Page 6373 – Christianity Today (2024)

Christian Education is big business in America. In the area of the local churches alone it involves 40 million people in Sunday Schools and Bible classes. No other agency in the churches is doing more to teach the Word of God, build Christian character, and train church leaders and workers. Modern pastors have the opportunity and responsibility of guiding this vast enterprise into ever-enlarging fields of usefulness.

The traditional Sunday School was organized for Bible study. This must still be its chief concern. Through the years, however, experience has shown that the total educational task of the church is much broader. Young people’s societies with specialized expressional functions were set up to meet the needs of a limited age group. Other groups demanded similar attention, so ladies’ guilds, men’s clubs, and clubs for boys and girls were formed. Missionary promotion resulted in missionary societies. The inadequacy of time in the single Sunday study hour gave rise to weekday schools and vacation Bible schools. As new educational needs came to light, new agencies arose. There was little or no organizational relationship between these groups. In some cases their functions overlapped with resulting friction and inefficiency. Often these agencies were not amenable to the properly constituted authority of the church itself. Through them the church’s life was often segregated into isolated blocs which made for division and offered a breeding ground for strange doctrines and subversive influences.

The modern concept of Christian education in the local church rises above this provincial and inadequate situation. It sees the church’s total educational function merged into a properly correlated and supervised organization that fully meets the needs of the individual and the community. The challenge of building an adequate program of Christian education for the church in our day should elicit the highest qualities of leadership the pastor has to offer.

The day has passed when the minister can devote himself exclusively to preaching and ignore the fact that he is the overseer of the church and its educational functions. The pastor who is most successful and whose influence counts for most in teaching the Word of God and building character now has a great church school “used as a field to be reached and as a force to be worked.” Here is an area in which his whole ministry can be enlarged in teaching, administration, evangelism, and in community outreach and service.

As the key figure in the life of the church, the pastor must interpret the privilege and task of Christian education to the entire congregation. He can create a community conscience by occasional sermons that lay on the hearts of his people the inescapable duty of every church to advance its members—young and old—in the truths of Holy Scripture, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and in effective Christian service. In meetings with church officials and key leaders in auxiliary agencies, he can enlist cooperation in an enlarging and continuing educational program.

To do this competently presupposes an expert knowledge of Christian education in the local church. Unfortunately many pastors have had little opportunity to study the subject either in church colleges or theological seminaries. Progressive schools provide courses in Christian Education. Some institutions have a department of religious education wherein it is possible to major in courses leading to graduate degrees. History, principles, and methods are taught. Lectures are given by successful church-school leaders, and project work is carried on through nearby churches. If the ministerial student avails himself of several of these courses he will take up his active duties as a pastor equipped not only for the pulpit but for leadership and administration in Christian education.

A recent survey, however, indicates that there are still scores of colleges and seminaries so behind the times, in their concepts of training essential to an effective ministry in this modern age, that they provide either inadequate studies or no such studies at all. The pastor who finds himself in the predicament of being illiterate in this field needs to equip himself by reading the best books available. His first books should deal with the general field and the philosophy, psychology, pedagogy, and theology underlying the educative process. After that any number of specialized texts can be studied, as well as leading periodicals devoted to Christian education and church school methods. Every down-to-date church has a library with books and periodicals available to all interested persons.

The pastor is responsible for determining and maintaining educational standards. During recent years the Sunday School has been undergoing serious criticism because of its haphazard program and inadequately prepared teachers and leaders. Capable observers also point out that other educational factors are operating in a disorganized and uncorrelated manner. Where this situation exists the pastor is primarily to blame. He is the expert, the leader to whom the church looks for guidance in this as well as all other matters pertaining to church welfare. Sometimes the pastor finds it difficult to deal with all the problems involved. One or more of the agencies concerned have a long-standing tradition of independence or leadership, however, inadequate, that considers itself indispensable. Such a situation requires much prayer, tact and patience, a long-term program of educational change and revitalization, and perhaps a gradual change of personnel. Whatever the barriers to the ultimate achievement of educational effectiveness, there should be vision and faith enough to move toward the goal. The minister may have to start with personal conferences, then move to group study and planning, cooperative adventures, and finally official action by the responsible church boards and organizations. Some sort of group clearing-house at high-echelon level—a council, a cabinet or an advisory committee of which he is an ex-officio member—may accomplish what the existing agencies of the congregation are not prepared to do.

Curriculum content and method should be under constant ministerial scrutiny. Proper choice of materials is often a serious problem in the church school. Too often study helps and guides contain teachings foreign to accepted Christian doctrinal and social principles or are of mediocre quality. There are instances where materials have been used to destroy faith in Holy Scripture or to promote socialistic or communistic political views. Authority for choice or approval of curriculum materials should be vested in a well-qualified committee of which the pastor should be an ex-officio member. Among the matters to be considered are (1) Is the material in harmony with the objective sought? (2) Is it true to the Bible? (3) Does it contain subversive doctrinal or social views? (4) Is it prepared by scholarly and otherwise capable writers? (5) Is it suited to the needs and capacities of the pupils? (6) Can the teachers use it successfully? (7) Is it otherwise practical in the light of local conditions? Merit based on some such standard as this should be the primary consideration in choosing from a wide range of samples which have been made available to the committee for study and criticism.

It is essential that Bible instruction be suited to the age, abilities, and circ*mstances of the pupil. Experts, realizing the problem that exists here, have come to favor graded lessons which provide the pupil at each step of his growth with adequate lessons and teaching approaches. Beyond the study of the Bible itself, there is a rich store of study materials in missions, church history, religious art, stewardship, hymnology, and kindred subjects. Special consideration should be given to personal problems, vocational guidance, spiritual nurture, social issues, parent training, leadership training, and other vital matters. In the average church, who but the minister fully understands what is involved in the educational process and is capable to direct planning and give guidance in this area?

The time factor is directly related to this problem. The average Roman Catholic church in America gives 300 hours of religious instruction annually to its pupils; the Jewish synagogue schools, 305 hours; the average Protestant church schools, a maximum of 25 teaching hours. It is small wonder that the average child in most Protestant homes can give no adequate reason for his faith. Furthermore, the major time allowance for religious instruction is poorly distributed. Half-hour lessons a week apart make continuity of instruction well-nigh impossible. Many educators believe that a few weeks of continuous, intensive training (such as offered by Vacation Bible Schools) is far more fruitful than 52 weeks of Sunday School instruction. The child mind is unlikely to carry a line of thought from one study period to another when there is an interval of seven days. Neither trained teachers, good equipment, nor improved lesson materials can adequately overcome the lack of time for instruction.

The church school of the future will not only meet on Sunday morning, but Sunday evening and through the week. It will give expressional training not only to the youth but to the child and the adult. It will not only “teach the Bible” but will offer advanced courses in every area of knowledge and practice vital to Christian living and Church efficiency. Such a concept of the church school makes it the supreme opportunity of the church to become the medium through which souls are intelligently led to accept Christ as Saviour and Lord. Here characters are molded, life is interpreted in Christian terms, abilities are developed for church leadership, and service and Christians are equipped to live in a world which is in dire need of the Christian life and message. It is the minister who must provide the impetus for this enlarging impressional and expressional educational program.

Trained and qualified leadership in Christian education is a primary concern of the pastor. In a very real sense he is responsible for the instruction of his flock. Most of their training is accomplished through the instrumentality of the church school. The character of the teachers and supervisors of instruction, their beliefs, their capabilities, their effectiveness, and their loyalty to the church are extremely vital. To provide this, leadership training classes should be conducted regularly and a system of preliminary internship should be developed under proper supervision. If the pastor has the time, he could use his abilities to no better advantage than in teaching one of these classes and counselling the growing recruits. The texts and requirements for leadership training should be carefully screened and only those with a sound philosophy and methodology approved. Weakness at this point can endanger the whole educational structure.

The pastor who visualizes the school as an evangelistic medium and thus utilizes it to the fullest degree can build a great church. The amazing growth of the Southern Baptist churches in America is largely due to the instrumentality of the Sunday School. The largest Sunday Schools and the largest churches in the nation are to be found in this denomination. Surveys of American Protestant churches over a period of years reveal that 50 per cent of the new additions to church membership come through the work of the Sunday School alone; 35 per cent through the school and other agencies; and only 15 per cent through media other than the school. Millions of people in America are out of Christ. Many of these have never been touched by the church or any of its agencies. It is said that there are some 20 million children and youth, four to eighteen years of age, who are not in any church school. The Sunday School offers an already-organized body of workers equipped to make a graded approach to the unreached and unsaved. Once imbued with the spirit of evangelism, the school can develop a list of prospective church members which may well be the potential church of tomorrow. Through the medium of the school new members and prospective members may be trained in classes taught by the pastor. Thus he can become intimately acquainted with each new church member and live his life into their own. Educational evangelism and evangelistic education give new life and purpose to the church school.

Adequate buildings and equipment for education will be provided on the advice and approval of the pastor. If he really believes that religious education is a basic and indispensable factor in the training of the children and youth of the congregation and the community at large, he will not be satisfied until the church has the best possible facilities.

Underlying and undergirding the educational task of the church there must be a distinctively evangelical Christian philosophy and theology. One of the great needs of the hour is an entire volume dealing with these foundational considerations, and written in the context of our modern culture. We can only intimate skeletal outlines. (1) Christian education has its source and end in God—a perfect, self-revealing, unitive Person. (2) God created man in his image—a self-conscious, self-determinative being, but man has fallen from his perfect state. (3) God makes himself known to man through natural and special revelation. The written Word of God is the authoritative revelation of God and his purpose. (4) The nature and the needs of man are to be served to the end that he may have fellowship with God, with mankind, and with himself to the glory of God. (5) The design of God revealed in Christ to man through the Holy Scriptures gives unity, meaning, and purpose to all of life. (6) Since modern man is generically sinful, self-centered, and evil he must recognize the need of redemption in Christ and the reorientation of his life, ideals, and experiences. (7) The Word of God is the source of authority for and the essential content of the curriculum by which God reaches into the whole man with his redemptive purposeful power. It is the basis for vital, personal choices and experiences when coupled with capable instruction and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (8) Comprehensive goals embracing all of life’s needs and experiences will be achieved through growth in knowledge, spiritual understanding, and through right choices and activities. (9) The pole of interaction in the educational process is the authority of Christ as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and the orb of creativity is the experience of the whole person. (10) Thus the pupil grows into a perfect measure of Christ’s moral stature and makes his maximum contribution to the moral and social order to the glory of God. Such an understanding in depth of what the church school is set to accomplish is essential if the pastor is to direct intelligently this important arm of his church program.

