For more information on our Regional Trainers please visit www.pcacep.org/regionaltrainers.
Church Leadership
How We Teach and How They Learn, Part 1
Over the years I have gone to MANY teacher training workshops. What I found interesting is that most of them simply focused on expanding a teacher’s arsenal of methods. After many years of studying the subject of how we learn and process new information, I have discovered that when you lay out all these teaching methods, people will pick those that best fit with their own learning style. This means that we will pick those methods we are comfortable using, but these will not reach as many as three-fourths of our students whose learning style is different from ours.
Learning styles is not a new subject, nor is it a fad. It was first defined in the 1950s. Christians were introduced to it in the early ’70s when Larry Richards taught us to develop our lessons using “Hook, Book, Look, Took.” I’m not sure how much Larry understood the science of learning styles at that time, but he got it just right.
Today it is recognized that the old “IQ” test is grossly inadequate for measuring intelligence. It is accepted that there are at least nine different intelligences that need to be measured.
How we process new information can be comfortably broken down into four categories. Cynthia Tobias calls them by more technical terms: concrete sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, and concrete random. These can also be called concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and reflective observation. Marleen LaFever and Bernice McCarthy refer to them more creatively as imaginative, analytic, common sense, and dynamic. Each describes a different way that learners take in new information and decide what to do with it.
If you have more than one child, you know how different they are. One might prefer to do homework while sitting on the floor with the radio blaring, while the other has to sit at a well lit table in complete silence. If you have more than two children there is a good chance that you are already aware of several different learning styles. For example, if you have a child or student who is very imaginative, he or she might like to talk in generalities rather than specifics and prefer to learn while talking. These children are empathetic, and might go so far as to let their grades drop so they can be part of a group. They work best in a noisy setting, and they don’t like to work alone. They also do not like lectures, which is true of three out of the four styles. Even the color scheme of the room can make a difference for them. While each of the learning styles has a list of characteristics, it must be clearly understood that almost no one fits tightly into any one category. Most of us will overlap into at least one other category.
A question I am often asked is: can our learning style change? The answer is no. We learn to adapt ourselves to the learning situation we are in if we want to survive or fit in.
One last point. Learning styles are often confused with modalities. There are three modalities: hearing, seeing, and motion. Each learning style will have those learners who are strong auditory learners, visual, and/or tactile/kinesthetic. These are subcategories of learning styles.
The Kingdom Has Come
Welcome! We have chosen this issue to highlight our 2008 Discipleship Conference, Making Visible God’s Invisible Kingdom, which took place Nov. 13-15, 2008. This conference was strategic to the PCA not simply because of the speakers, program, or arrangements, but because it was about the kingdom of God, remembering that our Lord came preaching the Good News about the kingdom. You can read the summary inside, but you can also take advantage of CDs and DVDs from the conference.
They are available from the CEP Bookstore at www.cepbookstore.com or 1.800.283.1357. It has been a great encouragement to the CEP committee and staff to receive e-mails, evaluations, phone calls, and personal comments from attendees. They have underscored the tactical importance of the conference. If the church is ever going to rise above mediocrity and really make a difference in the world, it cannot be like the world in its life and ministry nor can it embrace a self-centered, isolated view of Christianity. CEP prayed, worked, and planned for a kingdom focus with the hopes that God might use the PCA to challenge and model for other churches a kingdom perspective– the foremost thing on Jesus’ agenda. His message was the Good News, sealed in the death and resurrection of our Lord but totally inclusive with Christ the King.
“Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God,” Rev. 12:10. The church is plagued with a capitulation to the enemy’s tactics, as he wages war on the church. This is because, as the accuser, he is also the deceiver. We were reminded by Dr. Christian Smith at the conference that the best description of today’s religion in America is “moralistic, therapeutic, deism,” which has been handed down from the previous generation. Today’s church is quite vulnerable to Satan because it is so unaware of his clever deceitful tactics. Sunday after Sunday, thousands upon thousands hear nothing more than the above description of religion presented– no gospel of salvation, no message of the kingdom, and no submission to the authority of Christ, all in the name of religion and Christianity. Revelation continues to tell us that the dragon (Satan) seeks to destroy the church, but he is not successful against those who keep God’s commandments and are faithful to the testimony of Jesus. God keeps His covenantal promise and “the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.”
