Day Two

Today we incorporated Hendricks' work into our discussion on Bible teaching. Teachers, in order to have any real impact on their students, must be credible. That means not only must our content be worthwhile, but also, our character must be sound. More than that, creative Bible teachers adapt their style to communicate effectively, hone their message until it's crystal-clear, employ physical techniques to their advantage, and take risks in their teaching. If our approach to teaching is always that which is safe, it may become routine or dull to our students.

The part of the class that I enjoyed most today was hearing about Gardner's learning styles. It was fascinating to hear how different people learn in various ways. I could see how I operate in several of those categories--suprisingly, to me, was how much the Naturalist approach resonated with me. Not only do I have a deep love for nature, I view the world with taxonomic eyes. I read something and I automatically think to myself (generally not for the whole world to see), "This guy's a pre-trib, pre-millenial, hyper-literal dispensational watered-down Calvinist," or "This guy's a KJV only, tongues-have-ceased (likely dispensational) fightin' fundy," or something of the like. It's good to see how others learn so I can begin to teach in ways that connect with them.

I struggle with some of the ideas that I think are implicit in CBT, and seem to be flying under the radar in class in relation to application. I know that the official position of the class is that creativity in Bible teaching means to bring the ancient text to bear on our daily lives. However, I sense that in our class exercises simple applications/answers aren't necessarily "creative" enough. I read 1 John 1:8-10, and I think that the most natural (not to mention, most likely to be actualized) application is to own up to and confess our sin to God whenever we fall. I know that's simple, but I think people are more likely to practice that than something which may be more original, or unique, or creative in the traditional sense.

Also, in reading CBT, I got the sense that not only must your application be creative, every week you also need to get your people to do something. I don't agree that this is the most effective way to see life change occur. In the end, I think that this approach leads people to think that if they check off their weekly application assignment, then they must be growing in Christlikeness. More than that, it produces people who value doing over introspection. Finally, I think that this approach can burden people down with exercises.

When people think rightly about God, their heart is changed. And when their heart is changed, their actions will follow. I believe that the bulk of our time should be aimed at the head and the heart, with general implications thrown out which serve to instigate behavioral change. That's not a blanket statement to say that we shouldn't ever target specific behaviors. Yet behavioral change should be rooted; otherwise, habitual falling, guilt, confession, committment, falling guilt, confession, and renewed committment will undoubtedly cycle through people's lives.