The pastor is under divine compulsion to direct and participate in the task of Christian education. Our Lord set the example in such a deep educational concern that he was hailed as “the Master Teacher.” Before Christ’s ascension, he gave the directive that was to activate the Christian ministry for all time to come: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to do all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt. 28:19, 20. ASV). Teaching was at the heart of the Christ-centered program of the apostolic church and was largely responsible for its intelligent virility and effectiveness. Our continuing ministry must conform to that pattern if it is to achieve the divine purpose in our day.

END

To many laymen there is given the responsibility and privilege of teaching the Bible, usually within the curriculum of the church school.

The responsibility involves the importance of such a task, the fact of men’s need for deeper understanding of God’s Word, and the nature of the Book itself.

The privilege consists in the marvel of this volume of “God-breathed literature” which is living and relevant to our times—a divinely given revelation of great truths to be found nowhere else and without which man gropes in darkness.

In a day when so much emphasis has been given to methods, those who teach the Bible should explore not only teaching techniques but the philosophy of teaching upon which methods are built.

There are those who strongly support the discussion method. This has been considered by many as the acme of effectiveness, while the lecture method has been relegated to the era of the one room school house.

Anyone acquainted with the philosophy of progressive education promulgated by John Dewey, along with his emphasis on individual “adjustment” and “methods” of teaching, knows the havoc these ideas have played with American education. The seed was not recognized until its evil fruit had already begun to ripen. A generation trained under this “progressive” method turned out to be uneducated and undisciplined in those things that education should produce.

Has the philosophy which so nearly wrecked American education filtered into the realm of the Church and become adopted by some of those responsible for Christian education?

One can only wonder why the replacement of emphasis on teaching the Bible with discussing it has been thought an improvement.

What lies hack of the change from responsible Bible teachers to “moderators” whose chief qualification is not so much a knowledge of the Bible as an ability to keep discussion going? I believe we should reject any “teaching” which raises questions without answering them—which engenders doubt rather than fosters faith.

We must of course make our Christian faith relevant, in action, to the needs of our times. However, such social emphasis must be balanced by a faithfulness to the content of the faith without which no one can become a Christian.

Basic to Christian education then is the teaching of the Bible. But teaching must be done by those who know the Bible and believe it. Discussion can be profitable only when the ultimate authority of the Scriptures is recognized. Without such reference to authority, decisions arrived at are merely on the level of human reasoning.

Any method which contributes to a knowledge of the Bible—its historical content, moral implications, and spiritual teachings is worthy of use.

That which falls short of leading to an understanding of and faith in the authority and trustworthiness of the Scriptures and the Christ of the Scriptures, should be discarded as unworthy of true Christian education.

It is unfortunate that there exists a cleavage of opinion on a matter of such grave significance. For those of us who believe there is an authority above and beyond the limitations of man’s reason, a revelation of divine truth to which we may turn for final word, the teaching of the Bible is of greatest importance.

There is abundant support for the time-honored method of teaching which has richly borne fruit in the past.

In the Old Testament we find that true revivals started because of the reading and hearing of the Law.

In the New Testament there is similar evidence. Our Lord and the apostles backed their teaching and preaching with the Scriptures. When Apollos went to Ephesus he was fervent and zealous to teach and preach, but his understanding of the Scriptures was limited. Aquila and Priscilla heard him and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Following this detailed instruction in the Bible we are told that “he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”

Teaching the Bible is a thrilling experience when it is backed by adequate preparation and undergirded with prayer. It is thrilling because of the blessing which the teacher himself receives, and it is exciting because it brings a similar blessing to those willing to be taught.

Let it never be forgotten: we are not dealing with an ordinary book but with a marvelous collection of books written by men of different backgrounds and with varying degrees of education over a period of nearly two millenniums; and still we find a unity of message throughout all the writings which only the Holy Spirit could have produced.

How right is Dr. Crossley Morgan when he speaks with deep reverence of this “God-breathed literature”!

Reverence for the subject being taught makes for an authority on the part of the teacher which is not his own, an authority which students sense.

We note first of all that this authority derives from the very nature of the Holy Scriptures. It is a word of finality which speaks to the longing heart, to the one who has come to realize that the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal. There is no substitute for the finality of “Thus saith the Lord.”

In his short book called Authority, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones emphasizes the importance of viewing the Bible as a whole. He says: “The Bible is a whole and its authority is complete. But having accepted it all, I still have residual difficulties, problems, and questions. It is surely nothing less than tragic that a man should start with a detail and because he is unhappy about that should say, ‘I cannot recognize the authority of the Scriptures at all.’”

In teaching the Bible one also has behind him the authority of Christ revealed in this Book. It is here that we learn of Him and find that he too took as authoritative and final the Old Testament Scriptures with which he was so familiar. At his feet we can learn that attitude of faith which accepts the Scriptures for what they really are—God speaking to men.

Thirdly, a teacher of the Bible speaks by the authority of the Holy Spirit. Only as He is present can the Scriptures be understood. Only as He teaches can we be taught, or can we in turn teach others. It is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, who resolves our difficulties, gives understanding to the simple, and enables even a child to apprehend spiritual truths which seem as foolishness to the worldly-wise.

A call to teach the Bible is a privilege to be prayerfully heeded. To the Christian it affords a channel of service, a glorious opportunity not to be found in the secular field. And the fruits of such labor last for all eternity.

LABOR RALLY

My dear Eutychus,

Sorry to trouble you at your vacation cabin, but I wanted to remind you that we are counting on your participation in our Labor Day program. I know you are anxious to return. The storm damage to your property was relatively slight. The water level in the basem*nt was perhaps raised a little by the overflow from a bathroom fixture that was not shut off. Nothing that plaster and paint won’t fix!

About our plans for Labor Day—my sermon topic for Sunday is “Working for Christ,” and we have announced a Church Labor Union Organization Rally for 2 p.m., on Monday. This description of the meeting has attracted unusual interest, and I appreciate your suggesting it. A few have taken the announcement quite literally. A local labor organizer, who preferred not to give his name, warned me that preachers had no business meddling in labor politics.

The religious news commentator on our local station took the edge off the phrasing by indicating that the rally was for church workers and would spark a crusade for lay participation in the church program. Perhaps it is just as well not to push your clever wording too far.

It is high time that our members began to think of themselves as united workers rather than bench warmers. When our Painters’ Local is organized, one of its first projects will be to paint out the “Come ye apart and rest awhile” lettering over the north entrance. When so many active members manage to sleep through every sermon and regard this performance as their principal Christian activity, another invitation would seem more appropriate. What would you think of “Work today in my vineyard”?

Our Labor Rally will include a panel discussion on “Full-time Christians,” and we expect to organize into “Locals” for united action in various phases of church work. We have questions about some of your suggestions. Most of us feel you were not serious in proposing that every member carry a worker’s union card, and that we be known as “the church of the union shop.” Were you?

As ever,

RELIGION’S ENEMY

I have just read the article by J. Edgar Hoover “The Bitter Enemy of Religion” (June 22 issue).… I do not like his inference that the monastery is a symbol of Christianity. After more than a half-century in a Catholic community I fear the Roman Catholic hierarchy far more than communism. I consider it more anti-Christian.

Carroll, Iowa

The fact that we are so eager to accept moral, religious, and philosophical judgments from respected, famous government officials without a second word is itself enough to raise a question, as it did in Constantine’s day or should have done in his day.…

Hoover needs to have an answer. His nationally-approved or state religion is always blinding to a prophetic voice, or perhaps it is what stirs up and demands a prophetic voice. His appraisal of communism leaves much to be desired—his points 2 through 6 could be applied with equal vehemence by a communist against capitalism. In affronting the communist menace, Hoover, although a sincere Presbyterian Christian, overlooks the main point of all, that communism is an anonymous dialecticism, and its answer from the Christian point of view is not further absolutes and anonymity but reference to a living personality, Christ, our Lord.

Elgin, Ill.

THE BALANCES

Your brief editorial “Twentieth Century Perspectives Weighed in the Balances” (June 22 issue) dealing with the United Presbyterian Church’s stand on scientific contraceptives and refusal to take action on the question of the Virgin Birth, was truly unbalanced. The Virgin Birth problem could not be dealt with in the context in which it came before the Assembly. I think both actions showed churchmanship at its best.

As regards the Virgin Birth, when will CHRISTIANITY TODAY arrive at mature biblical scholarship and see that it isn’t how our Lord was the Logos of God, but that he was. Why keep sniping at churches and clergymen who give full consent to the Incarnation but see no relationship with this central doctrine and a method?

University Presbyterian Church.

West Lafayette, Ind.

The confirmation by the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church of the appointment of Theodore Gill to the Presidency of San Francisco Seminary, even though he was unable to furnish satisfactory proof of his acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, furnishes additional evidence of the doctrinal laxity within this body. This contention is not disproved by the fact that the June issue of Presbyterian Life was devoted almost entirely to a review of the glories of Presbyterian and Reformed Theology. Neither is it successfully refuted by the statement of Dr. Mackay: “Calvinistic to the core, I believe we are predestined to give leadership to the churches of the nation and the world.” These sound like empty words in face of the fact that the Presbyterian Church has, by arbitrary and questionable methods, eliminated from her membership some of her ablest scholars and staunchest exponents of the Reformed faith, while at the same time giving highest honors and offices to men unwilling and unable to affirm faith in doctrines held in common by nearly all branches of the Christian Church. These are some of the unsavory fruits of “inclusivism” which triumphed in the reorganization of Princeton Seminary in 1929.

Minneapolis, Minn.

THE COMING OF THE LORD

Dr. Loraine Boettner’s review of Hughes’ book, A New Heaven and a New Earth (May 25 issue) gives a little known quotation from Dr. G. Campbell Morgan—a statement he made in 1943 indicating his change of views relating to “the promises made to Israel.”

