Are
we the churches of God or the
Christ and Interactive method of teaching.
In the gospels it refers to Jesus preaching on 16
occasions,
however never to
his followers or disciples and not once
in John’s gospel. But references
to Jesus teaching occur on at least 43 occasions!
The
main component of our services is traditionally the sermon and
obviously to a much lesser extent the sermonette.
Is the sermon 'teaching'? What
sort of teaching was it when Jesus instructed his followers?
Was this different in any way from when he instructed the crowds that
followed him? Where in fact does the term sermon come from?
It cannot be found in the Bible, but then neither can Sunday worship.
Talking about worship, we read in John:4v24
that we are to worship the Father in spirit and truth.
So these questions are valid since many or most of us assumed at one time
that true worship was Sunday worship, does the ‘sermon’ also fit in this
category? We need to start with
a look into what Jesus did.
As regards the Sermon on the Mount, Matt:5v1-2 tells us that, ‘..with his disciples and sat down to teach them. This is what he taught them:’(NLT). So to say that Christ gave a sermon on this occasion is not really a valid or fair description. The word taught or teach is from the Greek word didasko (St:1321); which Thayer’s explains as ‘to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them.’ However we should not confuse the use of “teaching” --didasko-- with the term “preaching” as the word “preaching” (or preach) generally comes equally from the two Greek words kerusso (St: 2784, 62 times) or euaggelizo (St: 2097, 54 times). Thayer’s Lexicon explains the word kerusso as, ‘to proclaim after the manner of a herald always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority, which must be listened to and obeyed.’ The suggestion here is, be quiet and listen because I have something to say to you. In Thayer’s it adds, ‘to proclaim openly, especially used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian leaders.’ So this is significantly different from teaching and, as we shall see, the teaching that Jesus involved himself with. What is often not emphasized enough is that his approach varied to whom he was speaking and when. What about euaggelizo, ‘…in the New Testament used esp. of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation.’ (Thayer’s) Obviously this approach would not be one applicable to his disciples, since they had already been convinced and convicted, the reason why they were already his disciples and had ‘forsaken everything’. (Matt:19v27)
On only
one occasion
can I find disciples or believers preached
to and that is in Acts:20v7. This is the occasion that Paul ‘preached’ in Troas until
dawn, and as stated in the NLT v7, ‘.. since he was leaving the next
day.’ Surprisingly, here the word
‘preached’ is neither from the Greek word kerusso or euaggelizo.
Of the 60 times the word preached occurs in the New Testament it
is translated on this single
occasion, from the Greek word ‘dialegomai’ (St:
1256). Here Strong’s adds;
‘i.e. discuss (in argument or exhortation)’.
In Thayer’s Lexicon it adds; ‘to converse, discourse with one, argue,
discuss’, adding ‘drawing arguments from the Scriptures’. So on the one
occasion Paul is recorded as preaching to his fellow believers (in the
KJ), he
didn’t!
He is, in fact, involved in discussion
! This
Greek word 'dialegomai' is where we get the word dialogue.
Looking up the definition of this word in the Oxford Dictionary it says,
‘Conversation…between two or more persons.’
In Acts :17v2 we find it was his manner or custom to reason (dialegomai)
in the synagogue. In Acts:18v4 we read every Sabbath in the
synagogue he reasoned (dialegomai) and even in Acts: 19v8, where
it says Paul was in the synagogue for a period of 3 month ‘disputing’; even
this word is yet again from the Greek word dialegomai, as used in Acts:20v7.
So this two-way conversational technique in
teaching others by Jesus was
imitated by Paul.
