I admit there were times when I attempted
to set classes up for arguments. If I could get them to defend a certain
position I knew I was getting them to think. Admittedly, it was always harder
to get them to change their minds once they dug their heels in, especially in
the freshman class.
I could stimulate them to argue in
my philosophy class and my freshman Intro to CE class. The freshmen class was
always the most volatile. When students are freshman, they still know
everything.
They would argue over the value of
camping – specifically over the best age for kids to begin camping. They would
argue over ratio of camp leaders to campers or Sunday school teachers to
students, or the value of Sunday School. But my all time favorite and always
the most volatile discussion was over children’s church.
The question was, “Which ministry
approach is best for children: To remain in the sanctuary with their parents or
to be in children’s church?” After posing the question and writing it on the
chalkboard I sent them into group of 4-5 to discuss the issue and come to a
conclusion. Later we could come together as class to make a determination.
It was always fun to walk around
the class and listen to the discussion. There were normally three positions. 1)
If they went to a children’s church and liked it, it was good. 2) If they went
to children’s church and didn’t like it, it was bad. 3) If they never had a
Children’s Church it was always best if children remained in the worship
service with their parents. Those who did not grow up in a church asked the
right question and attempted to stay on point, but were usually argued into
silence. This was normally the only group that even attempted to figure out
what was best for the children.
It wasn’t unusual for the
discussion to never address the issue of the ages appropriate for the program. It
was a very black and white issue to the freshmen. I’m sure there were many in
the class confused over the issue and had no idea what might be best, but they
were often drowned out by the pros and cons of the dogmatic students.
It may have been a bit sadistic
for me to let them get so carried away, but they focused right in during the
last five minutes I turned it back to the focus of the question. “Which
ministry approach is best for children: To remain in the sanctuary with their
parents or to be in children’s church?” The key word is BEST. What does the
word best mean? The question never was which was best for you, nor was it what you
liked or not like. I then asked that they write a one-page paper due the next
class on the value, if any, of a children’s church program. That was an attempt
to get them to focus on the needs and characteristics of children. The
following class was always very profitable. We began a serious discussion of
how one meets the needs of children beginning with what they are like. Most had
forgotten what children were really like and what they needed. By 19 or 20 they
knew little kids wiggled, but thought they should learn to sit still. Good
luck.
 |
| "The Bible says..." It really didn't. |
It was always amazing to see how
many came to a solid decision and for very specific reasons. They then wrote a
later paper on meeting the needs of children and by far the majority came to
support having a children’s church. I was unconcerned about their conclusion if
they demonstrated thought. Not emotion.
I believe it was my second year
teaching that was the most explosive. The discussion was hot, loud and
dogmatic. It reached a high point when Bill Finamore stood on his chair with
his Bible open defending his position. It was so funny the entire class was
roaring with laughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment