I just had an interesting dilemma arise at the school where I teach Middle School Bible. A conversation regarding internet search engines led to a discussion of the pernicious nature of internet porn. A parent of one of our students remarked that her son had “stumbled” upon a porn site recently. She shared her fears that her son is vulnerable to the dangers of pornography and that she has told him that these sites are “wrong”. This led to a discussion of distorted views of sexuality that breed the porn industry. I then told her of a series of lessons I once taught to Middle and High School students at church regarding God’s view of healthy sexuality. She asked if I were teaching this in Bible class this year. My answer was a somewhat apologetic “no” in that my curriculum is an overview of the Old Testament from Solomon to Malachi plus the Intertestamental Period. I don’t have time to deal with specific life-application issues as ends in themselves. Life application comes up all the time in class but I don’t focus on those things as the subject. Her response was a good question, “Isn’t this type of thing more important for pre-adolescent students than ‘facts’ about the Bible?”
My quandry. Does teaching a book-by-book overview of the Bible serve a better purpose for 13-year-old Christian School students than do lessons on how to live the life we are called to by God? Are students served BEST by lessons on Zechariah and his call to faithfully rebuild the Temple or are they best served by lessons on how to avoid the trap of pornography? If you were a Christian School Administrator, what would you choose for Bible curriculum?
I think Song of Solomon is in your curriculum, isn’t it?
Sorry, that was rather glib.
I think the real question you’re asking is like the whole fishing story – whether to give them a fish and feed them today, or teach them to fish and feed them for life. Most folks would answer “teach them.”
But surely it’s different if they’re starving, isn’t it?
Problem is, they’re not starving.
Does a 13 year-old kid know it’s wrong to seek out porn? Yes. Does he possess the wherewithal to do the right thing? Yes. Does he lack anything he needs to stand his ground? No.
Sounds like the real question is whether this (or any) young man desires to stand his ground. Better yet, does he desire God and his righteousness?
The Bible is clear that none of us does.
So how do you equip such a young man?
Don’t give him an “out.” Reinforce that he is without excuse; he knows the right thing to do, and it’s in his capacity to do it. He may not want to, but he must do it anyway. In the meantime, teach him the word of God… without it, he will never grow in his knowledge of God, and subsequent desire for him.
Question, is there any difference between this question and whether or not a church should do sermons expositorily (book by book) versus doing sermons topically (what the congregation is seen to need)?
Hugh,
Wise words. I believe that your thoughts reflect the overall philosophy of the school. The problem is one of “disconnect”. It appears that some parents don’t have a real grasp on how to communicate their values to their children. Christianity, to them, is a matter of ethics. Within this ethical system, sexuality is seen as “wrong” when it is outside of the context of marriage (and they are correct in this–duh). What they fail to communicate is WHY it is wrong in this context. Our culture views males and females as essentially the same–just with different plumbing systems.
It’s my opinion that the Bible treats the true differences between males and females as apriori knowledge. It is assumed to be understood by the reader. Therefore, the concept of the female being a “weaker” vessel is not intended to shock the reader.
All this to say that in our postmodern culture there is a great deal of groundwork that needs to be laid in order for a biblical worldview to be constructed (or maintained).
So the question remains, do we plow ahead in teaching the Bible (as the word of God), and expect the application to grow from that or do we teach “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (topical–as Matt says)?
Of course, one could say “you teach righteousness and peace when you teach the scriptures”. With this I would agree. But does a 13-year-old benefit more from a year of lessons on the Divided Kingdom than a year of lessons on biblically based sexuality, ethics, and other interpersonal relationship skills?
OK, enroll the parents… sorry, there’s that “glib” thing again…
I don’t mean to sidetrack the discussion, but there’s that “values” thing again. Many parents who take their kids out of public schools is because of “values.” Isn’t it interesting that your statement sort of exposes that the public schools are only half the problem – while the public schools may be espousing objectionable “values,” many parents are, at best, ineffective in promoting the “values” they prefer.
So perhaps the real problem is that parents are delegating the burden of inculcating values in their kids?
The way I see it, I don’t want other people to have a more prominent role in forming my kids’ values than I do.
Now, I’m not in favor of muzzling their teachers; there’s a place for all this under the right circumstances (spiritual formation and such). But isn’t the teacher’s job defined in terms of an academic curriculum?
