Drew Boswell

a place for us to share ideas, talk about life, and learn together.

  • Home
  • Connect
    • Meet Drew
    • Drew’s Resume
    • Articles
    • Doctrine
    • Philosophy of Ministry
  • Drew’s Blog
  • Contact Drew

Steps of Grace; Genesis 1

Creation and My Mother

UnknownAs I sit in the waiting room while my mother is having surgery on her foot, I was reading through Genesis 1 in the Bible. As I read through the passage the following questions came to mind, “Why did God not just create everything in a single moment? Why spread it out over six days? Why not create the entire universe or ‘creation’ in a single instance?”

Genesis 1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. . . And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. . . . 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.3 And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. . . “ and so on and so forth for all six days of creation.

It could have been to show the importance of how the sky or heavens are above the earth, and therefore attach some kind of theological significance; or, to show the separation of light over darkness, etc.… But couldn’t we just discern these things from the completed creation? I think so.

I believe that God broke creation down into steps or days to show a process. He desires to move from one thing to another, from one moment to another moment. Time had never existed before creation, so His ability to show process is significant. He gives order and how elements work together in creation – but in time these elements change how they work together. In eternity there is the eternal present, and any reference to time is insignificant.

Creation Teaches Us About Relationships:

1)   Creation teaches us that every aspect of creation is important and significant. It is given its own day, or part of a day in the creation account. Each day therefore is important. Each aspect of creation is highlighted.  Man was created with a need for a woman. Creation was created with a need for something to have dominion over it. We are linked together, and each part is important.

2)   There is the development of marriage and relationships, which develop, grown, deepen, and change over time. Having been married for over fifteen years, I love my wife differently than how I loved her the day we were wed. My relationship with my mother has changed as well. She is still my mother, but how we relate to each other has changed over time. She was once my caretaker and provider, now she has moved to friend and dearly loved person that I find myself helping to care for.  Not only can you know a person (which is a great blessing), but at different stages of the relationship you experience life differently with them. We can only speculate as to what a perfect marriage would have been like, and how their love for each other would have grown deeper over time apart from sin. Or as parents and children would have grown to love each other in a perfect Eden.

3)   God would come in the cool of the day and speak with Adam and Eve. This shows that God intended for mankind (His children) to have an ever-changing relationship with Him as well. The time they would spend together would help them to love Him more, and to understand Him at a deeper level.  He has designed us to take in information over time, in segments, instead of some kind of instant download as in a Matrix movie.  In many ways the work we are to do in this life is the work of deepening relationships with others and our God.

4)   God, in this time with mankind in the cool of the day, would show them their purpose, responsibilities, and how to work for/serve God in such a way that brings Him glory. As a minister, parent, husband, friend, son, etc. I have grown in my knowledge of how to bring glory to God with my life. I am not as faithful to that knowledge as I would like to be, but it is true that God teaches you how to live for Him over time. There are even specific things that we need to learn at different stages of life.  Stages and processes allows mankind to learn, grow in depth of love for others and God, and to experience life differently.

5)   Lastly, I believe that God’s grace is shown to us in the creation account. There were seven days where everything was perfect, but it would not be very long before sin entered into the world. But the days don’t stop, the sun doesn’t stop shining, and the fish still swim in the sea. Life continues onward. Every day you get to start over. Every season you can plant again (even if the previous year was a disaster). Every year brings new opportunities to learn how to live life differently.

I am thankful for my mother, her provision, her friendship, and continuing love. I am also thankful for God’s Word and how it allows us to see life through His perspective. I am thankful for another season of life to know new people, and to experience the older ones at a different level.

 

 

 

Who Owns Your House? Luke 20:9-18

Luke 20:9-18 tells the parable Jesus gave of the owner of a vineyard who went away and how the tenants desired to wrongly own the vineyard themselves. In order to maintain control of the vineyard they abuse messengers sent by and even kill the owners son. As with all parables, we must be careful not to push details of the story too far, but the main idea is that the owner of the vineyard has the rightful claim of the vineyard and that the tenants are wrong in their desiring to own the property. The parable points back to the Old Testament and how God’s prophets were sent to the Israelites and the world and their ultimate rejection of these prophets. It also points to Jesus’ ultimate (as the Son) death at the hands of the religious leaders and sinful mankind.

Luke 20:9-18 “9 And he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants and went into another country for a long while. 10 When the time came, he sent a servant2 to the tenants, so that they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 And he sent another servant. But they also beat and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 And he sent yet a third. This one also they wounded and cast out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!” 17 But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”’

But there is a common question that I have encountered in ministry that this passage helps us to understand. In conversations with non-believers and discussions of the Bible I have heard something like “if God is so loving why would he tell the Israelites to kill everyone on the land they were conquering?”

