In some Christian circles, the discussion meeting is much in vogue. But is it Biblical? What guidance can we gain from the Scriptures about this method of instruction and evangelism? And is it really as useful as many make out?

We've argued before (The Monthly Record, August 1992, p. 165) that the ministry of the word "involves the presenting of God's word in a vari­ety of methods and in a multiplicity of settings: by public proclamation, by discussion and debate, by question and answer..." Where do we see "discussion and debate, question and answer" in the Scriptures?

Jesus' method of instruc­tion both allowed and encouraged discussion. On the personal level, Jesus entered into dialogue with Nicodemus, answering his questions and putting some himself (John 3:1-15) and instructed the Samaritan woman (John 4:7-26) by means of a conversational exchange of views.

In public too his addresses were initiated by questions and stimulated by com­ments. His teaching on the bread of life, recorded in John 6, is a striking example of this (see especially vv. 25, 28, 30, 34, 41-42, 52). This discussion method was acceptable to Jesus even in a synagogue address (v. 59). The same pattern of give and take, question and answer, charge and defence, is fol­lowed in his teaching in the temple courts (John 7-8), while at the institution of the Lord's Supper, some of the instruction is punctuated by questions or comments (John 14:5, 8, 22).

The other gospels simi­larly show clearly that Jesus welcomed questions and comments and built his instruction round these (for example, Mark 10:2; 13: 3-4). It was this discussion method that allowed his opponents to present their testing questions. Since this was Jesus' method, it was no problem to him that a woman in the crowd shouted out a comment while he was teaching (Luke 11:27) — something usually frowned on during "preaching" today.

Paul's Ministry⤒🔗

The word "discuss" is used of Paul's ministry as recorded in the Acts. Although this word natur­ally suggests a two-way process of dialogue it may not always contain that idea. Each case must be examined in its context to see if inter­action between speaker and hearer is suggested.

Paul "discussed" the gospel in the synagogues (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8). Whether or not that involved true discussion is open to question: certainly there is some evidence that dialogue was permitted in the Synagogue. Be that as it may, audience participation is surely suggested in the cases where Paul "dis­cussed" in the market place at Athens (Acts 17:17) and in the lecture hall of Tyranus in Ephesus (19:9).

"Discuss" isn't only used of Paul's evangelistic work but also of his ministry to believers in Troas (20:7, 9). This occasion is memorable in that Eutychus fell asleep during the discourse because Paul continued so long. It is surely easier to appreciate this incident if we take the word "discuss" literally and think of this as including question and comment and not a continuous sermon lasting several hours. Cer­tainly, after the incident of Eutychus falling asleep Paul "conversed" with them until the morning. There was audience participation.

We have, therefore, good reason for thinking that Paul followed in the footsteps of the master in having a variety of modes in which he presented the truth to unbeliever and believer alike and that discussion was part of that variety.

If we are to be Biblical in our approach, if evangelism is to be properly conducted, and God's people thoroughly instructed, then "preaching" is not enough — opportunities for discus­sion must be provided. If they are not, we are using the full range of methods available to us according to the Scriptures.

Besides private discussion during pastoral visitation, the normal programme of every church should contain public opportunities for questions and answers, for interaction between the teacher and the taught. This in turn implies a suitably informal setting — for example, you can't imagine a person in the back pew of the Free North Church gallery asking a question of his minister in the pulpit, even if it were permitted! After-church discussion meetings in the Manse, home Bible Study during the week — these fit into the pattern we are thinking of and are mainly the sort of meetings we have in mind in what we have to say here.

Practical Objections←⤒🔗

To many who have reflected on or had experience of discussion meetings, there are obvious drawbacks.

For a start, the idea of "dialogue" has an unfor­tunate meaning attached to it. In some religious circles, "dialogue" refers to discus­sions between those of different faiths as if each faith were simply an alterna­tive way of reaching God. In such "dialogue" there is no idea of authority, no sense that there is a standard in the light of which all must be assessed.

