The Discipleship & Ministries Cluster of the Connexional Team Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5JR | Helpdesk: 020 7486 5502 | www.methodist.org.uk

Registered charity number 1132208

THE BIBLE MONTH PILOT PROJECT REPORT (MARCH, 2015)

INTRODUCTION

“God’s word is open and available to everybody and what we should be

doing is giving people the opportunity to find it for themselves.”

(Bible Month Facilitator)

The primary aim of the Bible Month pilot project was to improve biblical literacy within the

Methodist Church.1 It did so by equipping teams of preachers to lead a ‘Bible Month’, a

series of four Sunday sermons and four small-group meetings focusing on a single biblical

book.2 Philippians was the biblical book chosen for the pilot.

A secondary aim was to help preachers grow in confidence and skill in preparing and

preaching through a single biblical book. The preachers involved were invited to attend a

weekend residential where they had the opportunity to engage more deeply with Philippians

reflect on preaching and group facilitation, and begin planning the Bible Month within their

circuits.

Four Bible Month teams – two in the London District and two in the Darlington District –

were involved in the project, with each team delivering a Bible Month in a participating

church. The Bible Month pilot involved a series of planning meetings (beginning October

2013), Bible Month vision days (April and June 2014), a residential event for preachers (July

2014), and the delivery of four Bible Months (October to December 2014).The evaluation

took place following the completion of each of the Bible Months.3

BACKGROUND

The Methodist Church holds to the centrality of Scripture as a ‘means of grace’, a place

where readers and hearers encounter the living God.4 In his notes on the New Testament,

John Wesley pointed to the centrality of Scripture in his description of the Bible as, “the

fountain of heavenly wisdom, which they who are able to taste prefer to all writings of men,

1 ‘Biblical literacy’ includes both knowledge of the Bible and the skills of interpreting it and applying it today. For further discussion, see Margaret Killingray Encouraging Biblical Literacy (Cambridge: Grove Books, 1997), pp. 3-5, and David Wood, Let the Bible Live: Report of the North Yorkshire Dales Biblical Literacy Project (Durham: CODEC, 2013), pp. 12-14 (available at www.dur.ac.uk/resources/codec/Let_the_Bible_Live___final___David_Wood.pdf) 2 For reasons explained below, one of the Bible Month teams expanded the month to include five Sundays and five small-group meetings. 3 Many thanks to Dr Hamish Leese, Research Officer for the Methodist Church, for the key role he played in helping to evaluate the Bible Month. Hamish provided feedback on the questionnaire, took part in the focus groups and interviews, and provided guidance on the use of the data in this report. 4 For the importance of the ‘means of grace’ within the theology of John Wesley, see Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, Tennessee: Kingswood Books, 1994), pp. 192-229. For John Wesley’s sermon on the ‘means of grace’, see http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-sermons-of-john-wesley-1872-edition/sermon-16-the-means-of-grace.

Page 2 of 25

however wise or learned or holy.”5 More recently, the Methodist Church Report A Lamp to

my Feet and a Light to my Path affirmed that, “The Bible... is the primary witness to God’s

self-revelation, above all in Christ, within the formative events of the life of God’s people,

pointing the Church of today to the present activity of God.”6

Despite the significance that the Methodist Church gives to the Bible, many Christians rarely

read or engage with it.7 Such a development has taken place within a broader decline in

biblical literary within society, documented by the National Biblical Literacy Survey

undertaken by CODEC in 2008.8 The more recent North Yorkshire Dales Biblical Literacy

Survey, which began in December 2010, found similar levels of disengagement within a rural

circuit of the Methodist Church.9 Clearly, people within society – including Christians – can

find the Bible a closed book.10

Surveys have also suggested that - among Christians – there is a desire to engage Scripture

more deeply and fruitfully. Research among the ‘Missing Generation’ (2011), 25-40 year

olds, found that engaging with the Bible was one of the key qualities valued in small

groups.11 Those who have participated in the Disciple Bible Study course in the UK have also

spoken of the transformative effects of reading through the Bible.12

Given the importance of Scripture to spiritual formation, and the struggle many Christians

have to engage Scripture, the church needs to explore ways of helping Christians grow in

frequency and confidence in reading the Bible. The North Yorkshire Dales Biblical Literacy

Project found that one of the most successful ways of encouraging Christians in this area was

through leading a preaching series based on a biblical book or character. The preaching

series ran over four Sunday within a local church, and included small group meetings to

encourage Methodists to engage with Scripture.13

5 http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/preface-to-the-new-testament-notes. For a helpful summary of Wesley’s teaching on the primacy of Scripture, see Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Teachings, vol 1: God and Providence (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 65-79. 6 (Peterborough: Methodist Publishing House, 1998), p. 34. The report is also available at www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/conf-a-lamp-to-my-feet-1998.pdf. 7 Statistics for the Methodist church are difficult to find, but the general decline of Bible reading among Christians has been noted – for example – in Killingray, Encouraging Biblical Literacy, pp.3-7 and Wood, Let the Bible Live, pp. 15-20. A helpful discussion of the tendency within Methodist churches to favour ‘inspirational moments’ over ‘integrative’ or narrative readings of the Bible is also found in Paul Kybird, “Believing or Belonging – the dilemma of Methodist identity,” Methodist Sacramental Fellowship, 2012. A recent (2011) report on Bible reading among evangelical Christians shows that those aged 16-34 are less likely to regularly read the Bible than older Christians, and it is likely that such a tendency is also found among other Christians; see www.eauk.org/church/resources/snapshot/upload/21st-Century-Evangelicals.pdf. 8 For a ‘Briefing sheet’ with the key findings, see www.dur.ac.uk/resources/cblc/BriefingSheet2.pdf. The results showed that half of the British population see the Bible as irrelevant to their lives, a figure increasing to 70% among those aged between 16 and 24. The survey reveals that the Bible is seen as difficult to understand, boring, and associated with ‘professional’ religious people. For a further recent report detailing the loss of biblical literacy, see the Bible Society’s Report Pass it On (2013) at www.biblesociety.org.uk/about-bible-society/our-work/pass-it-on. 9 See Let the Bible Live, pp. 16-17. 10 For a similar trend within the American context, see The State of the Bible 2013 report produced by the Bible society at www.americanbible.org/sites/default/files/State%20of%20the%20Bible%20Report%202013.pdf. For a summary of the findings, including a helpful series of graphs, see www.barna.org/culture-articles/609-what-do-americans-really-think-about-the-bible. 11 www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/you-missinggeneration-full-report-2011.pdf. See pp. 21-24. In America, a recent survey of Bible engagement also found that 61% of Americans wished to read the Bible more frequently; The State of the Bible 2013 Report, p. 19 (see footnote 2). 12 For recent commendations, and interviews with participants, see www.methodist.org.uk/deepening-discipleship/small-groups/key-resources/disciple. Recent research in the USA involving over 1000 churches has also revealed the importance of the Bible to discipleship, with the authors of a key report concluding that, “If Churches could do only one thing to help people at all levels of spiritual maturity grow in their relationship with Christ... [they] would inspire, encourage, and equip their people to read the Bible — specifically, to reflect on Scripture for meaning in their lives,” Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Move: What 1,000 Churches Reveal about Spiritual Growth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), p. 19. 13 The preaching series is described as the ‘heart of the project’ in the project report (Let the Bible Live, p. 23). The facilitator of the project, Rev David Wood, confirmed in a telephone interview that this was the most effective part of the project in