The root of the answer is “who has rightful claim to the land?” God created the world, and as Creator it is His (Genesis 1:1 ff.).  He created man and sent them out (as His followers) to “fill the earth.” His original design was for the world to be filled with those who bear His image to reflect His character and bring Him glory. But sin came into the picture and whole nations rejected the One True God and followed false gods.

God also, in His mercy and love, sent prophets among the nations to warn them of the consequences of their rejection. So by the time we see passages like 1 Chronicles 21, Deuteronomy 3, Joshua 6, Judges 21, and 2 Kings 10 these nations are not innocent. They have all rejected the One True Creator God, and as the owner of all, God had the right to take certain land from one group of people and give it to another group of people. Also, in many cases Israel’s conquering and killing was a judgment upon these pagan nations. This same judgment would also come upon God’s own people when they apostatized throughout the Old Testament.

The Holy/Promised Land (as was the entire planet) was a place that was to be dedicated to the worship of the One True God (the Creator). So when the owner of the “vineyard” demanded that they give him a portion of the harvest (worship, praise, tithes, adoration, etc.), we can see how evil it is for the tenants to reject the messengers and even kill his son. God owns everything in all of creation, and yes, even you (for you are wonderfully and beautifully made). Our choice is to accept this as God’s Word lovingly and mercifully warns us, or reject it and face the ultimate consequences of trying to claim something that is not rightfully ours.

 

What of Those Who Feel Called?

God originally called the nation of Israel to Himself and established a covenant with them. However, because of their disloyalty they forfeited this claim on God. There is frequently the thought that it is amazing grace of God that the whole people were not consumed and that a Remnant continues to inherit the election. The Israelites were elected to service and that one element of service was a universal mission to the world. Within Israel itself, however the thought is a collective one, either of the whole people or of the group that constituted the Remnant.

*Those who are truly called come from God’s chosen people.

Within the elected nation, individuals were also chosen for service. Several are said to have been chosen before they were born, and in this way it is emphasized that their election is not the reward of their worth. They are not chosen for what they are, or even primarily they will be, but for a specific task that is assigned them and for service God requires of them.  For that service they are equipped by God, and all that is required of them is humble obedience to His will and surrender of themselves to His power.

* Calling has nothing to do with talent, skill, gifting, or worthiness.

Some are chosen to be judges and kings, to be God’s vice-regents among His people, to deliver them from their foes and to rule them in His name. Gideon was chosen to deliver Israel from the Midianites [1] , and Sampson, even before his birth, was chosen that he might be a thorn in the side of the Philistines.[2]  In the story of the establishment of the monarchy, Saul was chosen by God to enable Israel to throw off the yoke of the Philistines. There are two accounts of the setting up of the monarchy in the Biblical story. According to the latter account the institution had its origins in nothing more exalted than a popular desire to imitate foreign nations, and it was in itself an act of disloyalty to God and rebellion against Him. According to the earlier account the initiative was with God, who said to Samuel, “About this time tomorrow I will send unto thee a man from the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be the leader over my people Israel; and he shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines, because I have seen the affliction of my people, for their cry has come unto me.” [3] Acting on these divine instructions, Samuel privately anoints Saul, who then takes the lead in the rescue of Jabesh Gilead and is in consequence hailed as king by all the people.

* God alone chooses what the calling will be to, i.e. the task to be performed

David was later chosen to replace Saul. Of the rejection of Saul we have two accounts. One attributes it to his impatience in not waiting for Samuel at Gilgal, [4] while the other attributes it to his failure to annihilate the Amalekites. [5] It should be noted that Saul’s failure to annihilate the Amalekites sprang from a defect of character. He accepted the commission of Samuel as the command of God, and yet failed to carry it out, because he set his own will above the will of God. The other story reveals an impatience of spirit, while all the story of Saul there is apparent an instability of character that marred his achievements. But here in this story of the Amalekites there is revealed a deeper defect of spirit, and a rejection of God’s will as final for him. If then election is for service, and its first corollary is loyalty of spirit to God, and if the abandonment of that loyalty is equivalent to the renunciation of the election, Saul had indeed renounced his election. He had revealed the attitude of his heart towards God, and it was no longer serviceable.

* One can disqualify himself from a calling of God by a rebellious and sinful heart.

