Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: teaching

  • Psalm 119:157 – Persecutors

    Psalm 119:157 – Persecutors

    Many are my persecutors and my enemies,
    yet I have not swerved from your testimonies.

    I have discussed previous statements such as this one in this series. It can be (and has been) read as a boast, as a determination, or simply an observation of the current status. So I’m going to depart from my own title. This is all you’ll hear about persecutors!

    Today as I was thinking about this, I started to think about the value of repetition. One of the complaints people make about Psalm 119 is that there is so much repetition. You could cover the independent topics in a few verses. So what’s the point of all the repetition?

    Our feelings about repetition vary greatly according to circumstances. For example, at a sports event of just about any variety, you’re going to hear slogans repeated dozens, perhaps hundreds of time. Here the repetition is part of the emotional connection of the fans as a group and also with “their” team. Nobody complains that we haven’t found a new, more creative cheer. Likely, the same thing will be repeated through the next similar event and nobody complains.

    In teaching, repetition can be quite useful. My mother taught me that in order to memorize a passage I should first read it through 12 times, and then begin to work on memorizing it line by line. The repetition serves to ingrain the passage in the mind. I use a similar method for Bible study in which I read a passage 12 times before digging into the details, making sure that my mind is aware of the greater context of any detail I choose to study.

    I have used this in preaching. I’ve told in this series before about a sermon I preached based on the passage “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” I built my sermon around getting lost, and each time I would describe a new error in my route, a new turn that I thought was right, but wasn’t, I’d repeat that statement. This goes back to what one of my undergraduate instructors told me about sermons. He said you write a three point sermon, but the first point sets up what you want to say, the second point is what you want to say, and the third point restates what you want to say. Then there’s the introduction that leads up, and the conclusion, which again applies this point. He said it was unlikely you were going to get more than one point across to the congregation in such a way that they’d remember.

    We complain in church about repetitive choruses, but then there’s a rather old hymn that starts “Holy, holy, holy.” This repetition of “holy” three times is presented in Revelation 4:8, where the four beast around God’s throne have no rest day or night from saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God all powerful / the one who was, and is, and is to come.”

    Repetition is a common part of so many of our activities, and in this Psalm, repetition is part of the process of painting a larger picture of divine law. In some ways, I’m doing violence to that by writing meditations on each verse, one at a time. The Psalm is a tapestry, and cannot be fully scene by looking at individual threads.

    Think about repetition today. What repetitive activity is essential and helpful to you?

  • Psalm 119:102 – You Have Taught Me

    Psalm 119:102 – You Have Taught Me

    I do not turn aside from your judgments,
    for you have taught me.

    A couple of days ago, meditating on Psalm 119:99, I discussed teachers. I mentioned the idea briefly of allowing the Holy Spirit to be the teacher.

    I want you to notice the form of this verse. The second half is not an accomplishment that results from his good actions. Rather, the second line explains the first. The psalmist is faithful to God’s decisions, judgments, because it is God who has been doing the teaching.

    There is a line in the prophecy of the new covenant recorded in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that is often ignored. Verse 34 reads “No longer need they teach one another, neighbour or brother, to know the LORD; all of them, high and low alike, will know me, says the LORD….” (REB). We don’t see this now, but I think we need to recognize this as a goal in the church.

    Too much of our teaching energy is spent making sure people understand and accept the things that we, as teachers, believe. I definitely include myself in this. Too little time is spent helping people find their own relationship with God.

    No the word “relationship” has been used in some questionable ways, particularly as a way to avoid actually studying and thinking about God and the world in which we live. But no matter what we may feel or want, there is always a relationship between each of us and God as in created being to creator, and that relationship is important. Relationship doesn’t negate doctrine, understanding things. Rather, relationship is necessary to any learning about God.

    Consider Ephesians 3:18-19: “… may you, in company with all God’s people, be strong to grasp what is the breadth and length and height and depth (19) of Christ’s love, and to know it, though it is beyond knowledge.” Technical knowledge isn’t sufficient. Personal knowledge is required. But personal knowledge is not exclusively individual knowledge. We know “with all God’s people.”