Page 3 of 25

It was this model that was adopted for the Bible Month project. The Bible Month would

focus on a biblical book over four weeks through Sunday sermons and small group meetings.

The aim was to help people within the church to actively engage with the Bible through

modelling and encouraging an in-depth engagement with a single biblical book. The

preachers involved in the pilot were equipped to run the Bible Month through attending a

residential that allowed them to develop their knowledge of Scripture and their skills in

preaching.14

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT

The project began in autumn 2013 with a series of planning groups that aimed to clarify the

aims and methodology of the Bible Month approach.15 The planning group decided to build

on the work of the North Yorkshire Dales Biblical Literacy Project, and particularly its insight

that running a preaching series based on a biblical book was one of the most effective ways

to develop biblical literacy within churches. The Bible Month pilot was funded as a project by

the Discipleship & Ministries Learning Network (DMLN), with the funding covering the

training and travel expenses of the Bible Month facilitators in each region.

Two regions within the DMLN agreed to be involved in the pilot project, London and the

North East. The Coordinators of the DMLN in each region were granted approval by District

Chairs to pursue the project and began to explore which circuits might wish to be involved.16

Vision days were held in London (April 2014) and in the North East (June 2014), with a

number of local preachers, Superintendents and presbyters attending each day. Each vision

day explained the purpose of the vision month, introduced the focus on Philippians, and

allowed participants to raise queries and offer comments on the development of the project.

Following the vision day, the Coordinators of the DMLN in London and the North East

continued to engage with interested circuits – two in each region – and four churches (two

in London; two in the North East) agreed to participate in the project.17

A residential training event took place at Cliff College in June 2014. As well as the speakers

and facilitators present, ten preachers attended – nine local preachers and one presbyter –

and explored the book of Philippians as well as reflecting on ‘Imaginative Preaching’ and

beginning to plan the Bible Month within their own circuits.18

The Bible Month itself took place in October to December 2014, though the dates of the

Bible Month differed from church to church. The evaluation of the Bible Month pilot took

improving biblical literacy. Let the Bible Live also offers a range of other ways to promote biblical literary within church and society, such as through Bible road shows, running ‘Beer and Bible’ groups, and leading study days. 14 While members of the church involved in the pilot are described as participants in this report, those who led the Bible Month in each region - whether as part of a team or alone – are described as the Bible Month facilitators. 15 Key initial conversation partners in helping to develop the project include Dr Paul Kybird, former Training and Development Officer in the London District, and Rev Dr Pete Phillips, Director of CODEC. Members of early planning groups included Dr Tony Moodie, Revd Dr Chris Blake, Tricia Mitchell and Sue Miller. 16 The Coordinator of the DMLN in the North East Region is Tricia Mitchel; the Coordinator of the DMLN in the London region is the Revd Dr Joanne Cox-Darling. 17 A local preacher from the Durham District of the Methodist Church, part of the North East Region of the DLMN, also attended the residential with hopes or running a Bible Month in 2015. Primarily due to the timing of the planned Bible Month, that region has not been included within the pilot. 18 For an overview of the conference programme, including a description of the speakers/facilitators who contributed to the event, see appendix A. An evaluation of the residential also took place, and revealed that the majority of those who attended found the event hugely valuable (though there was one significant critique of the event), and this result was confirmed during later interviews with those who had attended. A copy of the residential evaluation is available on request from Ed Mackenzie.

Page 4 of 25

place in the months following, with Ed Mackenzie and Hamish Leese working through the

data collected.

DESCRIPTION OF CHURCHES

The four churches all differed in a number of ways, but a brief description will give some

insight into the different contexts in which the Bible Month pilot took place.19

Church A is in a suburban area of the London District with a predominantly white population

and low levels of socioeconomic deprivation. It has 115 members and an average Sunday

attendance of 113 (2014 figures).

The Bible Month in this church was led by the Superintendent Minister. Although local

preachers had initially agreed to be involved, they withdrew from the project prior to the

residential. The Superintendent, however, agreed to run the Bible Month as the sole

member of the team.

The Bible Month took place over four weeks, beginning the week of the 6th October and

ending Sunday 2nd November. The small groups took place prior to the Sunday service each

week. Two small groups within the church ran as part of the Bible Month, one on a Tuesday

afternoon and another on a Wednesday evening, with both groups focusing on the same

material; different approaches to the Bible (and to Philippians).

Church B, in the Darlington District, is within a more ethnically diverse area than others in

the District, and diverse levels of socioeconomic deprivation are found around the church. It

has a membership of 106 and an average Sunday attendance of 67 (2014 figures),

Two experienced local preachers led the Bible month, which took place over four weeks in

October and November, with a week ‘break’ in between the four weeks (12 Oct, 19 Oct, 2nd

Nov, 9th Nov). Rather than take place during the week, the small group replaced the Sunday

evening service for the duration of the pilot. The focus on the small group was on themes

based on Philippians that emerged from the morning service.

