Dangit, but I always pride myself on being the smartest (hence holiest) guy in discussion, that is how I get the chicks!
Seriously though I love this model. I am always irritated by the "application" time that inevitably ends up being less than 15 minutes at the end of discussion because it is just so void of any value. Deep questions like "What is God calling you to do to help those less fortunate than you" (random example, you get the idea) end up getting responses like "We should love them." Of course you should love them, that is assumed! But *how* do you love them? What does that look like? And then the other issue there is the idea of "WE..."; the question is not asking how I should help them, or even how you and I should help them, but how should YOU help them. Yourself.
Ok, enough ranting, and I'll also add that it is tough, because the "small group" I am in right now is very transient, as it is not meant to be a small group, per se, but a community group, so it is difficult to go deeper... but yah. In conclusion, I like the model, thanks Tim (whoever you are).
pauline
· 1 year ago
I like that this model asks people to explicitly lay out how the passage applies to their every day life. I like that it forces you to sift through the messiness of why you do/think certain things and what concrete actions you can take to change that. I often find myself spending a lot of time poring over passages while being reluctant to spend time seriously trying to apply them to changing my life. It requires that I analyze where I am at currently, where I want to get to, and how to get there. That's MUCH more work than just reading a passage and comprehending it.
Only critique of the 3 column method is that Column A and B seem to overlap. It might be enough to just do a 2 column method OR say: Column A is simply to quote or paraphrase the passage, Column B is to unpack what it meant to you, and Column C details how it applies to your life.
dhoff
· 1 year ago
I agree that there is some overlap between Column A and B but I think that its helpful to have that overlap as the "relating to self" part of both columns is free formed in the former and more concrete in the second.
Tim
· 1 year ago
Similar to what Daniel said on the last post... The minor difference between column A & B is that in column A, you filter out and look at verses or passages that spoke to you or you found insightful. Ex. you may read the entire chapter of Romans 3, but only a few things stick out or many things do. So you focus on just specific verses. And in Column B, you narrow in a bit more. How does it relate to you, why did it speak to you, what thoughts connect to this verse, etc. Be creative and ask active, open ended questions. Here's a site by the main guy with more thoughts and resources: http://www.davidwa.org/
All Comments
Seriously though I love this model. I am always irritated by the "application" time that inevitably ends up being less than 15 minutes at the end of discussion because it is just so void of any value. Deep questions like "What is God calling you to do to help those less fortunate than you" (random example, you get the idea) end up getting responses like "We should love them." Of course you should love them, that is assumed! But *how* do you love them? What does that look like? And then the other issue there is the idea of "WE..."; the question is not asking how I should help them, or even how you and I should help them, but how should YOU help them. Yourself.
Ok, enough ranting, and I'll also add that it is tough, because the "small group" I am in right now is very transient, as it is not meant to be a small group, per se, but a community group, so it is difficult to go deeper... but yah. In conclusion, I like the model, thanks Tim (whoever you are).
Only critique of the 3 column method is that Column A and B seem to overlap. It might be enough to just do a 2 column method OR say: Column A is simply to quote or paraphrase the passage, Column B is to unpack what it meant to you, and Column C details how it applies to your life.