I went to a committee meeting for the CCOWA Perth Children's Ministry Convention a few nights ago and one of the things we talked about was the topic for the 2011 convention. That's right, we're looking ahead to 2011 already!
Every second year the convention is aimed at Children's Ministry workers and in 2009 the topic is "Music with Meaning". In 2011 we are looking towards a convention that will train Children's ministry workers to evaluate their present curriculum materials according to biblically sound principles and then give them an opportunity to adapt the resources they currently use, or begin developing better ones.
As an aside, I just had to write my paragraph personal description for my graduation with the Certificate of Christian Studies, coming up in a few weeks. Here's my spiel:
Sharon is excited to be graduating at the same time as her husband Jeff, and at the thought of using what she has learnt from the Certificate in Christian Studies to support him in his new role as Pastor at BCC. She has already put a lot of what she has learnt to use, running seminars for the Christian mother’s support group she goes to and working together with Jeff to disciple their four young children, as they bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. In the future she dreams of being granted the opportunity to work with the Children’s Ministry team at B*** to develop a high quality, biblically sound, gospel-centred Sunday School curriculum to align with the teaching program.
Kaye (our committee president) brought this article along to our meeting: Hermeneutics and Children's Curriculum. I found it thought provoking. I am not sure I agree completely with it, though. The comments also make interesting reading. What do you think?
[Since Amy asked, and it's been a few days since I posted this, I have added an extraordinarily long comment for this post giving my opinion. If you care to read it, it will be better to open this post in another tab so you're not forever scrolling. While you're at it, open Walton's article in another tab as well, so you know what I'm responding to. I am also changing the date on this post so it appears as the most recent, so y'all notice it and get a chance to read the comments. I'd love to have some more discussion on this topic.]
Saturday 31 January 2009
Getting Children's Ministry materials right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, you're bound to snag a comment out of me with this one! Funny, too, that the author of that article is at Wheaton's graduate school, for I am a Wheaton alum (although not of the graduate school).
In any case, I have to say that I completely agree with this! Of course, I hurriedly read it, but I thought it was right on the mark and hits on a few of my biggest complaints with children's ministry, but says it in a far better way than I ever have.
I recently looked at "K" magazine, a publication that is meant for children's ministry workers, and found several examples of these errors right in the magazine itself. I was appalled.
There is a curriculum here in the US called 252 Basics, which perhaps I've complained about before, that is organized around teaching a new virtue every month! A classic example of promoting the trivial. I also see over and over that curricula fit the Scripture to their point rather than teaching the point of the passage. While the Holy Spirit can convict us of many different things from the same Scripture, there is a limit to what passages teach. Also, it is crazy the way curriculum writers tend to elevate Biblical personalities above God. It isn't wrong to give children Biblical heroes ("Dare to be a Daniel!), but we mustn't forget the Bible is about God revealing Himself to us. Otherwise, it is simply an old history collection.
I intended to leave a comment on the post about Children Desiring God, only to see that the comments section had recommendations for Children Desiring God, repeatedly! This is what I suggested our church use and (not because of me but because of the solid curriculum) now we are in our second year of teaching it. Now I'm thinking that you set me up, Sharon! :)I bet you knew this would get me fired up.
#3, Reading between the lines, is an easy mistake to make as a teacher. Why do we find ourselves saying, "How do you think that so-and-so felt?" Children have a hard time separating speculation from what the Bible actually says. I learned this lesson after watching the Esther movie--the name escapes me--that came out a year or so ago. My daughters became confused about what was in the text and what was not.
I'm curious about your own reaction. Do tell.
[I think the Ester movie was either "Hadassah" or "One Night with the King". I haven't seen either - or maybe the latter was the movie and the former was the book(?) - so I can't comment.
And I did not know your church was using CDG for their curriculum, so I was not setting you up. I did, of course, have a fair idea you would comment, given our common interests in ministry to children. Actually, I posted this article with you in mind, thinking you would appreciate it! I might have questions about CDG later, but I'll email them.]
My reaction to the article: I do agree with a lot of what Walton writes. His five points, at least the first three, are all insightful and helpful. I am just a little unsure that I agree with him on the finer points of what he says, such as one or two of his examples, and the extremes to which he takes his argument (particularly in the fifth point).
