Whether it is within or without family, the uttermost thing to be kept sacred is ‘saving face of the other’ in the oriental society which is based on honor and shame. It doesn’t matter whether it’s religious, political, of business, or scholarly in nature.

It is especially when other party has made something wrong that people will be shown how mature they are. Often, that would become a seed from which lasting friendship is formed and deepened, or they become foes with feuds ;-<

Speaking of a Sunday school, I had an experience when we of small group was in a Bible class (Friday), where someone (joined there invited by her friend) asked the pastor about what to say when other brings up a question of Jesus being the only way for salvation. I was flabbergasted by this reply: he said that his answer to the person asking the question would be 'I do not know' – without blinking eyes. To relieve some tension in the group, I came up an answer (which is correct) for a way out – there is a problem we have to solve, which is the definition of 'salvation'. Jesus IS our salvation. In other religions (esp. Buddhism, Islam, etc.) there is no concept of salvation as such. As they got indoctrinated, they don't have a need of salvation as such. Jesus IS the way to Father; there is no other name in which anyone can be saved. I'm still uncomfortable with the pastor's mind-set and genuineness of his 'faith'. They get mad upon hearing that the Biblical truth, but they have no reason to get mad!

Having been an instructor in a highly technical professional environment worldwide, I concur with the latter remarks. Respect goes both ways. Thanks Scott, Darin, mbaker, John.

[...] How to Listen in Sunday School [...]

[...] Sunday School Listener Posted on June 10, 2009 by Kevin Jones Michael Patton has some good advice: No matter where you are when you are not the teacher, do not act as if you are. So many times I [...]

John said:

“I think that if we have a humble and servient approach to the material and the students, then in most cases it will not be appropriate to take an indoctrination approach to the material and the students.”

Agreed.

While I believe in respecting the teacher and the time it takes to study and prepare a lesson which communicates doctrine effectively, yet gives room for both questions and other perspectives, I think every good teacher can admit that we often learn as much as we teach from our students.

I know I do, and it is often humbling. And that’s a good thing, because there are always points, and counterpoints, that should sharpen us and expand our knowledge as well, by being challenged to look at other perspectives objectively, rather than subjectively viewing things through our own lens.

Such is the advancement, and the advantage, of the learning process for all concerned.

I concur with Scott Gray (11) above. This post seems to reflect an unhealthy (but normal) attitude prevalent in the mainstream bible study teaching models.

I always appreciate your material, Michael. I believe that the interaction between the students and between them and the teacher depends on the context, the teacher, the students and the material. While I do agree that in some cases your proposal is appropriate, I also agree with Scott Gray that in other cases a different approach is more appropriate. Your model is certainly not the current view among adult educators (nor taught in the teaching methods courses that I have taken). When I have taught I have actively discouraged your model and if my students did not challenge or make their points of view known I considered the classtime a disappointment if not a failure. I think that if we have a humble and servient approach to the material and the students, then in most cases it will not be appropriate to take an indoctrination approach to the material and the students.

Regards
#John

Thank you, Michael. I needed to read that.

but this essay you’ve written above isn’t really about change-ready students, or about content of teaching material. it’s about domination.

the venue you’ve chosen, that of the classroom, where you are the teacher and others are students, is about a relationship of domination. to dominate is to rule over, or to control, or to prevail. you’re asking for domination through tradition—the tradition one associates with a classroom setting. you also exercise domination through power—you decide who gets to answer a question, and you can always control things by talking louder in the microphone. and you can always ask people who are not change-ready, or whose behavior you feel is inappropriate, to leave the classroom.

but there are other ways to dominate a teaching setting—domination through competence. or domination through guiding influence. or domination through changing venues. or domination through changing you ‘unfreezing’ techniques.

Or you can change your relationship with your students to something other than domination altogether.

so based on what your skills are, and what your content is, and who is paying you how much to do what, you can pick the venues that are most appropriate for what you bring to the teaching table. just choose only those venues where your dominance is assured—students who are change-ready, who acknowledge the authority of a classroom setting, who value the content you present to them.

or, if you wish to succeed at reaching a wider audience, change some of your methods.

Thanks again for the stimulus for good thinking. While I find I disagree with at least half of what you say, I appreciate the material 100 per cent.

peace—

scott

in your teaching, you are teaching in a confessional scholarship setting (as opposed to a critical scholarship setting). i think martin luther’s faith model (notitia, assensus, fiducia) that you talked about a few posts ago is a very reasonable way to look at teaching in a confessional scholarship setting.

i’m not sure you’ve got the separations clear, though. i think notitia is more about knowledge, especially evidence-based knowledge, than it is about principles that are the conclusion of an argument. ‘jesus is lord’ strikes me as assensus; where as ‘the christian scriptures state that jesus is lord’ is clearly notitia. sometimes in your teaching content, you are clear about the difference; other times you are not. if the intent of your teaching is to present notitia, it’s best not to mix assensus into it without clearly delineating the difference, even in a confessional scholarship setting. i find as a student, no matter what the topic: scientific, theological, sociology, economics, or whatever, that when teachers present assensus as though it were notitia (and it happens quite often outside the theological teaching setting), i begin to question the competence, and the underlying agenda, of the teacher. i don’t mind when a teacher is presenting assensus, mind you, as long as it’s clearly explained as such, and not presented as notitia. could this be the source of some student unrest in your settings?

of course, fiducia is the ideal setting for changing lives. it’s the favorite venue of jesus in the jesus teachings. jesus didn’t present notitia very often. jesus’ trust in his notitia and assensus led him to act, and that’s where fiducia is at it’s richest—when it’s lived out in action.

jesus didn’t say, ‘i’ve been called to talk about the poor in a classroom setting. i’ve come to preach about the hungry and homeless.’ he said, ‘i’ve been called to set them free, to minister directly to them.’ notitia is what you discuss with others while your building a house together for habitat for humanity, or while you’re serving food together in the soup kitchen, or when you’re boxing up food to be given out at the soup pantry. and ascensus is what you celebrate on the ride home, and on sunday morning s in community with others who live their fiducia.