    As teachers in the church, we should be constantly working ourselves out of a job, constantly relying on the Holy Spirit, and constantly expecting that the Holy Spirit will guide others. We live in a new creation. We are a new creation. So is everyone we teach.

    This means that while we still have a teaching and discipling role, that role is one that is mutual, that is, we learn along with all God’s people. We make it easier for everyone to learn from God. That means there is a difference in teaching and mentoring in the Christian community. We do not build a dependence on what we think or have to say. We look to join together and grow in our dependence on God.

    How can you encourage someone to grow in their knowledge of what is beyond knowledge today?

  • Psalm 119:99 – Teachers

    Psalm 119:99 – Teachers

    I have more understanding than all my teachers,
    for your testimonies are my meditation.

    It’s nice to do a meditation based on a text about meditation!

    The advantage and disadvantage of a meditation, as opposed to exegesis of a passage is that your meditation can lead you in a direction other than what the writer was intending. I did that today. I meditated about teaching.

    The first question that crossed my mind was how could I, as a teacher, keep my students from deciding they are wiser than I am since they meditate on God’s testimonies. An immediate answer came to mind. If I, as a teacher, am meditating on God’s testimonies, doesn’t that keep me ahead?

    It wasn’t long, however, before I was asking myself whether I should be concerned if my students were, or become, wiser than I am. And there’s an immediate answer to that. If I’m worried about my students getting ahead of me in any way, I have the wrong attitude. I should be delighted if any student of mine is wiser than I am or learns more about the subjects I teach than I know.

    Some years ago my nephew introduced me to someone as “the person who taught him how to program.” That’s true in only a most minor sense. I helped him with a few things when he was just starting out. He’s now a senior software engineer at Google and knows things in depth that I have no understanding of at all. And I’m very, very proud of him.

    The possibility of seeding some small thing into the life of a student and then seeing that student reach heights the teacher has not imagined is, I believe, as great a joy as any teacher can have.

    Now there are those, especially in religion and theology, who think the task of a teacher is to make sure the student stays on the straight and narrow way. The student must learn to believe the same things and teach the same things as the teacher, or the teacher has failed. If that is the goal, then the Psalm 119:99 student would mark failure, and the teacher would forever have to deny the insights of the student.

    I was to teach at a conference on prayer many years ago. I expected to have an hour, and I had a good hour’s worth of notes. Those who know me will realize that I only use notes to keep myself on the program. If I don’t use notes, I can easily fill an hour, and then the next, and so forth. Notes are, for me, a necessary discipline, telling me when to shut up!

    In this case, previous speakers kept pushing things later and later, and I realized that unless I wanted to keep people from their lunch, which the conference leader would doubtless not allow, I’d have less time. I kept hearing the nudge of the Holy Spirit: “Let me do the teaching.” So I chopped my notes down to size, and given a half hour, I took 20 minutes. Again, those who know me, will realize the miraculous nature of this self-restraint!

    Following that session I was approached by one pastor. I won’t go into the details, but that contact became one of the most encouraging and helpful contacts of my life. I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t have happened if I had been my normal wordy self. And I would definitely say that pastor, my student for 20 minutes, has more understanding than at least this teacher.

    Who can you encourage today to go beyond your example, your teaching, or even your imagination?

    (Featured image credit: Jovanmandic, licensed via iStockPhoto.com)

  • Psalm 119:33 – You Teach Me

    Psalm 119:33 – You Teach Me

    Teach me, LORD, the path of your statutes,
    and I will keep them to the end.

    Once when I was scheduled to teach on prayer at a conference, I had prepared an hour long talk, but as the time approached, I kept hearing in my head, “Let the Holy Spirit do the teaching.” In my mental outline, pieces of my planned talk fell away. It got slimmer and slimmer. (Those who have heard me speak will doubtless regard that as a good result!)

