a drop of water

when enough gathers, you have to fall somewhere

The Three Column Approach

View Comments

My friend Tim and I were in a wedding this past weekend and it was a great chance to reconnect.  At the rehearsal dinner Tim was sharing with me the method that he is trying to implement in their small group.

From an email from Tim:

Column A:  Write down what touched you personally in a passage. How or why did it touch you? How do you relate to it?

Column B:  Write down what what i means to you. Paraphrase it in your own words, and relate it to yourself.

Column C:  What does it look like for you to apply it in your own life? What would it look like for you to apply it this week?  Maybe it’s a mentality change you ponder on this week, maybe it is an action of kindness to another, maybe you will pray it to God daily, be creative!  If people can’t think of anything, then their response/action can be to tell someone about what they learned.

The purpose of this is to move past intellectualizing the sharing/discussion time. Yes, making sense of the Word, discussing it theologically is great, but don’t spend more than half your time just talking about that.  Challenge each other how it relates to your own life. Speak only about yourself. How can you put what was discussed into action this coming week?  There may be no point to move on to another passage if the group does not move past putting into action and keep each other accountable for it. We respond in obedience to the Word because we love God.  Jesus says, he who loves God obeys Him.

Thanks for sharing this Tim.  I am excited about the emphasis of this approach to small group studies because it really levels the playing ground of interpretation as it increases dependence on the Spirit guiding us through the Word and decreases dependence on whoever had the best commentary or did the most research.

I believe that a lot of times, people end up being afraid or unsure of sharing their heart felt responses and interpretations of passages because they don’t want to be inaccurate or wrong, especially when they may lack the formal training that someone else in the group may possess.  I really appreciate the section devoted to paraphrasing the text in your own words because allows opportunity to personally contextualize the passage and allow it to speak more closely to your own situation.  I also really appreciate the emphasis that this model puts on application.  I know often times we spend just a little bit of time towards the end of studies for application, probably because it is the most difficult part and often times gets messy.  This is where this models idea of accountability gets to shine, in that the group supports not only brainstorming about how the passages moves them to act personally, but actually living it out.

Written by ddhoffman

August 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Posted in Small Group

Tagged with ,

  • Tim
    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/
  • 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.
  • pauline
    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.
  • 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).
blog comments powered by Disqus