It goes without saying that the discussion we propose is not of that type. Discussion with the unconverted will have as its aim the presenta­tion and explanation, the defence and application, of the Biblical message so that those who have accepted other standards may yield to the authority of the Scriptures.

Amongst Christians the acceptance of Biblical authority must be the accepted basis of discussion. A Home Bible Study or an after church Fellowship or the like is not simply a free-for-all, designed to let all air their opinions. "I think..." is not the key, but "what does the Bible say?" If it is to achieve its goal, there must be a serious endeavour on the part of all involved in discussion to submit their ideas and experiences to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

At a more practical level, unless there is discipline — mainly self-discipline — in discussion meetings, things can get out of hand and the exercise becomes counterproductive.

The self-assertive person who jumps in first with an answer to every question asked, who delights to hold the floor for minutes at a time, or who presents his/her opinions as if they were the last word on every subject is a pain and needs to be politely but firmly held in check. That attitude fosters pride, stifles discussion and discourages the timid.

Then there is the person that loves to introduce red herrings: difficult questions for which no answer is provided in the Scriptures; irrelevant questions which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion; or awkward questions, posed simply to catch others out. These can lead to imperti­nent inquiry into things nor revealed in the Scriptures or to aimless meanderings through the byways of the Bible, or to acute embarrass­ment for those who feel their ignorance has been needlessly exposed.

The person with a hobby­horse can pose similar problems. This one wants to turn every discussion to his favourite theme: the use of instrumental music in wor­ship, infant baptism, the­onomy, hats ... or whatever their current pet subject is.

Red herrings and hobby horses may create lively dis­cussion, but the standard is not how lively the meeting is but how much of a spiritual purpose has been achieved. The most ardent supporter of discussion meetings should not be blind to the fact that they are a delicate mechanism, easily deflected from smooth operation. A little grit in the workings and it grinds to a halt, or more likely runs out of control.

The commonest — and weightiest — complaint against the discussion-type meeting is that it gives equal­ity of teaching opportunity where there is not equality of teaching ability. The uncon­verted man, in off the street, is given the same status as an ordained minister; the young girl just converted has the same right to contribute as the mature elder, forty years a Christian. At a discussion meeting, atheism can be presented, heresy can be advanced, and the voice of immaturity is allowed to be heard. This promotes pride because it encourages every­one to be a teacher. It thus undermines the eldership — to whom a teaching ministry has been particularly given — and may well suggest an unhealthy discontent with the regular preaching of the Word.

There is no doubt that, along these lines, many argu­ments against discussion-type meetings can be brought forward. But they must all fall before the teaching of the Scriptures. The facts are that Paul dis­cussed his message with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers; that Jesus was happy to face the questions of friends and enemies and so to refute error and estab­lish truth; and that he took in his stride a shouted com­ment in the middle of his teaching. We must not be deterred from using this Bib­lical method because of practical difficulties. There must be boldness and a willingness to seek solutions which would allow us to use the method the Master used.

The Key←⤒🔗

The discussion meeting must be firmly under the control of the eldership of the church. (In speaking of the "eldership", I include the "minister", of course.) Elders are to be "able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2) so it is appropriate that the con­duct of a discussion meeting — with all its potential for teaching — should be seen as part of their ministry. If this is done, all the practical difficulties disappear.

Elders are men who manage their own families well and who see that their children obey with proper respect (1 Timothy 3:4), who don't have children that are wild (Titus 1:6). If such men lead home Bible Studies, they will surely be able to keep the self-assertive in their place and the discussion on course; and to net red herrings and harness hobby horses before damage is done.

Elders are men who hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that they can encourage others with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose them (Titus 1:9). If such men lead a discus­sion, you can be sure that the voice of unbelief or heresy, if raised, will be adequately answered and the impreci­sion of the immature duly but gently corrected.

James says: "not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (3:1). If elders take a firm lead in the discussion, this principle will not be infringed.