    In the end, everyone else that day (I was last) went overtime, so I was asked to try to keep it to a half hour. I actually spoke for just 20 minutes and went to a short time of prayer. Several of my best encounters with others on the topic happened after that short teaching, and I learned from many of those people.

    I’m not saying that teaching is a bad thing and we should just tell people to listen to the Holy Spirit. But we should tell people to listen to the Holy Spirit. Biblical scholars, teachers, preachers, and people with years of experience in church get in the habit of telling everyone what to do. We often forget to tell people how we came to our conclusions so they can recheck our sources. We fail to encourage them to go to the source.

    I’d like to make a commitment to suggest the teaching from this verse more often and suggest to people that they ask the Lord to teach them, because in the end, learning from the source is the only thing that will make it all the way to the end.

    Teachers are important, but like all of scripture, we need to point people to the source.

    Who is your ultimate teacher? If you teach, do you point people to the source?

  • Christian Education Should Be Broad and Deep

    Christian Education Should Be Broad and Deep

    Christian education programs in churches are often the least well-thought-out elements of church life.

    Many may think I’m exaggerating or being unfair. I didn’t get this from a survey, so I can’t point you to statistics, but I am drawing on many years of experience with Sunday School and other programs, so while these are observations, and may be somewhat based on anecdotes, those anecdotes are numerous, and they are first hand.

    Here are some of the things I have noticed:

    1. Use of repetitive curriculum.
    2. A lack of goals.
    3. Willingness to interrupt Christian education programs for almost any other activity.
    4. Lack of teacher training.
    5. Lack of discipleship in action in & for church leadership.
    6. Failure to highlight and open up ministry opportunities for every member.
    7. Narrowness.

    Let me expand on each of these just a bit.

    Use of Repetitive Curriculum

    I have been in Sunday School classes that were using standard denominational and/or interdenominational curriculum materials for decades. Often, seen independently, these materials were not bad. The problem was that they did not nurture growth as they continued to discuss the same topics at the same level.

    I have seen comparisons of time in Sunday School (and even more in my Seventh-day Adventist days, Sabbath School) vs college or seminary classes. The idea was that the members should be happy that they were getting such a wonderful education.

    But if a student spend 30 years studying the same set of subjects at precisely the same level in a college, that would be considered time wasted. I don’t mean that we don’t need to review basic doctrines and theological ideas.

    We also need to grow.

    A Lack of Goals

    This is another way to look at the first point. What is the goal of your class or small group? Do you hope to grow? Do you hope to be a better witness? Do you hope to learn anything new?

    Or is your Christian education program, whatever form it takes, designed to make you feel good that you have attended Sunday School all your life, or that you are frequently at church like a good person?

    These goals need not be academic. It is good to learn more about doctrines, but what about learning how a church functions? Or even better how is should function as a part of the body of Christ? What about learning how to express your faith “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV)?

    I have yet to attend a church that wasn’t scrambling for leadership in various programs. Here’s the question: Were you preparing church members to lead? Were you recognizing potential leaders and tailoring your educational activity, whether one-on-one, small group, or the whole congregation to help them develop and use their potential?

    Willingness to Interrupt

    This is a pet peeve of mine, and I’ve encountered it in every church I have ever attended. I don’t recall Sunday School classes being interrupted for things that were useless. This is not about denigrating the interrupting activities.

    But, and it’s a big one, I’ve seen small group activities, including Sunday School, most easily put aside for any other activity of the church. It’s possible that leaders recognize that their Christian education programs have no goals and are just marking time, so they can be put aside without harming the day-to-day life of the church.

    That should be a very big red flag! If you can easily put aside your Christian education programs, they are probably not set up to actually serve our Lord and His body.

    Lack of Teacher Training

    I have observed this in two ways. First, we tend not to have any idea of how we would prepare someone to be a teacher in the church. Second, we tend to throw anyone into the mix at just about any time.