A dozen or more years before that date, during a Boston pastorate, I was privileged to attend a course of lectures given by Dr. Morgan at Gordon College. He was always most gracious in answering questions. At the end of one session I ventured to ask: “After your long study and extensive exposition of the Bible, Dr. Morgan, do you find any scriptural warrant for the distinction which many Bible teachers draw between the second coming of the Lord for his own (the rapture), and the coming of the Lord with his own (the revelation) with a time period of 3½ or 7 years between these two events?”

“Emphatically not!” Dr. Morgan replied. “I know that view well, for in the earlier years of my ministry I taught it, and incorporated it in one of my books entitled God’s Method with Man. But further study so convinced me of the error of this teaching that I actually went to the personal expense of buying the plates of that book from my own publisher and destroying them. The idea of a separate and secret coming of Christ to remove the church prior to his coming in power and glory is a vagary of prophetic interpretation without any Biblical basis whatsoever.”

As I travel about the country in an itinerant ministry which takes me into a great variety of churches, I am impressed with the way in which pastors are expressing their appreciation of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Many of them say, “It’s the most helpful and spiritually stimulating magazine that I receive.”

Oak Park, Ill.

PROBLEM OF POWER

I am a visitor to your country from the island of Ceylon. I have been reading some of the conversations on “Communist or Free” (May 25 issue). There is … a problem of power, as between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union.… It is important for us to appreciate this factor, if only because it is precisely this factor of power which heightens our tendency to equate Communism with the hosts of darkness. Clearly, the fact of the matter is that the basic power struggle would continue even if the Soviet became officially Christian and its forms of government underwent a process of “liberalization.” It is surely also this inherent power struggle between America and Russia which makes it hard for American Christians easily to separate a natural desire that America should triumph anyway, from a concern for the triumph of Christian principles.…

For three hundred years or so, a Christian West held unchallenged sway of the fortunes of the world—this was the heyday of colonialism, white race superiority theory, and here American isolationism. After all this period of control of Africa and Asia, these areas are officially described by UNESCO as “have-not” and “under-developed” lands.… Dr. Boyd Orr has just reported that China has jumped the population-food gap. And this is a remarkably short space of time.

The Bible often talks of “judgment” and even suggests that God is able to use heathen powers to purge His people.

Chicago, Ill.

ELUSIVE NEUTRALITY

If schools cannot speak for God, why be allowed to speak against Him?

Canterbury, Conn.

QUAKER POSITION

In the article by Richard C. Wolf (April 27 issue) there is a very embarrassing and erroneous general summary of the theological position of the Quakers in America. No doubt Mr. Wolfs association with a few Quakers has caused him to class the Quakers in the category of outstanding liberal denominations such as the Universalists and Unitarians. Such a general categorizing is definitely not correct.… Most anyone who has had experience within the majority of the American Yearly Meetings knows that the greater majority of American Quakers believe in historical Christianity as taught in the Old and New Testaments with a belief in their inspiration.

In Collier’s Encyclopedia, one of the most recent summarizing statements of the Society of Friends, by Henry J. Cadbury, a Quaker and previous Hollis professor of Divinity, Harvard University, states that “the principles and practices of the Quakers were not novel, the Quakers themselves claim that they are in accordance with the New Testament …, they trusted in the guidance of the Spirit, so long as it did not positively contradict the Bible.” “… New waves of Evangelistic Conservatism have continued in the United States”.…

Friends University

Wichita, Kan.

CALLED IN JAPAN

I was very impressed by “Security” (L. Nelson Bell, May 25 issue). I have experienced these priceless gifts in my own life. And there are so many who seem to be missing this. Your expression should be very encouraging and helpful to many.

Would you have any objection if I have this made into a tract? I can do so here in Japan.… I am on duty here …, having been a Naval Officer and Aviator for 20 years now. Over six years ago God called me out in Christ Jesus in a wonderful way.

San Francisco, Calif.

The fourth book of Moses is called Numbers in the English Bible, and this follows the usage of the Greek Septuagint translation. In the Hebrew it is called Bammidhbar (“In the wilderness”). The former name comes from the two census lists that appear prominently at the beginning and end of the book. The latter name, however, appears to be more descriptive, for the book of Numbers largely describes the wilderness wanderings of Israel. Numbers takes up the narrative of the wilderness journey close to the point where Exodus leaves off.

Difficulties In Numbers

The prominent feature of the census lists in Numbers needs a little explanation. Israel had no Bureau of the Census, nor were the people interested in mere vital statistics. This was not an ordinary census such as we are familiar with. The Hebrew word saphar often means to “count,” but it is not the word used in these lists. There is another word, paqadh which sometimes means “visit,” either in judgment or in blessing, but which also means to “number an army.” It really means to “muster troops.” To illustrate its usage, one may turn to 1 Kings 20:15 where Benhadad mustered an army against Israel, or to Joshua 8:10 where Joshua prepared for the battle of Ai, or to 2 Kings 3:6 where Jehoram mustered an army against Moab. The word does not mean merely to count; its meaning is technical and refers to raising an army. It was this fact that made David’s action in 2 Samuel 24 sinful. David’s sin was not in proudly counting his population, but in embarking on a campaign of war when it was apparently uncalled for. So in Numbers: the use of this word gives us the picture of Moses organizing the soldiers in preparation for the invasion of Palestine. After the first attempt failed and the wilderness wanderings were finished, Moses mustered the troops again in preparation for the assault upon Palestine under Joshua. For this reason only the fighting men over 20 years of age were numbered.

The tribe of Levi was also numbered, but for a different purpose. Instead of choosing a percentage of men out of each tribe for the carrying on of the tabernacle work and service, God chose to use the whole tribe of Levi. He substituted them for the firstborn on the principle that the firstborn belonged to God since he had spared Israel’s firstborn in the last Egyptian plague. The firstborn of Israel were therefore counted, the Levites also were counted and the difference adjusted by a payment of five shekels apiece (Num. 3:47). A problem arises here in that there were so few firstborn (22,273) among so many people (603,550 grown men). Different suggestions have been proposed, but it is probable that the trouble arises from our ignorance of what constituted a firstborn son. Possibly the firstborn was only counted as such when the oldest child was a boy (Exod. 13:15). Perhaps if a father and son in one family were both living and both firstborn, only one of them was counted in the reckoning. Possibly the number of the firstborn was reckoned with one from each family or clan rather than from each household—or there may have been some other restriction.

The size of the nation has also been a problem to some. From the number of 600,000 grown men, the total has been estimated at about 2,000,000. It is thought that such a movement was impossible. Indeed, critics are fond of saying that these figures are a backward projection of some of Solomon’s lists.

Now it may be admitted (as is pointed out in a note in the Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1220) that the transmission of numbers with unfailing accuracy was difficult in ancient Hebrew. Still, these numbers are similar for the various tribes and add up to a total which checks. The totals are about the same in the later list of Chapter 26 though some of the individual tribes changed rather widely during the 40 year interval. There is actually no basis for skepticism as to these numbers except the feeling that the Exodus really could not have been so large an event. But of course it could have been. We must not picture it as a military parade with everyone in step and banners flying. It was more of a mass emigration of nomad peoples. Out in the wilderness the camp may have spread out over hundreds of square miles at various times in order to forage the animals.

The figures are at least consistent with other similar figures. It is not a copy of Solomon’s list, for in David’s time the nation had over 1,300,000 soldiers (2 Sam. 24:9). Saul, a much weaker king, had 330,000 (1 Sam. 11:8). Rehoboam after the division of the kingdom had only 180,000 men in Judah (1 Kings 12:21). During the days of the Judges, the number is once given as 400,000 not counting Benjamin (Judges 20:2). Gideon mustered 32,000 men out of three and a half tribes in a time of heavy oppression (Judges 6:35) which compares favorably with Joshua’s 40,000 out of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh (Josh. 4:13). Comparison with Numbers 26 would show about 100,000 soldiers in these Transjordan tribes, but presumably half of them had to stay in Transjordan as occupation troops.

We should remember, also, that a handful of troops could not do what Joshua did. Ancient armies did not have 18 men in the factories for every one man at the front as we did in the last war. If he had, Joshua would only have had 33,000 men in his fighting force! And yet he could not put his whole army in the field at once. Many of these counted were infirm or IV-F! Many had to guard the camp and occupy what had been won. And yet at the height of his northern campaign, Joshua was able to capture the city of Hazor which had gathered to itself a large defensive coalition. The city of Hazor has lately been excavated and is estimated to have contained 40,000. Such a city, strongly fortified, and with numerous allies could not have been conquered by a handful of wandering shepherds. Joshua evidently moved at the head of a large and powerful fighting force.

We do not have the figures for many other ancient armies. Sennacherib claims to have taken 200,150 prisoners from the towns of Judah exclusive of Jerusalem. Shalmanezer claims that the army he led at the battle of Qarqar numbered 120,000. These were doubtless first line troops as they were operating 400 miles from their home base (see the documents in J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 288 and 280). The armies in Numbers thus appear to be of a reasonable size.

There is more to Numbers than problems. There are valuable lessons. There are beautiful lessons to be learned of the Lord’s guidance. The presence of the Lord was visibly symbolized in the cloud by day and the fire by night that hovered over the Tabernacle. And when that presence of the Lord removed, the people were to journey. The words of Numbers 10:33 probably do not mean that it went “before” the camp. The word may as well be translated “in the presence of” the camp. In the march as in the encampment the ark was in the middle of the people. The beautiful invocation of Numbers 10:35,36 is quoted by David in Psalm 68:1 and in Solomon’s prayer of dedication in 2 Chronicles 6:41 (cf. Ps. 132:8). It doubtless became a precious invocation in Israel.

Rebellions

But familiarity breeds contempt and the generation that refused the leading of the Lord at Kadesh Barnea rebelled many times both before and after that experience. They tired of their situation. After all, they had been used to plenty and security in Egypt. Now they had to adapt to nomad life in the edges of the desert and the oases of the Sinai peninsula. In Egypt they had security with slavery and surely could not worship God as they pleased. The Egyptian state was totalitarian and the king was God. In the wilderness, on the other hand, they could worship God according to their conscience and they had freedom, but with privation. Many there were who would look back at Egypt and be willing to sell their soul for a mess of pottage.