I guess if you want to sign your kids up for a sex ed curriculum, that’s fine. But I dislike the dichotomy you’re presenting: it’s as if the school is making “Sophie’s choice” between teaching the Bible as it was written, OR teaching them in the way they should go.
There’s no reason the school can’t do both within the right framework – but the framework must affirm that rationale precedes application. Once you put the application first, and subordinate the rationale, then God’s Word becomes a means to an end that is something less than His undiluted glory.
OK. Devil’s advocate time…
If rationale precedes application (as you say)…
And the rationale is arrived at through Bible teaching that focuses on the literature of the Bible in a book-by-book study…
Then does this extend to all applications?
e.g. Does one need to be exposed to the rationale (as stated above) before one is called to repent?
Is it NECESSARY for me to have an understanding of Hezekiah’s place in the history of Judah before I can apply the mandate to keep myself from idols?
Is it truly necessary for me to EVER know Hezekiah’s place in the history of Judah? Or is it simply a nice thing to study at some point in my relationship with God?
I apologize – I was unclear.
What I meant was that application should be a result of rationale; that is, I meant “precede” logically – not necessarily temporally. Indeed, I’m insisting that a young man should abstain from lustful desires even though he might not understand the whys and wherefores.
If the logical sequence is reversed, and you espouse the rationale because it supplies an effective argument for the application you prefer, well, you have to admit that what we’ve been calling “application” is really your rationale: it’s why you take the position you do.
So to your question: I disagree with the scope of your second postulate. That is certainly one effective way, but I’m not prepared to say that it’s the only way. I would probably accept it if you said “Rationale is arrived at through study of God’s word.” But again, I may have changed the landscape of the question by revisiting “precede” in logical rather than temporal terms.
As to the rest of your question, I don’t want to just “punt” because I’ve redefined a key term… I guess it’s fair to say in general, no, I don’t think any of those things are strictly necessary for any one person to ever know. We could fuss and fret over what “necessary” means too…
Bottom line – God is revealed in the pages of Scripture. The reason we live the way we do is because of him: who he is, what he has done, what he commands. If we embrace the Scripture because it produces a particular way of life, and not because we are seeking God’s glory, we’ve stripped the Word of its power and removed God from the equation. He won’t allow that to succeed.
Hmmm… Stumbled upon a tasty one here… I would like to say, kindly, that I think you are all wrong. How’s that for stirring the pot!? Yea, boy! I think you are trying to reform a broken system that can do neither great application nor great indoctrination. The entire premise of a school communicating either ends of this spectrum as God intended is wrong-headed. These truths were meant to be communicated within the social atmosphere of dynamic discipleship in the context of a family/church/community. A school is meant to educate – add facts to one’s brain, not work out the nuances of teen living. In our day and age we think that a school can do this or that knowledge is somehow a spiritual insulator destined to make kids spiritual. It simply does not work like that. Today, only within the context of a series of relationships all straining to know God and engage life can this even come close to being reality. Add to this a culture that segments our time into tiny pieces and attention spans that cannot endure a one hour dialogue between people and you have a generation losing the ability to disciple the young from those who have gone before them.
Bottom line? You can only teach people what you know, but you are called to reproduce who you are and that is impossible in the context of a school teacher/student relationship.
Now, let’s dream of relationship structures in which this may happen… Is it possible in today’s age? What would have to change?
Dan, you don’t really believe that, do you? You seem to have bought into the lie that a teacher (at any level) can be an impartial dispenser of neutral information, and that the student will make value judgments on his own. This is a laughably naïve belief. Ken (or any other teacher) will have a profound affect on his students (for good or ill). Education, properly understood, is the process of moving a student from the darkness of ignorance to the light of truth.
Why do you say that true education is impossible within the school student/teacher relationship (especially at a Christian school)?
Hugh: This just brings us right back to the original question. I totally agree with your points regarding the power and pre-eminence of the word of God. I do not now, nor have I ever, presented the Bible to my students as simply “facts and figures” (I know you never said this but the parent in question implied this). I always challenge my students to ask themselves WHY, for example, God would see it important that we know that the book of Zechariah is set up in a series of chiastic visions intended to catch the attention of complacent Jews.