    A third observation would be that we often don’t recognize capabilities that members bring into the church. A public school teacher may well be prepared to contribute to your children’s or youth programs. (On the other hand, they may prefer not to do what they do during the week, and may have other talents.)

    We can err by falling into the ditch on either side. We can create a set of requirements that are a barrier to entry for new members. On the other hand, we can entrust the education of the congregation to the unprepared.

    I recall early in my experience with the United Methodist Church the pastor invited me to preach. He knew I have an MA in religion and read the Bible in their original languages. He had talked to me quite extensively and was satisfied with my doctrinal integrity. A member involved in the United Methodist lay speaking program objected strenuously to me being allowed to speak when I had not completed the certification program.

    I had no objection to taking that program and thought it would be very useful in becoming acclimatized in Methodism. I was disappointed. As a program it was a program. One checked boxes. I still found it valuable for the people I met and a number of teachers who were gifted and helpful. But to this one leader, it was a box that needed to be checked.

    Lack of Discipleship in Action in & for Church Leadership

    Truly learning to do requires doing. This is true in your daily life and work. It’s true in the church.

    Everyone who is in leadership should have one or more people they are training and/or mentoring in their own skills and gifts. I see church after church losing long-time leaders, and lacking trained replacements.

    Note that mentoring is not just letting someone follow you around, or talking to that person occasionally. It is allowing someone to learn the job and potentially–indeed hopefully–become better than you are at that particular activity.

    The church should never have a shallow bench.

    And if you think that’s hard, read the gospel again. Watch Jesus work with his students: Disciples.

    Failure to Highlight and Open Up Ministry Opportunities to Every Member

    There are people who see things that need to be done and have the initiative to jump in and just take over. There are other people who are willing to serve, but need someone to point out what is needed.

    The first class of people tend to think the second class are lazy and wonder why they don’t just find something to do and get active already!

    People won’t always recognize ways in which they can serve. Indeed, if they are isolated from the small group which is active in leadership, they may never have the opportunity to know. They many not even know who to ask.

    I’ve heard by an 80-20 and a 90-10 rule, the latter being the pessimist’s view. Twenty percent of the people do 80% of the work. This is presented as a form of condemnation of the 80%. They’re just pew sitters.

    But if you are part of the 20%, and I’m pointing fingers at myself here, you are also part of the problem. You are letting this happen! You should not be participating in denying that 80% their blessing of service.

    Hard?

    Jesus. Disciples. Boom!

    Narrowness

    Here’s where I annoy the most people.

    Our Christian education needs to prepare people to be the salt of the earth. Salt needs taste, or “savor” as the KJV has it in the beatitudes. Salt has identity (its saltiness) and witness (what it does when spread out in food, etc).

    We need identity and witness.

    An educational program that just prepares people to repeat your church’s doctrinal views accurately is not adequate. Neither is one that prepares people to be evangelists of your church building, property, form of organization, or human traditions.

    People need to know stuff. Lots of stuff. Stuff about all the stuff.

    Some people were worried when I invited a Calvinist to address our Wesleyan/Methodist young people. I’d be worried if I tried to bring them up on just what I believe but not to understand how other Christians understand various beliefs.

    Oh, about that Calvinist teacher? He preached Christ and Him crucified. I was glad I invited him.

    Summary: Discipleship

    The critical element here is discipleship. “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1 my translation). It can be frightening, especially if you’re honest with yourself about your success at imitating Christ.

    It’s still God’s ordained idea.

    And that answers all of the points. Set our standards high: He did. Be willing to do the hard work: He did. Make the building of disciples our priority: He did.

    That’s church.

  • Using Greek from the Pulpit

    Using Greek from the Pulpit

    David Alan Black, Greek professor and author of a number of books on languages, suggests you don’t use Greek from the pulpit.

    Speak emancipating truth in a way that all can understand, and we will thank you for it. 

