Principles and ideals for the Sunday school ; an essay in religious pedagogy

Front matter

Principles and Ideals for the Sunday School

Class jbAi.L&-&6_

Book. J5£SL

Part I. The Teacher

Chapter I. The Purpose of the Sunday School 3 Chapter II. ' The Teacher as a Student - - 10 Chapter III. The Influence of the Teacher's

Study upon Himself - -22

Chapter IV. The Basis of Authority in Teaching 29 Chapter V. Methods of Conducting a Class - 45 Chapter VI. Method as Determined by the Subject of Study - - - - 60 Chapter VII. How to Induce a Pupil to Study - 86 Chapter VIII. The Teacher and the Religious Life

of the Pupil - - - - 98 Chapter IX. The Pastor as a Teacher of Teachers no

Chapter I. The Purpose Of The Sunday School

What is the purpose of the Sunday school ? Tnc purpose Aim clearly recognized determines means, meth- Sunday od, and spirit. No more fundamental question, sch ° o1 therefore, can be asked respecting the work of the Sunday school than this. The answer must be based, not on mere names, for institutions often grow beyond their names; nor merely on past history, for the past is not necessarily the measure of the present. Appeal must rather be made to the place which the Sunday school is actually filling or attempting to fill in the complex work of the church.

The Sunday school is somewhat more than a The Sunday

% i • r i it- -i i r school an

school, if by a school is meant simply a place for educational learning and reciting lessons. Some of its exer- instltutlon cises belong rather to worship than to instruction. Its characterization as the children's church, most unfortunate in some respects, is not wholly wrong. But instruction holds, or certainly ought to hold, the central place. The Sunday school is essentially a school, an educational institution, and its central task is the study and teaching of the Bible. Even those who dislike the name

The Sunday-school a religious institution

" Bible school" will admit that, whatever the purpose of the school founded by Robert Raikes, this term correctly describes the character of the institution according to the now generally accepted ideal. But if this be so, it follows that the Sunday school must aim directly at imparting such instruction as will justify this ideal. To conceive of it in any way which, will obscure its function as an educational institution will be fatal to any right conception of its work.

Yet this is not all that is to be said. Another fact must be taken into account before this definition can be accepted as adequate. The Sunday school as now existing is an agency of the Christian church. It is to be classed along with public worship, preaching, and prayer-meetings, as one of the means by which the church seeks to accomplish its great aim, the conversion of men and their cultivation in Christian character. Occupying this position, the Sunday school cannot find its ultimate aim merely in the acquisition or impartation of knowledge, even though it be knowledge of the Bible. It is true of every school really worthy of the name, but it is pre-eminently true of the Sunday school, that it must seek a moral and not merely an intellectual end, must aim at character as well as knowledge. And, if so, then of course the moral must be the ultimate aim. Knowledge of the Bible, itself the proximate aim of the Sunday school, as a school, must be a means to the ultimate end. And the aim of the Sunday school as an agency of the church must be recognized to be to secure, through teaching of the Bible as the chief means, the conversion of the pupil and his development in Christian character.

If all this is true of the Sunday school as an The teaching

J shares in

institution, it must also be true of the teaching both these work in particular. It is because teaching is its P ur P 0S< central element that the Sunday school is distinctively an educational institution. That which gives character to the institution must itself partake of the character which it gives to the institution. The teaching of the Sunday school must aim directly at the acquisition of knowledge of the Bible on the part of the pupil. But none the less consciously must it aim at the attainment of that moral and religious result which belongs to the school because it is a part of the work of the Christian church. The central element in the school cannot remain unaffected by the ultimate purpose for which the institution itself exists. The teaching of the Sunday school must seek as its ultimate aim the conversion of the pupil and his development in Christian character.

Such a conception of the purpose of the Sunday school, and in particular of its work of teaching, gives to the institution a distinct and defiown

The Sunday n ite place. It distinguishes it from other schools

school has a ^

distinctive which, though they may not altogether exclude place of its the Bible from their curr i cu i a do not make it

the only or even the chief subject of study, and which, though they recognize the necessity of including the cultivation of character in their aim, assign to it a place only co-ordinate with the storing and training of the mind. It assigns to the Sunday school a definite place in the varied activities of the church, distinguishing it from the ordinary public service in which, though biblical instruction is included, worship and the immediate application of truth to life are the determinative elements; from the prayermeeting, the characteristics of which are the interchange of Christian experience and the cultivation of the devotional spirit ; from the evangelistic service, where the human will is directly addressed, and men are urged to right decision ; and from the philanthropic work of the church, in which the spirit of Christianity expresses itself in deeds of kindness. Such a conception of the work of the Sunday school recognizes the peculiar relation of our religion to the Bible, and the necessity that underneath worship and devotion, ethical instruction and the persuasion of the will, missions and philanthropy, there shall be a firm foundation of knowledge of that pre-eminent revelation of God which is the source and support of Christianity. It recognizes the need of one service, which, having the same ultimate aim as that which is sought in all the activities of the church, shall seek that end specifically and mainly by instruction in the Bible.

If it be asked why the Sunday school should Reasons for seek its ultimate aim of religious development in f its aim a sense by indirection, why the ultimate religious purpose should not in every service of the church be directly and avowedly sought, at least two valid answers may be given. In the first place, there are certain ends which, at least with some people, are best attained by indirection. It has long been recognized that the affections are best cultivated, not by commanding ourselves, for in* stance, to love those whom we ought to love, but by pursuing a course of action which tends indirectly to cultivate love. The same principle holds in the cultivation of character. What argument and appeal and exhortation wholly fail to accomplish can with some minds — perhaps to a certain extent with all minds — be accomplished little by little through instruction, conveyed either in the exposition of teachings or in the study of history and, especially, of biography. And, in the second place, it must certainly be acknowledged that the most solid results in character cannot be attained except upon a broad foundation of knowledge. The fervent appeal, often spurning knowledge and ignoring instruction, may seem at the time to be most effective in saving men and advancing the interests of Christianity. But all experience proves that alike in the life of the individual and in the development of the kingdom real and permanent progress is made only when zeal rests on a solid foundation of knowledge of the truth. The letters of Paul, especially those of the latter part of his life, lay great emphasis upon the necessity that love shall abound in knowledge and discernment.

Effect of this This conception of the determinative purpose

on the work of the Sunday school as both religious and of the school pedagogical has important relations to almost every problem of Sunday-school management. The character of the curriculum, the qualifications of teachers, and the method of study and of instruction will all be in no small degree determined by its acceptance or rejection. If the Sunday school is a school and is to attain its end primarily through instruction in the Bible, does it follow that it ought to have a definite curriculum, each year's work of which shall be adapted to the pupil's stage of development? And will a graded curriculum do away with the principle of uniformity so long followed ? If the Sunday school is a real educational institution, can it be carried on by untrained teachers, and, if not, what is the nature of the training required, and what ing questions are the necessary qualifications, intellectual and moral, to be demanded in teachers ? Have we today, can we have in the near future, any large number of teachers who possess these qualifications ? If not, must we secure proper teaching by a more careful instruction of teachers, and possibly by decreasing the number and increas- Some resulting the size of classes ? And will this again affect in an important way our church architecture ? If the Sunday school is a part of the distinctively educational work of the church, does it demand as its leader and overseer a man specially trained for educational work, and specifically for the teaching of the Bible ? Can we ever have trained teachers until we have at the head of the school a man educated in the Bible and in pedagogic method ? And does this in turn call for a new type of minister, the teaching minister alongside of the preaching minister? Finally, if instruction is the central function, and yet not the only function, of the Sunday school, what are the other legitimate departments of its work, and how are these departments related to the teaching work and to one another ? Some of these questions will be discussed in the following pages. It must suffice for the present to raise them.

Chapter II. The Teacher As A Student

Study All will agree that good teaching is the first

teaching great requirement of a Sunday school that is to fulfil is true function. Now, teaching presupposes study. There may be study that is not followed by teaching, but there can be no teaching that is not preceded by study. The teacher must be a student. Not that all study is study of books. One may teach farming having studied it only in the school of practice, or botany knowing only what he has himself observed. One may conceivably teach religion on the basis of experience only. But in every case he who teaches must first have studied what he is to teach. Our Sunday schools are correctly, even if not adequately, described as Bible schools. They teach the Bible with a distinctly religious motive ; they teach religion ; they even teach personal religion, and base such teaching on personal experience. Yet the Bible holds the central place in the teaching, and it is this which is supposed to form the subject-matter of instruction. The Sunday-school teacher must therefore be a student of the Bible. If, as there is

FOR THE SUNDAY SCHOOL n

reason to fear, many of our teachers have had no training in the study of the Bible and have no definite idea how to study it, there can be few duties more urgent or more important for the pastor or superintendent than the teaching of the teachers how to study ; there can be no duty more imperative for the teacher than to learn how to study.

What should be the aim of the Sunday-school Study of

. . , . , - f , the Bible is

teacher in his character as a student or the sea rch for its Bible ? Specifically the answer depends on what meamn s part or phase of the Bible he is to teach. If biblical history, then he must study its history; if biblical ethics, then its ethics ; if biblical theology, then its theology. But all these answers are included in the one answer that his task as teacher is to teach the meaning of the Bible, and his task as a student is to find the meaning of the Bible. It is not a mistranslation, or a misinterpretation, when the words which literally read, "Go learn what this is, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, " are rendered in our English Bible, "Go learn what this means. " It was the meaning that Jesus wanted his hearers to find. The meaning of the Bible is the Bible. The student of the Bible must be first of all an interpreter. His first task — his whole task strictly as a student of any book or passage — is the discovery of the meaning of that book or passage. Every apparatus or method which obscures from him this object or impedes his progress toward it is a hindrance to study.

But how can this task be performed ? How can the student discover and rethink the thought which the writer of the book has expressed in the words which stand on the page ? The method must be for all students fundamentally the same, but we have in mind here especially the Sunday-school teacher who brings to his study a fair degree of intelligence, but no special linguistic or exegetical training.

Attention as a First of all let it be said that a great deal can interpretation be accomplished by simple attention, provided only the purpose to discover the meaning be clearly and firmly held in mind. Nearly one-half of all our difficulty in the study of the Bible arises from failing to recognize what such study is, failing clearly to define to ourselves that our first object must be the discovery of the meaning of what we are studying. And nearly one-half of the remainder arises from simple inattention, failure to perceive that which is before our eyes, and which requires no special exegetical apparatus to interpret. Attention will not accomplish everything. One sees only what he has eyes to • see. In study more than in any other activity of life the great pedagogical law holds : " To him that hath shall be given." The more one knows already, the more one gains by each new act of attention. But, generally speaking, intelligent attention directed toward gaining the meaning of a writing will disclose to the student many things that he had never perceived before. Moreover, it will show him that there are certain things that he does not understand, and will raise questions concerning the meaning of what has been observed which it will not itself answer. Such interrogation is itself a great gain. To define the question that demands answer is to take one long step toward obtaining the answer.

Attention thus prepares the way for investiga- investigation tion and acquisition, that is, for the search for don^ information beyond that which the passage itself yields to the student's present powers of perception. The precise scope of such investigation and the line of division between attention and investigation will manifestly vary with the student. What one man perceives at a glance another must search out. The means of investigation available to one man may be wholly unknown or unusable to another. The teacher in the Sunday school is not generally a professional biblical scholar. In his case as in that of his pupils the great question is : What can attention do and what methods and instruments of investigation are available for the fairly intelligent student of the English Bible ?

i 4 PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS

A practical answer must distinguish two somewhat distinct fields of study: an entire book and a single passage of the Bible.

Attention it is a familiar thought today that the parts

applied to a

whole book of any single book of the Bible are adequately understood only in the light of some knowledge of the whole. Some knowledge, we say, since, of course, perfect knowledge of the whole is in turn dependent on knowledge of the individual parts. The necessity of such knowledge of the whole varies greatly in different books, but exists in some degree in respect to all. It is greatly to be desired that every Sunday-school teacher should begin his teaching of lessons from any given book with some large knowledge of the book as a whole, of the circumstances that led to its being written, of the purpose of the author, its general plan and structure. Such knowledge can usually be gained in large part from a careful study of the book itself, though it is frequently the case that the evidence of the book is intelligible only to him who knows the history of the period, and, indeed, often reveals itself only to a somewhat highly trained power of " attention." These facts render such preliminary study peculiarly difficult. If, for lack of training in such work, the teacher is unequal to the task of discovering the evidence which is in the book itself, he will do well to call in the help of one who can show him what is there, making use of some good work on " introduction" or the articles in a dictionary of the Bible. Yet he will do better who learns to do this work for himself, using first attention and then investigation. Let him read the book through attentively to discover any evidences in it concerning its occasion and purpose, carefully noting in writing all that he finds. Let him seek to find out its great divisions, if such there be, and make out a plan of the book. Then, when " attention" has done its perfect work, let him supplement this work by that of " investigation," following out historical references which are to him obscure, or other hints which may point to the occasion of the book, using for such purpose whatever trustworthy books are accessible. Finally, he may supplement his own work by that which other students have published.

