Skip to main content

being a better teacher

Is the PPP teaching method old fashioned?
Image from

I spend a lot of time learning. As a result, I also spend quite a bit of time teaching what I am learning. It is a natural cycle, I believe. As one who teaches in many different settings (casual, formal, sacred and secular), I am frequently thinking about what is called a teaching philosophy. This is a statement which sets forth one's basic values, priorities, and methods for helping people to encounter, embrace, and hopefully embody something new. Most of my teaching philosophy operates at an unconscious level as I make choices based on my goals in a teaching/learning situation, but I regularly pause to consider questions such as which method will be most effective and what material do I present and what do I leave out. 

This week I came across a quote from biblical scholar Walter Brueggeman and it made me stop and think back on my experience to see if it was true. Good writing makes one do that. It also made me take another look at my teaching philosophy to see if I reflect the value of encounter. In principle, I believe I do, but this was a great reminder about where to put my emphasis as a teacher. Though Brueggeman is speaking mostly about a church context, I believe what he says applies to other settings as well. Go ahead, Walter:

If you ask almost any adult about the impact of church school on his or her growth, he or she will not tell you about books or curriculum or Bible stories or anything like that. The central memory is of the teacher, learning is meeting. That poses problems for the characteristically American way of thinking about education for competence even in the church. Meeting never made anybody competent. Surely we need competence, unless we mean to dismantle much of our made world. But our business is not competence. It is meeting. We are learning slowly and late that education for competence without education as meeting promises us deadly values and scary options. And anyway, one can't become "competent" in morality or in Bible stories. But one can have life-changing meetings that open one to new kinds of existence. 

Pretty good stuff, right? I love the idea of learning is meeting. In a course I taught this past winter at the university, I designed it so that students would "meet" at least 13 different figures in the history of Christian Spirituality (and I used that exact terminology). My hope was that at least one of these historical figures would be someone the students found interesting or someone they could identify with in some way. I knew that once they met someone and became curious about their life, the student would be drawn into that world and begin to learn about the subject beyond a surface level.

But wait, Mr. Brueggeman has more to say:

Our penchant for control and predictability, our commitment to quantity, our pursuit of stability and security - all this gives us a sense of priority and an agenda that is concerned to reduce the element of surprise and newness in our lives. And when newness and surprise fail, there is not likely to be graciousness, healing, or joy. Enough critics have made the point that when experiences of surprise and newness are silenced in our lives, there is no amazement, and where this is no amazement, there cannot be the full coming to health, wholeness, and maturity.

Thanks, Walter. I love the connection he makes between amazement and wholeness. We are not built for comfort, but for wonder. We are not built primarily for competence but for maturity. We are not meant to control but to experience newness and wonder every day of our lives. We are learners who learn by meeting. What do people learn when they meet you? I hope and pray that people learn about wonder, joy, graciousness, transformation, love, and grace when they meet me. And when they don't, I take a deep breath, embrace confession and forgiveness on both ends, and hope and pray that I never stop learning how to be a better teacher.

Quote from Walter Brueggeman, Living Toward a Vision (New York: United Church Press, 1987), 167-71.


Shelley said…
Interesting stuff. I recently took a course in Spiritual Direction, where the focus is on our personal connections with God. Then last time I taught in church I found myself reading over my material and asking myself - where do I, and where do they, connect with God in this? Where is the heart connection in what I am saying? It is like looking for the opportunity to meet him in this.

Popular posts from this blog

what does the cross mean?

Words which we use a lot can sometimes become divested of their depth of meaning. In the Christian tradition, we talk about the cross a lot. We see visual representations of the cross in prominent places in our gathering spaces, we wear crosses around our necks, some get crosses tattooed on their bodies. The cross is a ubiquitous symbol in Christianity, so lately I have been asking myself, what exactly does the cross mean? For the most part, the cross as portrayed in contemporary Christianity is a beautiful thing, festooned with flowers and sunsets and radiant beams of light (just google cross or cross coloring page). But in the first century, the cross was a symbol of disgrace. To the Roman empire, this ignoble instrument of death was for those who were traitors and enemies of the state. We are many centuries removed from this view of the cross as the locus of torture and death and shame. The fact that Christianity has made the cross a symbol of hope and beauty is a good thing, but p…

stained and broken

Recently, I was asked to speak at another church, and the passage of Scripture which was assigned to me was John 1:6-8. "There came a man commissioned and sent from God, whose name was John. This man came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe [in Christ, the Light] through him. John was not the Light, but came to testify about the Light." (John 1:6-8, Amplified Bible)

The first question I usually ask when reading something in the Bible is this: What does this tell me about God? Two things are immediately obvious - God is a sending God and God wants to communicate - but there is a third which merits a bit more attention. Though God could communicate directly with humanity, sending truth and love to every individual via some divine mind-and-heart-meld, God chooses to send messengers. Not only that, instead of introducing Jesus directly to the world as the main event, an opening, warm-up act appears as a precursor. What is the point of incorporati…

the songs we sing

NOTE: I am going to make some pretty strong statements below, but understand that it is my way of taking an honest, hard look at my own worship experience and practice. My desire is not to be overly critical, but to open up dialogue by questioning things I have assumed were totally fine and appropriate. In other words, I am preaching to myself. Feel free to listen in.


When I am in a church meeting during the singing time, I sometimes find myself silent, unable to get the words past my lips. At times I just need a moment of stillness, time to listen, but other times, the words make me pause because I don't know that I can sing them honestly or with integrity. This is a good thing. We should never mindlessly or heartlessly sing songs just because everyone else is. We should care deeply about what we say in our sung, communal worship.

At their best, songs sung by the gathered body of Christ call to life what is already in us: the hope, the truth, the longing, t…