Now Jeff just told me that he has a lot of respect for this guy's knowledge of the OT in particular, since he has his Survey and likes it. So he's warned me not to get above myself here in critiquing his argument. But I do want to say a few things, so I'm just going to go out on a limb and say 'em.
Firstly, I disagree with the use of the word fallacy to describe these issues. Missing an important nuance is not a fallacy, it is an error of incompleteness. The remaining parts of the lesson may be completely valid and true, despite the missing element. I think "error" or even the weaker term "problem" would be much better descriptions.
So to take the "fallacies" point by point.
1. "Promotion of the trivial"
I totally agree that this is a huge problem in a lot of Sunday School curricula, as well as many Bible study materials for adults.
However, I don't like his choice of the first example, Josh 9:13, (although it is actually verse 14 that he quotes: see all of Joshua 9). Perhaps a better lesson to draw from this event would be the danger inherent in the Israelites already starting to disobey God's commands for the way they were to live in the Promised Land. (And thus to be warned that even when we think we are on a "spiritual high note" we are very much in danger of falling into sin. Of course this application then fails under Walton's fifth "fallacy".) Although, without reading ahead to events much later in Israel's history (eg 2 Samuel), the danger resulting from the Gibeonites' presence in the land is not really obvious in the passage. Nor is God's response to the Israelites' actions made apparent. But surely "they did not enquire of the Lord" is integral evidence of their disobedience, and thus essential to a complete understanding of the event? Of course, praying and then doing the wrong thing is still as bad as doing the wrong thing without praying beforehand. Should the lesson instead focus on the status of the wineskins and bread, to which description five verses in the text are dedicated? The problem here is that what one reader sees as trivial minutae, another sees as providing a key insight enabling understanding of the event.
In my reading I have found that many of the historical narratives in particular are filled with passing references which provide the key to understanding either the event or a reason why the event was important enough to be included in Holy Scripture. 1&2 Chronicles are filled with this sort of thing.
I just think Walton could have found a better example of this criticism. One that springs to mind is the description of the Holy Spirit appearing "in bodily form like a dove" at Jesus' baptism. Does it matter that it was a dove and not an eagle? Should we flick through our Bibles and make comparisons to the dove sent out by Noah from the ark? No. The important thing is that the Holy Spirit and the Father were present at the same time and place as Jesus Christ, thus giving us evidence for the Trinity being distinct entities, rather than (as heretics have postulated) simply being "different masks" that a singular God puts on according to what effects the best result at the time. And even more important than this, in terms of lessons for children, is that God declared Jesus as His Son, and God was pleased with Him.
Walton's other examples are great, especially his example of the feeding of the 5000 not being in Scripture to teach us the value of sharing! It is really important that we teach what the Bible is really saying, and don't just make up our own ideas about it. But the reality is, the Holy Spirit guides different people to glean different things from the same passages all the time. That's one of the reasons the Holy Spirit is such a blessing to us Christians, and why a Christian will always read the Bible with a different understanding to that of a non-Christian. So different Sunday School teachers, especially those who know their children well, will make different points from the same text in different lessons. Which means that, given God's provision of diligent, trained, godly people to teach in a Sunday School, a congregation would in many ways be better served by developing their own lesson plans than using a pre-packaged curricula written by someone(s) with no knowledge of that congregation.
2. "Illegitimate extrapolation"
I agree. To consider other Christian products, I have noticed that while the Vegetales shows can be criticised on many levels (points number 3 and 5, for example), this is not one of their problems. They seem at pains to avoid this problem, actually.
3. "Reading between the lines"
I can see the problem with this one. On the other hand, I think not enough reading from other lines is done in many lessons. As I mentioned in my post on Marking my Bible, I have only learnt the value of comparing other related Bible references as an adult. I think it would be great if kids were taught in Sunday School to look up a relevant Proverb or Psalm and see what that has to say on the issue - especially where the Psalm is thought to have been written by the person in the story wrt the event in question (such as Ps 51/David with Bathsheba). And it is another great exercise to look back at OT prophecy which is pertinent (and sometimes even quoted) to certain NT gospel events. Or to compare two or more events in Biblical history, such as Abraham and Isaac's visits to Egypt; or the many miraculous births of children to barren women, especially Isaac, Samuel, Samson and Jesus. Or to consider other events that happened in the same place or between the same people groups described elsewhere in the Bible (eg the subsequent interactions between the Gibeonites and Israel if studying Joshua 9; or considering the events of Judges 9 in light of what happened in Shechem in Gen 34). Or to compare parallel narratives, such as the four gospel accounts of Jesus' life, or parts of Kings with Chronicles, etc. BSF studies are great (and great training) at doing this!