The same general method will apply to the f"-^ a study of a portion of a book assigned for a single passage particular lesson. The general scope of the book being before his mind, the aim of the teacher should be to find out as accurately as possible the exact thought expressed in the particular paragraph before him. And attention and investigation are the two processes by which he must work.

If any teacher who reads these pages has i6

Selfinterrogation as an aid to attention

The passage to the process of investigation been perplexed and baffled in the attempt to study his Bible, we commend to him the experiment of sitting down to the study of the lesson without commentary, " quarterly," or other help, and, with a clear conception of his aim as a student, diligently setting himself to see what is before him. Let him ask himself the question : Do I understand the meaning of these successive words, as they were used by the writer ? Do I know what he meant by the individual sentences? Do I perceive the connection of thought, as it lay in his mind, between the successive sentences ? Do I grasp the meaning of this whole paragraph ? Let him treat the book, or the portion of the book, as he would treat a letter which he had just received, and whose meaning he was deeply desirous of understanding. In many cases we are sure he will be surprised at the result of this simple effort to see what is before his eyes.

If, when in any stage of the process attention has done its best, there still remain unanswered questions, or if there be any doubt what is the correct answer, recourse must be had to investigation. If the student is in doubt what a word or phrase meant in the mind of the writer, he must seek trustworthy information. If it is a single word, an English dictionary will perhaps define it. If it is a concrete term like "synagogue" or " Pharisee, " an ordinary dictionary of the Bible will usually give the needed help. If it is one of the profounder terms of the biblical vocabulary, such as " righteousness, " " grace, " "eternal," or the terms that seem so simple in their literal sense, but which, when we come to ask for the thought for which they stand, are found to be so difficult of apprehension, such as "4ife," "light," "darkness," he may search in The use of

7 J dictionaries

vain in the dictionary; for, unfortunately, there is and commen-

as yet no adequate dictionary of biblical words investigation

for the English reader. In such case he must

resort to some other source. And here comes

in the value of the commentary (the term being

used to include the commentary portion of all

the special lesson helps). Its proper function is

not to save the student the trouble of giving

attention, but, first of all, to answer the questions

that attention has raised but cannot answer.

The question answered, the word defined by The use of dictionary or by commentary, attention resumes otherhel P s its work to discover now, if possible, by help of this added information, more of the thought than was perceived before. If still there remain unanswered questions, or if new ones are now raised — for it is a secondary function of the commentary to raise questions that untrained attention fails to raise for lack of being intent enough — he must betake himself again to such helps as are in his reach, always bringing, if possible, his question with him for answer ; or, if he already have a provisional answer, comparing this with the answer of the student who wrote the commentary, and judging as wisely as possible which is the true answer. By such process as this, combining attention and investigation, seeking always the whole meaning of the passage, the whole thought of the writer, laying all trustworthy sources of help under contribution, but always making them serve him, not submitting himself to be led blindly by them, the student may come to such apprehension of the meaning of the Scripture as is possible to him. After inter- Will these two processes of attention and in-

appHcarion vestigation prepare the teacher to teach ? Not necessarily. But they will infallibly give him material for teaching. Often they will make the pedagogical process very easy. But the Sunday-school teacher is not merely a teacher in the narrower sense of the term. He is also a preacher, as every good preacher is also a teacher. He is concerned, not simply with the presentation or impartation of truth, but has to do also with the application of it to his pupils, with its moral effect on their hearts and conduct. This means that the teacher, besides being an interpreter of the Bible, must be a student of humanity also, and likewise an orator, in the best sense of that term. He must not merely discover the mean- Real teaching ing of a portion of the Bible for himself; he m0V esthe must study it also from the point of view of p u p ]1 the pupil. Dr. Henry Clay Trumbull has well insisted that there is no teaching by the teacher unless there is also learning by the pupil. This principle applies in all teaching, whether of arithmetic or geography or Scripture. But there is a further fact that must be remembered by the Sunday-school teacher. It belongs to his work not simply to inform and train the mind of his pupil, but to bring the truth to him in such a way that it shall influence him to right feeling, choice, and action. And study is as truly required to prepare the teacher to do this as it is to enable him to discover for himself the truth he is to present to the mind of his pupil.

