Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Campbell on May 1, 2009 at 8:42am

I wasn't a science major, but I'm somewhat familiar with what you biology, chemistry, physics types would do in college. You had a lecture portion...and then you had your 'lab' time. The lectures, i'm sure, were great for disseminating (sp?) information...but if you never had the chance (or never SEIZED the chance) to put those concepts to work in a lab, then those concepts were wasted.

Bible Class is a great place to discuss the text, visit about new ways to reach out to others, etc. But unless we have 'lab' time, those concepts and teachings are never fully utilized. As a Christian Father, it's MY responsibility to ensure my boys have 'lab' time. And it's my responsibility as a Christian to SEIZE every 'lab' opportunity to put my faith in action.

In college, if you never complete the lab, you fail the course.

To quote Forrest Gump, "...and that's all I have to say about that."

Permalink Reply by Bret Wells on May 1, 2009 at 11:30am

James,

I was confronted with this same realization when I was at Tammany Oaks. I think we continue to use the Bible Class approach because we value Biblical literacy and to stop having Bible classes would seem to suggest we're changing or losing that value.

I think that the classes don't change behavior because the educational approach is by nature head driven. I'm not opposed to education - in fact I'm struggling with how to incorporate more teaching components in our church plant setting. But, just as we who went to seminary realize how limited the academy can be at preparing people for the outside life of ministry, so too must we acknowledge that the Sunday School model has similar strengths and weaknesses.

To suggest we go to another model seems to some like blasphemy...even though we owe the current model not to Scripture but to Robert Raikes in the 18th century.

What if instead of only sitting together in a class setting and discussing we mobilized groups of people to practice certain spiritual disciplines together, engage in mission work in their neighborhoods, serve the poor or fight injustice?

Perhaps the time could alternate: a season of "in the field" practice one week or for several weeks followed by coming back together to process for a season.

Just a thought. I don't really know what the answer is, particularly in established churches where the culture is so firmly set.

Permalink Reply by James Nored on May 2, 2009 at 11:49am

Chris, you make an excellent point. Where are our "labs" for the Christian faith? We have almost nothing in our weekly church calendar for this, but we make sure that we schedule 2-3 "class times" each week. We perhaps assume that people do this on their own. This is undoubtedly due in part to the influence of individualism in our culture. But the jury is in: what we are doing is not working. So what needs to change?

Permalink Reply by James Nored on May 2, 2009 at 11:55am

Bret, thanks for sharing. You are correct that we have prided ourselves on our knowledge of the Bible. In many ways, our going back to Scripture is one of the main strengths of our heritage. (It should be don't, however, that most Protestant groups view themselves in the same way, and the early Restoration leaders saw themselves as continuing the Reformation call to "go back to the Bible.")

I like your alternating weeks of Scripture and application. Another possibility - combine the two. For instance, when serving the poor, read from Luke 4, where Jesus says the spirit of the Lord is upon him to preach to the poor. Before going into Starbucks on mission, read about prayer and pray these prayers. When visiting someone in the hospital or jail, read from Mt. 25, meditate on it, and then enter into the room of the sick person or inmate.

What would happen if all of our learning were tied directly to action and only taught what we were implimenting?

Permalink Reply by Bret Wells on May 2, 2009 at 11:14pm

I can tell you a couple things that we have seen happening in our early attempts to function in this fashion.

1) It has an extremely powerful impact on those who participate - we begin to see growth and excitement beyond what we would have imagined. People commit and dive in, proclaiming that this is precisely what they've been waiting for.

2) Many of those same people (particularly those who come from a church background) soon begin longing for Egypt. Part of the point of my "Community is Hard" post was that in living this way we engage in what we wanted but we begin to long for what was comfortable and secure - even if we know that it wasn't accomplishing its purpose (or wasn't accomplishing it at the level we believe it should).

That's what makes this so difficult. When things begin to get less predictable (as they invariably do when we engage others), even people who are tired and groaning in their slavery find themselves longing for the life they were accustomed. In the movie Shawshank Redemption they refer to this phenomenon as becoming "institutionalized." How appropriate.

(by the way, I wrote a post (The Unseen Destruction) about this effect in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.)

James Nored said:

Bret, thanks for sharing. You are correct that we have prided ourselves on our knowledge of the Bible. In many ways, our going back to Scripture is one of the main strengths of our heritage. (It should be don't, however, that most Protestant groups view themselves in the same way, and the early Restoration leaders saw themselves as continuing the Reformation call to "go back to the Bible.")
I like your alternating weeks of Scripture and application. Another possibility - combine the two. For instance, when serving the poor, read from Luke 4, where Jesus says the spirit of the Lord is upon him to preach to the poor. Before going into Starbucks on mission, read about prayer and pray these prayers. When visiting someone in the hospital or jail, read from Mt. 25, meditate on it, and then enter into the room of the sick person or inmate. What would happen if all of our learning were tied directly to action and only taught what we were implimenting?