Church C, again in the Darlington District, is in a largely white area of the District with

moderate levels of socioeconomic deprivation. It has a membership of 30 and an average

Sunday attendance of 38 (2014 figures).

The pilot was led by two experienced local preachers and took place over four weeks in

November (2nd– 26th November), with the small group taking place on the Wednesday

evening following each Sunday service. The planning group also decided to run an

introductory session on the Bible Month several weeks before it formally began. This

introduced some of the historical context of Philippians, while also explaining to members of

the church the purpose of the Bible Month. The small group meeting focused on ‘skills’ of

reading Philippians.

Church D, in the London District, is within a densely populated and ethnically diverse area of

London with moderate to high levels of deprivation. It has a membership of 26 and an

average Sunday attendance of 51.20 19 Information on membership and attendance figures, as well as the social context, have been taken from Methodist Statistics for Mission, especially www.methodist.org.uk/links/church-webmap-advanced-version. Details of each area are taken from the 2011 Census. Details of church membership and average Sunday attendance are from the 2014 Statistics for Mission data. Thanks to Dr Hamish Leese for help in gathering this data.

Page 5 of 25

This Bible Month was led by a team of five; a Superintendent, a presbyter, and three local

preachers. While the local preachers, two of whom had recently come onto the plan, had all

attended the Residential, the Superintendent and the presbyter had been unable to

attend.21

The Bible Month took place over five weeks, and five churches were involved. The intent

was to make the Bible Month a circuit, rather than a single church, event. This meant that

each facilitator planned and preached the same sermon in each of the five churches. The

small group, however, was run in just one of the churches – Church D – and it was this

church that formed the focus of the pilot evaluation.22 The small group also took place in the

week following the Sunday sermon, with a focus on understanding Philippians, and

particularly its relevance for the lives of members within the church.

EVALUATION: PROCESS

The evaluation of the Bible Month pilots took place between November 2014 and March

2015.

• Quantitative data were gathered from questionnaires which were sent to each of the

participating churches. Members of the Bible Month team in each region distributed and

gathered in these questionnaires at the end of the Bible Month. The questionnaire included

a series of questions focusing on whether following a Bible month affected biblical literacy,

and also sought to distinguish those members of the church that attended on Sundays from

those members of the church that attended the small groups as well.23 In total, 61

questionnaires were received from churches involved in the project (21 questionnaires from

Church A, 12 questionnaires from Church B, 20 questionnaires from Church C, and 8

questionnaires from Church D). Of those who responded to questionnaires, the majority had

attended a small group at least once.

• Qualitative data on the experience of participants within the churches were also gathered

through focus groups with members of each of the Bible Month small groups, usually in the

week following their final session. Questions focused on the value of the Bible Month, and

especially the way in which the small group shaped the experience of the Bible Month for its

participants.24

• Qualitative data on the experience and insights of the facilitators of each Bible Month

were gathered in interviews with each of the Bible Month teams.25 Apart from two of the

five members of the delivery team in Church D, each facilitator within the pilot took part in

the interviews.

20 Statistics for Mission only received attendance figures for 2 Sundays – rather than the usual 4 Sundays – for the month in which Statistics are gathered (October 2014). The standard approach of averaging out the numbers of each Sunday over the month would give a figure of 26, but the figure of 51 is reached when the weeks for which figures were submitted are averaged out. This figure seems to be more accurate since it is consistent with the number of questionnaires which were requested for the Church D (60 questionnaires). 21 The Superintendent had another commitment at the time, but subsequently met with Ed Mackenzie to discuss the Bible Month and also received feedback about the month from the local preachers. The presbyter who did not attend the residential was on Sabbatical at the time. 22 Questionnaires were sent to every church within the circuit, but the only questionnaires that were returned were those associated with the ‘pilot church’ (i.e., where the small group also took place). 23 See appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire. 24 See appendix C for illustrative/indicative interview questions (Questions for Focus Groups). Each focus group session – and each interview with facilitators – was recorded, and a full transcript subsequently produced. 25 See appendix C for illustrative/indicative interview questions (Questions for Bible Month Teams).

Page 6 of 25

EVALUATION: OUTCOMES

• The Bible Month improved biblical literacy within the participating Methodist Churches.

This was the primary aim of the Bible Month pilot project, and so – as far as the short-term

evaluation can determine – this aim has been broadly met.

The questionnaire revealed that 61% respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they had

been encouraged to read Scripture more frequently, with 33% respondents neither agreeing

nor disagreeing, and only 6% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

The Bible Month has encouraged me to read the Bible more frequently:

A majority of the respondents (56%) also agreed or strongly agreed that they had a better

understanding of how the Bible fits together. Due to the phrasing of the question, it is also

possible that some of those who neither agreed nor disagreed (41%) were frequent Bible

readers. Only 3% of respondents disagreed with the statement.

The Bible Month has given me a better understanding of how the Bible fits together:

59% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they felt better equipped to read books

of the Bible, with only 2% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. While the 39% who neither

agreed nor disagreed may represent Christians already biblically literate, those small groups

that focused on developing skills and different approaches to the Bible were more likely to

agree or strongly agree with this statement.26

26 In Church A – which focused on different approaches for reading the Bible – 15 out of 18 respondents (83%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (3 neither agreed nor disagreed), while in Church C – which had a similar focus on skills – 10 out of 17 respondents (59%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (7 neither agreed nor disagreed). In contrast, 2 respondents (19%) in Church B agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (9 respondents neither agreed nor disagreed), while in Church D 3 respondents (60%) agreed or strongly agreed (1 neither agreed nor disagreed, and 1 strongly disagreed).

Strongly Agree 22% Agree

39%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

33%

Disagree 4%

Strongly Disagree

2%

Strongly Agree 15%

Agree 41%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

41%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree

0%

Page 7 of 25

I now feel better equipped to read books of the Bible:

Perhaps the best indicator from the questionnaire of the value of the Bible Month was the

finding that 80% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they would like the church to

hold another Bible Month in the future.

