The Major League Baseball playoffs are underway. While I’m not the baseball fan I used to be, the season ended on a historic note as Albert Pujols reached 700 career home runs, and Aaron Judge reached 62 home runs for the season. Congratulations to both for making the game exciting again, at least momentarily.
A few weeks ago I began leading a small discussion group through How People Change. I’m sure people are tired of hearing me recommend or comment on this book by now, but I really do think it’s a gem. Over 100,000 copies of it have been sold since its publication over a decade ago, which is quite a feat in the Christian publishing world. Seldom do books of such biblical depth find this kind of hearing.
I’m also involved with another book discussion group, the Missouri Book Club. We’ll hold our final discussion of the year in December. We’ll discuss What is the Mission of the Church? and Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World. Both are commendable reading.
I’ve spent some time thinking recently about how a proper, helpful book discussion should proceed. It seems like on a weekly basis I hear of a discussion group taking place at a local library, among colleagues, or in some other setting. I have personally been involved in many through the years, either as a participant or facilitator
So what makes a book discussion worthwhile? Are there some general principles that make for a good discussion?
Before attempting to answer these questions, below are the guidelines that were shared with those in Growing Together discussion groups sponsored by the Free Will Baptist Executive Office:
1. Read the book or the material to be covered before each meeting.
2. Do your best to be on time, attend and participate in each meeting.
3. Participate in but please do not dominate the discussions.
4. As a rule, try to keep comments brief like no longer than 2 minutes.
5. Try to make comments that are constructive and contribute to the flow of the discussion (i.e., avoid self-promotion or denigrating others)
6. Do your best to ensure a stable internet connection.
7. Please turn your camera on so that you can be seen during the discussion.
8. Please mute yourself when not commenting.
Bear in mind that these discussion groups are online, which explains #s 6-8. Otherwise, the list is rather sensible. Indeed, some of it is commonsensical. But inevitably the advice makes most sense in a certain context. For example, leading a discussion with just one or two others probably mitigates concerns about comments running too long or one party dominating the discussion. The larger the group, the more likely such a dynamic would probably pose a problem.
This leads me back to my initial questions above: What makes a book discussion worthwhile? Are there general principles to follow? I think so, beginning with one key question: What is the purpose of this discussion group? To put it another way, what type of discussion group is this?
Imagine you’re taking a graduate level course along with five other students. You’re all encountering a challenging subject for the first time. Among the challenges is a hefty reading list, which includes two rather dense volumes. Everyone feels a bit overwhelmed. The professor recommends you form a discussion group to glean the most from the book. Perhaps you’re even required to participate in a group led by a Teaching Assistant.
I think this type of group would work differently than others. You have a narrower aim in mind: understanding the key argument of the book. This isn’t unique to academic work, but it’s especially pertinent. And in order to identify that argument and evaluate its validity, you’ll need to have a strong grasp on the entire scope of the book, chapter by chapter. So then, whether your group meets weekly, monthly, or just for one lengthy session, your group will need to walk through the entire book. People will generally have to approach the reading the same. While different group members may come away with slightly different perspectives, they shouldn’t be focused mainly on “what they got out of it.” They should be focused on the same substantial argument.
However, I suspect that most readers are participating in a different type of discussion group. Theirs is a voluntary exercise in which likeminded persons have chosen to walk through a book together for their own spiritual, intellectual, and professional edification. It could be a group as small as two, or as large as ten. The key is that the accountability level is below the type above, and it’s a voluntary activity based on shared interests.
So what will make for a successful, worthwhile experience? Assuming it’s self-evident that group members must read the book, show up, and have something to say, what else should happen? I have two main assertions that I’ve come to see as most important:
First, depth is usually of greater value than breadth.
Second, books should be judged not based on what we would have liked for them to have been, but for what the author intended for them to be and how well he achieved that.
Let’s take the second insight first. Too often we try to play armchair critic of any and all authors. We complain about what they wrote, how they wrote it, or even why they didn’t write a different book altogether! These types of criticisms may have a place in book discussions, but not a prominent one.
Now I admit that this caution comes from someone who has authored two books, so it could sound defensive. I don’t intend that. I’m simply saying that writing and publishing a book is a tall order. While I don’t doubt that some people think and write sloppily, throwing stuff together, and many publishers aren’t nearly as selective as they should be, readers must recognize that they have chosen to read such a book. Their first posture should be one of understanding, not critique. An author’s purpose and argument should provide the baseline for serious reading and analysis.
As to the first assertion above, I increasingly think that book discussion facilitators and participants should aim for going deeper rather than casting widely. My own tendency is to be thorough, ensuring that each chapter is covered in a book discussion. I feel an obligation to both the book, author, and group to touch all the bases. This impulse is understandable, but I have come to think that it’s misguided.
Unless a discussion group is reading a book that revolves around a procedure, process, or strategy—in which case every single step matters (meaning, every chapter)—discussion group members should aim for depth.
Why go deep? Presumably most books worth the attention of an entire group have one big deliverable, key insight, argument, or paradigm. Focus on that. Press down into it. Ensure everyone agrees on what it actually is. Debate how well the author made their case. Evaluate the merits. And above all else, if there is some general agreement on the merit of the argument, insight, or paradigm, consider how it might be manifested or applied.
Too often we’ve all read a good book, returned it to the shelf, and moved on to the next book. We need to be spending a lot more time in the “application mindset” if we’re to derive the full benefit of a good book. Knowing isn’t doing. Hearing isn’t obeying. Understanding is essential for growth, but so is action.
In the life of the church this error is all too common. Our knowledge far outstrips our obedience. James warns that such individuals are, to some degree, deceived. Knowledge may console us, but the call to obedience challenges us to follow through. A good discussion group, whether of Scripture or a Scripture-driven book, will push us to go beyond ideas to obedience, from information to transformation.
Note: Anyone interested in participating in the Missouri Book Club is welcome! Just shoot me an email at jacksonwatts@hotmail.com and we’ll add you to the email list. Same goes for the Growing Together initiative discussion group.
Currently Reading:
Catch-up week
Quote of the Week:
This more integrated way of being has as its foundation the cultivation of a new sort of imagination, one predicated not on domination and extraction, but on something like communion, on the capacity to see ourselves simply as one part of the whole of creation. And not only to see ourselves but also to truly see the earth as a living community of which we are a part and to which we bear the obligations of love.