The individual rebellions recounted in Numbers cannot be treated in detail. At one time Miriam and Aaron grew envious of Moses because of his Ethiopian wife—apparently she was his second wife and quite possibly a Negro! His first wife may or may not have been living. Moses, the record says, did not defend himself, but God severely rebuked the pair for their actions. Numbers 12:6 is a remarkable divine commendation of Moses the great head of the prophetic line and type of “that Prophet” who was yet to come. God evidently spoke with Moses in great intimacy. Truly he was a chosen vessel. Some have taken exception to Numbers 12:3 where Moses is said to have been very meek. They say that Moses could not have written this or he would not have been meek! But customs differ in reporting such matters. Paul says about the same thing in Acts 20:19 and no offence is taken.

Sometime after the disaster at Kadesh Barnea came the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The rebellion was strong and a rather complete record is given of it in chapters 16 and 17. Korah’s men were consumed by fire from the Lord when they approached with their incense. And Dathan and Abiram and such of the congregation as stood with them were buried alive as the earth opened under them (went down “quick into the pit” merely means “buried alive.” There is no thought of a passageway to some underworld region). Another famous incident of rebellion is given in chapter 20 when the people murmured for lack of water. Such an incident is also recorded in Exodus 17 and some have argued that these are two accounts of the same incident. But it seems supercritical to feel that in 40 years of wilderness sojourning the people could not have complained about the lack of water more than once!

The rebellion at Kadesh Barnea was the most decisive of all. The story is brief, but the consequence of their lack of faith was 40 years of trouble. The people were encamped in the wilderness of Paran south of the area called the Negeb which Israel is developing today. The Lord told Moses to send out spies, one for each tribe, for a reconnaissance mission to gauge the resources of the land and the best way of attack. All the spies agreed that the land was attractive. All agreed that it included many well-fortified independent city states. The only difference was that Caleb and Joshua believed that the Lord was able to give them the land; the others did not. It would seem that the Israelites were as able to take the land of Palestine on the first attempt as later.

Conquest And Balaam

The conquest of Transjordan is given briefly in Numbers 21. In early times, the Amorite kingdoms of northern Transjordan had pressed down into the territory of Moab dispossessing the Moabites and driving them to the south of the Arnon canyon. Israel, in pitched battles with Sihon and Og, kings of the Amorites, won all this territory north of the Arnon valley which is at about the middle of the Dead Sea. The record of this conquest is repeated more extensively in Deuteronomy 2 and 3 and Jephthah repeats the same story in Judges 11 when the Moabites laid claim to this area 300 years later. Interestingly, Numbers 21:28, 29 are quoted in Jeremiah 48:45, 46 in connection with Jeremiah’s woes upon Moab. This section, said to be “from those that speak in proverbs,” can only refer to the political situation before Israel invaded. The short songs in Numbers 21:14, 15 and 17, 18 also probably refer to this period of conquest. Verse 14 does not seem to speak of the Red Sea experience. “Sea” is not in the Hebrew. Septuagint and other evidence favors a translation something like the following: “It is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, a fire flamed in Suphah and in the brooks of Arnon.” W. F. Albright holds that verse 17 is only a title of the song mentioned (Hebrew Union College Annual, 1950–51, p. 7).

The time in Transjordan included the interesting contact with Balaam. We know little enough about him. He was from Aram, the mountains of the East (23:7), for example, hinter Syria. He was from the land of the children of Ammo (22:5, Hebrew). This place apparently can now be identified from the Idrimi inscription of about 1450 B.C. as a place in Syria near Aleppo (W. F. Albright, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, April 1950, p. 15). It has been much disputed whether Balaam was a worshiper of the true God outside of Israel like Melchizedek, or whether he was a heathen soothsayer through whom God truly spoke on this occasion. The latter is perhaps the easier to maintain since Balaam was later slain among the Midianites who had seduced the Israelites to go after idols (Num. 25 and 31:8).

The messages of Balaam first speak in general terms of God’s blessings upon Israel. It is of interest that Balaam quotes the old Abrahamic blessing (Num. 24:9; Gen. 12:3). Had he some contact with the Abrahamic tradition? Or was this a common proverbial way of giving a benediction? At last Balaam gets more specific. The prediction of a star from Jacob and a scepter from Israel had its fulfilment in all of the victories of Israel and the Davidic dynasty, but is to be fully fulfilled in the Messianic King of whom David was but a type.

The final chapters are somewhat parallel with the end of Deuteronomy. Numbers 27:12–23 gives the preparation for Moses’ death which took place only after the farewell addresses of Moses were given to the last assembly as recorded in Deuteronomy. As in the central portion of Deuteronomy, so here, there are various laws especially for the offerings and feasts (Num. 28 to 30). The arrangement was concluded for Reuben and Gad and half of Manasseh to stay in Transjordan but to send a contingent to assist in the invasion of Palestine (Num. 32). Chapter 33 is a summary of the places where Israel had encamped in the trek through Sinai. Of all the places mentioned it seems that only about two, Ezion Geber and Punon (modern Feinan) can be identified with any certainty. Finally, the boundaries of Palestine proper which Israel was to inherit are given in chapter 34. As in the Abrahamic promises, the boundaries go north as far as Hamath near “the great river, the river Euphrates.” Only in the heyday of David and Solomon did Israel’s control actually extend this far. But the biblical promised land includes what we speak of as Palestine, Transjordan, and Syria as well. The book of Numbers mainly is the record of Israel’s preparations to enter this promised land.

Outline

I.Preparations to leave Sinai (1:1 to 10:10).

A.First numbering of the host (1 to 4).

B.Miscellaneous laws and ordinances (5 to 10:10).

II.From Sinai to Kadesh Barnea (10:11 to 14:45).

A.The order of march (10).

B.Rebellions by the way. Taberah, the Quails, Miriam’s leprosy, the Defeat at Kadesh (11–14).

III.Wilderness wanderings (15 to 21:20).

A.Various laws (15).

B.Korah’s rebellion against Aaron’s priesthood (16–18).

C.Ordinance of red heifer (19).

D.Moses’ sin, Aaron’s death, and the fiery serpents (20 to 21).

IV.Conquests in Transjordan (21:21 to 25).

A.Conquest of Sihon and Og (21).

B.Balaam’s prophecy (22 to 24).

C.Mixing with Midian (25).

V.Preparation to enter Palestine (26 to 36).

A.Second numbering and appointment of Joshua (26 to 27).

B.Laws of offerings, feasts, and vows (28 to 30).

C.Further war with Midian (31).

D.Inheritance of two and a half tribes in Transjordan (32).

E.Summary of the wilderness journeys (33).

F.Arrangements for settlement in Palestine (34 to 36).

Literature

Helpful literature on Numbers is not abundant. The standard commentaries of Keil and Delitzsch, Lange, and Calvin are good. The special study of W. F. Albright, “The Oracles of Balaam,” Journal Biblical Literature, LXIII, 1944, pp. 207–233 should be mentioned. It maintains the antiquity of this section. An excellent treatment is given by Allan A. MacRae in The New Bible Commentary, edited by F. Davidson, Inter-Varsity, London, 1953.

R. LAIRD HARRIS

Professor of Old Testament

Covenant Theological Seminary

When Youth for Christ appeared dramatically on the religious scene in 1944, some evangelical leaders began to criticize it. Others postponed their criticism with the belief that the new “baby” was basically healthy and in time would grow up to make a large contribution to the cause of Christ. Youth for Christ is now in its fifteenth year, and I believe it is ready for a frank appraisal. Having worked with the organization and its leaders from the early days, but never as an official part of it, I think I have sufficient detachment to be objective, and enough knowledge to be factual.

A Baby Matures

There is no doubt in my mind that Youth for Christ has matured and has “put away childish things.” Some Christians, when they hear the name “Youth for Christ,” still think in terms of the “toys” that characterized the movement in those first years: loud bow ties and suits, spectacular programs of a sideshow nature, and some untrained, almost uncouth “workers” who posed as “youth experts.” If these elements are present in local YFC programs today, it is the exception and not the rule. To me it is a definite strength in YFC that the organization has matured without becoming an evangelical edifice with more past than future. Youth for Christ has not only remained true to the evangelical faith these past 15 years but it has retained its spontaneity and unique approach to evangelism. True to the slogan adopted then, it is “Geared to the times but anchored to the Rock.”

Specialists In Youth

There was a period in Youth for Christ’s history when the main purpose of the organization, namely, to win teen-agers, was temporarily eclipsed. Along with the teen-age ministry there was a program for servicemen, for church revival and evangelism, and for overseas relief. All these were good, but they were alien to the aims of Youth for Christ. The decision to specialize in teen-age evangelism was a turning point and, in my opinion, saved the organization from becoming just another evangelistic outreach. Youth work is demanding; it calls for a constant freshness of manpower and ideas to keep a movement creative and contemporary. The daring, dedicated young men who invade the ranks of YFC each year make for a spiritual renewal that guarantees emphasis on youth.

The caliber of Youth for Christ workers has become higher. “Anyone can work in Youth for Christ!” is no longer an accurate statement. The International Directors’ School, held twice annually, produces from 50 to 75 trained workers, pastors, and businessmen who are channeled into local YFC programs for first-hand experience. The YFC chartering program both develops new programs and helps to remove local organizations that do not meet the standards. This kind of organizational solidarity makes for progress and strength.

Lasting Results

The prophets of doom who announced that Youth for Christ would soon fade from the scene have, in some cases, changed their line to “The results are not lasting!” Undoubtedly in those early years many may have made a decision for Christ who were not properly nourished for Christian growth. But the fact that there are pastors, missionaries, and Christian workers today who were won to Christ in YFC meetings years ago is proof of fruit. More than one evangelical leader today received his early practical training in the Youth for Christ program: Dr. Billy Graham; Dr. Bob Pierce, president of World Vision; Dr. Robert Evans of Greater Europe Mission; and Dr. Robert Finley of International Students. The evangelical world can be grateful for these men.

While phases of the overseas ministry during the first years proved sporadic and more sensational than substantial, good roots were nonetheless planted in many places. YFC leaders are to be commended for concentrating in the 45 nations where the program is well grounded, rather than announcing, as they used to do, that YFC was active in 76 nations. This kind of “retrenchment” is not popular with many evangelicals, but it makes for a more lasting program. That which remains is substantial. The future is as rich “as the promises of God.”