Through adult training and resources, the Sunday school curriculum and program, and ministry to the leadership in the church, CEP is committed to using its energies to challenge, assist, and remind the church of its role of making kingdom disciples. We are further committed to helping churches coordinate an effective strategy with their covenant families through the home, school, and church. CEP also conducts training conferences and makes resources available to help local church leaders be more effective in their various discipleship roles. The book reviews in this issue have been carefully chosen, and we believe they are important books that church leaders and teachers should know about and read.
Click here to read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader required)
We use Equip to Disciple not only to highlight books and events such as the 2008 Discipleship Conference, but to also keep the local leadership aware of upcoming events and other resources that can assist and encourage them. As you read the highlights of the conference, my hope is that you will be encouraged and challenged to utilize the recordings from the conference.
Equipping and the Future of Discipleship
Nothing will ever take the place of one-on-one discipleship, and this article will not attempt to prove otherwise. Right now, I want you to just dream about what lies ahead for training in the future, the near future.
A number of years ago, I saw a cartoon where a preacher says to the congregation. “Now would you all key in … ” They all had laptops. I just laughed, but how far-fetched is that today? How many colleges don’t require them as standard equipment?
I have argued for years that the paper and ink book as we know it will begin fading away in my lifetime. Everyone then says to me that they do not like reading a book on a computer. Neither do I, but picture this: a handheld device that has a screen about the size of a book. It reads clearly. Beyond that you can change the font, its size and color, highlight the text, dog-ear the pages, and even make space to write in your own notes. Does this sound like science fiction? Well, I saw my first device like this in 1997! Today they are beginning to appear on the market. You don’t think this will take off for years? I was sitting on a ferry in Seattle a few weeks ago, and a woman in her forties was sitting across from me reading a book she downloaded from Amazon.
How does this affect discipleship? I am 57 and have used a computer since 1985, but I am not really what you would call a techno guy. However, I do know that times are changing – fast. The younger generation we want to reach knows nothing but computers, and they expect them to do everything.
Now, picture this for a Bible study. Your whole group has a device like I mentioned. They are doing the recently published study of Genesis, written by PCA pastor Will Hesterberg. There are many questions in the study that require students to write in their answers, and they can do it right on the screen – in class or at home.
CEP is working very closely with Logos Bible Software to begin producing such material in the near future. It will not only be student material. The package will contain video segments, PowerPoint presentations, notes for the students, and everything else needed to teach the course. But there will be one more feature for the teacher. Using Logos Bible Software, the teacher will be able to do research through their own, affordable library which may contain 300, 700, or more than 10,000 theological books. The teacher will not waste time trying to find things in several different books. All he or she will need to do is type in the reference (Bible text, word, or topic) and the software will search and open every source available in that library. You have got to see the power and ability of this system to believe it.
Am I promoting Logos Bible Software? You bet I am. Working with Logos, CEP will be able to expand its training and resources in incredible ways. You will begin to see more and more materials being produced by us in conjunction with them.
PS. In the future, don’t be surprised if you begin to get Equip to Disciple sent to you electronically with the capability of taking the articles and doing further research in Logos.
A Kaleidoscope… One Scenario of the PCA
Editor’s Note: Please read this article in conjunction with the book review of Young, Restless, Reformed by Collin Hansen and the review of Quitting Church by Julia Duin.