The question is, what is more important for 13-year-olds: 1.) biblically centered teaching on life application of God’s standards or 2.) book-by-book study where the scheme of redemption is revealed systematically yet in all its nuances?
I’d answer, BOTH. In an ideal world, parents, with the guidance of godly teachers in a healthy church environment, would apply the principles and standards of God as they raise their children.
The problem is that we really don’t have many healthy church environments feeding students into the Christian schools.
I disagree with Dan and stand with Eric that teachers (in school and in church) can have profound impact on students on a personal level beyond just the impartation of facts. I’ve been involved in Youth Ministry long enough to have significant experience in this.
I personally have never had much one-to-one discipling. My spiritual growth has been almost entirely in the context of large group teaching and individual study.
I agree with Dan insofar as schools are a very “one size fits all” solution, and that’s just not the way the world really is. Proper education takes a closer involvement than an institutional setting can offer.
But that’s not to say that the school has nothing to offer. It just means that you can’t say “the kid’s in school; he’ll come out educated in the end.” If a school can do a better job educating a child than the parents can, then by all means, make use of the schools if they best address your needs.
But note what I say: make use of the schools. The schools are not an end in themselves, nor are they presupposed in terms of what God requires of us.
So I agree with Eric that no teaching is possible without some kind of value transfer going on. It’s just that the school doesn’t have to answer to God for what ultimately becomes of a child; the parents do, and so does the local church leadership. Doesn’t it stand to reason that those are the best instruments for achieving the education God requires? Sure, they will make use of resources (like schools, for example), but whoever uses those resources should do so only after imposing a defined set of boundaries on them. Without those boundaries, the accountable parties may find in the end that they have not executed their stewardship faithfully.
So to the original question… can a teacher in Ken’s position address the issues of sexuality he described? I would say it’s a matter of whatever boundaries have been imposed on him by those to whom he owes an account of his stewardship. Take it away, guys…
Hmm. That one may have touched a nerve…. Let me explain. I am not saying a teacher can be impartial or that a teacher cannot have impact. I understand that no one anywhere has ever communicated raw facts void of values. Wow, I am surprised that this was even considered as to my mentality. If that is what you understood, then I apologize. There is no information, after streaming through a person, that is value free whether in presentation or content. What I am saying is that a teacher is charged with the dissemination of facts in the context of relationship within a school that, due to the structure, is very limiting. A teacher can touch on items, but has been hired to complete the required “scope and sequence” of the class he or she teaches. My point is that schools were not designed to speak to life issues, they are designed to educate students regarding a particular discipline of study. I would be the first to say that a teacher can impact a student – I worked as a teacher for over 14 years with students and have tremendous relationships and memories of changed lives. However, I could and would never be able to attain the level of impact that is inherently designed in the parent/child relationship, whether for good or bad.
A teacher is in a “work-for-hire” position and to do anything that deviates from that is to not be a good steward and not be God-centered. God did design a place for this type of training – the home.The home is THE place in which children are to develop. This is the design of God in creating the family to pass on the values from generation to generation. No school can be a substitute for God’s design to pass on truth and guide in areas of development like the family. That is what I meant. The original issue of being torn between answering life issues and teaching the curriculum is solved rather quickly if we remember our roles. We all know this, but yet the situation seems to indicate that we need to remind ourselves of this truth and the tragic reality that it is often misunderstood or completely disregarded by parents.
A Christian teacher in a Christian school is called to live a God centered life and teach students the content of the course they are responsible to teach. Yes, by all means take advantage to dispense a God-centered passion within the confines of teaching subject matter, but a teacher must teach the subject they have been hired to. To do otherwise will mean that a teacher will not be a good steward of the job he or she was hired to do and lead to a second-rate education in that particular field of study. Teachers are hired to teach while displaying lives centered on God. Teachers can have tremendous influence, but cannot do it at the expense of teaching the course that parent’s are paying to be taught. Sure, there are some parent’s who would love a teacher to train their kids in dealing with evils in this world, but that is not the primary role of a teacher; that is the role of the parents. I hope that makes sense…
I see what you’re saying. It’s like an economics teacher giving financial advise instead of explaining the principles of how the ecomonic system works.