Thus to the task of discovering the meaning Therefore, by attention and investigation the teacher must stud | the even as student add that of the application of the lesson to the needs of his pupils. Having asked himself, "What can I see here, and what can I find out that I do not at once see?" it still remains to inquire, " How does this truth apply to my pupils ?" To answer this question in the study — and it must not be left to the spur of the moment in teaching — requires knowledge of the pupil, sympathy with him, and imagination to conceive his attitude of mind, his likes and diszo PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS

likes, his temptations and his aspirations. One might even say that the best way in which a teacher can study is by imagining himself his own pupil. No part of the teacher's work is more difficult or delicate. For no part of it is it more difficult to formulate rules. A few suggestions may, however, be ventured. First, let the teacher remember that he is to apply that alone Apply the which he has found to be the meaning of the ^ached S by passage which he is teaching. Hence applicamterpretation t j on can come only after interpretation. Only when attention and investigation have done their work in discovering the meaning of the passage under study is the teacher prepared to consider the question of application. It is one of the besetting sins of the teacher to rush headlong to application without taking the time for patient interpretation. In the second place, it is well to remember that the application which the pupil makes for himself is often more forcible than any that the teacher can make. The clear presentation of

Let truth a religious truth, the forcible picturing of a charmake its own . j ij -it j-j. i_*i.

application acter, good or bad, will often preach its own sermon most effectively. Let the teacher then be sure that he himself clearly sees and that his pupil clearly perceives the event, the character, the teaching with which the lesson deals — and sometimes he may be content to leave it there. Yet still again let it be remembered that, especially in biographical and historical study, the most forcible and helpful lessons are taught, not by single incidents, but by longer surveys of history, and by prolonged contact with the character. This is pre-eminently true of the study of the life of Jesus Christ. This exerts its most helpful influence on the mind that with patient study seeks Don't force to master the facts of that life and to understand results the person. Results are not to be attained at the end of each lesson. Do not make the mistake of concealing the life itself in the multiplicity of "lessons" and applications. Yet, finally, do not be afraid of application, and at times of pointed application. Study diligently beforehand both the lesson and the pupil, that you may discover whether there is truth here taught or illustrated which has a direct bearing on the lives of your pupils ; and then so direct your teaching that this truth may, if possible, impress itself forcibly on the mind of your pupil. Do not force a foreign meaning into the passage that you may have it to apply. This is alike dishonest and disastrous in its influence on your pupil. Sometimes leave the truth to the pupil's own conscience to enforce. But never forget But be sure that your teaching fails of its highest end if in co ^ e , ey some way the truth does not both reach the mind and move the heart of your pupil. The ultimate end of all teaching is the conversion of the pupil and his building up in Christian character.

Chapter III. The Influence Of The Teacher's Study Upon Himself

shall the The attentive reader of the preceding chapter study only ma y perhaps have turned its pages with the quesmteiiectuaiiy? t j on more Q r less distinctly in his mind : Is the teacher's study, then, to be a purely intellectual work, a mere search for meanings? If so, whence is there to come to him any spiritual benefit, whence is the pupil to gain that spiritual help which is the ultimate end of all teaching of the Bible? The question is a fair one. It is axiomatic that the teacher who gains no spiritual help from his study will impart none in his teaching. If his method of study is such that it brings him no uplift or strength, it can hardly have a different effect upon his pupil. Is the method which we have been describing, then, one which will be barren of spiritual result for the teacher himself?

First of all, let it be answered that the method, looked at purely on its intellectual side, is not guaranteed to produce spiritual results for either teacher or pupil. The interpretative process has in itself no moral virtue over and above

Investigation not necessarily religious any other form of mental activity. Nor is the interpretation of the Bible certain to lead to obedience to the truth it may discover, or fellowship with the God who gave the truth. Interpretation can of itself give only perception of the truth, not acceptance or assimilation of it. To a mind in spiritual sympathy with God, and in love with truth, interpretation will so present the truth as to make possible the assimilation of it and an obedience to it. Without such spiritual sympathy, interpretation can only flash the light ineffectually upon a mind insensitive and irresponsive. Indeed, more than this is to be said. The lack of sympathy dulls even the powers of perception. The mind sees most quickly and clearly that which it loves to see. He who has no love of beauty stares with unperceiving, unappreciative eyes at the artist's masterpiece. He who has no love for spiritual and The religious moral truth can never understand such books as pe n S abie for those which compose the Bible. It cannot be too t ^ e ® tu ^? 1 t