Recently, I was asked a very pointed question by a well known PCA teaching elder: Would you invest in the PCA?” What a question! My first response was: “I have invested my life in the PCA. As one of the original group that organized the PCA, plus having spent the major part of my life and ministry working at the denominational level, of course I have invested in the PCA.” But his question had more of a future thrust to it. “Would you invest in the PCA?” Realizing he was pressing for my thoughts about the present and future of the church, after thinking for a few minutes, I replied: Follow me carefully. I believe the denominational paradigm is valid. as long as it does not isolate us from believers in other settings. Having said that,1 think the PCA is the best option available to anyone wanting to identify with a biblically Reformed body of believers. I know of no better at this point, as long as those who are part of the denomination feel accountability within that model. But honestly, I am deeply challenged and concerned about the future of the PCA There seems to be a growing nonconfessional focus, even with our official ‘good faith’ or ‘loose subscription’ position to our standards, which creates some new and challenging problems.” Some people are embracing the doctrines of grace but not necessarily from our Reformed, confessional theology, which can and will work against the denominational paradigm.
Of course my teaching elder friend continued to press for further explanation. Having recently given my “state of the church” analysis to the Christian Education and Publications staff and committee, I began to elaborate on both my hopes and concerns for our PCA.
As I reminded my friend, and as you read my general response, please realize my history, background, and involvement in the PCA. As a minister in the Southern Presbyterian Church for several years, I was defrocked by that denomination when I announced my withdrawal and my commitment to being a part of organizing what became the PCA. I could handle that circumstance because I believe truth is real and truth matters, including integrity. I wanted to be part of a younger generation that would have a great love for Gods truth in all areas life; but as an idealist in that objective, I was realistic enough to know that we often pay a price for such an ideal.
Click here to read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader required)
From the beginning, the PCA has had things that have made it special; and I have had hopes that our denomination would set the tone for others to follow: It has been my positive experience to see the PCA grow from its small roots in mainly the southeastern part of the country to a church that has spread all over North America. It has been my privilege as well as delight to travel across the church working with local church leaders and teachers. Our church is blessed with some extraordinarily gifted men and women who love the Lord and desire to serve Him.
The PCA has not only had unity of commitment to the Sovereign Lord, His Word, and His church, reflected by a common confessional commitment, but it has had diversity within that framework. I explained further to my friend that while I have appreciated the unity/diversity of the PCA I can begin to see a shift in the balance toward theological diversity. Then I said that my thoughts are not intended to offend anyone but to merely give my description of our church.
I believe there are five sub-groups within the PCA. They represent both our unity and diversity. If you will, notice the following schematic, looking from left to right. Realize the names of the five groups are my humble effort to be descriptive and not evaluative at this point.
The first group I call the “Reformed fundamentalists.” Some have called these churches “‘TRs” or “truly Reformed.” They operate on the foundation and authority of God’s Word. They are confessional from a “strict subscription” position. They demonstrate a great love for the church, value the denominational paradigm and have no problem with the church’s foundational authority base in the Word of God. Although some have been accused of elevating the standards to an equal or higher plane than Scripture, I do not believe this is the case. Our ultimate allegiance is to the Word of God. Our confessional commitment merely expresses our commitment to the system of doctrine found in Scriptures.
The second group, the “Reformed evangelicals,” also has a strong commitment to God’ s Word accompanied by a love for and commitment to Reformed confessional theology, though in a less strict or “good faith” approach. This group has a great love for the church within the denominational model as well and takes our standards seriously, as “containing the system of doctrine” found in Scripture.
The third group, “the neo-Reformed,” has a high view of Scripture but in a somewhat more broadly eclectic manner regarding confessional boundaries. This group has a strong leaning to focus more on the local church and its ministry with less emphasis on the denominational paradigm, and thus has the tendency to act more independently. (A fuller description of this group is seen in the book review in this issue of Young, Restless, Reformed byColin Hansen.)
The fourth group, the “post-conservative evangelicals,” appreciates Scripture but may have a different perspective, or maybe even a new perspective, on Scripture. Those of us who were taught neo-orthodox theology in seminary see much similarity here regarding the Bible. This group tends to prefer few to no confessional boundaries; and theologically, they would be more broadly evangelical and generally embrace only a local church commitment. They would tend to make more of an antithesis between being Reformed and evangelical than the previous three groups.