I would like the church to hold another Bible Month in the future:

Comments on the questionnaire also supported the value of the Bible Month. One

participant mentioned that they felt their “soul was being fed.” Another noted how, “people

saw the Bible in a different way,” while one respondent asked for “more, in depth, Bible

study services.”

Feedback from the focus groups also pointed to the way in which the Bible Month helped

participants engage more deeply with the Bible. One person explained that, “since this

series, I do read the Bible differently,” while another commented, “I do, definitely, now read

it differently, and expect more.” Others described the Bible Month as a “good format” and

“very helpful.”

The facilitators in each region agreed that the Bible Month had helped develop biblical

literacy within the churches involved. One noted that “the desire to learn has started and

people are interested and people want to learn,” and that that the Bible Month model is

“definitely something I’ll take and use everywhere, whatever happens to the project.”

Another commented, “everyone was very receptive and… enjoyed the services,” with one

facilitator overhearing the comment, “I read the Bible now!” While there was an admission

by one of the facilitators that it was, “hard to evaluate the success of the Bible project,” they

also spoke of the Bible Month as key way in which Scripture could become central once

again in the life and ministry of the church.27

One of the reasons for the success of the Bible Month in increasing biblical literacy was its

focus on the whole of Philippians, which allowed participants to get to know its themes and

27 For comments on how the model might be shaped for the future, see below.

Strongly Agree 22% Agree

37%

Neither Agree nor Disagree

39%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree

2%

Strongly Agree 41%

Agree 39%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

13%

Disagree 7%

Strongly Disagree

0%

Page 8 of 25

context in greater depth than preaching on a single segment of the text would allow. The

greater understanding of the text as a whole led to a greater understanding of the meaning

and relevance of each part of the book. As one participant noted, the value of the Bible

Month was the, “focus and the follow up through the understanding from week to week.”

84% of the respondents also strongly agreed or agreed that it was helpful to study the same

biblical book (Philippians) over the Bible Month.28

• The Bible Month helped preachers grow in confidence and skill in preparing and

preaching through a single biblical book.

This was the secondary aim of the Bible Month project, and interviews with the preachers

following the Bible Month found that this aim had also been achieved.

One facilitator noted that, following the Bible month, they would, “be more inclined to think

about how I present a message in the future and how best to engage the congregation

through doing that,” while another explained that it had been “very beneficial personally.”

One facilitator had now begun to explore how “to include the Bible more in prayers, to make

it overt in my preaching”, and recognised that perhaps they had been “taking the Bible

reading for granted.” The comments of the sole facilitator of the Bible Month in Church A

were also significant. Despite the high commitment – and prior preparation – required for

this, the Superintendent explained that, “it’s been wonderful to be engaged in something

which is actually having an impact.”

As noted earlier, initial feedback on the residential event was predominantly positive, but

interviewing facilitators after the Bible Month also provided an opportunity to reflect on the

event. One facilitator felt that the residential could have given greater clarity regarding the

goals of the project, commenting that, “there wasn’t actually a great deal of structure

around what we were supposed to do.” Another noted that it would have been helpful to,

“spend more time on the actual Bible study and methods.” There was, however, overall

appreciation for the residential. As one facilitator commented, the residential was,

“extremely valuable to get us thinking about this,” while another explained, “I don’t think we

could have done it without [the residential].”

The residential, then, was important in equipping the facilitators to lead the Bible Month,

helping them engage with Philippians, deepen their skills in preaching, and begin their

planning. Working together as a team to develop the Bible Month, however, was also

important in shaping the experience of the facilitators,29 as was their experience in actually

delivering the month.

• The small group meetings helped people engage with the Bible in a deeper way.

The questionnaires revealed that the whole congregation benefited from the Bible Month,

and this is reflected in the finding that even those who did not attend a small group gave

answers indicating that they had benefited from the Bible Month solely through the Sunday

28 27 respondents strongly agreed, 19 respondents agreed, 7 neither agreed nor disagreed, and only 2 disagreed. 29 The ‘team’ dynamic did not of course apply to Church A. Its one-person facilitator, however, also spoke of the value of leading the Bible Month for their own ministry, noting that it nurtured a, ‘sense of relationship through the ministry that most of the time you don’t get as a presbyter.’

Page 9 of 25

sermons.30 As one participant noted, “I think the sermons work as a standalone; they’re just

strengthened by the extra study groups.”

It also clear, however, that those who came along to the small group meetings benefited in a

greater way from what was offered. Asked whether the small group allowed participants to

go deeper with the Bible, 92% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed.

The Small Group setting allowed me to go deeper with the Bible:

Asked if they had appreciated the extra time spent studying the Bible in the small group, 94%

agreed or strongly agreed, with 6% neither agreeing or disagreeing.

I have appreciated the extra time spent studying the Bible in the small group:

76% of respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that the small group had given them a

better understanding of how to approach the Bible, with only 3% of respondents (one

person!) strongly disagreeing.

The small group has given me a better understanding of how to approach the Bible:

30 Of those who returned questionnaires but did not attend small groups, 48% agreed or strongly agreed that they had gained a better understanding of the Bible (8% disagreed or strongly disagreed); 72% agreed or strongly agreed that it was helpful to study a single book (only 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed); and, 68% agreed or strongly agreed that they would like another Bible Month (12% disagreed or strongly disagreed).

Strongly Agree 50%

Agree 42%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

3%

Disagree 5%

Strongly Disagree

0%

Strongly Agree 59%

Agree 35%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

6%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree

0%

Page 10 of 25

Since a measure of biblical literary is the degree to which people regularly read the Bible, it

was significant that 79% of small group participants agreed or strongly agreed that they now

planned to read the Bible more frequently.31

I plan to read the Bible more frequently due to my time in the small group:

In a final question focusing on whether participants would appreciate the chance to meet in

a similar group in the future, 85% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed with the

statement, suggesting the viability of such a model for the future.

I would appreciate the chance to meet in a similar group in the future:

The questionnaire also allowed people to offer general comments on the Bible Month, and

small groups were often mentioned. “The small group was particularly interesting and ‘hit

31 Those who neither agreed nor disagreed, or who disagreed or strongly disagreed, may have already been frequent readers of the Bible. One respondent in the questionnaire, for example, noted that, “I always read the Bible a lot. I don’t think the Small Group has given me a better understanding of how to approach the Bible. My faith in God is strong, I can’t see how I can have a better approach.”

