Teaching that sticks

Praise the Lord Saints.

A special shut out and thanks to my friend and fellow clergy Rev. Clarence Williams of Greater Mt. Zion AME for opening his heart, mind, and pulpit to me Sun., Sept. 13.  Your staff treated me and my wife like family and we felt the Love that radiated throughout the entire service.

It just goes to show how God will let us know that it’s not about us but all about Him and His Word.

I pray I didn’t disappoint with the message God gave me and look forward to visiting again.

I haven’t had a chance to go back and review God’s message delivered through me but will soon.

Thanks again and God Bless you and the family at Greater Mt. Zion.

What’s the Point of Church Services?

By Adam McLane

As a youth worker, I’m always aware of leakage in my teaching. That is, the difference between what I am teaching and what learners are learning.

There is a naughty little educational word called “retention” we need to deal with. If there isn’t, what is the point of my teaching if my pupils aren’t learning?

Questions I ask myself as a communicator of biblical truth:

Why am I teaching them?

How do I measure if they are learning?

How do I teach all levels of learners, interest levels and learning styles at the same time?

Those who have sat under my leadership know that I do a lot of repetition and context to my regular teaching. Why do I do that? Because I want some things to stick. It doesn’t matter to me if you write it down in your outline or talked about it in a small group, I believe the Bible has incredible value for believers, we are called to know God’s Word, and we as leaders are told that one of our qualifications for biblical leadership is an ability to teach. I repeat and quiz because I want to burn an image of God’s Word on your heart. It’s not enough to know about the Bible … the teachings of Jesus have to be in your heart to impact your daily life.

I also know, as a leader, I’ll be judged by what people actually learn and what people actually do with what I am teaching them.

As the years have gone by, I’ve become less enamored with perfecting my lecture-styled teaching and more enamored with a discussion-based, conversational style.

Why? Because I’ve found, for me, that method to be a solid way to engage with the middle 70 percent of my audience. Folks in the top 15 percent aren’t my target. And folks in the lower 15 percent … I hope to teach them with other methods that work for them.

Last Monday, I posed the question: Why are we, as believers, expected to listen more than we act?

Some commenters took the post as an attack on the church, going to church and those who lead at church. Others seemed offended that I’d even bring up Sunday morning as something we could collectively improve upon.

My intention was to the contrary. It was an attack on doing something that is largely ineffective for the sake of doing what we know in opposition to what might work better. For all of the thousands of hours the average church goer has listened to, we should have seen so much more fruit. Let’s not forget that the church is on decline.

That pushes questions to the forefront of my mind: Is it the hearer who is disobedient to the teaching? Or is it the teacher who is failing to teach truth in a way that influences action? Probably some fault lies on either side.

It is my hypothesis that the primary method we are using for educating our congregations on Sunday mornings needs alteration. Church leadership is full of brilliant minds. We should show off our brilliance in our ability to lead people in innovative ways: not just talk about leadership, but do it. Not merely preach a message that doesn’t move people, instead allow the message we preach to move us.

At the end of the day, results are all that matter. Jesus isn’t going to look at you and say, “Awesome preaching, my good and faithful servant.” He will look at your body of work and judge you by the results and intentions of your heart.

What are the physical restrictions to learning on Sunday morning?

Nearly all churches are constructed the same way. Rows of seats all facing forward with a person on stage or behind a podium. That person lectures, sometime passionately, sometimes you fill out an outline, sometimes words are put on a screen.

But the Sunday morning experience is typically based on a single teaching method: lecture.

Is that how you learn best? It isn’t for me. I learn best by hearing, discussing and practicing. Passive learning bores me. I need something to do!

And when I look around on Sunday morning, I don’t see a lot of learning going on. (Bear in mind, my pastor is off the charts good at what he does, he is my favorite preacher. Week in and week out, he’s just as solid as people who we have at our conferences.) Instead, I see a lot of polite nodding, the occasional taking of notes, and virtually no way to respond.

Sunday morning is highly assumptive.

There is an assumption that people in the pews are going to live this teaching out in their lives.

There is an assumption that people are going to talk about what they heard at lunch or with a small group, or somehow try to knead the message into their lives.

There is an assumption that the church staff spends the majority of their work week living that message out.

There are no checks and balances to make sure anyone is putting anything into practice. (Staff and attendee alike.)

The proof is in the pudding. There are hundreds of thousands of churches in America. Most use the same methods, few grow. Conversely, where the church is growing around the world, and even here in the United States, different methods are in play.

The “It’s not about Sunday morning” argument.

I’ll be the first to admit that the Christian life isn’t 100 percent about Sunday morning. But, for most people, it’s the centerpiece of their walk with God. People aren’t just whining about being busy, they are. And they are sitting in your pews, bored, and saying to themselves … “You kind of waste my time on Sunday morning, why should I trust you with more of my time? We don’t need another program. We need this program to work for us.” If it isn’t about Sunday morning, then why do we even do it? Of course Sunday morning is very important! Let’s not fool ourselves with double talk.

Are the methods we use on Sunday morning “sacred?”

Sure, Paul preached until a young man fell from a window and died. (Then Paul healed him.) And Jesus preached both at the temple and in public. No doubt, he was taught by rote memory as a boy growing up attending the synagogue. At the same time, oral tradition and discourse were both forms of education and forms of entertainment. We see from the New Testament that Jesus didn’t instruct his disciples to build churches and hold meetings. Instead, he taught them while they were on the road from place to place. Or by sending them out in pairs to do ministry in His name. Or by using parables. Or by asking them questions. In truth, we see a variety of teaching methods to communicate biblical truth in the Bible.

While the way we’ve always done church is held as sacred, the methods we use aren’t biblically sacred. But what is sacred is the simple command to teach.

Till next week,

God Bless and Keep Us All.

Rev. Dr. Robert L. Harrison, PhD – pastorrobharrison@gmail.com, @drrobharrison

The Apostolic Open Door Church of God & True Holiness – 2800 41st Ave. N, St. Pete
Chaplain – Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Pinellas
Parent Support for Education Council Board Member | Dept. Juvenile Justice Chaplain for Circuit 6
scroll to top