The fifth group, the “emergent movement,” is only somewhat present at this time in the PCA, at least in a more sympathetic way than with groups one, two, and three. This group is intentionally non-traditional, non-confessional, and committed to embracing a Christianity placed within a postmodern paradigm that makes truth and authority subjective at best. It also questions the entire organized or institutionalized church model as we have known it, especially the denominational paradigm, which is generally viewed from this perspective as out of touch, authoritarian, or negative and judgmental.
The first three groups are strongly committed to the sovereignty of God, truth and authority, the doctrines of grace, love for the church, and faithfully preaching and teaching within and among those with a Calvinistic theology. Groups four and five adopt more of a non-foundational postmodern framework, which attempts to fit Christianity into it As a generalization, admitted by some who have already left this movement, the emergents desire to focus on a non-Calvinistic and non-traditional model which talks not about biblical, universal truth or institutional Christianity but rather conversations and relationships.
As my conversation continued with my friends, remarked that as you move from left to right on the the chart on the previous page, especially beyond groups one and two, the next three groups, while having a presence in the PCA, diminish in size considerably.
Here is what I have observed and experienced over the years. While groups one and two have learned how to work together, even with their differences, groups three, four, and, five tend to operate differently, Please understand, I believe groups four and five are only embryonically present in the PCA but could continue to grow if we move further away from our authority base, confessional boundaries, and the denominational model.
What happens in the next few years will be extremely important. While some remain committed to the denomination theologically, as well as ecclesiastically, others are not as intentional in reflecting that commitment. Consequently, we need to be extremely careful in what we teach, advocate, and promote in the PCA. We have been quick to advocate some potentially good things and also some things that could end up working against the very denominational paradigm that provides our framework, Here are two examples. While we appreciate and encourage the new concept of the church being missional (meaning that missions starts at home in our neighborhoods and then moves out into the entire world), when churches carry the concept to the extremes, many do not actively participate in the life of the denomination as a whole, Even now, some churches within the PCA are not supporting the whole work of the church. Presently, less than one half of PCA churches support the denominational committees and agencies. Though the PCA Book of Church Order 14.1 has adopted the organizing principle that it is the duty of each church to support the whole work of the church, this present situation works against the denominational model and the PCA has not satisfactorily addressed it. ]t is not enforced even though the principle is part of the PCA Constitution.
Another example is an emphasis on “movements” and “networks.” Men such as D. M. Lloyd Jones and John R.W. Stott have cautioned us in the past that movements have a history of pulling people and resources away from the local church, as well as the denomination; hence they ultimately work against the denominational paradigm. In practice the PCA has demonstrated more of a supportive posture to the movement concept and the results are challenging. The committees and agencies of the PCA have to work within a denominational paradigm but each has to raise its own funds. With the reality mentioned previously regarding the number of supporting churches, doing realistic budgets and funding assigned or approved programs becomes challenging, difficult, and sometimes impossible.
So to answer the question, “Would you invest in the PCA?” I would say yes. as long as we maintain our identity with theological integrity and honesty. As long as we are committed to the authority of God’s truth, especially revealed in His Word, within our confessional boundaries, preaching and teaching the doctrines of grace within the context of a biblically Reformed kingdom perspective. I would say yes as long as we continue to manage our unity/diversity and do not allow Satan to cause us to lose our uniqueness by tipping the scales either way. Diversity without unity is chaos. Unity without diversity is mere uniformity.
The PCA is a confessional church. That’s what its founding in 1973 was all about. Our confessional commitment is to the Westminster Standards. even though we have a high appreciation for other similar Reformed creeds and confessions. We do value continuing to do theology and being Reformed according to the Word in a way that communicates with people today There are many issues to which our standards do not speak because they were written at a specific time in history, but we are called on to give a biblical response to those issues today Within the PCA there is and should always be a freedom to speak to those issues from a biblical base that will keep us within our confessional boundaries. When we adopted our Constitutional Standards in 1973. we also adopted a process that allows us to study, rethink, and restate some things. always with the aim to be reforming according to God’s Word.