    Dave Black Online

    I agree, and add the fact that in most cases when I’ve heard Greek referenced from the pulpit it is referenced incorrectly. Use your Greek or Hebrew to enhance your own study, but bring it to the people in their language.

    I confess that I usually do use a Greek word (one, unless it’s in a language context), because people expect it of someone whose degrees are in biblical languages and not in theology. But I introduce it with a caveat, and tell people why I’m doing it.

    Then again, I’m usually teaching small groups and only rarely preaching.

  • Notes on Terms and Language Teaching

    Notes on Terms and Language Teaching

    Dave Black comments some on linguistics and teaching biblical languages in a post today. (Check out the linguistics conference coming up!)

    The difficulty is the difference between teaching someone a language in a classroom and in discussing and describing that language in some detail as a linguist would want to do. Both the framework and the deeper understanding are good and proper goals, though there is often a conflict between the two. When do you teach what?

    Dave covers a good selection of points from the debate over verbal aspect. There are problems with words like “punctiliar” or even “progressive” in terms of verbs. There are also problems in mapping the tense system (and the word “tense” itself) when teaching. But these issues are part of the problem of linguistics generally.

    Consider a label like “tree.” What do I mean by the word tree? Is the plant growing in my yard that is three feet tall a tree, a weed, a plant, or perhaps a bush? It might, under the right circumstances be called any one of those things. A simple, singular label is necessary to communication, but at the same time, a singular, simple label is also a cause of problems. For example, if I say to my wife, “We need to throw that tree out,” I may mean that a potted plant has grown very large, and I’m using tree hyperbolically to refer to it while demanding its exit forthwith. On the other hand, I could be referring to a shoe tree that’s worn out and should be discarded.

    This is why the line, “it’s just semantics” is so often lazy. When someone is playing rule book lawyer with the language, it’s quite appropriate to point out that one is expecting more of language than one is likely to get from it. We get along with ambiguity all the time. The problem comes in when we decide to be picky, or when we accidentally manage to use just the wrong word at the wrong time, meaning one that is almost right, but that can lead one off into a completely different semantic range than intended. But semantics is precisely what “it” is, and what it always is. It is about meaning. What did you expect? So it’s semantics. The word “just” is a bit oddly used. Bad semantics!

    What I try to do is very quickly introduce students to the idea that labels are shorthand. When I use the term “punctiliar,” I point out that this is a shorthand label. Why don’t I change the word then? Because my new shorthand label will also pick up unnecessary connotations, and then I’ll have to explain how it applies. Further, the student is doubtless going to see the word “punctiliar” in commentaries (as Dave points out), and he or she needs to know its intention, and even how to understand the potential fallacy. Commentaries are quite capable of containing incorrect linguistic information.

    It’s easier for me, because I teach by ones and twos, not by large classes of seminarians forced to do their required courses. I had that experience as a graduate student when I tried to tutor marginal or failing Greek students. They wanted me to get them past the test. I wanted to help them understand. Conflict! But those students I have taught since have come to me because they want to learn and understand, so I take the time.

    My conclusion is that no matter how you label it, you’re going to have to make sure students understand how these labels we call “words” work. Even if you take a living language approach, and try to get the students to understand the language as naturally as possible, you’re still going to have to help them understand linguistics if they’re going to translate those words and ideas into their own language for the benefit of those who haven’t learned a foreign language. I’d almost, almost, prefer to teach a student linguistics over teaching that student Greek or Hebrew. If I had to choose, that is. Which I don’t.

    (Featured Image Credit: Adobe Stock #126360408. Not Public Domain)

  • Is It Greek Pedagogy, Learning Skills, or Something Else

    Is It Greek Pedagogy, Learning Skills, or Something Else

    These discussions seem to come up all the time about learning Greek, but the discussion also applies to Hebrew. How one can imagine it’s critically important to learn Greek if one is to preach or teach, but not so much to learn Hebrew, I don’t know. But the degree requirements of various colleges and seminaries reflect just such an attitude.