How prophets were recruited is still unclear, but what we do know is that of several prophets we have some record of their Divine call to their office. They were not prophets because they were born to the office, or because they fancied the life, but because they felt a constraint which they believed to be of God. It is frankly recognized in the Old Testament that to tell a true prophet from a false one was no easy matter. Of the call of Moses in the wilderness, of Samuel in his childhood in the shrine of Shiloh, of Amos when pursuing his daily work, of Hosea in the tragedy of his domestic life, of Isaiah in the temple, of Jeremiah in his youth, and Ezekiel in the bizarre vision that came to him, we have a familiar record. All of these men became prophets because the hand of God was laid upon them. Some tried to resist the call, only to find that it could not be resisted. Amos 3:8 says, “The Lion hath roared, who can but fear? The Lord Yahweh hath spoken; Who can but prophesy?”

* God seems to delight in calling all “types” of people to be His.

All this would imply that the call of the prophet was the arbitrary act of God, and especially if he was called before he was born. Yet there is much in the Old Testament to indicate that it was neither arbitrary, nor so irresistible as the experience of the greater prophets would suggest. There were prophets who did not fulfill the purpose of their call, and who stand under sharp condemnation. The edge of their spirit’s sensitiveness became blunted, and no longer did they feel the command and constraint of God’s hand. More are called to service than truly respond to the call. There is a paradox in this area of calling. The prophet’s response to the call that he feels the irresistibility of the constraint, and he who most justifies the call and fulfills its purpose is most conscious of the Divine element and least conscious of the human element in his commissioning.

Paul could feel himself to be the “chief of sinners,” and it has ever been the case that the nearer a man becomes to God the nearer he wants to come, for it is only he who is very close to God who can feel the gulf that separates him from God. It is apparent that the true prophet is thought of as one who stands in so close and intimate a relationship with God that his personality becomes the vehicle of God’s Word.

* The effectiveness of a called man of God is directly related to his closeness with God.

God calls men by His own volition and gives them abilities to perform the tasks they are asked to do. God always calls individuals to particular acts of service (a pastor, youth leader, associate pastor, etc.) and as with any position, especially that of a pastor, his effectiveness in that position is dependent upon his closeness and dependence upon God. When the one who is called turns from God, he is no longer usable and will be replaced. The calling process appears to be a personal matter between an individual and God, whereby the latter places His hand upon that person “in a special way” and directs them to a position of leadership within the church body.  But there is also recognition of this calling by a body of believers and the apparent power of the prophet.

* God will give His called one what he needs to perform his task and will empower him to show that he is God’s man.

[1] Judges 6:15
[2] Judges 13:3-5
[3] 1 Samuel 9:16
[4] 1 Samuel 13:8-14
[5] 1 Samuel 15

The Three Components of Learning (Part Two: Instruction)

The Three Components of Learning

Part Two

Instruction

The instruction time should begin with a common language. A sign of a lack of preparation is to use language that the instructor knows the students do not understand. The ineffective teacher in this case is more concerned about covering their lack of preparation with verbal smoke than student’s understanding of the life changing scriptural truths. The teacher has to be able to communicate the information so that the students understand what is being communicated. The way in which different people learn even influences the way one should communicate. This requires flexibility and a willingness to change for the sake of the student. Hendricks refers to this as the “the law of education” and what Gregory refers to as the “law of the teaching process.”[1] Hendricks points out that all communication “has three essential components: intellect, emotion, and volitionin other words, thought, feeling, and action.”[2] Yount calls these “issues of the head, heart, and hand.”[3] Every student falls into one of these three categories. Yount explains, “Thinkers are looking for meat to chew, new ideas, and new ways of looking at the world. Feelers are looking for gifts to receive and share, relationships with new friends, and personal relevance. Doers are looking for a project to finish, ‘let’s get the job done, done right, and in the quickest way possible.’”[4] Therefore every concept that is taught should touch on all three learning concepts. Lawrence Richards proposed a method of lesson preparation that includes these concepts. His method is hook, book, look, and took. Richard explains,

The hook is an approach to a teaching lesson that draws in and interests the participant. The book is the presentation of a biblical story, theme, or concept.  The look is the exploration of the material’s implications and applications for the lives of the participants. The took is the suggestion of and commitment to actual responses on the part of participants in the light of what has been learned or discovered.[5]

Shelly Cunningham adds to Richard’s lesson preparation outline by adding cook. Pazmino notes, “Cunningham sees cook as the final step of learning that fosters the follow-up or transfer of learning after one teaching session and prior to its successive session.”[6] This is an assignment or some other activity that encourages the student to think about the lesson until the next teaching time.