Whatever a local pastor or lay Christian might say against Youth for Christ, there is much that must be said for it: Youth for Christ is composed of leaders who believe unreservedly in the power of the Gospel and the importance of prayer. Any secular organization with so little machinery would have collapsed in a year! Without the imposing structure of denominational prestige or financial support, Youth for Christ has made a phenomenal impact on cities and on entire nations. It is to be commended for maturing without institutionalizing, maintaining its emphasis on youth, putting evangelism and world missions in the foreground, and depending on the power of God.

Progress Without Planning

One gets the impression that Youth for Christ, like Topsy, “just grew.” First came the Saturday night rallies, then high school clubs, Bible quizzes, teen talent contests, a ministry to juvenile delinquents, teen films and literature, and other programs. The total organization does need co-ordination and direction in a long-range plan. And there is still too much “panic programming” as yet. President Ted W. Engstrom and his staff members have made a good beginning in their “Miracle Year” program for 1959, but I think it is time that we chart the course for the next decade.

One must remember, of course, that Youth for Christ is made up of independent local groups, and that the direction taken locally is not always the responsibility of the international office. Each local YFC ministry must be chartered to bear the Youth for Christ name and participate in the program, but the international office has no direct control over what is done on the local level. Some local organizations are an asset, others are a liability; but if there were a long-range program that tied each group closer to the parent organization, much more could be accomplished. I think it is a definite weakness that local YFC organizations can own an official charter, vote on official business at the conventions, and yet ignore the international program.

“I Sought For A Man”

Like many other religious groups, Youth for Christ today faces a manpower shortage. There are scores of major cities in America alone that have no YFC program, and the answer to this problem lies not with the Directors’ School but with each local YFC ministry. Youth for Christ could double its working force in a few years if each local director would adopt a “Timothy” and train him for the work. Furthermore, experienced YFC leaders need to move out into unreached territories and let others move up in the ranks.

There is always the danger of an organization becoming top-heavy by constantly adding new personnel to the headquarters staff. I believe that YFC’s emphasis should be on the development of area programs covering several states, rather than the promoting of one unwieldy staff at the top. A crew of specialists, responsible to the work of a given area, is likely to accomplish more than an international staff member who tries to cover the world. There needs to be a responsible “chain of command” before YFC can enjoy the expansion needed in our day.

For Such A Time

Youth for Christ is an organization that has the program, passion, and potential for world evangelism despite all its weaknesses and past faults. Young people are at the controls of the future. Even the new state of Hawaii boasts that 43 per cent of the population is under the age of 19. Dictators of the past, including Communists of today, have captured nations through the minds and hearts of youth, and the only way they can be fortified against totalitarian doctrine is in the spiritual freedom offered to them in Christ. Christian educators tell us that 80 per cent of our Sunday School pupils leave Sunday School when they reach their teen years. That fact strongly suggests the need for an agency like Youth for Christ to help fill this gap and reach those of this age with the Gospel.

During its 15 years of ministry, Youth for Christ has proven itself worthy of evangelical support. It has made mistakes, but it has also captured a great many young people for Christ. Perhaps Youth for Christ, working in and through churches and missionary agencies, will be the channel for a great spiritual awakening in the decade to come. Remembering that great Christian leaders like Charles Spurgeon, J. Hudson Taylor, John Calvin, D. L. Moody, and Billy Graham were converted in their teen years, I am prone to agree with Youth for Christ leaders that “unless we win teen-agers today, there may be no Church tomorrow!”

END

Wisdom And Ignorance

Wisdom goes looking for a light,

And speaks not till that light is glowing.

Ignorance claims by day and night

It has all knowledge worth the knowing.

All things that perish or endure

Give us alike this implication:

Ignorance only is co*cksure,

While Wisdom knows its limitation.

CLARENCE EDWIN FLYNN

V. Raymond Edman is President of Wheaton College (Illinois), from which have come many of the leaders in evangelical Protestant effort. On the fifteenth anniversary of the Youth for Christ movement, he writes a candid appraisal.

The growing dissatisfaction in our cultural milieu with the presuppositions, policies, and practices of the American public school system raises a question of some importance: “Who has the right to educate—the family, the State, or the Church?”

Within contemporary Lutheranism two approaches towards an answer to this problem may be discerned. One affirms that the family, as the basic (core) unit of society, has the right to educate or to delegate this right to the State or Church. The other says that each order of creation (family, Church, State) has a right to educate, and that each receives this right directly from God (that is, there is no delegation from one order to another).

However, it must be asserted that in either case no “right” to educate can exist without some corresponding responsibility in the sight of God to educate as he desires. The formula, “no rights without responsibilities,” holds true for all the so-called “rights” of man. This means that neither family, Church, or State has the right to educate unless such education presupposes and points to God as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. What then does this imply? It implies three things:

1. The family as the basic order of creation normally exercises the dominant influence on a child for at least the first five years of life. But in our extremely complex and technological world the family is generally inadequate for the task of preparation for citizenship in the two kingdoms. Most parents are simply unqualified to instruct their children in these matters. And the few who are so qualified may not have the time nor the inclination. Therefore the Church and community must play a role in education.

2. The Church has received a mandate from its Lord to teach all nations. It dare not ignore or alter this responsibility. The only variable in this task of the Church is the form which its education may take.

3. The community (State) may have a right to educate or to supervise education (by insuring that minimum standards of facilities and health are met), not arbitrarily but under the Word of God. Whether the State receives its right to educate from God or from parents, it still holds true that this right is dependent upon and conditioned by the State’s recognition of itself as the agent of God.

Trend To Secularism

On the American scene today the Constitution has been juridically interpreted in such a way that the public school is prevented from fulfilling the purpose for which it was founded. Theoretically our public schools must be neutral in their approach to religion. Actually, however, such neutrality is impossible. Our public schools have become increasingly secularized. They are teaching the religion of democracy, or the religion of science, or the religion of life adjustment. This, of course, is not the case in all schools. But it is more and more the case whenever and wherever the courts are called upon to render decisions. There is no mistaking the trend toward secularization.

No conscientious and serious Christian can be satisfied with this situation. Several solutions have been suggested, as for example, revitalizing the Sunday Schools, creating Saturday and other supplementary schools, or released time classes. Another solution is the Christian day school as a full-time substitute for the public school, though not a parochial school in the Roman Catholic sense (with hierarchical or clerical control). Instead, the school would be under the auspices of one or more Christian congregations using the facilities of the parish. Rather than a church (institutional) school, it would be a school which is Christian in its presuppositions and orientation, where teachers could witness to their faith explicitly as well as implicitly, and in which the Gospel would be brought to bear upon all subject matter and in all areas of life.

The time has come for us to admit that the majority of our people are religious illiterates unable to articulate or defend the faith and unable to relate it to daily activities. The Christian day school is an answer to this situation—not the only answer, but an important one.

The time has come for us to repudiate also the notion that it is somehow un-American to criticize the public school. It needs to be brought down from its sacrosanct pinnacle. From an historical standpoint, the public school system in the United States developed as a supplement for the already extant private and religious schools. There were no public schools in the United States until the 1830s, and then they came into being only to take care of those who would not otherwise receive a formal education.

Christians today cannot be happy over certain policies of such powerful groups as the National Education Association. Furthermore, the increasing clamor for Federal aid and control is a danger signal too obvious to ignore.

Many practical difficulties are involved in establishing Christian day schools, as for example, in financing and securing teachers. Some will say that they are divisive in respect to the community at large, and that they hurt the public school. But true community is realized only in Christ. The existence of different denominations is also divisive, but we do not recommend that we put an end to denominationalism for that reason alone. Our society itself is pluralistic, voluntary, and competitive.

Churches that have operated schools have experienced the blessings of their endeavors. They well know the evangelistic outreach which such schools can provide. And they have been pleased with the quality of their graduates who have been students mature in the understanding of their faith and deeply committed to their Lord and Saviour.

It is probably true that most rural situations do not need such schools. But the urban areas need them. In American Protestantism today there are some 3,000 elementary and 600 secondary schools enrolling over 350,000 pupils. We must seriously face the issue of whether or not these numbers are to be expanded.

END

Preacher In The Red

WHO PREACHES WHERE

I had exactly seven minutes in which to compose my mind before preaching in a North Dakota Presbyterian church. To my surprise there came in another minister all out of breath. He immediately proceeded to undo his suitcase. He hurriedly took out his robe and experienced great difficulty getting into it. I said, “May I ask why the preparation?” He said with a degree of authority, “I am preaching here today.” “I am afraid there is some mistake as I am preaching here today.” “Not today brother. I am here by appointment of my Superintendent,” was his answer. “But,” said I, “this is not the First Methodist church but rather the First Presbyterian church.”—The Rev. THOMAS B. LINDSAY, St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church, Emery, South Dakota.

Brooke Walker holds the BA. degree from Columbia University and is a graduate of Philadelphia Lutheran Seminary. He is seeking ordination in the United Lutheran Church.

All is not well in America’s most cherished religious A institution—the Sunday School. The message of the Holy Scriptures is devitalized by teachers who are victims of competitive forces in the field of Christian education. Pastors and leaders need to examine the place and use of the Bible in their Sunday schools.

Statistical interests are more compelling than spiritual values. A common question is, “How many did you have in Sunday School today?” The inquiry is not, “Did Johnny relate himself to Jesus Christ through his study of the Bible?”

Organization, administration and methods are being fostered ahead of the spiritual, abiding influences of a dedicated teacher in whom Christ is seen.

Secular influences are at work in the Sunday Schools robbing the pupils of the privileges of learning to know the Bible that will make them wise unto salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. A student can go through Sunday School with honors for perfect attendance for 10 years and still not be able to use the Bible effectively for his daily life.

Growth And Decline

There is a paradox in the Sunday school. While the movement continues to grow in enrollment (recent estimates place the national enrollment over 41,000,000 scholars) many quarters reflect a deterioration in the quality of Sunday School teaching. There are many factors that account for the problems. Sunday School work is not as simple as it may appear to many people. Actually, the Sunday School is a complex product of many forces. Some of these pressures have historical, theological, educational, and practical implications. Throughout the 180 years of Sunday School movement, the Bible has been popularized and neglected. In order to understand and appreciate the place of the Bible and the problem of teaching it today, we must consider the development of curriculum.