    That said, I want to make some comments about learning and teaching, but more importantly about goals. Thomas Hudgins has written a good deal about this in a recent post, and he posted some material from Dave Black, which provides me a good link for that as well. Both make some excellent comments on pedagogy and what those of us who teach need from the students.

    On the use of the word “we,” I want to note that my role as teacher is vastly different from Dave’s or Thomas’s. I tutored Greek as a student in graduate school, helping Master of Divinity students get ready for tests. And that was indeed what it was: Getting them ready for the test. None had patience for letting me help them comprehend the subject better. They wanted to make sure they had memorized enough answers to get by on the test. Since then I have occasionally offered classes in the local church or tutored individuals who were trying to learn. The key element here is that people came to these classes because they had a goal, and they pursued the goal.

    And this is why I think we need to look at two other things. I used “learning skills” in the title, but what I really mean is the art and practice of being a student. There’s probably a perfectly good word for it, but short of suggesting you be a good talmid, I can’t bring it to mind. But beyond learning skills there’s motivation, and behind motivation there’s purpose, or perhaps mission.

    That leads me back to graduate school and my graduate advisor, Dr. Leona Glidden Running. I was truly blessed to have Dr. Running as a teacher and advisor. I learned enormous amounts from her in classes in Syriac (which I audited), Akkadian, and Middle Egyptian. From the list of languages you can see that I had the motivation for learning languages. Thus I learned from good teachers and some whose pedagogy may have lacked a bit.

    It was also Dr. Running who got me into tutoring and sent her students to me for help in both Greek and Hebrew. The problem with tutoring points me to what I think is a problem in ministerial education: Students going through language courses in order to check a box. We’re often fairly good at ditching traditions in Protestantism. Just look at the reformation! But folks, that was 500 years ago. What traditions have you ditched lately?

    What I encountered were students who were studying Greek because it was required for the degree, some of whom had been told by ministerial advisers, mentors, and church leaders that the only reason they should learn Greek was to get their degree, and most of whom would serve churches that didn’t care what biblical languages they might have learned. Is it any wonder that they just wanted me to help them through the test? I can’t count the number of times I was called within hours of the test, or late on a Friday afternoon or even working into Saturday with desperate pleas for that help. At this time I was a Seventh-day Adventist and I took my Sabbath seriously. (I’ve recently commented that it’s one thing from my SDA background that I really miss.) But these ministerial students who were supposed to be preparing to shepherd people in that tradition, were quite ready to ditch their Sabbath rest to get past the test.

    I know from reading what others have said that while the details may differ, the attitude is quite similar. Some seminaries have given up on the languages as a requirement. Often those seminaries are ones that have reduced the entire biblical studies requirement to a minimum. So study of biblical languages goes the way of Bible study, and it all happens without that much planning.

    So speaking as someone who thinks biblical knowledge is critical, let me suggest that we need to reexamine this entire process. What is a Master of Divinity degree for? What are our goals? Within that, what are the goals for knowledge of the Bible? Of biblical languages? Once we know what we need—and want—then we need to ask how we get it. Forcing students to take one or two (or whatever number) of semesters of Greek and/or Hebrew doesn’t accomplish anyone’s ultimate goal, at least anyone I know of. Nobody actually hopes that the student will pay tuition, check off a box, and leave with no knowledge that he or she will use (except possibly the university finance department).

    I don’t know about other biblical languages classes, but my teachers taught with the goal of having us learn to read the language. They knew they were only going to accomplish that in a few cases, but they still worked toward that goal. If the assumption of everyone else is that the student will not, in fact, learn the language, then we need to do something about that. That isn’t something that a Greek teacher can fix. He or she can try to motivate more students, to provide as much useful information as possible, but that all constitutes making the best of a bad situation.

    Amongst the possibilities that should be considered are requirements for additional classes in history, cultures, people (sociology/psychology), linguistics, or other topics that helps a person understand a written text. Perhaps, in addition, one might include classes specifically in taking complex ideas and expressing them clearly and simply (to whatever extent possible). Then we can aim the biblical languages classes at people who do actually want to learn to use the material.

