# Are Bible Studies And "Small Groups" Out The Window?



## Arch2k (Oct 22, 2005)

I recently had lunch with a Teaching Elder where the subject of Bible studies and "small groups" came up. We were discussing the DFW on the issue, and we both agreed that it seemed to rule out all bible studies and small groups.

Directory for Family Worship



> VI. At family-worship, a special care is to be had that each family keep by themselves; neither requiring, inviting, nor admitting persons from divers families, unless it be those who are lodged with them, or at meals, or otherwise with them upon some lawful occasion.
> 
> VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.



The Westminster Divines view of worship seemed consistent in this: that worship was to be done in three categories; Public, Family, and Private. For the first two, worship is conducted under headship, either of the minister (who acts in Christ's place), and in family worship, the father, who is responsible for his "little flock."

Does this leave any room for bible studies or small groups?

Note: This question is not directed to a theological discussion such as this, or even two guys having a beer and talking about Traducianism. Stated times of worship only.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2005)

I would say outside of what you have presented Jeff, to be error.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

Very good question, Jeff. For my own part, if what is meant by "Bible studies" and "small groups" are really discussion groups with Bibles (and IVCF inductive Bible study cliff's notes) in hand -- that are not lead by a teaching elder and allow women to speak freely about theological teachers and thus everyone is a teacher -- then I would say this is exactly the situation that the DFW prohibits. 

I can see value in such activities in places like China where pastors and churches are persecuted and scarce but when there is liberty to freely assemble it ought to be done under the leadership of teaching elders. 

We learn primarily by conscionably hearing the word of God read and preached, through catechism class (very different than what is meant by most small groups), through godly conferences, seminaries, personal study, and through family worship. Small groups that are not lead by teaching elders but rather "facilitated" by non-ordained men and women are often a great source of spiritual mischief.


----------



## Herald (Oct 22, 2005)

> I can see value in such activities in places like China where pastors and churches are persecuted and scarce but when there is liberty to freely assemble it ought to be done under the leadership of teaching elders



Since I am not bound to the DFW, I cannot comment. But in respect to the subjective nature of your quote, there is merit.

Whenever the bible is taught, it should be done by an individual who is capable of doing so. As a baptist, a qualified individual would either be the pastor or an elder/deacon or a individual who has been approved by the pastor and elders. Much damage can be done by those who handle God's word without knowing how to do so.


----------



## satz (Oct 22, 2005)

*inquiring minds want to know...*

Are there any WCF style scripture proofs for the DFW? I am not familiar with it and on first glance i am a little puzzled as to how they would prove the abovementioned two points from the bible.

Also, whilst i agree with the first point generally, ( i seems to be saying that family worship should be keep within the family?) i do not see how that would extent to the issue of other groups. These groups need not take the place of family worship nor need they exist apart from the oversight of the church, unless i am missing something.

I am also curious as to how such a position would leave those christians who are without the benefit of believing families?


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 22, 2005)

... having taught home Bible studies and participated in a variety of "small groups", I give a hearty AMEN to the stipulations in the DFW. Such studies and groups provide the opportunity for all matter of inaccurate and incorrect commentary on Scripture including arguments that do not edify or promoote the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Are there any WCF style scripture proofs for the DFW? I am not familiar with it and on first glance i am a little puzzled as to how they would prove the abovementioned two points from the bible.
> 
> Also, whilst i agree with the first point generally, ( i seems to be saying that family worship should be keep within the family?) i do not see how that would extent to the issue of other groups. These groups need not take the place of family worship nor need they exist apart from the oversight of the church, unless i am missing something.
> ...



I think the entire DFW should be read to understand what is being said by the (Scottish General) Assembly -- in particular, this section:



> III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk



If you read Robert Baillie's _A Dissuasive From the Errors of the Time_ you will get a sense of just how many erroneous opinions were flourishing at the time, which is what I believe the Assembly was referring to by warning of the dangers of religious assemblies of a parachurch nature. Quakerism, Anne Hutchinson-style feminism, Brownists, etc., these were some of the errors of the day, which are not unlike errors that we see all around us today.

The family is the basic social unit. The family that prays together stays together is a cliche but true and wise principle. The family and the church are under constant pressures to dissolve the God-given boundaries that keep them distinct. Kerry Ptacek's _Family Worship: Biblical Basis, Historical Reality, Current Need_ has a great chapter on the decline of family worship in modern America. It especially notes the link between the decline in fathers teaching and leading their families in worship and the rise in feminism directly attributable to women's religious associations and the like. Parachurch gatherings (and house gatherings under the nominal but not practical oversight of the church) always tend to supplant the distinctive units of family and church. That is the danger I believe the Scottish General Assembly is warning against.

To answer the question about Christians without believing families, it depends on their situation clearly. Christian fathers need to do their duty. Reformation begins in the home. Christian mothers need to do what they can to promote family worship. Christians who are alone for whatever reason need to focus on public and private worship and prepare themselves, Lord willing, to engage in family worship when the time comes. Sometimes single Christians live with families and may lawfully join in their regular family worship. Situations vary so much. But it is wise, where possible, to seek advice and encouragement from one's session when there are problems in the family. The DFW even gives the example of a father who is not fit to lead in family worship and says that another may be appointed in his place. 



> And in other families, where the head of the family is unfit, that another, constantly residing in the family, approved by the minister and session, may be employed in that service, wherein the minister and session are to be countable to the presbytery.



Note: A friend of mine, Doug Comin, wrote a commentary on the DFW, which I don't have (yet), but which looks like great reading: _Returning to the Family Altar_.


[Edited on 10-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Note: A friend of mine, Doug Comin, wrote a commentary on the DFW, which I don't have (yet), but which looks like great reading: _Returning to the Family Altar_.



Looks awesome!


----------



## Richard King (Oct 23, 2005)

I guess I have something new to research. 
I am sure church history is full of abuses and misinterpretations of Bible Study among small groups. 
Perhaps as rampant as Bible has been mistaught in the churches. 

I would be careful though about sounding like a certain group that thought the Bible should never be available in the common tongue for exactly the same reasons. The priests great fear was the vulgar comman man being able to interpret God's word.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 23, 2005)

I personally don't see an issue with it as long as the people running the Bible study were 'ok'd by the elders and deacons. if i'm remembering correctly, there were plenty of unordained folks who served as teachers in the NT. Ordination is not an insulant against someone promoting heresy. The FV/AAPC thing proved that real easy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> I personally don't see an issue with it as long as the people running the Bible study were 'ok'd by the elders and deacons. if i'm remembering correctly, there were plenty of unordained folks who served as teachers in the NT. Ordination is not an insulant against someone promoting heresy. The FV/AAPC thing proved that real easy.



I agree. I believe that what the DFW was directing against was private churches and private masses that were common among Brownists and others who sought to undermine the Church.

If a Bible Study or small group is a ministry of the church, and is overseen by the same, then I believe it would be beneficial for church members to spend more time with their Bibles.

A major difference between the 1600s (or even late 1800s) and today is the unbelievable level of Biblical illiteracy *inside* the Church. We need to counter affect that.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

to Fred and Kerry


----------