Strongly Agree 41%

Agree 35%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

21%

Disagree 0%

Strongly Disagree

3%

Strongly Agree 24%

Agree 55%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

15%

Disagree 3%

Strongly Disagree

3%

Strongly Agree 53%

Agree 32%

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

9%

Disagree 6%

Strongly Disagree

0%

Page 11 of 25

the mark’ on a number of occasions,” one participant noted. Another commented that it was

“good to have the opportunity for discussion.” Small groups were also mentioned in

response to the question of ‘what worked well.’ Comments included; “having the weekday

groups helped to focus on the topics/readings,” “linking service themes to studies,” and

“different approaches of reading/looking over passages each week.” Two critical remarks on

small groups focused on their content. One response questioned whether a particular small

group was “sufficiently focused or related to Philippians,” while another noted that, “the

group was more a brief explanation of some methods of study rather than the study itself.”

One unexpected theme that emerged was the relationship between studying the bible and

confidence in sharing faith. Although this was not a link the researchers explicitly explored, a

number within the small group shared how knowing the Bible better also made them more

willing to think about ways in which they could share their faith.

Focus groups also provided an opportunity to discuss the value of small groups, and the

overall response was again positive. One participant noted that the questions explored in

the small group, “made [the Bible] very much alive rather than something that was written a

long time ago by people that are long dead,” another explained that, “being able to sit

down… and really discuss things that were personal and mattered to you was really good,

really helpful.” Each focus group also commented specifically on how the small group had

been designed and run in their church.32 Most of those who attended the small group were

those who belonged or had belonged to other small groups within the church, although this

was not true for all.

• The delivery of the Bible Month required continuity of content and delivery.

The Bible Month focused on ‘continuity of content’ through its concentration on a single

biblical book, but also required a delivery team to work together closely in order to ensure

continuity of delivery throughout the month. Each facilitator strove to be present at each of

the Bible Month small group(s), as well as deciding with the wider deliver group how they

would contribute to the Sunday sermons.

Asked whether the size of the ‘delivery team’ had ensured continuity of the Month,

participants recognized that this was an important issue and generally agreed that they were

well served by their delivery teams. As one person noted, “you do need a leader who will

keep the group all contributing and who will do thorough research.” Even if leadership

should change for the Sunday Service, the consensus view was well expressed by one

participant’s comment that, “you would still need someone there as continuity within the

group.” Another person noted that all of the delivery group were “involved in the

preparation and delivery and that was particularly helpful.”

Members of the delivery groups also spoke of the importance of ensuring continuity. One

team member noted the value of a small planning group, since “if you expand the group too

much it’s difficult to maintain the theme.” Whatever the size of the delivery group – which

ranged from one (!) to five – there was agreement that maintaining the continuity across the

Bible Month was important for its success.

• The Bible Month required a great deal of commitment from the delivery team.

Given the need to meet and plan together, the Bible Month required a great deal of

commitment from the delivery team. Members of the participating churches generally

32 The significance of different approaches to the group will be explored below.

Page 12 of 25

recognised the commitment required for the Bible Month, with comments on the

questionnaire expressing thanks for those who participated.

Discussions with the delivery groups also revealed the cost of commitment. A member of

one delivery team admitted that they had “found it very demanding, in terms of time,

energy, and… the preparation.” Another noted that, “it worked well, but it’s hard.”

The demands on the local preachers were particularly marked, since the local preachers

were all involved for each of the four Sundays as well as the small groups. Two local

preachers led the Bible Month in church C, while another two local preachers led it in church

D. Both were involved in preparing Sermons and in facilitating the small group. In Church D,

each of the five facilitators took a ‘Bible Month’ sermon to five churches within the circuit,

as well as attending the small group in the pilot church. In church A, the Superintendent led

the month as the sole facilitator, which required a good deal of preparation for the whole

month. In each church, facilitators committed a great deal of time and preparation in the

running of the Bible Month.

EVALUATION: PROCESSES

• Size of the Team

As mentioned earlier, the ‘size’ of the team differed among the churches. In church A, one

facilitator (a Superintendent) was involved in leading the month, while in church D a group

of five (a Superintendent, a presbyter, and three local preachers) worked together. The two

Bible Months in the North East – in church B and church C – were led by two local preachers

in each location.

The data gathered revealed that the range of ‘sizes’ all worked reasonably well. The larger

team of five, however, needed to work harder on preserving continuity week by week, while

the most continuity was guaranteed by having the single leader. A member of one of the

teams in the North East, in a team of two, noted that, “it becomes easier the smaller the

planning group,” and “if you expand the group too much it’s difficult to maintain the

theme.” Another facilitator spoke of the need for a good “team player mentality” when

selecting preachers for the Bible Month.

• Length of the Bible Month

Participants and facilitators generally agreed that the four-week – or, in one case, five-week

– format worked well for the Bible Month. As one participant noted, “a month is definitely

good because I think a lot of people say, ‘Right I’m definitely going to be there,’” while

another commented, “you could maybe stretch it to six, but I think four works very well.”

The demands on organising and delivering a Bible Month also make the four-week period a

realistic prospect for Bible Month teams. As one facilitator put it, “it is demanding, so I think

four weeks is right.”

• Timing of the small group Session

In three of the four churches involved, the small group meeting took place during the week,

but – in one church (church B) – the small group replaced the Sunday evening service. Within

that region, the reasons were logistical, since there was a range of other meetings on during

the week and it was hoped that there would be better attendance at the Sunday evening.

Page 13 of 25

The drawback to that decision was that some of those attending the small group missed the

evening service. As one participant noted – explaining their regret that the evening service

had been temporarily replaced – “I find this evening service, very, very special. It’s very, very

peaceful and it wasn’t our normal evening service and I think that’s why I didn’t enjoy it.” In

the pilot, then, holding the small group meeting during the week worked better than

replacing the evening service with the small group.

