I have been immersed in Christian Education theory and practice as the result of some of my extracurricular activities. (I am a teaching assistant for a Columbia College e-college class and have been doing some church and district workshops about educational ministry.) As a result I have been taking a hard look at how we teach and learn at First UMC and have come to these conclusions:
Pro: Our classes are welcoming and are important fellowship entities.
Con: Our classes are territorial and do not welcome new classes which is the most effective way to grow this ministry.
Pro: We have some great teachers/leaders in our classes.
Con: We have teacher/leaders that resist growing in their understanding of faith issues and teaching methods.
Pro: We present a lot of good information through curriculum and teachers.
Con: We struggle to share it in a way that is transforming in the lives of class members.
Pro: Our classes present a variety of faith topics and issues.
Con: Much of class discussion is based on secular based thinking.
Pro: We continue to offer in-depth Bible study in small group settings.
Con: Many of the participants are the same faces year after year.
Pro: We have many families that consider Christian education to be important.
Con: We have many families that fail to regularly participate in Christian education experiences.
Pro: We have classes and groups for those interested in nourishing their mature faith.
Con: We do not offer classes for those who are seeking basic understanding of faith matters.
This analysis of our Christian education ministry could continue, but I think that I have enough to think about for now. I encourage others to further define this list and help me to get rid of some of the “cons”. What do we need to be doing to enhance our teaching ministry?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think sometimes that we do not allow God to be big enough. We describe new automobiles and sleek techno toys as "awesome". If the mundane is awesome, God's power diminishes, and we tend to think of God in human terms. The anthropomorphic treatment of God concerns me. One very simple step to return God to "Awesome" begins with a small change in the way we pray the Lord's Prayer. As a child I was taught to show reverence by praying, "Our Father, WHICH art in Heaven...." because God is not a "who". A "who" is a person. The use of "Who" probably became acceptable as an attempt to establish a more personal relationship for laity with God, but it certainly limits the way we perceive the omnipotence of an omniscient, immortal omnipresence.
If we prayed to God, which art in heaven, we might begin to create dialog and topics of class discussion that would help us to return God to a position where we would at least think about removing our sandals before we approached Him. Thank you for your kind indulgence. Tom.
Maybe a list of suggested sites could be posted for those looking to do individual research in eschatology, exegesis, etymology etc.
This last comment has renewed my interest as using our church website as a teaching/learning tool. Thanks for prompting me.
No prob. That's what "spark plugs" are for.
Post a Comment