Post 2 in the series of Teaching methodology in the church.
Obviously learning a language is different for Christian living and teaching from the bible and yet I still believe that there are many things we can take out of these ideas. Let me give you an example of our conversation club a couple of days ago. The conversation club was going well and people were discussing the topic with one person in effect reporting to the central speaker who usually then commented on what they had said and then relayed this back to the group for further thoughts. However near the end we broke the groups down into about 4’s [making sure there was a native English speaker and a woman in each group (we were discussing dating)] all of a sudden things picked up. Everybody suddenly started talking and I learnt more about my four peoples views in that 10 minutes then I did in the pervious 1hr or so.
If we had time then we could have relayed these views and ideas back to the central group and found out even more about a common group thought about what makes a good first date.
When teaching a language if students actually speak and practice speaking [even if they fail in using the target language] then you can claim some success in the lesson. This is a point where things differ with teaching in the church. If someone merely talks about whatever they want then it’s not exactly successful teaching [though that is not to say that of topic discussions area failure]. If I came to a meeting and all I talked about a computer game in my small group discussions then I won’t learn anything [or contribute anything]. However if I come and discuss some person problem which isn’t connected at all then this can still teach people about God and can help me learn about God too.
With every person being able to contribute then we can use the knowledge everyone has [from personal experience/study/other] to teach everyone. Rather than have one person go away and teach everyone else [including the teacher]. With the current model then the preacher will know exactly what will be said and although they may have learnt some things from their own private study IF they has the opportunity to hear about a persons experience it may affect them and drill the lesson home further.
Likewise members of the congregation maybe able to accurately predict everything that will be said during the sermon [having heard it for the x number already] and yet when everyone contributes to the learning then it can produce a rapidly different result.
Where people can actually contribute as well as listen to the teaching then they will of course pay more attention [perhaps in the hope of catching the preacher out or some other noble reason] and as such listen to more of the sermon, even if it is to criticise it.
Having many people sharing experience actually increases the opportunity for the spirit to take a discussion in a completely different direction. Admittedly the spirit does guide those people who prepare sermons [though we sometimes choose to ignore him or don’t even consult him] But when it is more open then it means that we are instantly providing an opportunity for interference mid-flow. It is by no means guaranteed and pointless side tracks can be exactly that. However one of the most powerful moments I have had at church came when I was in a group and we started to share moments of intense suffering we had/were going though. It was amazing as we could minister to people when we normally wouldn’t have the chance to if it were simply set piece sermon with a call to visit the prayer ministry team at the end.
One of the key elements of providing the opportunity for students to speak is that it identifies areas where they don’t know the words/grammar. This is obviously also true within Christian teaching. During discussions with friends it is quite possible to realise that you don’t know something and then want to work out what the answer is. If we provide this space amongst a larger group where there are people who have a much greater knowledge then it can help teach other Christians even more. In addition when a student explains a concept [in EFL classes] they often can explain it better or increase their knowledge of the point or have it corrected by the teacher. All of which can be true in a church context too.
When people know that they aren’t just turning up to listen but to actually speak and have their opinions considered it can certainly lead to an increase in desire to study the passage beforehand. During my time at the well [when we were going through a series] I read the passage for the following week than I had previously in my entire lifetime. This is not to say I was perfect and I still definitely forgot/couldn’t be bothered on occasions but there was still a big increase.
People learn through very different methods, some do take information soley by listening to it without any additional prompts but many need different sources and methods. Luckily most churches now also use some images/words on a hand out with at least provides some visual prompt as well but this doesn’t go far enough. Some people need to actually repeat what they have heard so they can remember it. For a teacher this can be very annoying but it can be the most effective method for an individual to learn by. All these possibilities need to be allowed for and allowing for people to speak is a very small way of doing this. [more shall be covered later.]
When we talk to people about ideas and try and communicate through a language we naturally get to know them. Whilst this may not be a required outcome in a language school setting it certainly is within a church. Fellowship isn’t an option in Christianity, it’s a requirement. We have been called into a family and unfortunately that means we have to get to know people we don’t want to and be annoyed by each other. Fortunately we have the spirit and this can help us overcome such petty things as finding people annoying and come to love and value the person for who they are.
Many people will wonder why this shouldn’t just be for small groups and we can use the main church service for preaching. There certainly is an argument for this and I hope that preachers do keep writing sermons for big groups following this classical model, I find them very interesting and very useful in my own growth. However, why should a highly ineffective method remain the main method that is used to speak to most people? Surely if there is a more effective method we should use that as our PRIMARY means to teach people otherwise it is like saying that schools should continue to use bad methodology [because it’s always been that way] and private school can use the more effective stuff. This is especially true due to the fact that many church goes aren’t part of any small groups and so don’t gain the benefits of the other members.
The Next in the series shall come next Monday at hopefully a more reasonable hour.