The Sunday School movement has enjoyed unprecedented development in the United States. Started by Robert Raikes in 1780 in Gloucester, England, the Sunday School idea flourished in the Colonies. John Wesley did much to foster schools in America.

The earliest Sunday Schools included secular subjects in the program. Reading, writing, simple arithmetic besides the catechism and the Bible were taught.

As the number of public schools increased and assumed the function of teaching secular subjects, the Sunday Schools became distinctly religious.

Use Of The Bible

By 1820 the Bible supplanted the catechism as the essential text in the Sunday Schools. There were several factors for this change in content. The English evangelical movement of the eighteenth century placed great emphasis on the Scriptures. There was a widespread zeal in the Sunday Schools for Bible reading and memorization.

The disorganized use of the Bible in haphazard memorization led to the development of the greatest single asset and liability to the Sunday School movement—namely, the printing of lesson aids as a supplement to the Scriptures themselves.

Of the printing of Sunday School materials since 1820, there has been no end. The earliest publications were closely associated with Scripture portions but the lesson system developed order out of chaos.

There was much competition among writers and publishers to provide “the auxiliaries” or “some substitute” to help the teachers. Albert Judson developed “A Series of Questions on the Selected Scripture Lessons for Sunday Schools.” A rival system known as “A New Series of Questions on the Selected Scripture Lessons for Sabbath Schools” came from a Sunday School superintendent in Princeton, New Jersey.

Again the Bible faced neglect. It was only a matter of time until the “quarterly” and “Sunday School materials” took precedence. The place and use of the Bible itself was soon smothered by the development of competitive materials.

Frank Lankard in his authoritative volume, A History of the American Sunday School Curriculum writes of a semi-biblical commentary to be used by teachers in the Sunday School. There were lessons on the Bible, Canon, Inspiration, Division of the Sacred Scriptures, Meaning of Testament, Languages Used, Translations, and The Reason the Book Was Given to Man.

The introduction of extra-biblical materials into the Sunday School curriculum began to compete with biblical materials. The next 40 years (1830–1870) was a period of turmoil. The lessons were material-centered. The growth and needs of the pupils in relationship to Scripture was neglected. Out of this confusion, efforts were made to improve the curriculum.

A Teaching Ministry

There was a growing awareness among leaders that the Sunday School was more than an assembly of pupils. The Sunday School was to be conceived as a teaching ministry by the local church. The appreciation of the differences in abilities and interests among pupils of divergent ages was hardly significant. The child was still considered a “miniature adult.” Before the time should come when the child would be “in the midst of them,” the leaders conceived of the International Uniform Lessons. This is a type of lesson in which the same text is to be studied by all ages, children and adults, on a given Sunday.

Giants in the Sunday School movement finally agreed on a principle of developing lesson materials selected from the Bible as a whole. At the Fifth National Sunday School Convention (1872) in Indianapolis, the delegates enthusiastically accepted the Uniform system of lessons. Secretary Warren Randolph later wrote: “These lessons are largely in use throughout our land by Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Moravians, Friends, members of the Reformed Churches, Adventists—a mighty host, to be enumerated only by millions …”

Rise Of Graded Lessons

This enthusiasm for the Uniform Lesson system was challenged by leaders who were dissatisfied by lessons that ignored the interests, needs, and abilities of the pupils of various ages. The scientific method was beginning to impinge upon the Sunday School movement. There was a great deal of agitation to experiment with methods of instruction designed to help the pupil understand the relationship of the lesson to his life. There was a tendency to challenge the idea of “teaching the lesson.” Why not “teach the pupil”?

A leader in general education at the turn of the century was eager to take up the cudgel in behalf of the pupil. The experimenter was Dr. William H. Harper, first president of the University of Chicago.

Dr. Harper was elected superintendent of the Hyde Park Baptist Church in Chicago in 1899. He was assured by the church that he would have freedom to direct the Sunday School as he pleased. The first Sunday he dismissed all the teachers and pupils from the school. The following Sunday the pupils were re-enrolled and teachers were assigned to their classes. The organization of the school was closely graded.

Dr. Harper led his staff in the preparation of “appropriate” materials for each grade. The principal purpose of the school was to serve the pupils.

The crusade for grading had many supporters. A principal leader was Mrs. J. W. Barnes who advocated the principle that the general purpose of the “Graded Lessons” is: “To meet the spiritual needs of the pupil in every stage of his development.” An evaluation of this effort at that time indicates a heavy reception for the idea that extra-biblical materials were worthy of a place in the Sunday School curriculum. Thus, a 13-year-old pupil should study religious heroes of North America such as Roger Williams and Francis Asbury along with David and Elijah of the Old Testament.

The impact of the contemporary theories of science, education, and liberal theology had so fascinated the builders of Sunday School curricula that they practically eliminated the Bible from a significant place in their planning. By 1922, the year the International Council of Religious Education was formed, thousands of Sunday Schools had lost the message of redemption based on the Word of God. Methodology was a dominant concern. The Bible was secondary except in the camp of those who held steadfastly to the evangelical Christian faith.

One defender of the Scriptures was a Presbyterian minister, Clarence B. Benson, who refused to capitulate to the trend of the times. He insisted that the heart of the curriculum must be the Bible. He had a ready field for experimenting with his ideas in the slums of Chicago near the Moody Bible Institute where he served as director of the department of Christian Education. Dr. Benson lived to see the day when the Bible-centered materials were gaining ground.

Two thousand miles away in Hollywood in the midst of the “Roaring Twenties” another Presbyterian, Miss Henrietta C. Mears, was proving that the Bible taught in language that the pupils can understand builds better Sunday Schools. She prepared closely-graded Bible teaching materials that attracted thousands to the local Sunday School. The enrollment jumped in two years from 400 pupils in 1927 to 4,200 in 1929.

The Word of God was vindicated in schools throughout America. Perceptive leaders had a growing concern that biblical issues dividing Protestantism were also dividing the Sunday School movement. Local churches were increasingly exercising the right to choose materials producing results in Bible teaching.

The Sunday School movement was suffering from a schizophrenic frustration—a desire to be modern and a desire to teach the Bible. There was no alternative. The split was inevitable. The promoters of educational methodology in the Sunday School tried to salve the conscience of their constituency by jargon which sounded reliable, but a close examination of curriculum materials indicated that liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, higher criticism, the social gospel, naturalistic educational theories and the like had so emasculated the use of the Bible that the Sunday Schools were spiritually ineffective.

In contrast, the denominational and independent publishers who threw their lot with a “Bible-centered” philosophy found a ready response for their literature from millions of common people and thousands of local Sunday Schools in all denominations.

Enormous sums of money have been invested by producers of Sunday School materials. The contrast between the drab “quarterlies” of 50 years ago and the modern format, multicolored, functional styles of Sunday School books today is astonishing. But appearances are superficial. The test of the literature lies in the place and use of the Bible. Does the teacher get into the Scriptures to learn Christ of whom they speak? Are the students required to use the Bible so that they will become wise unto salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and effective examples of Christian living? Too often the answer to these inquiries leaves men and women of discerning hearts with difficult choices. Sunday School materials that once could be trusted are now suspect. What shall be used for teaching aids?

From the great variety of Sunday School materials which are available to local churches today, who is responsible for screening the “wheat” from the “tares”? What criteria should be used for the evaluation of materials?

The primary responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the pastor. He is the educational leader of the Sunday School and the local church. The pastor is the master teacher; he is the voice of God leading the congregation. He must answer to God for the teaching ministry of the church. The criteria for his judgments must be the Scripture.

As the pastor goes, so goes the Sunday School. The wise pastor will recognize that the Sunday School offers the greatest single opportunity for the church to teach the Word and to reach the community with the Gospel.

The issue is clear. In the maze of competing forces, the pastor must decide what his volunteer teachers will teach precious souls in the framework of 60 minutes on Sunday morning. They cannot teach everything. The challenge comes to the pastor to show more concern for this problem and to become competent to fulfill his divinely-appointed task.

END

Milford Sholund is Director of Biblical and Educational Research for Gospel Light Publications. He holds the Th.B. from Western Baptist Seminary, B.A. from Wheaton College, and M.Ed. from National College of Education, Evanston, Illinois. Formerly he was Dean of Education and Associate Professor of Christian Education in Trinity Seminary, Chicago.

The world of today differs greatly from the world of St. Paul. Man, an earthbound traveler on foot 20 centuries ago, is covering distances at speeds greater than sound. With rockets and missiles now exploring outer space, Paul at one time was having difficulty sailing in a wooden ship safely to Rome.

Man power and horse-power have given way to the power of atoms and nuclear fission. With modern equipment one person can do the work done by thousands in Paul’s day. Epistles, laboriously written on parchment and delivered weeks later by personal messengers, have been superseded by communications media delivering messages across continents in seconds.

The Human Factor

All these advancements do not mean that man himself has improved and become morally better. He is still the same sinner, in need of the same Saviour of whom Paul preached. And the basic purpose and program of the Christian Church still flows from Christ’s command: “Go ye therefore, and teach.”

It is in preaching and teaching the unchanging truth of sin and the Saviour in a constantly changing world that the Christian Church finds its great challenge. To meet this challenge effectively, the Church has in each age made use of improved media of transportation and communication. Through the centuries, God has been with his Christians, as he has promised, to provide the necessary tools with which men might carry out the Great Commission.

For the early Christian Church, God provided a common world language. He used the Roman Empire to develop a highway and sea route system which was greatly advanced for that day. At the end of the dark and sleepy Middle Ages, God provided the printing press so that it was ready when the Reformation came. Today the car, the train, and the airplane are being used to speed the Word of God to all the world.

God has also provided special teaching tools for an age that is complicated, confused, and complacent. Radio and television are being used to tell the good news of salvation across land and sea. With multicolor printing presses, God has given us a whole kitfull of new and powerful teaching tools of audio-visual aids which include the slide, the filmstrip, motion picture, tape recorder, and record player. Thus, as radio and television are being used to reach the masses, audio visual materials are helping the local church consolidate the gains, and train the children, youth and adults placed within its care.