(ICor:11v1)
But what sort of teaching was it? Studying just one of the gospels it becomes amply evident what sort of teaching it was. Using a ‘red-letter’ Bible makes it even more clearly apparent. It is in fact overwhelmingly interactive. Just in a casual summary of the first gospel I noted 12 examples where he began teaching by answering questions; for example the whole of Matt:25 is in reply to questions posed in chapter 24, as they sat on the slopes of the Mount of Olives over looking Jerusalem. Another 7 examples I found he actually answered questions by leaving them with a question in reply. I guess his- Jesus- style did not change much, as it tells us when he was 12, ‘they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.’ Luke: 2v46
I found just 2 examples where he seemed to have begun his teaching without prompting from the crowds of followers, the scribes and Pharisees or his disciples. So to me, just looking at these inspired recorded accounts it gives the impression that at the most only a mere tenth of his teachings in Matthew could possibly be regarded as non-interactive, but even this is not a “proof” that lecturing or ‘sermonizing’ took place for us to copy or emulate. Therefore less than 10% of the time was a “lecture” (or possibly sermon-like) approach used, and over 90% of Christ’s teaching was given interactively!
We read in ICor:11v1 that Paul
imitated Jesus, but does that apply to his ‘preaching’?
Most of what Paul taught us in the New Testament comes from his letters
or his epistles. As explained earlier, Paul’s examples of ‘preaching’ to
the brethren are non-existent!
Now we realize from the numerous
accounts recorded under the inspiration of God for our learning that both Jesus
and Paul both taught in an interactive manner. From various
studies and life experience we know that interactive teaching is the most
effective form of teaching, vastly more effective than lecturing. We could as
‘imitators’ (ICor:11v1)
start by following their example.
We could begin by experimenting with some changes in the Sabbath sermon.
Re-arranging the chairs so that the congregation could look at one another when
they speak would be a valuable first step. (More like the format in
the synagogue in Jesus’ day and to a much lesser extent many of
them today.) Perhaps, then
beginning by asking for questions or comments at the conclusion of the sermon
would be another step in the right direction.
Soon, it would not be uncommon for someone to raise his or her hand to
ask a question while someone is in the midst of their ‘teaching’. If
answering the question doesn’t detract from the flow of teaching, they could
take the time to answer it there and then. At the end of the sermon, someone
could pass a portable microphone around the room so that people could share
their insights on a section or ask a question. Often, this portion of the
meeting could become the most exciting, as together we could learn from one
another, challenge each other, and grow together in our own understanding of
God's Word. IJohn:2v27
‘But you have received the Holy Spirit and (it) lives within you, so
you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true.
For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what (it) teaches is
true-it is not a lie.’(NLT)
On a few occasions, a disagreement may arise. However, one could instruct
the congregation when beginning this new practice, that any comment or question
was appropriate as long as it edified the body and was spoken in love. In fact
the expression, "speaking the truth in love" (Eph.4:15), should
take on a new meaning for us. We
will learn to defer to one another, even as we challenge one another on points
of Biblical truth. (A
closed mind gathers no intelligence!)
The blessings that interactive
teaching would bring to the congregation are far reaching, both in growth
and development. Previously, the
ministry was looked to as the sole provider of enlightenment and edification.
With this new practice you could receive ministry from the body every
Sabbath. Previously, there has been no outlet for any of the brethren to
communicate the truth in love, or to utilize their spiritual gifts in the
meetings. The feeling of being uninvolved and possibly ignored is felt by many
and this would certainly be rectified by this approach.
Now any person in the body has the opportunity of making a contribution
for the edification of the whole. This
will inevitably produce a greater degree of unity, empathy, understanding and
‘bonding’ within the ‘body’ or congregation.
Often, an insight shared with the congregation may be just what someone
else needed in their life at that particular moment. On many occasions, someone
may raise a question that is never addressed during the teaching, but which
needed to be resolved before the congregation could apply the message in their
lives. On other occasions, a person's comment may enable the rest of
us to see a truth in a fresh and new way. For example, one Sabbath someone may
be teaching the ‘church’ some aspect of the fruits of the Spirit.
During the question/answer session that follows, someone may suggest the
tool of visualization of a particular fruit, in his or her life; they
then add that they have found this particularly successful in actually acquiring
it. Others will add their comments
and so a really worthwhile session will proceed on how to develop perhaps some
attribute or fruit in their life, the whole of the congregation sharing and
pooling their experiences and success stories. One may hesitate opening up the
meetings for questions and comments for some time, because they may be warned
that it would result only in uninformed ignorance.
