.

We have both been involved in BSF leadership for years and have never heard of a gathering of leaders from mixed groups attending a seminar on leadership, unless you are referring to the Area Retreat. Also, for the classes in which we have participated, no female teaching leader has addressed the men (except in YA classes). I can see how that could happen, though.

However, I understand the points you have brought up.


----------



## jayce475 (May 5, 2010)

I've been told by a friend of mine who attends a BSF Men's Fellowship in Singapore that the teachings are strongly conservative and Calvinistic and the leader is apparently a bible presbyterian. Sounds like a lot hinges on the leaders with little accountability required.


----------



## R Harris (May 5, 2010)

I was in BSF twice - first time 1993, second time 1999.

The first time was a real eye-opener. We were studying Acts, and whenever I was asked my view on any passage or subject, I would present my reformed beliefs. Everyone just stared at me and said nothing, like they were viewing me as some sort of alien from Neptune.

Some would also make a statement and then say "I think Miss Johnson would agree would that." I'm thinking, 'who cares?' Did they really believe Miss Johnson is authoritative and had the last say on doctrinal truth? 

I think that was a MAJOR problem with BSF. Everyone had to follow Miss Johnson's notes and not deviate. If anyone is truly reformed, they should have big problems with not only the method but also her many diverse and questionable interpretations.

The second time we studied Romans, and I understand that JAMES BOICE actually had written the notes, and they had supplanted the original Miss Johnson notes. Well, they were reformed, and when we got to Romans 9-11, I thought some guys were going to go ballistic, obviously objecting to the sovereignty passages and how Boice was treating them. When everyone gathered for the "big teaching" after the small groups, the main leader said to not worry about the sovereignty teachings and that they were not trying to push certain "denominational beliefs."

Well, the sovereign grace passages are not tied to any one denomination - he should have known better than to have said that.

Overall, I would not recommend BSF, but if someone reformed goes, I would not object to it, provided that they know what they are getting into and not be intimidated by being the very small minority.


----------



## ubermadchen (May 5, 2010)

R Harris said:


> I was in BSF twice - first time 1993, second time 1999.
> 
> The first time was a real eye-opener. We were studying Acts, and whenever I was asked my view on any passage or subject, I would present my reformed beliefs. Everyone just stared at me and said nothing, like they were viewing me as some sort of alien from Neptune.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know what BSF you were a part of but no one has ever had to "follow" the BSF notes in order to participate in BSF. You can read the notes but you don't adhere to them like a confession of faith. They are simply a commentary of the passage giving you background information and application questions. As for the Romans study, I haven't been a part of that yet. But one of the things I try to remember when leading the discussion is that with the four-fold method of study (notes, questions, discussion, and lecture) there are going to be enough opportunities for the Holy Spirit to show the member the biblical interpretation of a passage if He chooses to do so. Just because my group or our lecture didn't cover exactly what I expected to hear doesn't mean it's not going to come up in individual study, a phone call, or the notes.


----------



## MRC (May 5, 2010)

ericfromcowtown said:


> > This passage is difficult for our culture to accept today, but it is clear that God ordained roles for men, and other roles for women. When we rebel against God by fighting these roles it is sin. If your conscience dictated leaving then I would suggest you did not over-react. As another poster pointed out, BSF was originally a "women's ministry" organization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think you are pointing out exactly what the problem is. With a para-church group you are at the mercy of the theological convictions of leaders that may or may not have gone through a rigorous ordination process, who knows what they think? What we really need are reformed denominations providing opportunities for men to engage in solid, biblical studies. I love theology and bible study, having a men's bible study in my own _reformed_ church would be fantastic!

I recall hearing an interview of Richard Phillips on his new book _The Masculine Mandate_. He talked about writting a book _kind of_ in response to the crazy _Wild at Heart_ band-wagon from a biblical view of manhood. One thing he commented on was that he has always organized a Bible study for the men in his church. He explained this as a very effective means he has as a pastor to teach his congregation; He is able to teach the men at the study, the men are then able to go and teach/shepherd their families. It's a beautiful thing!


----------



## R Harris (May 5, 2010)

ubermadchen said:


> I don't know what BSF you were a part of but no one has ever had to "follow" the BSF notes in order to participate in BSF. You can read the notes but you don't adhere to them like a confession of faith. They are simply a commentary of the passage giving you background information and application questions.



Things can change, obviously, with discussion group approaches over time (I was in over 10 years ago); but I am telling you this is exactly the way it was in the discussion groups I was associated with here in Oklahoma City. Group members were told to "be prepared" for the next week by reading the notes and then being able to answer questions related to them. I am not saying that no one was allowed to disagree with what she said in the notes, but her comments/teaching were definitely the fundamental starting point - and of course, I did beg to differ with her on several points and then stated essentially a reformed position on the topic.


----------



## MRC (May 5, 2010)

R Harris said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what BSF you were a part of but no one has ever had to "follow" the BSF notes in order to participate in BSF. You can read the notes but you don't adhere to them like a confession of faith. They are simply a commentary of the passage giving you background information and application questions.
> ...


 
Really, any teaching ministry is operating on the assumption that they are correct theologically, and others need to understand their position. We are no different in the reformed camp, except that we are _actually_ correct


----------



## christiana (May 5, 2010)

I was in BSF for years(70s and 80s) and we were told that if we had not answered our questions then we should remain quiet during the group. Makes sense that one who has not prepared for the class to not make a contribution. I thoroughly enjoyed all of the ones I studied, Genesis, Matthew, John and regretted not having the opportunity to do Romans. This, of course was prior to coming to the doctrines of grace. I was told by a leader that in recent years Romans had material from James M Boice; now that would have been a great study if that was so!


----------



## TeachingTulip (May 5, 2010)

ericfromcowtown said:


> Does anyone else have any experiences with BSF?



As a young Christian convert, I joined BSF in the early 70's and living in the S.F. Bay Area had opportunity to meet the founder (Abigail Johnson) when BSF headquarters were in Oakland, CA.

This was when the husbands of the women who were attending first became interested in the study, and quickly it was determined by Miss Johnson that male teaching leaders and group leaders were necessary for that work to proceed, so I harbor no objections against BSF on those grounds.

However, the five-year curriculum basically was an attempt to cover all the bible teachings as well as to please and draw all beliefs, and leaders were encouraged by Miss Johnson to pray that no offense be caused whenever the subject of sovereignty and election (particularly in the Romans series) was broached. It was to be talked around and softened, as if it were a dread of some sort.

I was asked to be a Teaching Leader but declined the invitation, because the Lord was, at that time, leading me to a Reformed understanding of the Scriptures. Even at that early stage in my spiritual development and education in the sovereignty of God, I knew that I could not go along with the BSF study outline, let alone lecture or teach others due to my personal conclusions from reading the Scriptures, which differed from the requirements put upon all Teaching Leaders to stick with "the script."

So I have had and still have my doubts about the true effectiveness of the studies, and wonder how any Teaching Leader from the Reformed faith could submit to BSF policies originally designed with broad ecumenicalism in mind, rather than proclaiming a true and uncompromised gospel message.

I know those from all sects and all Arminians attending, were to be treated the same as Presbyterians, etc., without doctrinal challenge or forcing distinctions, for Miss Johnson personally told me so . . . but, I did not then and do not now, have an ecumenical bone in my body, so I did not respond to her agenda, favorably. 

For what it's worth


----------