    I have to put in my ritual dig at the whole educational system. I think that in the 21st century world the degree system is getting more and more out of date. Something more like the badges system that the Mozilla Foundation is sponsoring may be at least an early pointer toward a replacement. But that moves beyond this post …

    In summary, in languages as in anything else, we need to keep our focus on the mission. That starts with knowing what the mission is.

    And we don’t.

  • Of United Methodists and Beth Moore

    From time to time various Methodists get very worked up about the idea that members of United Methodist congregations are using Beth Moore studies in their study groups and Sunday School classes. Via Facebook I encountered an older post regarding Methodists and Beth Moore. That article is actually quite restrained and gentle by comparison to some of the discussion I’ve heard. The author makes some good points, but I think, perhaps, not enough good points.

    My first thought is that if you are a United Methodist pastor or church leader and your worst problem is that your members are spending too much time listening to Beth Moore, you should spend some serious time thanking the Lord for your blessings.

    It’s not that I agree with everything Beth Moore says. In fact, I likely disagree with a good percentage. I really haven’t bothered to make a list. She’s probably more literal than I am, and we doubtless disagree on matters of biblical criticism. Besides, I don’t particularly like watching videos in a study group or class. I’d rather get together to actually study or listen to someone who is present. So my point is not to be an apologist or a critic — of Beth Moore, that is.

    What I’m wondering is why so many people in the church, and particularly the United Methodist Church (since I’m a member), think they can or should control what people hear.

    Oh, I know the arguments. We have a responsibility to teach good theology. We have a duty to teach sound biblical knowledge. We are Methodists (or whatever), after all, and that should mean something!

    Should it really? I find denominations useful, sort of. They could be a great means of getting us to work together for missions that are bigger than local church congregations. Ideally, they can provide some sort of accountability. I happen to like the United Methodist doctrinal distinctives, which is why I joined a Methodist congregation.

    Trouble is, I found out rather quickly that very few Methodists were aware of their doctrinal positions, if it’s proper to call these positions “theirs” if they don’t know what they are. Before I joined my first United Methodist congregation I asked for something that would tell me what Methodists believed, officially and clearly. The pastor gave me a copy of the United Methodist Discipline, clearly with serious misgivings. I loved it. Well, the first 100 pages or so. The rest is well nigh useless, and I’m convinced that most gospel work done by Methodists results from someone ignoring the rules.

    After reading that first part of the Discipline, I decided I could get on board with this new church, and so I joined. Then I discovered that Methodists weren’t really acquainted with their own history. The orientation to the church, in which one speaker explained that John Wesley had been influenced by Karl Marx (perhaps with the intervention of Dr. Who, though he made no mention of it), was biblically, doctrinally, and historically ignorant.

    The pastor invited me to teach a series on Sunday nights about the doctrine of Christian Perfection. I was interested to note that there are two full statements of this doctrine in the Discipline, and chose to start from that point. As I flashed up my overhead transparencies, I was disappointed to discover that nobody was interested in the fact that there were two statements (really a bit more complicated than that), because they hadn’t been aware that there was even one. I found that growing up Seventh-day Adventist, I had learned more about John Wesley and Wesleyan theology than I would find around the Methodist church.

    This was not a matter of personal pride. I had these things drilled into me as a child. I really couldn’t have avoided knowing them if I wanted to. Further, I’d be unlikely to complain about the problem, except for a related tendency I found as time went on.

    That related tendency was the idea that we needed to make sure to teach Methodists only Methodist doctrine, thus protecting them from all that other stuff that was flooding the world. If we could just keep them listening to only Methodist teachers, everything would be OK. Unfortunately, I suspect that most crazy ideas have a Methodist champion somewhere.

    Now there are a number of non-Methodist doctrines I would love to protect Methodists from. I wouldn’t mind protecting everyone else as well. The whole Left Behind series and related “prophecy” material would be a start. I don’t like it and I don’t even like to have to take the time to respond to it. It’s that bad. In my opinion, of course.

