|
|
|
Page Directory
Site Directory
|
|
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Matthew 16:15 Return to the page directory There are two general models of "teaching." One is referred to as " mentoring" the other as "teacher-centered instruction." In mentoring, the teacher serves as an experienced guide who will ensure that students are being challenged to come up with answers for themselves. The mentor acts as a coach with whom students can discuss ideas and outcomes. It is teaching by guided questioning, conversation and providing the opportunity for individual participation. A teaching technique in which the teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge. Perhaps mentoring is most familiarly known as seminars that emphasize teacher-student dialogue. Robert Half once said, "Asking the right questions takes as much skill as giving the right answers." Tutoring actively involve students in the learning process. A two-way street. The traditional classroom lecture is most often associated with "teacher-centered instruction," It is the traditional approach to teaching a lesson in front of a classroom. In this model, the student is relatively passive. Teacher-centered instruction literally means that the teacher is the person who is imparting knowledge or information to the student. The teacher is the dispenser and the student is the receiver of this knowledge. It is what is frequently referred to as "formal instruction" with the lecturer often reading from his notes or the textbook. The focus is on the instructor; he/she talks; the students listen based on delivery of information to the student. An over concern for book learning and formal rules. A one-way street.Where this difference becomes very important is in the discipling process. If they have anything at all, the programs most churches are many layered classroom offerings. It’s not at all uncommon among churches of all sizes for the newly baptized "seeker" to encounter a carefully orchestrated array of "discipling" classes the newly baptized "seeker" may choose from. That is, the seeker starts out at the bottom of a numbering scheme such as 101 and works his way up as far as he wishes to go. The qualification requirement for the next level is having taken to lower level courses. The teaching model for all sized churches is invariably the "teacher-centered instruction" model. More and more churches are increasingly relying upon cute little acronyms for the discipling process such as the PIECE process. (P-Pray; I-Identify; E-Earn Trust; C-Covenant; E-Exercise Authority) For a more extensive list, see Acronym Greek – very entertaining.The question that must be asked is if these and other so-called discipleship training tactics are Biblical. Although the terms " teach/teacher/teaching" appear many times in the NT, it is very difficult to determine which form of teaching is implied. To further compound the problem, there are numerous Greek terms for "teach" as there is for "teacher" and "teaching." Undoubtedly, Jesus did "teach" using the "teacher-centered" paradigm when He taught in the Temple (e.g. Luke 21:37 Mark 14:49) as well as in synagogues (e.g. Mark 1:21-28 and Luke 4:16, 13:10) However, His lecturing in these circumstances was to crowds and probably wouldn’t qualify as discipling. It was most like preaching the Gospel to those who had likely never heard it before. Closer to a discipling process Jesus used is the way He "taught" His disciples. Here, the discipling process occurred in an environment of loving concern, which encourages the disciple to progressively move from his spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity, ultimately repeating the process with others. The exchange between Jesus and Peter is Mark 8:29-33 is an indication of a mentoring process as is Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 8:27 KJV and Luke 17:6-10.So did Jesus mentor His disciples or formally instruct His disciples? It is pretty certain when addressing a crowd, those in the Temple and in the synagogues that He was the teacher instructing them. It is certain that He had no classroom, no textbooks, none of the trappings of a modern school or college. Instead, Jesus' life was the lesson. He taught them by His life – by example. Jesus did not rely on words to convince them as to who he was but by His very life. How He taught His disciples is so simple that we often miss the point. ( Mathew 4:19) They learned by just being with Christ. He didn’t lay out a step-by-step process for disciple-making; no lesson plan or cute little acronyms. He just did it! His life was the lesson. Learning was the result of their being in a close, personal relationship with Him. Yes, He was their Lord (master) and Savior, but He was also their Rabbi (teacher) and their friend. What a wonderful example for us to follow. How can we teach one thing and do another? How can we be in the classroom what we are not in life? Is He our Lord; our Rabbi and friend? If He is then as Matthew 5:16 says so well, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. If He isn’t, should we even try to disciple others? Will lesson plans and acronyms help?
|
|
Just What You
Always Wanted To Hear There are none better at
spinning a yarn than a politician running for office. Spinning a yarn is
propaganda, designed to persuade public opinion in favor of the person
running for office or getting reelected. Spinning a yarn implies
intentional, disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative schemes.
During their campaign politicians often hire a klavern of "spin doctors" to
insure "successful" campaigns. Truth, which rarely shows its face, is
replaced by broad generalizations designed to please everyone and offend no
one in the particular audience being addressed. Generally political
campaigns are the ultimate example of pleasing the audience for selfish
gain. It’s interesting that our
founding fathers tried to prevent such deceitful shenanigans by making
political office an honorary, non-paid and short-termed position The
Founders often referred to public officials as the "trustees," "agents,"
"guardians," or "servants" of the public. Public Office comes with power and
opportunity for corruption. It's hoped the candidate will operate with
integrity to honor the Public Trust that put him/her in office. Three words
"public," "office" and "trust" should be synonymous implying a sense of duty
and moral responsibility. It should be a privilege to hold a public office,
and to render service honestly and fairly without fear or favor. Instead,
politics has become a lucrative career with politicians raking in fortunes
by every conceivable means legal, ethical or otherwise – mostly otherwise.
