Why Curriculum (literature) is Not the Issue

A Sunday School teacher entered my office, presented a hands and shoulder gesture that says, “I’ve tried…done my best,” and said, “Man, I’m frustrated. We need to change curriculum. This just isn’t working.” The problem? The members of this 30-45 year old class were not reading their lesson in preparation for class and would not engage in discussion when this teacher threw out questions in class.

After giving him time to vent, I simply said, “This has nothing to do with the curriculum. We can change that, but you will experience the same frustration in short order because this isn’t the issue. This problem isn’t about content. It’s about process!” Needless to say, I had his attention.

We had an honest, engaging conversation where he concluded, “I think I finally get. I’m old school,’ to which I responded, “Now, you got it.”

That realization came after we waded through a litany of discourse that revealed the stark contrast between the way he had been teaching and a more effective way to educate in faith. The scenario, which is common in so many Bible study experiences was this—He sat behind a desk at one end of the room. A large semi-circle of chairs lined the three walls of the room. This class averaged 18-20 persons per week. This teacher taught the same way every week—lecture; a question thrown out to the group; little time to think, reflect and process; little to no response; the teacher answering his own question; and then more lecture….a cycle of teaching that he had learned from his experiences in church.

What’s wrong with this approach?

For one thing the approach was intimidating for most folks. This teacher was a well-known Bible authority. To ask someone to respond verbally in a setting like this—large room, a lot of people, in front of a teacher who is a Bible authority, and when people have not given any prior thought to the subject is intimidating. Fear and anxiety kick in and when that happens people shut down. Fear and anxiety are barriers to effective learning.

Second, the approach is not relational. The communication that occurs by this approach is, at best, a one-to-one conversation between the teacher and each class member. In a class of 20 persons, that would be 19 possible communicative relationships. And as we have already demonstrated, the majority will not engage in that communicative approach because of the anxiety that is raised within them as a result of the approach.

But what if this teacher knew this, and therefore, planned for his class session differently? What if he began the class in a way that grabbed the participant’s attention and then framed the discussion, giving them enough information to help them feel more comfortable with the subject? What if he then asked the same good question to the class but he asked it in a different way? That is, he put four to five persons in a group; gave them the question in writing on a sheet of paper; asked them to discuss the question as a group for a certain period of time; and asked them to share their findings with the larger group?

Guess what happens?

The fear and anxiety goes down. It is less intimidating to share thoughts with four or five people than with the entire class. So more people participate. All class members are now engaged rather than a few. Relationships are being developed. Now there are possibilities for 380 communicative relationships to be nurtured. Over a period of time the class members really get to know one another. All other aspects of Sunday School are strengthened. People have more reason now to care for one another. Relationships with guests and prospective class members are nurtured.

Why does all this happen? Because relationships mediate spiritual formation! And, because the teacher has learned that the old schooling, instructional approach to teaching Sunday School must give way to a relational approach which is more congruent with how people who are part of a community are best educated in faith. The church is a community of faith. It is not a school. And our educational approaches must be congruent with the essence of our communal nature. That’s what makes Christian education Christian, and different from a secular understanding of education.

This teacher agreed to try this approach. He came out of class and said, “Wow! They loved it?” I responded, “Yes, and you would have been one of the first to tell me that adults don’t like group work, wouldn’t you?” He sheepishly replied, “yes.”

What we must teach and what people must learn is that process is more important than content. We’ve got that one backwards. A poor learning environment is not about the curriculum or even about teaching the Bible. It’s about poor process. The corrective is a renewed openness and understanding to how people are shaped towards Christlikeness. Effective faith formation and transformation does not just happen by learning ABOUT the Bible or Jesus. It’s happens when people enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ and others. That’s what Bible study is about. You can’t teach that. You experience it. It is learned in community because relationships mediate spiritual formation.