    But people are going to hear that point of view of the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic literature, and I’m going to have to respond. And despite any tendency to wish it would go away, I know I’m wrong to do so. The right response is to do better teaching on other views. If we get people studying for themselves and help them to learn to study well, they will find the flaws in these various trends on their own.

    Or they might come up with the arguments that would make me realize I’ve been wrong. Regarding the whole futurist/dispensational view of prophecy, I doubt they will, but they could. The point is that they should have the opportunity to do so.

    What’s more, with modern media and the internet, it’s ridiculous to think that you will protect your congregation from hearing things you’d rather they not hear. Telling people they can’t study certain things or hear certain speakers is likely to have the opposite effect.

    And then there’s the question of whether you really have anything better to teach at all. I’ve heard this type of complaint from people who couldn’t construct a sound biblical argument in a room full of commentaries (even if they ignored the commentaries!). They simply wouldn’t know. But they can tell whether a teacher’s denominational credentials are in order.

    I recall one church that had a young adult class that was growing and getting popular. There were young adults who didn’t even attend church who were coming to the class and enjoying the discussions. The church leadership, clearly dismayed at the success of this class, decided they needed to bring it under control. They were reading and discussing unapproved books. So they found a teacher who would follow the party line, and thus managed to reduce the membership of the class to zero in a mere four weeks.

    Another Methodist church wanted Methodist materials, but in their absence was prepared to gut some Southern Baptist materials, removing reference to such dangerous doctrines as salvation, so people would, at least, not hear the gospel message from a Baptist perspective, even if no Methodist perspective was to be offered instead.

    I’ve mentioned growing up in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In the church I encountered censorship rather regularly. In order to keep apart from the world it was important to read SDA materials and to stick with the SDA agenda. I was watched when teaching to make sure I wasn’t leading people astray. I kind of expected that kind of censorship due to the nature of the denomination. Since other churches were leading people straight to the Mark of the Beast, we obviously shouldn’t be listening to anything they said, lest we too go whoring after the beast and his image.

    I’ve heard both liberals and conservatives claim that all censorship is done by the other camp, but my observation is that both have a tendency to decide that they’re correct. That’s actually not a bad thing. Surely if one thinks one is wrong one will change one’s view. The problem is that certain people decide that they have to impose their rightness on others. Not persuade, impose. And that’s going to fail.

    So my suggestion to a pastor who hears that a group in his church is using Beth Moore studies is to first rejoice that they care enough to study. Then if you object to some of the content you should first make sure you know what it is and what is being taught, and then teach what you believe is right. Do it vigorously, make it relevant, and show your love of scripture as you do so. One thing that came out clearly in the post I linked and in the comments is that people appreciate Beth Moore’s love of scripture. I know from experience that if you are teaching from your heart and you have paid the price in study and prayer time, people are going to listen when you teach.

    Do you, as a pastor, exhibit that same love? Can your congregation tell that you’re seriously studying, doing your best to understand, and sharing what you have learned? Do they detect that you have spent time on your knees when your preach or teach? Or is your only real response to point them to a list of Methodist (or other denominational) doctrines?

    There is a group in the Methodist church, as there was in the Adventist church in my youth (and friends tell me still is), and I suspect in every church, who consider “but it’s not Methodist!” a good argument. But there are less and less of these people. You need a better argument.

    I believe that there are plenty of people in the United Methodist Church (I wonder why I keep typing “untied” for “united” and having to correct myself) who love scripture and love to learn more. There are plenty more who are hungry to hear and want to learn how to study. You’re not going to draw them away from one source without providing another.

    But even more importantly, if they hear the scriptures taught in different ways, from different perspectives, by people who truly love to study God’s word, they’re going to be enriched by it. Even if they come to the conclusion that some of it is wrong.

    Especially if they come to the conclusion that some of it is wrong.