The psychologist Abraham Maslow has identified four levels of learning. The first is unconscious incompetence; this is where a person is ignorant and does not even know that they are ignorant. The second level is conscious incompetence; this is where a person now knows they are ignorant of a subject. The third level is conscious competence; this is where a person has learned something, but they are consciously aware they are doing what they have learned. The fourth level is unconscious competence; this is where a person becomes so competent of the learned behavior that they do it without being conscious they are doing it.[7] The teacher’s objective then is to move the student from not knowing a concept to knowing it so thoroughly that they do it without even thinking about it. This means that if a teacher knows his subject thoroughly, feels it deeply, and is practicing it, he more than likely will be a better communicator than a person who does not possess these three characteristics. With Christian education, the teacher has to encounter the biblical text, feel the Holy Spirit moving and impacting them, and then they apply certain principles to their own lives before they can ever effectively communicate it to a student. Teachers can only take their students as far as they themselves have been in the spiritual journey. If the teacher is trying to fool her students, the roués will eventually be found out and she will loose creditability. The phrase “do as I say, not as I do,” does not lead to life transformational teaching, only to disheartened and pharisaical students. Gregory says, “A teacher must be one who knows the lesson or truth or art to be taught.”[8] In a secular teaching environment it is enough for the student to know 2+2=4, and in this case they have mastered the information. However, for the Christian teacher mastery of the material is not enough; teachers are only effective when the student has made Scripture a part of their lives; when the student’s life has been transformed.

Gangel asks the question, “How can a housewife, truck driver, computer programmer, beautician, or physician become a master teacher, perhaps for only one hour a week? That’s a Herculean task. But we can all profit from the example of the greatest teacher, whom Nicodemus respectively called ‘A Teacher . . . come from God’ (John 3:2).”[9] Jesus as the master teacher gives those who teach several techniques to use in their own teaching times. How was it possible for Jesus to be such an effective teacher without classrooms, flannel graphs, power point presentations, or textbooks?

One would be to start with the learner’s world or context. Gregory refers to this as the “law of the Lesson.” Jesus oftentimes used the environment around Him and used story subjects that would have been familiar to His learners.[10] When Jesus spoke of people’s hearts being receptive to the gospel, He used varying types of soil. This agrarian society would have visualized in their minds the various soil types and clearly understood the illustration. Learning must be a series of steps where one lesson builds upon another. One lesson is used as a jumping off place for the next. The skill then is required by the teacher to determine how long one continues with a particular study. If the teacher stays too long, the lesson becomes monotonous. If the teacher goes too fast, the students are left behind in the cloudy dust of the once clear material. Gregory says, “New elements of knowledge must be brought into relation with other facts and truths already known before they themselves can be fully revealed and take their place in the widening circle of the experience of the learner.”[11] What the learner already knows helps them to decipher and understand the new material being taught. Therefore, the level of mastery of the previous material dictates the time that would be required to introduce new material. The teacher then needs to get the students to explain the material taught back to her, or another student, in order to evaluate if they have understood the material properly. Most people tend to explain what they have learned in the language that they are most familiar. The soldier in an effort to explain would refer to the battlefield, the sailor to the sea, or the scientist to the lab.[12]

The teacher should also have a way of evaluating if students understand the material as the class progresses, as opposed to a test or some other method of evaluation that would come later. This would allow the teacher to change his method, speed and volume of information given, to something the students may understand better. It is better to have taught one thing and it be understood and applied rather than have taught five things and nothing be understood or retained.

Another example of Jesus’ teaching technique would be to allow the learners to discover the truth.[13] People learn best when they make the connection to a spiritual truth themselves. The teacher ceases to be the dispenser of knowledge (lecturing, telling of truth) but instead guides students to experience different things where they learn through discovery. This is also referred to as active learning. Some examples of active learning are simulation games, role-plays, service projects, experiments, research projects, group pantomimes, mock trials, purposeful games, and field trips.[14] Direct, purposeful experiences are the best way for a learner to retain information. Methods that rely on other people’s experiences or “methods requiring little student involvement, result in relatively little student learning.”[15] Methods that require the learner to experience certain experiences are the most effective. Taking these methods into account, and realizing that the more the student experiences the more they will retain information, it is sobering to realize the methods used by most teachers, preachers, etc. use the least retentive method to teach. Spoken or written communication has a retention rate of 5 to 10 percent. Media allows the learner to retain 25 percent. Role-play is 40 to 60 percent and direct experience has a 80 to 90 percent retention rate.[16] Knowing that active learning is the most effective, it is crucial that the activity be specifically designed to teach an objective. Hendricks says, “This condition implies an important insight about teaching: Activity in learning is never an end in itself; it’s always a means to an end.”[17] The teacher must make sure that she adds to Plato’s quote, “we learn by doing” by saying “we learn by doing the right thing.” Gregory refers to this as the “Law of the Teaching Process. This law states, excite and direct the self-activities of the pupil, and as a rule tell him nothing that he can learn himself.”[18] Dale explains that each part of the spiritual diet should be regularly and systematically addressed through teaching biblical facts and offering children practical application experiences. Dale says, “The church often concentrates most of its time offering new knowledge while neglecting the application. Even when addressing the application issues the church tends to do it verbally rather than through hands-on experiences. Therefore a proper spiritual diet offers children both knowledge and experiences.”[19]