The Audio-Visual Aids

In industry, government, science and public schools, slides and filmstrips, motion pictures, and tape recorders, three-dimensional pictures and record players are being used as never before. Without audio-visual materials these units in our society could not function effectively. The age of space requires the use of space-age teaching tools.

Specialists in the field of Christian education have come to see the value of audio-visual methods and materials in teaching. And alert teachers are seeking to produce teaching situations in which the pupil will respond with interest, participation, and experimentation. It is audio-visual teaching, the appeal to the eye and ear, that bridges between teacher and pupils.

Nonprojected audio-visual aids have been in use for many years. Object lessons are as old as the art of teaching. Fifty years ago specialists were demonstrating that a child learns more through “the eye gate” than “the ear gate,” through blackboard illustrations, maps, charts and diagrams. These, they said, illuminated what might otherwise be abstract teaching. Reproductions of biblical art in full color made lasting educational impressions. The action picture strip, so familiar in comic supplements and magazines, were utilized to tell Bible stories or deal with life problems. And phonograph recordings added music and drama, an emotional thrust, to story telling or teaching situations.

Use Of The Projector

It is, however, in the field of projected visual aids that the greatest interest is now being shown. Tremendous progress has been made since the discovery of the opaque projector or the old-fashioned stereopticon. Particularly effective is the combination of projected film strips with phonographic narration. The large picture makes it possible for a whole class or audience to see the same picture at the same time. The teacher, always in control of the program, may introduce his special interpretation of the pictures, and questions may be raised by the pupils. In no way does a teacher abdicate his position in favor of a mechanical device; rather he uses the device to achieve his ends.

The motion picture adds the dramatic element of motion and action whereby the viewer is transported to the actual time and place of the lesson experience. Sound film adds dialogue and sets the mood through music or other sound. The fusion of sight and sound are tremendously effective for intellectual and emotional response. Distinctly educational films may show social situations illustrating need for Christian action. Or they may serve as vocational guidance. Others may demonstrate how to lead a worship service, teach a class or conduct a Vacation Bible School. In fact, the possible use of films and film strips is almost endless.

While some churches are utilizing the latest and best in visual aids, most educational leaders are failing to take full advantage of them. Part of the problem is the availability of sufficient quantity, quality, and variety of aids when needed. Production, distribution, and projection equipment are involved here; however, so much progress has been made in recent years by suppliers that it can be said responsibility for failure to use audio-visual aids in religious education lies chiefly with the churches and church schools.

Putting Tools To Work

Aggressive steps must be taken to put the power of the projected picture to work. Complacency at both the national and local church level must be replaced with the development of proper methods for better use.

Local pastors and teachers should learn how to use the projected picture in the local church program. Capable audio-visual aid directors should be added to church-school staffs.

Writers of Sunday School lessons should become better acquainted with teaching methods that involve projected pictures. Editors might do well to integrate and correlate available audio-visual materials with other helps in lesson manuals and teachers’ guides.

Colleges and seminaries should introduce courses that deal specifically with the application of audio-visual materials in church programs. National and local church budgets should include the best in audio-visual tools. Very few churches have a regular audio-visual aids budget, and many of these budgets are totally inadequate for the purpose intended. Industry and government find it worthwhile to invest huge sums of money in the development of this sort of thing. One wonders why the Church cannot see its value also.

Teaching Program Primary

The teaching program of the church is primary. The Christian Church has the greatest of all missions. Certainly, then, every God-given teaching tool should be brought into the service of the Christian Church. Throughout the ages God has provided the necessary means of communication for his Church to carry out his commands. In our day the power of audio-visual aids should be fostered widely in the preaching and teaching of “all things whatsoever he has commanded.” The Church must meet this challenge.

END

For the past several decades the Church has shown a growing interest in theology and, with that interest, an increasing demand that theology occupy a larger place in the content of the preacher’s message. This new interest is not confined alone to those who have always insisted upon the value of rightly dividing the Word of Truth, but is found among those who have disparaged creeds and theology for more than a generation.

The realization that the whole fabric of a moral civilization hangs upon something more than the pro nouncements of ethical codes is being forced upon the consciousness of the Church by the tragic failure of a message devoid of theology to construct either a spiritual Church or a moral society. Chaos faces the world; disintegration confronts the Church. The bankruptcy of man is driving the Church away from Athens to Jerusalem, from rationalism to revelation. “What saith the Lord?” This is the growing cry of the hour!

The Necessity Of Theology

As we survey the situation we are confronted immediately with the fact that theology is a necessity. The structure of the human mind demands it. The mind by which we apprehend truth demands thought, and by thought we mean systematic thought. God made man a rational creature; therefore he must think.

The attempt to divorce man’s religious life from his reasoning nature is an absurdity. This is proved by those who decry creeds. In their denial of creeds they are compelled by logical necessity to announce a creed. “I do not believe in creeds” is but an affirmation of belief (which is a creed) in a negative form. It could be stated, “I believe creeds are not worth holding.” But theology and creeds will cease to be only when man ceases to be man. Those who say “it makes no difference what you believe” give expression to the poverty of their own thinking, and are really guilty of contradicting their own natures. Can it be that with some this is but a subterfuge to cover their opposition to Christian truth and their unwillingness to submit to the wall of Jesus Christ?

Is it not strange that men will recognize the place of the physical and psychical sciences in life, but attempt to rule out the one science necessary to unify and give meaning to all knowledge—even the science of God? Let us not unconsciously fall into that error by slighting theology in our preaching. Let us not forget that among the sciences theology is still queen.

Theology is an absolute necessity in the development of character. For character is determined by ethical and spiritual ideas. “As a man thinketh in his heart so is he” is adamantine certainty. As the ancient quatrain sings it:

Sow a thought and we reap an act.

Sow an act and we reap a habit.

Sow a habit and we reap a character.

Sow a character and we reap a destiny.

The logic is faultless. Thought is the prime factor, the inaugurator of life’s destiny.

To live morally one must have some knowledge of right and wrong. To exercise faith in God one must have some knowledge of him. To accept Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord one must know something about him.

The Heart Of Theology

While there are many theologies (for men do think about God), we are concerned only with Christian theology. This we find in the written Word and supremely in the One who is the living Word which was with God and is God, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is such a vast range of truth in the Christian revelation that we must find the central and unifying idea which is the doctrine of God. All truth finds its meaning and unity there. Our idea of God conditions and determines all of life. From the values of human nature to the ethics of vivisection, from the modes of worship to the attitudes toward murder, from the value of sacrifice to the morality of a church bazaar—our thought will be conditioned by our idea of God.

As the idea of God is theology’s dominant note, the point of its clearest revelation becomes the central place of our preaching. That point we find in the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again we are faced with such a wealth of truth that we must seek the nub of it all. Where does Christ give to us his supreme revelation of God? The answer is always the Cross. There the Beloved wrought out our redemption, in his precious blood, and in so doing gave us the clearest possible revelation of the mind and heart and will of God. Our theology, therefore, must be Cross-centered. Our preaching must be Cross-centered. Our living must be Cross-centered. Let us preach all phases of Christian truth, but let us never forget to make the Cross our center and circumference, our Alpha and Omega. Such preaching will always possess sanity and balance, and will result in permanent fruit. “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14).

Preaching Theology

Having seen the necessity for theology, and having discovered the heart of theology, the question arises: how shall we preach it?

As to method, I would suggest that one might follow the example of Dale of Birmingham and deliberately and directly preach labeled doctrinal messages. A series of sermons on the great ideas of the Church, such as God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin, repentance, faith, man, atonement, regeneration, sanctification, the Second Coming, heaven and hell, cannot fail to bless both the preacher and the people.

Such an orderly presentation is of greater value than the hit or miss system, or rather lack of system, of mentioning one of these subjects now and then in any kind of sermon. Such preaching of doctrine harmonizes with the principles of teaching, conforming to the laws under which the mind operates. Moreover, our people ought to know the biblical meaning of those great terms. Today there is too flimsy a use of those great words. This is due in large measure to a careless disregard for the logical principles of definition. The result has been vagueness in thought with resultant confusion in living. Positive living can only arise from positive preaching, and that can only come from clear apprehension of truth, which is the result of clear thinking. Therefore, let us “gird up the loins of our mind,” meditate within the eternal truth, and preach doctrinal sermons.

Some may prefer the technique Phillips Brooks mastered, namely, the preaching of doctrine without labeling it, or saturating a sermon with theology. In his immortal lectures on preaching he concludes his analysis of the weakness of non-doctrinal sermons with these burning words:

The truth is no preaching ever had any strong power that was not preaching of doctrine. The preachers that have moved and held men have always preached doctrine. No exhortation to a good life that does not put behind it some truth as deep as eternity can seize and hold the conscience. Preach doctrine, preach all the doctrine that you know, and learn forever more; but preach it always, not that men may believe it, but that men may be saved by believing it.

Another method, expository preaching, which many believe is the ideal, possesses the values of the former minus its weaknesses. Such pulpit masters as Donne, Maclaren, and Morgan considered it the ideal. One thing of which we may be certain is this: it is impossible to expound the Word apart from the preaching of doctrine. Were we to have a generation of thoughtful, expository preaching, it would change the character of the Church. What a pity we have neglected such preaching in our American pulpit, and what a price we have paid on account of it.

Let us consider also the manner in which we should preach theology.

We must preach with vision. Vision is not foresight nor hindsight, but seeing the Invisible. “The things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned.”

We must preach with conviction. Conviction is power. Conviction is life. We have too many opinions and too few convictions. Opinions are valuable but they never started, sustained, or consummated a moral conflict. Even right opinions fall short of life. Nothing is so dead as a dead orthodoxy. Opinions may be stillborn convictions. They may be emerging convictions. Conviction is the reaction of the whole personality to an idea. Conceived in the mind and grasped by the heart, it issues forth into life in the dynamics of the will. Convictions are tyrannical, imperious, imperative. Not I may, but I must, is the logic of conviction. We may hold opinions, but we may not hold convictions. They hold us!

We must preach doctrine with passion. Without holy feeling the preaching of theology is a perilous and dangerous undertaking. Preaching apart from passion is worthless. Anyone who can think upon the great themes concerning God and the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and not be stirred in the depths of his soul has no place in the Christian pulpit. This is no plea for clamor and ranting; misbehavior of that sort grieves the Holy Spirit and is an impertinence to sincere emotion. Holy emotion under the control of the Holy Spirit may be revealed by the quiet speech of S. D. Gordon, or the majestic eloquence of Brooks; by the tranquil beauty of Jowett, or the blazing fire of Sunday.