However I anticipate the contrary would occur as many of God's people
have great wisdom and experience that needs to be heard in order for the
whole body to be built up in love and greater unity.
Fears that opening up the meetings
would result in chaos is basically a fear of
aligning one’s conduct to the scriptures and
that would be merely exposing a lack of trust in them, hence God himself.
The meetings would soon prove to be harmonious and orderly.
I am told this is precisely what has happened in countless groups and
congregations around the world who have accepted the challenge to follow the
scriptures and therefore obedience to God in this respect.
Having interaction in a teaching situation with adolescent teenagers from
my experience very rarely ended in chaos; then why expect it with adults
who presumably have God’s Spirit. Another
concern one may have could be that allowing others to speak would produce
doctrinal confusion within the body. It is true, that on occasion, people may
express different doctrinal convictions in a meeting. However, this should have
the result of causing all of us to dig deeper into the Scriptures to discover
the truth for ourselves If the one teaching the Scripture cannot prove his
teaching from the Bible, then the congregation has the right to question whether
it is true or not. No person in the church ought to be above questioning.
Our allegiance must always be to Christ, the Head of the Church and His Word,
first and foremost as the final arbiter in all things. When we transfer our
allegiance to a man, group or organization,
no matter who he/it happens to be, rather than Christ and His Word, we
commit idolatry. For emphasis, in
repetition; IJohn:2v27 ‘But
you have received the Holy Spirit and (it) lives within you, so you don’t need
anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what (it)
teaches is true-it is not a lie.’(NLT)
We would also discover, possibly to some of our surprise that people learn much better in this new format. By having the opportunity of asking questions, and being provoked to dialogue, people will have to really think through the message rather than possibly doze or ‘drift away’. When the teaching is given in a monologue format with no possibility for interchange, much of the valuable communication is lost because it is not understood. In order to retain concepts and further understanding monologue is rarely enough, and a two-way flow of communication is virtually essential.
Another advantage that is guaranteed to occur is that fellowship at the end of the service or meeting will be much more biblically oriented and many more will participate in discussions. Since brethren have been provoked to think and analyze during the ‘sermon’ many things will come to mind as the service concludes. The eagerness to converse further is overwhelming and certainly not the formality we think is needed to somehow “please” God with biblically orientated fellowship. Input during the service - from many present- assures a wide interest and involvement afterwards. The service, meeting, and worship to our God becomes not just a rigid formality, but rather it becomes something that each person has a vested interest in. With that interest comes one’s attention, focus, and also the opportunity to both learn and teach. This is indeed one area that the church seems to lack sufficient emphasis, that of our role of teaching others in the future. Also the ‘sermon’ or teaching would be remembered much more readily and therefore if applicable, changes in lifestyle more likely adopted by those present.
The New Testament Scriptures show us
a much different method of communicating God's Word than our traditional one.
They teach us that teaching; not
preaching is the norm for the assembled church, as we have now established
without a shadow of doubt that Jesus, Paul and the apostles taught the
brethren rather than preached to
them! Furthermore, they show us that meaningful interchange between
teacher and congregation was a normal
and important element of the learning process in
New Testament times. They also
teach us that the opportunity to evaluate and weigh those things spoken in the
‘name of the Lord’ is the responsibility of all of us.
IThess: 5v21 ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’
‘Prove’ could be translated ‘test’ as it is in the RSV and
others, also good is not in the sense of being correct or true.
Thayer’s lexicon adds, ‘…. therefore well adapted to its ends.’
so we could end up with: ‘Test
all things; hold on to that that works best.’
And sermons do not
work out best! Obviously,
the ministry of the God’s truth has changed in numerous ways over the
centuries. Shouldn't we seek to incorporate these Biblical principles in our 21st
century churches today? If Jesus,
Paul, and the early church ministered the Word through a participative and
interactive manner, then why do we go on stubbornly in opposition to scripture,
therefore even God Himself, in this one-way
communication pattern? There is much God wants us to learn and change. Let
us begin by imitating Paul as he imitated Christ!
Could we at least talk about it before
impulsively rejecting it?
.
_______________________
Roj. Beaumont. 26.02.06 Itlldo@uwclub.net