Along with active learning is the brother of this concept, interactive learning. Thom and Joani say, “Interactive learning occurs when students discuss and work cooperatively in pairs or small groups.”[20] This method encourages students to work together, which is essential in the life of the church. The teacher is not only teaching students how to discover truths as a team, but also how to work together in life. Ecclesiastes 4:9–10 says, “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!”(NIV). The Shultzs suggest several reasons as to why interactive learning works so well. The first is “interactive learning is student-based, instead of teacher-based.”[21] Interactive learning encourages the students to work together to discover the answer to various questions, as opposed to a teacher presenting information, and then asking individual students for factual brief answers. In interactive learning, students ask each other questions and have to think their answers through instead of parroting short factual information back to the teacher. Another reason would be that students learn to depend upon each other, and they often can solve problems faster than if they were alone. In interactive learning no student is left out because they realize that all the students are needed to accomplish the task given. Joani and Thom Shultz say, “In interactive learning, each pair or team is responsible for responding. Partners count on each other and hold each other accountable.”[22] Lastly this type of learning encourages students to build relationships with each other. Realistically, it is these relationships with others that will bring people back to the next learning time, not the presentation of the teacher. Also, in having an interactive time the lessons can be implemented into their lives immediately. During a time of learning, the teacher could provide opportunities for the students to put into practice, what they have learned.

Another example of Jesus’ teaching techniques is taking advantage of teachable moments. The Pharisees taught by rote practices. Jesus, on the other hand, seems to be so familiar with His subject matter that He easily made connections to spiritual truths wherever and whenever He chose. Where the Pharisees taught and the students sat still and were to remember, Jesus calls His students to “go.” Jesus calls His students to “follow me.” A teachable moment is when something happens—a student asks a question, or some other occurrence happens—and the teacher uses this as a way to either teach a new concept, review, or add to what has already been taught. Jesus’ classrooms were fields, homes, oceans, temples, boats, roads, hills, and a cross. The disciples were expected to do more than just listen; they were encouraged to do something. This is life transformation. When the student chooses to follow the teaching as a part of their lives, this is effective teaching. Jesus also rarely did things the way He was “supposed to.” He never avoided hard topics like death, hell, money, anxiety, etc., but instead showed how these topics where apart of everyday life. Because of this, Jesus’ teachings were rarely predictable. There is a direct correlation between one’s predictability and one’s impact. The higher the predictability in the teaching time, the lower the impact. Christ was always teaching for change in the hearts of the people and this is reflected in His teaching methods. His teaching was not simply for the sake of being different, but His teaching was different because of who He was. His character and love for people overflowed into His teachings.

In the teaching time the teacher must motivate the students to apply what has been taught to their lives. Hendricks call this the “Law of Encouragement. Teaching tends to be most effective when the learner is properly motivated.”[23] The key word in this concept is “properly.” There are several illegitimate ways to motivate students to learn. The first is what Hendricks calls the “lollipop motivation” or extrinsic motivation. This occurs when the teacher offers the student something that will motivate them to behave a certain way, memorize Scripture, or learn some other teaching point. This is illegitimate because one’s goal in Christian education is life transformation not temporary behavioral change. The teacher could also be fooled into believing that the student is doing better by the amount of patches on a vest, or pins, or “lollipops” handed out during a period of time. When the student goes home, however, the vest is on the floor along with her understanding of Christianity. The beliefs are stitched to the vest and not her heart.  Students should understand the need for following God and be taught to have a grateful heart, then students will be motivated to change their lives. This behavior will be with him all day, and all week, not just one hour a week in a specific location. Students need to see the importance of Scripture and God in their lives, and out of this understanding their lives are transformed. Gregory says, “The nature of mind, as far as we can understand it, is that of a power or force actuated by motives. The striking clock may sound in the ear, and the passing object may paint its image in the eyes, but the inattentive mind neither hears nor sees.”[24] The hard part of teaching is working from the outside to make something happen on the inside.