Let us awaken to the awful solemnity of our calling, and with eyes fixed upon that

… Sacred Head, now wounded,

With grief and shame weigh’d down,

Now scornfully surrounded

With thorns, Thine only crown,

let us preach as dying men to dying men the Word of God.

END

Clarence S. Roddy is Professor of homiletics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Formerly Professor of English Bible at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, he has served as Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Portland

“The most wasted hour in the week.” In these words, Wesley Shrader, writing in Life magazine has characterized the one hour a week during which a minority of Americans receives formal religious instruction. One wonders if even the one hour in 168 is worthwhile for this purpose.

A Work Of Wonders

Though the Sunday School seems to limp along, it often accomplishes wonders. Only an all-wise God could utilize untrained volunteers, meager physical facilities, and limited materials to change the course of so many lives. Handicaps that would stagger the secular educator meet the underprepared but faith-filled teacher and superintendent, and the Lord gets for himself and us the victory. The truly dedicated teacher feels that time is so short for the learning of so much important content that the Sunday School hour should provide the most challenging, fruitful experience of the whole week.

The Demand Of The Times

Today, Sunday Schools should and must offer experiences that are unique. When William Wordsworth wrote, in the early nineteenth century, “the world is too much with us,” he knew less than half the secular pressures of the century to come. Over a span of several generations, our whole society has grown increasingly secular. American social institutions are bent on doing good to man without reference to the Eternal. Two objectives actually dominate our lives: acquiring more and more material possessions, and seeking the ultimate in pleasure. Many nominal Christians, young and old, live from Sunday to Sunday without contact with the things of Christ. In the day schools, activities are highly secularized, except for concessions to five carefully-rationed verses from the Old Testament, a mumbling of the Lord’s Prayer, and an occasional pantheistic assembly program designed neither to stimulate nor to offend. A popular superstition, shared by many evangelicals, holds that an insidious Fu-Manchu of education named John Dewey has dominated our public schools and fathered atheism in them. Those of us who have worked in several public school systems and have visited a good many others know that Dewey’s influence, both in “progressive teaching” and in secularization of the schools, is almost negligible. Sanely progressive teaching stems primarily from what God has permitted us to know about the nature and nurture of children, and about the ways in which people of all ages learn most effectively. Secularization has occurred precisely because we have wanted it.

The Evangelical Outlook

To fill a great spiritual void, we need evangelical Sunday Schools. The superior Sunday School of evangelical persuasion does much more than teach hero stories of the Bible, impart ethics and morals, and develop human relations skills. It uses as its cornerstone the Word of God; then it convicts young and old of their need of Christ as personal Saviour; and thirdly it stimulates consistent growth in the Christian life and experience of the pupil.

Numerous Sunday Schools do not qualify in these respects. Bible stories that are taught have the aspect of “cunningly devised fables.” The ethical and moral standards which teachers inculcate suggest merely that it pays to be nice. Usually, they neglect to develop in their pupils sufficient understanding of the plan of salvation and a corresponding gratefulness to God for the means of grace. Sunday Schools that pervert their function should go the way of other decadent institutions. They supply little that is not already supplied by humanistic enterprises elsewhere in our society. If their major objective is to develop additional smiling, pleasant heathen, with whom our civilization is already crowded, they should let better-equipped and better-organized agencies serve this objective. If they place heavy reliance on the biographies of biblical and church heroes, they should examine research data which suggest that teaching biographies of the great may have relatively little effect on the behavior of learners.

What, then, are some of the main features of effective, spiritually-oriented Sunday Schools?

1. Really effective Sunday Schools are staffed with genuine Christians who have been carefully selected and introduced to their work. The most vital element in the teaching process is the teacher. Sunday School teachers, who are ordained to a special task, should be selected with an eye to their own spiritual experience and beliefs, to their basic understanding of their teaching assignment, and to their probable adaptability in dealing with the age group with which they will work. Once assigned, the new teacher needs help in both individual and group settings so that he may grow in service. Because of increased volunteering by teacher candidates, Sunday Schools can be more selective in their choice of teachers than they could have been 20 years ago.

2. The best Sunday Schools base their teaching on the Bible, for they seek always to convince pupils of their need of Christ as Saviour. No other institution or organization is prepared to teach consistently the Christian verities. Because this is true, no Sunday School and no series of curriculum materials for use in Sunday Schools should dilute the concentrated Gospel message.

3. The most effective Sunday Schools teach clearly and repeatedly the plan of salvation. How many members of Protestant churches have experienced the new birth? Is the fraction nearer one tenth or one twentieth of the total membership? One wonders whether either the pulpit or the Sunday School has thus far begun to fulfill its major responsibility. Surely the pupils in our Sunday Schools should be reminded as often as possible, and in as many different ways, of the plan of salvation.

4. The best Sunday Schools recognize that their most significant aim is improvement in the value structure of the individual. Teaching about the Scriptures is relatively easy. Helping the individual to reorient his values through use of the Scriptures so that all things have indeed become new is much more difficult. Sunday School teachers should be intensely aware of the power of God to change lives. They should also be helped to convert the findings of secular educators about the process of valuing and re-valuing to the special purposes of Christian education.

5. Teachers in the effective Sunday School plan their work carefully. For adequate planning, teachers need to know their specific objectives, week by week. Rather than teaching too much at a time, which results in superficial teaching and learning, they should limit their subject matter, striving to make it as meaningful as possible.

6. Teachers in the best Sunday Schools vary their teaching procedures. They know that listening and reciting, the two commonest activities in Sunday Schools, often represent a low order of learning. By experience it has been found that audio-visual aids and pupil, participation, to mention two very general categories of method, do indeed assist the learning of the world’s most important curriculum content.

7. Teachers in the best of Sunday Schools seek practical applications of the precepts they teach. One of the major criticisms of the Sunday School has been a failure to help pupils put into action throughout the week the spiritual truths they have discussed abstractly on Sunday. More of our weekly assignments should begin with the words, “Suppose we try this week to show our love (or patience, or honesty) in these situations: … Next week, let’s report how we’ve done.” Correspondingly, fewer assignments would then begin with the fact-directed interrogatives, Why? When? Where? More assignments would begin with the expressions, Why? and What would happen if …?

8. Teachers in effective Sunday Schools maintain warm, friendly relationships with their pupils, and with their pupils’ families. Often, the best Sunday School teaching is informal. The glowing personalities of Christian adults then come into contact with the growing personalities of individuals who are spiritually less mature. In this climate of friendship, the teacher tries to encourage self-discipline in his pupils. He also stimulates independent thinking and a sense of freedom within a context of divine authority. The teacher’s relationship with the home is crucial in securing cooperation in the spiritual growth of children.

9. Teachers in effective Sunday Schools evaluate the results of their work. Sunday School teachers have too often assumed that their own and their pupils’ efforts were bearing fruit. But the alert teacher will ask himself, “How do I know how well we have succeeded in our work?” Then he will devise questions and activities to evaluate, both formally and informally, progress to date. Most questions and activities should test the learning of major ideas and concepts rather than memorization of simple facts.

10. Effective Sunday Schools supply their teachers with the best in materials. Broadly conceived, this statement refers to teaching aids and materials of all kinds. In impoverished churches, it means quarterlies secured from publishing houses. Some of these and other aids are obviously not evangelical, and sometimes the evangelical ones are of poor educational quality. However, one of the gratifying developments of the past 10 years has been steady improvement in the quality of basic materials.

11. The most effective Sunday Schools provide a program of in-service education for their teachers. Teaching, for the ablest of personnel, is a complex act; hence, even the most competent of teachers need help. Certainly inexperienced, volunteer teachers need a special long-term program of in-service education to build their competencies to the maximum.

The Spiritual Priorities

In view of the purpose of the Sunday School, the most important of the preceding eleven features are the spiritual ones. Any Sunday School that has the first three features serves, at least in a limited way, a function that is fulfilled by no other organization in our society. The degree to which a Sunday School possesses the remaining eight determines, in large part, the effectiveness of its teaching ministry.

Findings in individual and social psychology, as well as in the other social sciences, have confirmed the worth of Jesus’ own methods of teaching. When amateurs in education attack these methods in books and articles, they are attacking wisdom higher than their own. What did Jesus do in his role as Master Teacher? He dealt personally with individuals (e.g., John 4:7, 26). He started with people where they were and moved them patiently to new stages in their development (e.g., his dealings with Simon Peter). He encouraged problem solving (e.g., Matt. 16:13–20). He let his learners develop the questions and ideas that led to teaching incidents (e.g., Mark 9:17–29). He encouraged learning by doing (e.g., Matt. 14:25–31). He sometimes taught by action rather than by words (e.g., John 8:6–9).

In addition, of course, Jesus did many things that good teachers do today. He taught informally. He gave learners full opportunity for decision-making. He emphasized inner motivation as opposed to outward acts. He urged practical demonstration and application of what had been learned. And above all, he sought fundamental change in systems of values.

To Sunday School teachers one may say, “Try to follow the high, hard road of the Master. If you try, no one can legitimately ask, ‘Shall we close the Sunday Schools?’ “A pioneer in Christian education, Clarence H. Benson, has said: “If the Gospel is from God, why is it not more effective? Well, there is nothing wrong with the Sower, who is the Son of God, or the Seed, which is the Word of God. The difficulty lies in the soil, and in the sowing of the Seed, which has been intrusted to the teacher’s hands.… It takes time and patience to press beyond the mind and reach the soul and spirit of the individual. Only as the teacher thus approaches his task is there any assurance that the good Seed will not only get down into the soil, but also will have a resurrection in a transformed and fruitful life” (The Christian Teacher, Chicago, Moody Press, 1950, p. 7).

It would be a sad day for America if the Sunday School should close its doors.

END

Ronald C. Doll is Professor of Education in New York University. He holds the B.A., M.A. and Ed.D. from Columbia University. Co-author of Organizing for Curriculum Improvement (Teachers College, Columbia University) and The Art of Communicating (Macmillan), he has held positions as teacher, principal, superintendent and curriculum consultant.