Rather than losing the authority of the biblical teaching, if this were to be implemented carefully, the children would know in practise what it means that "All of Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching..." We just have to make sure that what we read "between" the lines is actually supported from other relevant lines elsewhere in Scripture - and this takes a teacher or curriculum writer who knows their Bible very well.
4. "Missing important nuance"
I think that Walton is perhaps too harsh in this criticism. I can see his point, but I think one would have to examine the entire curriculum (for a term or even a year) rather than just be picky about individual lessons. Some theological stuff is too big for adults to get a grasp on all in one hit, and this is even more true for kids. Should a problem be seen in having the four major elements of the gospel message (as many evangelical scholars divide it) being taught over four sessions, rather than all in one lesson? Some deeper "nuances" might be better taught at an older age, or just after they have had the opportunity to grasp other related ideas. The fuller, complete message might be delivered over time. Which is one reason why it is essential that the whole Bible be used, and that we don't just stick to the easy, familiar stories such as the Flood for which there are lots of resources available. (Especially when lots of resources inevitably means lots of poor-quality resources! as well as the possibility of a few good ones.)
I guess my main problem with this one is similar to that of number 1. If it's not in the lesson, it's a vital nuance for the child who is ready to understand the complete idea; if it is in the lesson, it can easily be the concept that tips the unready child into mental overload and they stop listening to or understanding anything else of the lesson. Once again, having curricula developed by the teachers who will be using it means that you might avoid this. Alternately, a good curricula will provide more information to the teacher than they are expected to impart to all of the children. They can ask parents to follow up and complete discussions at home. Or they can add in what they feel their class is ready for. Or the information can just make the teacher aware that in three lessons from now, the concept will be developed further, just as this lesson is building on the concept introduced in the previous lesson. And help the teacher to answer questions if they come up.
5. "Focus on people rather than God"
I have a big problem with this "fallacy". I think it overstates this way too much! Remember 2 Tim 3, which I quoted in part before? Paul tells Timothy to "continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it" [that's his mother and grandmother, as per 2Tim1:5] "and how from infancy" [eg, pre-school Sunday School lessons] "you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." First observation: what does study of the Bible enable in this case? It makes us wise (ie, knowledgeable of the correct action and able to choose to do it) in the way to be saved - through Jesus Christ. Obviously part of this wisdom comes from recognising and confessing Jesus as God, and so this does point to the Scriptures being written to tell us about who God is. But there is more...
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." So the second thing that study of the Bible provides, according to this passage anyway, is words that will teach us and train us and tell us when we are doing wrong and show us how to be righteous instead and generally change our behaviour so that it more aligns with God's will for us! To what purpose? That we might be equipped for (ie provisioned to carry out and deal with) good works (actions which accord with God's holy and righteous character). And it is not just some parts of Scripture that do that (such as the Proverbs), it is all of it. Even those pesky narrative passages.
In light of this, how could one possibly argue that the Bible does not, as one of its major functions, teach us of the way we should live? Sure, it teaches us about God as well - and that is indeed one of its other major functions. However, we cannot say that a curriculum aimed at using God's word to teach Christians how He would have them live is somehow teaching lessons of a lower standard than one which only teaches about the holiness and strength and might and power and magnificence and glory and trancendence and omnipotence (etc ad infinitum) of God but teaches the child nothing of what their response to this knowledge should be. Perhaps some curricula err too far on the side of providing all the life lessons but none of the theological ones. But the best curricula will actually have both.
Thus endeth the lesson.
~ Sharon
I'm going to chew on this a while, but here's one thought:
Why is it so hard not to be reactionary? I'm not certain what your children's ministry "climate" there is like, but there are some very disturbing trends in American children's ministry that I believe John Walton is, at least in part, reacting to. Of course, reacting to a problem often leads to the another problem. (I hit upon this in my "Faith of a Child" book review.)