In motivating a student the teacher needs to instill within them the need to do what was taught. The student must desire it from within (intrinsic), in order for it be lasting change. This is why the teaching methods that teachers use should expose students to real life experiences. When they see how to respond to a bully, how to overcome addiction, how to revive their marriage, then the student will take to heart what is being taught.

The type of extrinsic motivation that has been described has also been referred to as “direct reinforcement.” Yount says, “Direct reinforcement decreases intrinsic motivation in students. Providing rewards to students already interested in a subject actually decreases interest. Students given rewards for correct solutions to problems subsequently chose less difficult problems than students who received no rewards at all.”[25] Direct reinforcement also short-circuits the learning process by narrowing the students focus to the reward. Class discussions come to a stop when questions like, “What will we win?” or “will there be a test on this?” are asked. Yount explains that when learning is for the sake of getting the reward then when that reward is over, so is the motivation.[26] When a teacher chooses to use direct reinforcement, her time spent in developing relationships or even teaching is taken away because of the need to administrate a tally board, keep up with points, or other reinforcement schedules. In direct reinforcement, there is also the need for increasing rewards. Candy as a motivator may grow tiresome, and the teacher has to seek to find another. This in itself is teaching the students to become greedy and disobedient. It is teaching the student to say to herself, “I will behave/learn if it is worth it to me.”

The most effective way to motivate students to learn is the praise of the student from a loving and endeared teacher. Yount says, “‘Praise’ means more than objective feedback on performance. It includes positive feedback on the student’s personal worth, which in itself, is a powerful motivator.”[27] For this to be most effective the teacher must have a personal and close relationship with the student. The closer the relationship, the more the teacher’s praise means to the student.

Jesus gives one other time-honored example that the conscientious modern day teacher seeking to be life transformational can follow. This is His example of prayer. In Luke 11:1 the disciples ask Jesus to teach them to pray. This is because Jesus prayed about everything. Teachers can lead by example by praying in the classroom for their students and other concerns, praying in other places and times where their students can hear and observe them. But more importantly, praying for them on a daily basis is the place at which true transformation takes place, not only in the heart of the teacher for her students, but also in the lives of the students because of the power of prayer.

All of Jesus’ examples of teaching methods include an element of creativity. One of the specific ways that he showed this creativity was in his use of questions.[28] Referring to questions, “These form the heart of His teaching method. The four Gospels record over a hundred different ones. Some of His questions were direct and simply intended to secure information; some clarified uncertainty in the minds of His hearers and some invited expressions of faith. For example, ‘Do you believe that I am able to do this?, (Matthew 9:28), He said to the sick man.’”[29] He used hypothetical questions to teach problem-solving in situations (Matt 21:31). Jesus also allowed questions to be asked of Him as in Matt 12:13–34. Another form of His creativity was the use of parables to teach a spiritual point. This method of teaching provoked thinking (Mark 4:2). Other forms of creative teaching methods would include “overstatement (Mark 5:29–30); proverb (6:4); paradox (12:41–44); irony (Matt16:2-3); hyperbole (23:23–24); allusion (John 2:19); and metaphor (Luke 13:32).”[30]


[1] Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives, 37.

[2] Ibid., 69.

[3] William Yount, Called To Teach (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 136.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Pazmino, God Our Teacher, 47.

[6] Ibid., 53.

[7] Ibid., 39.

[8] Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching, 18.

[9] Kenneth Gangel and Howard Hendricks, The Christian Educator’s Handbook on Teaching (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1984), 14.

[10] Tom Shultz and Joani Shultz, The Dirt on Learning (Loveland: Group, 1999), 39.

[11] Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching, 71.

[12] Ibid., 74.

[13] Shultz, The Dirt on Learning, 39.

[14] Ibid., 135.

[15] Ibid., 137.

[16] Ibid., 138.

[17] Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives, 53.

[18] Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching, 84.

[19] Dale, Changing Lives or Spinning Wheels, 34.

[20] Shultz and Shultz, The Dirt on Learning, 181.

[21] Ibid., 184.

[22] Ibid., 187.

[23] Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives, 94.

[24] Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching, 92.

[25] Yount, Called To Teach, 77.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid., 78.

[28] Gangel and Hendricks, The Christian Educator’s Handbook on Teaching, 25.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., 27.