There is a basis of hope found in the very things that have brought us together. If we will stay the course, speak the truth in love, and come along side and minister to one another. including holding one another accountable with integrity and authenticity, there is hope. One of our unique challenges is trying to be a denomination with a large number of members who have never really seen a denominational paradigm in action, at least not in a positive way. Yet, the truth remains. We can accomplish more together than we can alone, especially with those with whom we share doctrinal affinity. That’s the biblical model: working together at all levels of the church.
Time will tell for the PCA if we are a solid investment. Presently, the clock is ticking. Lastly, I said to my friend, “Tell me what you heard me say lest i have not been clear in my response.”
Organizing Discipleship
In Winnie-the-Pooh, Christopher Robin says, “Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it’s not all mixed up.” It has also been said this way, “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” Both statements express great truth. Unfortunately, the church has a great reputation for not planning. Instead we live on activity and hope it is accomplishing something. Remember the last seven words of a church? “We’ve always done it that way before!”
For all the success stories that make their way through the Christian community, the reality is that the church is reaching fewer people. The famous Willow Creek Church has shown that in many congregations it is only the newer Christians who are being discipled. Those who have been in the church for any length of time feel they are not being fed. Planning and organizing is needed if we are to grow true kingdom disciples.
The Search Institute in Minneapolis in their published findings said, “Of all the areas of congregational life we examined, involvement in an effective Christian education program has the strongest tie to a person’s growth in faith and to loyalty to one’s congregation and denomination…. This is as true for adults as it is for adolescents…. Done well, it has the potential beyond any other congregational influence to deepen faith and commitment.”
Read entire publication in PDF (Acrobat Reader Required)
Some people love to organize. Their schedules are governed by Day-Timers. For others, it can be a terrible burden. Volunteers are hard to find, enthusiasm wears thin, and programs–even those already in place–can weigh heavily on the people “in charge.”
Organization is a tool.
In the hands of the craftsman, it can make the job easier and the product better. But when it takes the place of the craftsman, it becomes ludicrous. There is nothing intrinsically good or spiritual about trying to decide what a group will study two weeks before it is scheduled to meet. At the same time, a three-year program of study (approved by all the appropriate individuals, committees, and boards) can become deadening if it fails to adjust to the needs and resources of the group. In one case, it is like a person trying to work without the needed tool. In the other, the tool may take the place of the person. Can you imagine how little discipleship would take place if your pastor did not plan his sermons a year ahead?
Organization is a means to an end.
That end, in this case, is discipleship. Without a stated purpose and goals, there may be significant differences in what leaders are trying to accomplish. So before there is serious discussion regarding the organization of your structure and programs, there must be a careful consideration of your purpose. Organization will then provide the structure for you to tackle the job to which you are committed. Without some organization, there is no defined way for a group to work together; and the larger and more diverse the group, the greater the need for organization.
Those who know CEP Training Consultant Bob Edmiston know his favorite phrase is, “Go with the flow.” By that he means, “Be flexible. Without flexibility there is little sensitivity to the situation or to the Spirit. At the same time, it is imperative that ‘Go with the flow’ is said in the context of a structure.” Bob has written a manual he would not willingly tell you about himself – so I will. The aim of Organizing Your Christian Education Program is to give you the tools necessary to put together a structure for you to accomplish the Great Commission. It is designed for any size church that is willing to put the time into investing in a full discipleship program for all ages and for more than just Sunday school. Much of what you have been reading here was taken out of the introduction.
Make no mistake about it, planning takes work. But if you are not willing to take the time to plan for discipleship, you will still have made plans, but they won’t be to carry out the Great Commission.