When you sit through a couple of Sundays of children's teaching that is centered on moral instruction and virtue, you'd be crying out for someone to acknowledge God, too. You'd be shocked, I think, how many big churches (evangelical even) here have decided to lure in unchurched kids with indoor playgrounds, video games, and the like, and emphasize "practical lessons" with the theory that "seekers" will be drawn by this. Instruction in righteousness is useless without the Gospel first, and I've seen first hand that there is a systemic problem of overlooking that little "boring" part of the Bible. It just isn't any fun to talk about sin and wickedness even if it is the road to salvation and liberty.
Also, I think that reading between the lines isn't meant to refer to using other Scripture to interpret a passage. The danger lies in speculation about a Bible personalities emotions and motives and then drawing a principle from that speculation. I don't think he means that background information is off limits. In fact, isn't that his specialty as an OT scholar?
Walton expands on this article on the teachthetext.com website and also says, "If the Bible is used only as a jump-off point for one's own educational objectives, the Bible's authority is being bypassed, because if a passage is not being used to teach what the Bible is teaching, the teacher stands only in his/her own authority. Too much of today's curriculum teaches only with human authority rather than with the authority of God. This then is the authority crisis in curriculum."
I've seen this problem in curriculum to an alarming degree, and I'm beating a dead horse with this (reacting, no doubt!), but it is very frustrating to see Scripture casually misused to make the point that the curriculum writers think children ought to learn "be kind," "share," etc. and fit a passage to their purposes.
I don't think that this denies the fact that the Holy Spirit does indeed have multiple applications for us in our walk as we read the Scriptures, but on the other hand, we can't just take whatever we wish from Scripture.
I'm supposed to be doing Saturday chores, not writing off the cuff on a serious subject and probably bungling it all up in the process! You win; I can't keep up with you. :) You made some very good points. I just think that, given the trends pushing children's ministry in, quite frankly, a godless direction, it is a breath of fresh air to see somewhat speaking about the authority of Scripture!
Amy, I do agree with you. The authority of Scripture and the centrality of the gospel message that salvation is only to be found through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ must be taught in Sunday Schools. I can see your point that I was criticising him for being over-reactionary to a situation which is perhaps not nearly so prevalent in the church congregations where I have been privileged to have my children taught. On the other hand, I have been a teacher or had a voice in choosing curriculum for a lot of these classes!
You, and Walton, are totally right in condemning values-only teaching. As I've said a while back, without the Holy Spirit within, there is no way these children can live up to this rules-based teaching, and even with the help and guidance of the Spirit it is still a continual battle - as it was for Paul.
Perhaps my perspective might give a clue to why I reacted the way I did. Here in Australia there are some very outspoken evangelical Christians who are producing some great materials. But their focus is overwhelmingly on "getting the doctrine perfectly right" and not on the human response to the docttrine. Thinking back to the class I took on the Christian Life: Head, Heart and Hands, this model of Christianity has way too much head, not nearly enough heart, and very little hands at all! So the danger I worry about is that the sort of curriculum Walton is recommending will be more of an academic lesson in biblical analysis than a lesson that turns the childrens' hearts to God, leading them to turn their hands out to others in love.
Again, what we need is both knowledge of God and instruction in righteousness, not one or the other.
You asked, "why is it so hard not to be reactionary" - I guess it's because his article was one of criticism, rather than one of recommendation. He was attempting to highlight problems rather than suggest solutions. And remember, it is only one article. I am sure he has written others which have a more positive perspective. I do think there would be a lot of value in just stepping back a bit and not thinking "what have I seen work well and what have I seen fail" but instead spend a while in Bible study and prayer and then ask "what does the Bible suggest or recommend?"
Have you ever read the Francine Rivers book, And the Shofar Blew? It looks at this problem of attracting seekers without actually making any disciples through a fictional narrative of a church minister. Very interesting reading.
[I wrote that big slab of text Saturday night, having done most of my chores, and then got up early on Sunday to sweep the floor before church. So don't feel bad about not keeping up with me. Remember I had two days without internet access, just in case you didn't realise, to ponder my reflection and have it well up inside me!]
May God bless you (and your children in their Sunday School program) this Sunday! [I wrote this comment last night and then my internet access crashed and so I'm posting it a day later, but I wanted you to know I prayed for your family last night after I wrote it.]
~ Sharon
Post a Comment