The Theory and Theology of Discipleship

Robert Pazmino proposes an acronym that encapsulates the three phases of teaching as “PIE.” The letters in the order given stand for “preparation,” “instruction” and “evaluation.”[1] While many things are as “easy as pie,” teaching oftentimes is not one of these endeavors. Perhaps the best place to start on this meaningful yet sometimes treacherous journey of teaching is to define what is meant by Christian education. Powers defines Christian education as seeking “to develop within persons an understanding of, commitment to, and ability to practice Christian teachings . . . the ongoing effort of believers seeking to understand, practice, and propagate God’s revelation.”[2] Perhaps a working definition of Christian education could be seeking to partner with the Holy Spirit in teaching and learning that transforms lives into the image and pattern of Jesus Christ.

Pazmino says, “A holistic vision of education calls for addressing the information, formation, and transformation of persons.”[3] The holistic vision can be illustrated by a person needing a balanced diet. This balanced diet contributes to the overall health of a person. In theory if a person eats the right kinds of food (grains, vegetables, fruits, milk products, and proteins) from each food group, he or she will live healthier and live longer. Daryl Dale takes spiritual formation and the balanced diet principle and applies it to the development of a spiritually healthy child. His “spiritual formation philosophy” emphasizes the spiritual needs of children rather than programming. Program based ministries evaluate themselves on the basis of size, growth, and enthusiasm. Growth in a ministry and enthusiasm on the part of workers and children are certainly important elements of quality ministry. However, when a church fails to evaluate what is happening inside the life of a child, it is in danger of engaging its staff in labor intensive ministries that have little spiritual impact on people. Dale identifies twelve components of a spiritually balanced diet. These spiritual needs are: “salvation, Bible knowledge, praise and worship, Christian friendships, personal outreach, Christian service, church commitment, prayer, devotional life, missions awareness, Scripture memorization, and stewardship.”[4] Dale shows that these particular topics can be tested to determine their inclusion by asking the following two questions: 1) “Would we be negligent if we did not teach one thing on prayer (substitute any other issue) over the next twelve months?” The second question would be, 2) “Would we be doing our God-given ministry well if we did not offer one prayer experience (substitute and other issue) or project over the next twelve months?”[5] When leaders are knowledgeable of the main or basic spiritual needs, they can begin to address these needs through their programs.

Dale also points out that all of the components of a spiritually balanced diet do not merit equal attention. He says, “Just as the ‘Food Pyramid’ (nutrition chart) illustrates how a person needs more daily servings from the grain group than from the protein group, some spiritual issues need to be addressed more often than others. Some may be addressed every week while others may be satisfied through three or four lessons and a couple of experiences a year.”[6]

Daniel Aleshire says that an educational ministry within the church should lead to discipleship and this ministry has several requirements.[7] He says, “First, education that is true to the grace of the gospel requires a vision of the church, its purpose, and mission. Christian education must emerge from the mission of the church and move its people toward authentic discipleship.”[8] The church must keep in mind that it is mobilizing an army to win the world for Christ, not simply edifying oneself. Discipleship is not for the purpose of growing believers to sit in a pew, but to equip believers to be sent out to see their neighbor won for Christ. Aleshire says, “Second, Christian education requires theologically informed goals and objectives.”[9] This is a reference to what the teacher is  trying to accomplish, and how these goals are to be accomplished. Not only is the content of the lesson important but the method of delivery as well. Aleshire also says, “Third, the learning that results from Christian education requires some serious consideration. The learning must be of a special kind—the kind that provides knowledge, instills feelings, and leads to right living. Forth, the processes and organizations that the church uses to educate people in faith require ongoing, thoughtful evaluation and renewal.”[10] These refer to life change as the ultimate objective and ways to evaluate if this change is taking place.

Before any life changing learning can ever take place there must be a desire in the heart of a person to share their lives and communicate truth. This is a prerequisite for transformational teaching. For Christian educators, there must be a heart change in the teacher before there can ever be a life change in the student. In the secular teaching environment, there is no spiritual component per se to teaching mathematics or language arts, for example. The effective Christian teacher has to have an active prayer and Bible study lifestyle. The Christian educator has to understand the importance of the Holy Spirit working through the teacher throughout the course of the teaching endeavor. It is a love of God and His Word and an understanding of the passion that was poured out for them on a rugged cross that overflows into life changing teaching. The teacher must love the Lord and this love is displayed in his teaching. This is something that cannot be taught. It is not a different method to try, a resource to implement, or something that could be substituted. The teacher either has this passion or he does not. Pazmino says, “Every teaching session, along with its explicit and implicit curriculum, has a null curriculum. Basically the null curriculum is that which is not taught, with the explicit curriculum referring to what is taught. The implicit curriculum refers to what is caught by persons than directly taught in the course of instruction.”[11] The teacher’s life is the real curriculum that will lead to transformation in the students. More than likely they will remember the character of their teacher lived out before them far longer than they will remember the lesson taught in the classroom.