The other variable between groups was that while three of the groups timed their small

group meeting to follow the Sunday service, one church (church A) had the small group in

the week preceding the Sunday service. The rationale of this decision was that the discussion

within the small group could then contribute to planning the Sunday sermon, and this

seemed to work very well within the context. Since this Bible Month was led by the

Superintendent Minister, it was possible for them to shape the Sunday sermon through

reflecting on the small group comments. The same church had two small groups during the

week – one in the afternoon and one during the evening – in order to draw as many

interested participants into the month as possible.

Participants in the Bible Month in church A were asked whether it would work having the

small group following the Sunday service, while participants in the three other churches

were asked about having the small group preceding the Sunday service. Respondents tended

to prefer the pattern their church had adopted, and could see its advantages, but were

happy to acknowledge the validity of the alternative approach. The research did show,

however, that the church which held the small group held prior to the Sunday service

tended to score higher on the questions of whether they were better equipped to read the

Bible. This could also be, however, due to the focus of the meeting in church A (see below)

or to the particular gifting of the Superintendent leading that Bible Month.

• The Content of the small group Meeting

The focus of the small group within the Bible Month differed in each church. The residential

event gave some guidelines for leading small groups, but left the focus of the small group up

to each planning group. The suggestion was that while some small groups might be more

traditional ‘Bible studies’ focusing on Philippians, others could focus on exploring different

ways to read Philippians, as well as other biblical books.

Church A focused on helping participants use different approaches to the Bible, such as

Lectio Divina,33 comparing translations, and writing out short passages. This was warmly

welcomed by the group, and participants who were involved recognised the value of

exploring different approaches even if each of the styles did not suit them personally. As one

participant noted, “it’s one thing to encourage people to read the Bible, but it’s another

thing, you have to give them the tools to work with.” The leader of the Bible Month also

noted the importance of sharing different approaches with the group; “if you want to

encourage people to develop biblical literacy, you’ve got to give them a variety of different

ways of enabling them to do that.”

In church B, the small group discussion focused on themes more than the text of Philippians

itself. As one of the facilitators noted, “In the evenings we tried to reflect more on the

themes that the morning had raised and how we could apply them to our situation here.”

While there was an appreciation by some of the focus that this provided, others expressed a

33 For a short guide to Lectio Divina, see www.methodist.org.uk/prayer-and-worship/creative-prayer/lectio-divina

Page 14 of 25

desire for more on Philippians itself. One participant noted, “I would have liked more

emphasis on the background to [Philippians]… I didn’t think there was sufficient detailed

information.” The facilitators and participants also both explained that the technology did

not work sufficiently well during the small group session, and this affected the experience of

those who attended.

In church C, there was a focus on developing skills to read the Bible well, with a particular

emphasis placed on Philippians. Sessions covered issues such as Lectio Divina, the use of

translations, and using commentaries and Bible Study notes. There was also an earlier

meeting –prior to the Bible Month formally beginning – that explained the historical context

to Philippians. While the early meeting was praised by all members of the focus group, the

focus on skills for reading the Bible was not unanimously welcomed, with one participant

suggesting that a session on Lectio Divina – which included a lengthy period of silent

reflection – led to a fall in numbers the following week. On the other hand, others

appreciated the focus on Bible reading skills, with one participant noting, “it gave you an

idea of how to study, really, rather than just reading it,” and another commenting that they

had, “a better understanding of how to read the passages in the Bible, and understand them

better.”

In church D, the small group focused on themes within Philippians and how they might

connect to the lives of participants. As one of the facilitators put it, “The focus of our Bible

Studies was very much experiential,” and involved, “people bringing their own experiences

and sharing stories.” This did involve engaging with Philippians – including discussing issues

of historical context – but also raised broader issues of life through this engagement. Those

who were part of the focus group appreciated this approach, with one member commenting

that “It draws you right in because nobody is really getting at you,” and another explaining

that the Bible studies, “made him [Paul] so real, like he was really here, because it was so

well done and the way we were discussing.” The facilitators also produced helpful discussion

guides for each session, which participants greatly valued.

LEARNING FROM THE BIBLE MONTH

POSITIVES:

• Methodists wish to engage in a deeper way with the Bible.

The feedback to the project points to a desire among many Methodists to read the Bible

more frequently and to reflect on it more deeply. Engaging with the Bible is a key way to

develop and mature in faith, as well as to grow in confidence in sharing faith with others.

• The Bible Month is a workable model for helping Methodists grow in their knowledge and understanding of the Bible. The Bible Month model is a simple idea that can easily be integrated within the life of a church, and the consistency of working through a single biblical book was appreciated by facilitators and participants.34 As well as helping participants engage with the book as a whole, the Bible Month modelled the importance of thinking about the context of passages within Scripture.

34 The Bible Month model is one example of developing an ‘intentional programme’ that David Wood suggests is part of the way forward for developing biblical literacy, since – as Wood notes – “biblical literacy does not happen by osmosis!” Let the Bible Live, p. 43.

Page 15 of 25

• Engaging with a particular book of the Bible helps Christians grow in their knowledge and

understanding of the Bible as a whole.

While every Sunday service should be an opportunity for engaging with Scripture, there is a

risk that congregants lose a sense of the coherence of the Bible when only short passages

from different parts of the canon are addressed week-by-week.35 The more readers can

place texts within their literary and historical context, the greater their understanding and

engagement with the Bible. The Bible month allows in-depth engagement on one biblical

book over a month, an engagement that can help all within the church engage with

Scripture.

• Good team work is essential for running a Bible Month.

The Bible Month pilot was fortunate in gathering together gifted and committed people who

were willing and able to work well in teams. The importance of good team work was a

theme raised across the focus groups, and points to the strategic importance of working well

together. While the Bible Month could be led by a gifted individual – as it was in church A –

the future development of the Bible Month is more likely to require teams working together.

It may be that further work could be done on models of co-operative leadership, particularly

between clergy and laity.

CHALLENGES:

• Children and young people need to be integrated into any future development of the

Bible Month.

The Bible Month pilot, perhaps to its disadvantage, did not explore how to incorporate

children and young people into the Bible Month experience. This was discussed with the

different delivery groups, and there was agreement that the future development of the Bible

Month should explore possible ways to involve Children and Youth, including the possible

use of the Navigate resource.36

• There are financial challenges, and a significant time commitment, required for running a

Bible Month well.