Where elders lead there is no despite done to the teach­ing ministry of the church, because the discussion is conducted under that very ministry. There is no ques­tion of the man from the street having the same rights as the ordained minister: the elder is in charge and can ensure that a suitable balance is maintained.

That there is openness in a home Bible Study, does not mean that it is a free-for-all with no-one in charge. The Bible says "Paul dis­cussed..." That suggests to me not only that there was an interchange of opinion, but that Paul was in charge of it. To have an elder taking the lead is to run a discussion according to a Biblical pattern.

Whatever the practical difficulties, they must be overcome, not just because public discussion is Biblical but because of the great use­fulness of a well run Bible Study.

For the Minister←⤒🔗

Many ministers don't feel comfortable exposed to comment or question, away from the protection of the pulpit. For ministers to lead a discussion on the sermon they have just preached or a home Bible Study can be a very painful procedure.

Comments made may reveal that not much of their sermon has been understood or that there is disagreement with the minister, or they may show up basic weak­nesses in the congregation's life which the minister may attribute to his own inadequacy.

This may all be very dis­turbing and intensely pain­ful. Some of it, no doubt, will be more imagined than real. But just because some­thing is painful does not mean to say it is not useful.

More positively, through this sort of discussion a minister can better under­stand his people. He learns where they are: their level of understanding and attain­ment, the doubts and ques­tions they face, the problems they wrestle with, the difficulties they find in the Word. Points raised in discussion can become subjects for future sermons. Misunderstandings aired can lead to a simplification of vocabulary or syntax or the inclusion of more sermon illustrations — to the benefit of the whole congregation.

The discussion meeting can be a great source of instruction — to the minister who conducts it.

For All←⤒🔗

The discussion meeting can bring the normal benefits which any teaching ministry, based on submis­sion to the Word, can bring. But there are additional benefits too.

It is more flexible than a sermon, allowing points of special interest to be pon­dered at length. It allows difficulties and problems to be aired and, hopefully, solved. It is conducted in informal settings which generally encourage a relaxed atmosphere, which in turn deepens the sense of fellowship. It helps members of the congregation to know each other better and to appreciate one another's spiritual situation. Thus it stimulates more informed prayer.

As an evangelistic tool, the home Bible Study pro­vides a setting to which the unconverted are more likely to come. It is a bridge between the church and the world; neutral territory where the unconverted can learn the basics before being introduced to the solider food of the sermon.

It stimulates free expres­sion, leading Christians to be more assured in their speak­ing about spiritual things. Here the young Christian can practise giving expres­sion to his understanding and experience. This will prepare him to be ready to give a reason for his hope to everyone that asks. Hence it prepares for witness and tends to bring out and develop gifts.

The discussion meeting deserves an important place in the church's life for all these reasons. The advan­tages far outweigh the disad­vantages; by careful planning and control the dis­advantages can be reduced and virtually eliminated.

The Old Way Revived←⤒🔗

It amazes me that the dis­cussion meeting is sometimes thought of as "un-Free Church", or not part of our tradition, an "innovation".

The essence of the discus­sion meeting, as outlined here, is that it is a teaching method by question and answer, used by the elder­ship of the church. Someone asks a question, the elder answers, or throws back a question to make the ques­tioner think out the matter more clearly. A comment is made, so a searching ques­tion is asked, forcing people to reflect on the Biblical principles involved. A well-run discussion meeting pro­ceeds by question and answer. This is "catecheti­cal" instruction.

There was a day in Scotland — the best days, some folks think — when a minister or catechist gathered families together in a home and catechised them — probed into their under­standing and experience of Scriptural truth, encouraged them to express themselves. Such catechetical instruction was a source of spiritual strength.

Where is that done now? Hardly anywhere — except in those congregations which run home Bible Studies on the principles outlined out­lined above. This "innova­tion" is nothing new at all  — just the old method revived and modernised.