Perhaps, the first step to becoming an effective teacher is to set the bar higher and higher throughout one’s ministry. This desire to improve comes from a humble heart and an authentic desire to reach more people for Christ. Hendricks suggests that “to teach children two plus two equals four, you need a minimum of four years of higher education. To teach the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ, anything is good enough . . . and that’s why it too often degenerates into a ministry of mediocrity.”[12] The teaching of the Bible is the most important thing a person could ever do. Therefore, there should be a much higher standard than to simply seek to fill a slot on a nomination committee list. Howard Hendricks tells of a story that expresses this point. He says,

We learned she was eighty-three and from a town in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. In a church with a Sunday school of only sixty-five people, she taught a class of thirteen junior-high boys. She traveled by Greyhound bus all the way to Chicago the night before the convention. Why? In her words, ‘To learn something that would make me a better teacher.’ I thought at the time, ‘Most people who had a class of thirteen junior-high boys in a Sunday school of only sixty-five would be breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back: Who, me? Go to a Sunday school convention? I could teach it myself!’ But not this woman.  Eighty-four who sat under her teaching are now young men in full-time vocational ministry.  Twenty-two are graduates of the seminary where I teach.[13]

Was there something special about this woman? What made her teaching so effective? She had a desire to raise the bar of her teaching ministry. This passion for Christ and having a lifestyle of constant learning overflows into the lives of the students. They see before them week after week a person who lives what they teach. Jesus said, “Take up my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt 11:29, NIV). Eldridge said, “The yoke was a symbol of submission, obedience, and service. It was a means to harness power and direct the energy of an animal. The yoke guides or steers the beast of burden.”[14] The student like the animal must be willing to submit to the teaching or guiding of another. The disciple must be “teachable.” While the early disciples were from different backgrounds and had rather undesirable qualities, they were teachable and truly wanted to understand what Jesus was teaching. This teachable countenance was used by God to spread the gospel around the world, and it is only when modern day teacher/disciples have this teachable characteristic that the gospel can continue to transform the world. When students see that their teacher is learning, they will desire to follow his example.

Gregory Milton says that a teacher must “stimulate in the pupil the love of learning, and to form in him habits and ideals of independent study.”[15] This stimulation from within comes from observing the teacher and then applying these learned behaviors to their own lives. This is why Scripture holds those who teach to a higher standard (Jas 3:1). God recognizes that those who desire to teach set the standard for which their students follow. It is therefore the second goal of the teacher to encourage their students to fall in love with learning about God and to encourage them to continue this practice throughout his life.

If this lifelong learning is to be embraced by the student, the teacher must understand seven distinct elements. Gregory refers to these concepts of education as the “Seven Laws of Teaching.” From these seven laws are three major components of effective learning (preparation, instruction, and evaluation.) There are two personal factors that make up the first element, (1) a teacher and (2) a learner. The second element has two factors as well, (3) a common language and a (4) lesson of truth to be communicated. The third element has three functional acts or processes, (5) that of the teacher – the teacher’s work, (6) that of the learner – the learner’s work, and a final finishing process (7) to test and fix the result.[16]


[1] Robert Pazmino, Basics of Teaching for Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 11.

[2] Bruce Powers, Christian Education Handbook (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 6.

[3] Pazmino, Basics of Teaching for Christians, 53.

[4] Daryl Dale, Changing Lives or Spinning Wheels (Nyack, NY: Spiritual Formation Ministries, 1997), 34.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Daniel Aleshire, “Christian Education and Theology,” in Christian Education Handbook, ed. Bruce Powers (Nashville: Broadman and Holman , 1996), 14.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 15.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Pazmino, Basics of Teaching for Christians, 79.

[12] Howard Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1987), 19.

[13] Ibid., 14.

[14] Daryl Eldridge, The Teaching Ministry of the Church (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 81.

[15] Milton Gregory, The Seven Laws of Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 17.

[16] Ibid.

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
"Your greatest life messages and your most effective ministry will come out of your deepest hurts." Rick Warren

Contact Drew

Copyright © 2021 · Parallax Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in