Where the intent of holding political office was to have been as a public
service, it has become a fast route to personal fame and fortune. As a
matter of fact, today one Other than public office, where should we find the two words "office" and "trust" associated with such concepts as service, duty and moral responsibility? Look no further than the front of the room any Sunday morning at the person delivering the "sermon" for an answer. He/she likes to bear the title "pastor" (poimen) and regards him/herself as the modern-day equivalent of the NT prophet. For those who make such claims, the trust, duties and responsibilities accompanying the office of preacher/prophet are magnified beyond comprehension. Assuming the role of pastor in itself, without tying the "office" of pastor and prophet together, is an awesome responsibility. Coincidentally, one will have to look long and hard for any NT Scriptural usage of the word "pastor." (try Ephesians 4:11 KJV) More often (poimen) is translated as "shepherd." Another word for shepherd (Archipoimen) further enhances the awesome responsibility of assuming the "office of pastor/shepherd. In 1 Peter 5:4 Jesus the Christ is called the "chief Shepherd of the church." Think about that. Clearly the "office" of pastor/shepherd far overshadows any political office one might aspire to. Let’s talk about the trust, service, duty and moral responsibility anyone who lays claim to that office. One word encapsulates its awesomeness; incomprehensible. Look at the person in front of the room delivering a sermon on Sunday again. He stands there as a Vicar of Christ. In Roman Catholicism, the phrase means, "A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church." Has the same thing happened to these pastors, shepherds these vicars as has happened to so many, many of those in and/or running for political office? Have they violated the trust implicit in their office? Has service and duty taken a back seat to other things? Has moral responsibility gotten lost in the shuffle? Has what the Founding Father of Christianity put in place to prevent such aberrations from temporarily occurring in His church? As Paul was working at his tent-making to support himself, did he ever think of a time when those preaching the Gospel would consider chauffeured limousines, private jets, multimillion estates with comparable salaries living by the Gospel? Could modifying the teachings of the Bible to make it less controversial and more appealing (the tickle the ears syndrome) be considered a breach of moral responsibility? What about using the pulpit as a stage for self aggrandizement? Is that not a breach of trust? While this amassing of fortunes fame and glory, what time or incentive is there for service to the congregation; time for any "shepherding" activities? Jesus spoke about knowing false
prophets (ravenous
wolves) by their fruit. Is
the amassing of personal fortune and glory the fruit of a good tree or one
that is corrupt? In
Luke 6:26 He
gave this warning, Woe to you when
all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false
prophets. Should not those who claim the title of
pastor/shepherd preach the Word of God with a clarion voice? Or, should he
act like the hired hand who when he sees the wolf coming, abandons the sheep
and runs away? (John
10:12) Who is standing in the pulpit, a
politician or a man of God? Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;
|
|
Third Article Concerning the Sabbath, Jesus makes an
interesting statement that is recorded in the Book of Mark, And, he said
unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.
Scripturally, it doesn’t appear that "keeping the Sabbath" is either an option or one of those "church traditions that might get in the way of ministering to people’s needs." We might be excused for moving the Sabbath from Saturday (the Biblically prescribed day) to Sunday under the pretense of remembering and honoring Christ’s resurrection. That remains to be seen. The Scriptural edict is clear, however, Saturday or Sunday, we are to keep the Sabbath Holy. Some might think that Christians choosing neither to operate or frequent "businesses" (including bars, "entertainment centers," gambling establishments and the like) on Sunday might "get in the way of ministering to people’s needs but, that depends upon what kind of needs we’re talking about as well as what we mean by and to whom we are ministering what. If the people we have in mind for this "ministering" are Gentiles (non-believers) some avant-garde neo-Christian groups are way ahead of the game by actually holding "services" in pubs and bars that they, reportedly, can "meet people where they are." However, it’s doubtful that such gatherings do more than minister suds. Regardless, evangelizing is not the intent of the Sabbath. It is a day of rest from "secular avocations" a day set aside from our worldly interests for the express purpose of praising and worshipping our God and fellowship with our brothers and sisters in the Family of God. Traditionally, Christian churches used to celebrate communion every single Sunday. Today, Orthodox Jews and Muslims don’t seem inclined to cease their religious observances but rather expect the secular world to adjust to their religious customs. For we Christians to do this does not require reinstituting the so-called "blue laws" of decades past, just enhance the commitment of those who claim to be Christ followers. And, in so doing, think what a testimony such abstinence is to the secular world. Just look at Chick- fil-A! This is not withstanding the fact that we are now the "temple" of the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 3:16) and that we should strive to keep every day, every hour, every second, "holy (1 Pet. 1:16)." A task we should strive for while, at the same time knowing that keeping ourselves "pure" "perfect," "innocent" and "morally blameless" (which is what "holy" implies – Strong’s 40) are human impossibilities. To believe otherwise is to make ourselves equals with the Lord Jesus the Christ. Such goals do not preclude us from keeping the Sabbath. We should relish a day set aside, from the distractions of worldly cares and woes when, as a community of Christians, we can worship and praise God together; share in partaking of the Holy Eucharist in remembrance of Him, His sacrifice, resurrection and ascension untainted and without the distractions of the worldly desires and anguish that confronts us every other day of the week. The suggestion from the Theological Wordbook that the Sabbath is a day in which we "put a stop to the week’s work seems like a reasonable summary not only of what we learn from Scripture but the way most Bible scholars interpret the word. Certainly it is in line with Hebrew/Greek/English translations that use such words as "intermission," "rest" and, most interestingly, "repose from secular avocations." Instead while declaring our desire to be holy seven days a week, we reject setting aside just one day. Who do we think we are kidding? Certainly it is not God – or anyone else either. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six
days shalt thou labour, and do all they work: 
|
First Article