The principal financial commitment for the pilot was the residential event, which involved

costs of accommodation, speakers and travel.37 The future development of the Bible Month

will need to explore how best to equip and train future preachers in this event without the

same costs involved in the pilot, even if some financial support may be required. This could

mean drawing in ecumenical and parachurch partners, as well as working with staff in the

DMLN.

• Circuit Superintendents have an important role in approving Bible Months.

Setting up the Bible Month Pilot in each region involved negotiations with the District Chairs,

and – later - Circuit Superintendents. As they are responsible for the preaching plan,

Superintendents have ultimate oversight for allowing a Bible Month to run in a church, and

so it is not surprising that Superintendents were part of the delivery team in two of the four

pilot churches. The future development of the Bible Month will need to work on exploring

35 The same point has been noted by Biblica as part of their rationale for the Community Bible Experience resource. They describe the three reasons for a decline in biblical engaging as “reading the Bible out of context,” “reading the Bible in fragments,” and “reading the Bible in isolation” (www.biblicaeurope.com/why-community-bible-experience). The Bible Month addresses each of these problems over a limited time-frame, but the Community Bible Experience – an innovative approach to reading through the New Testament over 8 weeks – is also an excellent resource for responding to this issue (and could be used as a follow-up to a Bible Month). 36 www.methodist.org.uk/navigate. Navigate involves five interactive sessions which help young people engage with the Bible. 37 The facilitators involved in the pilot had their costs fully covered.

Page 16 of 25

how best to involve Superintendents, alongside other church leaders, in the development of

the Month.

• Inviting ‘new’ people into small groups remains a challenge.

Feedback from the groups suggested that most of those who attended the Bible Month

small groups were members of other small groups, or had been members of such groups in

the past. While the Sunday services also work as a ‘stand alone’ Bible Month, there is a need

to do further work on how to incorporate people into (short-term) small groups involved in

an initiative like the Bible Month.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BIBLE MONTH

One of the most striking and consistent comments in the evaluation was the desire of those

participating within the Bible Month, as well as the Bible Month facilitators, to continue with

the format in the future. There was widespread agreement that the format ‘worked’ and

that the church should help churches engage with a Bible Month on a regular basis.

The key recommendation emerging from the pilot project is that the Methodist Church

develops resources for an annual Bible Month each year. The focus during the pilot was on

Philippians, but each future Bible Month could focus on a different biblical book, or perhaps

explore other ways of focused bible exploration (such as through a focus on biblical

characters or biblical themes). The pilot project shows that a ‘month long’ focus works well,

but also that the ‘delivery teams’ can vary in size.

A second recommendation is that a planning group is formed to develop the Bible Month

format for the future. Key questions for the planning group to explore would include the

following areas:

• Focus and Content. What should the next biblical book be promoted? Could a Bible Month

focus on biblical themes or characters? Should the small group focus on ‘skills’ for reading

the Bible, or present opportunities to explore the biblical book more deeply – or both?

• Timing. When should the ‘Bible Month’ be promoted? When should it begin? Should it

take place in a particular month, a particular season (autumn/winter), or whenever it suited

the circuit or church?

• Resourcing and Equipping. How should the Bible Month be resourced and equipped

within the Methodist Church? Should events be held regionally or nationally? How should

churches select or nominate facilitators for the Bible Month (or should they be self-

selecting)? What funding is required for this? How could ‘quality control’ be ensured?

• Bible Month Partners. What other ecumenical, para-church groups, or charities could we

involve in the development of the Bible Month? Could LWPT – alongside the DMLN – put on

training days for future facilitators? Could ROOTS produce a Bible Month resource on behalf

of the church? Could the Bible Society provide help in developing resources for small groups

to learn more about engaging with the Bible? Would other denominations be interested in

this initiative?

• Promotion. How would the Bible Month best be promoted throughout the Methodist

Connexion? Should postcards and posters be produced, or should promotion take place

Page 17 of 25

solely online? Should churches from the whole of the Connexion be engaged with the Bible

Month, or particular regions involved year-by-year?

Regardless of the future development of the Bible Month, the pilot has been a successful

initiative that has made a difference in the lives and the churches of those who have been

involved. It has helped participants to read the Bible more deeply, to engage it more

contextually, and to think more creatively about how to apply it today.

A Key Methodist report on the Bible notes that “God continues to challenge his people

through the pages of Scripture,”38 and so engaging with the Bible will always lead to change.

As one participant put it, “The word is the only thing that will keep the Church alive... It’s a

treasure; we’ve got to dig for it.”

Dr Ed Mackenzie | Discipleship Development Officer

The Discipleship & Ministries Cluster | The Connexional Team

March, 2015

38 A Lamp to my Feet and a Light to my Path, p. 42

Page 18 of 25

APPENDIX A: OVERVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL

BIBLE MONTH RESIDENTIAL OVERVIEW

CLIFF COLLEGE, 18-20TH JULY, 2014

Friday 18th July

5-7pm Arrivals

7-8pm Evening Meal

8-9pm Welcome and Worship

Ed Mackenzie & Jonathan Green

9-9:30pm Introducing the Bible Month

Ed Mackenzie

Saturday 19th July

8-9am Breakfast

9-9:30am Morning Prayers

Jonathan Green

9:30 – 10:30am Exploring Philippians: Session 1

Keith Riglin

10:30 – 10:45am Coffee

10:45 - 11:45am Exploring Philippians: Session 2

Keith Riglin

11:45 – 12:45pm Planning the Bible Month: Mid-Week Meetings (A)

Piers Lane

12:45-1:45pm Lunch

1:45-3pm Free Time

3-4pm Exploring Philippians: Session 3

Keith Riglin

4 – 4:30pm Coffee

4:30- 5:30pm Planning the Bible Month: Sunday Services

Ed Mackenzie & Tony Moodie

6:00-7:00pm Evening Meal

Page 19 of 25

7:30 – 9pm Imaginative Preaching

Kate Bruce

9:00-9:30pm Evening Prayers

Jonathan Green

Sunday 20th July

8-9am Breakfast

9:30-10:45am Morning Worship & Communion

Jonathan Green, Piers Lane, Kate Bruce

10:45-11am Coffee

11-12 am Planning the Bible Month: Mid-Week Meetings (B)

Piers Lane

12 – 12:30pm The Bible Month Project and Biblical Literacy

Ed Mackenzie & Tony Moodie

12:30 – 1:30pm Lunch

1:30pm Departures

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE RESIDENTIAL

Rev Dr Keith Riglin is a Chaplain at King’s College, London, and has a wide experience of

theological education. He has contributed to sessions on the London Local Preachers’ course

and is also married to a Methodist Superintendent.

Rev Dr Kate Bruce is the Director for the Centre for Communication and Preaching at

CODEC, as well as the Deputy Warden and Tutor in Homiletics of St John’s College, and

regularly facilitates preaching conferences in Durham.

Jonathan Green is the Chaplaincy Development Officer for the Methodist Church and a

songwriter and worship leader. He has a background in church planting and has previously

worked as part of the ministerial team of Methodist Central Hall.

Rev Piers Lane is a Learning and Development Officer for the Methodist Church, working

especially in the Yorkshire Plus region and with a focus on discipleship and mission. A

Presbyter, he has served in the Barnsley and Darlington Circuits as well as working for

Scripture Union and, until very recently, as Director of Evangelism at Cliff College.

Dr Tony Moodie is the Discipleship Development Coordinator in the Methodist Discipleship

and Ministries Learning Network. Originally from South Africa, Tony has had a varied career

in teacher education and theological studies, and was previously the principal of Hartley

Victoria College in Manchester.

Page 20 of 25

Dr Ed Mackenzie is the Discipleship Development Officer in the Methodist Discipleship and

Ministries Learning Network. Ed has previously worked in a Fresh Expression church and as a

theological educator, and has a particular passion for biblical literacy.

Page 21 of 25

APPENDIX B. BIBLE MONTH QUESTIONNAIRE

Bible Month Evaluation Form -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please take the time to complete this form. Your feedback will help us evaluate the value of the Bible Month in helping your own understanding and engagement with the Bible. It will also allow us to explore how the ‘Bible Month’ experience might be improved.

How many Bible Month Sundays have you attended?

Please tick your answer to the following questions:

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither agree or nor disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

1. When it began, I was aware that the Bible Month was taking place

2. When it began, I understood the purpose of the Bible Month

3. The Bible Month has given me a better understanding of how the Bible fits together

4. The Bible Month has encouraged me to read the Bible more frequently

5. It was helpful to study the same biblical book (Philippians) during the Bible Month

6. I now feel better equipped to read books of the Bible

7. The Bible Month has encouraged me to seek other opportunities for studying the Bible

8. I would like the church to hold another Bible Month in the future

For the questions below, please write your answers in the boxes provided:

9. What do you think worked well during the Bible Month?

Page 22 of 25

10. In what ways might the ‘Bible Month’ have been better?

11. Any other comments?

If you also attended the mid-week/small-group meetings, please fill in the following questions.

How many ‘small-group’ ‘Bible Month’ meetings or events have you attended?

Please tick your answer to the following questions:

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither agree or nor disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. The small group setting allowed me to go deeper with the Bible

13. I have appreciated the extra time spent studying the Bible in the small group

14. The small group has given me a better understanding of how to approach the Bible

15. I plan to read the Bible more frequently due to my time in the small group

16. I would appreciate the chance to meet in a

Page 23 of 25

similar group in the future

17. Any other comments?

Thank you for completing the questionnaire.

Page 24 of 25

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUPS

Understanding Philippians: Do you now have a better understanding of Philippians?

How familiar were you with Philippians before the project started?

Did you find that working through Philippians helped it seemed more relevant?

Do you think working through a larger biblical book would be possible?

Understanding the Bible: Do you feel that you have a better understanding of how to read the Bible?

Did working through the whole of Philippians give you a better understanding of particular passages?

Have you ever done anything like this before?

Has your church worked through a book of the Bible before?

Do you feel you have tools to read the Bible better?

Which of the mid-week/evening groups helped you the most?

Engaging the Bible: Do you feel better equipped to read other biblical books?

Do you feel the month has given you something you can use now that the month is over?

Have you been encouraged/ inspired to read the Bible more frequently?

Do you read the bible differently? Why? How?

Has the ‘Bible Month’ removed any barriers that have prevented you reading the Bible?

Has the ‘Bible Month’ given you any new ways of engaging with the Bible?

For you personally, what has been the biggest benefit of the month?

Is there a down side you would like to highlight?

Sunday & Mid-Week: Did you think that it was helpful to study Philippians in this mid-week/evening group as well as on Sundays?

Did it work well meeting in the small group after/before each service?

What was achieved/what was the role of the mid-week/evening meetings?

Page 25 of 25

What was achieved/what was the role of the Sunday mornings?

Was there a particular session you found helpful? Why?

Consistency: How did you find having a team (or an individual) leading the Bible Month?

Would it have been different if a minister/a team had led the Bible Month?

How did the Bible Month compare to your usual church month?

Did you feel that the month ‘hung together’ although (if) it was led by different people?

The Future: Where should the bible month go from here?

Would you like something to carry on from this?

If so, what? More of the same? Something different?

Is there anything you would change if the model is used in the future?

QUESTIONS FOR BIBLE MONTH TEAMS

• How did you understand the purpose of the Bible Month?

• How did you think the Bible Month went?

• How much of your effort and time did it take to plan and run the Bible Month?

• Did you feel you received enough support in running the Bible Month?

• Could we have provided you with other resources to support you running the Bible Month?

• Would you consider doing it again?

• How did you find running the Bible Month as a team?

• What was it like running the mid-week/evening group alongside the Sunday services?

• Did you think running the mid-week/evening group after (or before) the Sunday service worked well? How do you think it would have been doing it the other way?

• Could you think of ways of including young people in the Bible Month?

• Any thoughts for the future of ‘Bible Months’ in Methodism? (would a ‘national’ Bible Month, for instance, be a good idea)?

• What did you gain from the Bible Month?

• What weaknesses do you think there were in the overall project?