This post is a response to John C.’s article at By Common Consent.
John C. writes that Elder McConkie’s talk during the Oct 2010 General Conference about gospel teaching conspicuously omitted the typical admonishment to follow the manual. John takes this as an opportunity to reinforce his ongoing thesis that the manual is unnecessary to gospel teaching.
First, John C.’s argument hinges on the incorrect assumption that absence = less-significant/unimportant. In essence, because the manual was not mentioned, that must mean that it is not important to Sunday School any more.
What complicates this is the fact that the Church does not have translated manuals in as many languages as translated Books of Mormon. Elder McConkie recognizes that not all new teachers have manuals to use. In this regard, Elder McConkie focuses more on those tools and guides that are universal to all teachers, “whether [they] are a recent convert to the Church or a teacher with years of experience.”
Elder McConkie
Each of Elder McConkie’s four principles of gospel teaching are actions that take place outside of the classroom. They are ways in which the instructor can strengthen their own testimonies. That way, regardless of the availability of materials for classroom instruction, the instructor can still feel empowered. For these recent converts in small areas of the Church, there is still their personal testimony which helped them make the decision to join the LDS church and attend the local branch which is so much smaller than the church/mosque/shrine/temple they left behind.
A manual helps new teachers learn and grow in gospel teaching. It also helps prevent discussions which are speculative and not spiritually edifying. But there is a much better way to teach the gospel which Elder McConkie chooses to emphasize so those without manuals will not feel left alone: the spirit or attitude of the teacher.
This leads me to my second point. John C. maintains that Sunday School is unimportant and irrelevant in its current state, since the manual is unnecessary. “Sunday School,” John C. writes, “has stopped mattering.” If Sunday School really has stopped mattering, it is not because our instructors use the manual as a crutch; it is not because instructors are bad teachers even. Elder McConkie quotes one of the greatest stories illustrating the significance of gospel teaching.
“For many years, I have loved the story that President Packer has told about William E. Berrett’s boyhood Sunday School teacher. An elderly Danish brother was called to teach a class of rowdy boys. . . . He didn’t speak the language very well; he still had a heavy Danish brogue; he was much older, with big farm hands. Yet he was to teach these young, rambunctious 15-year-olds. For all intents and purposes, it would not have seemed like a very good match. But Brother Berrett used to say—and this is the part President Packer quotes—that this man somehow taught them; that across all those barriers, across all those limitations, this man reached into the hearts of those rowdy 15-year-old kids and changed their lives. And Brother Berrett’s testimony was ‘We could have warmed our hands by the fire of his faith.’”
Nowhere does this talk about materials or teaching techniques. It is about this good Danish brother who bore testimony so fervently that the boys’ testimonies were strengthened. As Elder McConkie puts it, gospel learning is not about “how much teaching experience a person has or even the teacher’s knowledge of the gospel or teaching techniques. What matters most is the attitude or spirit by which the teacher teaches.”
Sunday School has never been about content. I recalled another post from BCC earlier this year and when I searched for it I was surprised to find it was also written by John C.–in fact it was a series of three posts. In the post John C. advocates “a close reading” of the scriptures to help revitalize Sunday School lessons. I agree that this is very helpful when trying to learn about the content of the gospel during individual scripture study. Certainly demonstrating English literature style “close readings” in gospel classes can serve a pedagogical function. Members can practice the technique in class so they can use it in their personal study later. Elder McConkie’s talk did not suggest immersion in the scriptures as a pedagogical technique, however. He doesn’t say instructors need to study the scriptures more so they can teach better. Instead, the purpose of regular scripture study is to strengthen the faith of the instructor. Thus, Sunday School is not primarily about gospel study pedagogy. Sunday School is not even primarily about learning about patricular doctrine. These are secondary objectives at best. Sunday School is primarily about strengthening testimonies. As soon as Sunday School becomes nothing more than a BYU Bible as Literature class (i.e., close reading) there will be no spirit in the classroom. The emphasis will have shifted from individual faith to the teacher’s skill at directing literary discussion (Elder McConkies’s “teaching techniques”). Again, Sunday School has never been about content.
What has been hurting the second block? Why does it feel like it is filler, as John C. laments? It is our misunderstanding of the primary purpose of Sunday School. It is the erroneous assumption that Sunday School is about content. Sunday School can be an incredibly rewarding experience if the instructor remembers that it is not about what new/fresh content he are she can teach (whether from the manual or the scriptures or the words of the modern prophets). Rather, it is about whether the class members can warm their hands by the fire of the instructor’s faith. Those are the class lessons that “knock our socks off,” as John C.’s mission president put it. These class lessons happen all the time in the church, but not because the instructor has put down the lesson manual; it is because he/she has decided to bear fervent testimony often about the principles being discussed and provided ample opportunity for class members to bear their testimonies in the form of personal experiences about those same principles. Church members don’t come to Sunday School to learn about the gospel. They come to have their testimony strengthened so they can live another week in a world that is hard to live in.
Every wise teacher knows that their students will rarely remember what was taught. What class members will remember, and what stays with them past the closing prayer, is how they felt.
As a father, I don’t care how my childrens’ teachers use the manual or the scriptures. What I want them to do is bear testimony again and again about the principles they are supposed to be teaching. I don’t want my kids coming home and telling me, “Wow, dad, my teacher sure knows the scriptures. He told us about some obscure church history story and it was really interesting.” Who cares if it didn’t strengthen their faith? I want my kids to come home saying, “Wow, dad, my teacher really has a strong testimony. I love her class because I always feel the spirit.” 
The last paragraph really resonated with me. To see someone love my children is priceless. To have my children have another adult in their lives who loves them AND will share a sincere testimony with them? wonderful.
thanks
Gerritt,
I will agree with the idea that teachers should love their students, and that students should feel their teacher’s testimony. But to say that it is not about content is to agree with John C’s thesis that Sunday School doesn’t matter. There are lots of ways to show our love and to bear our testimonies, but teaching is about helping us to learn something, not just to “warm our hand by the fire of [their] faith.” If content is unimportant, then why not lengthen sacrament meetings, or have a thirty minute testimony meeting each week between sacrament and PH/RS? In his own way, John C is saying that we need to do something different than we are doing now, which in no way discounts testimony or loving service.
Thanks britt and kevin
Kevin, thanks for your comment. You are right. Saying it is not about content does imply that we should just stretch our Sacrament Meeting. Thank you for that challenging perspective. I am rethinking what I wrote because I agree with you and see there is something missing in what I said.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is the Sunday School lesson itself is not about content so much as faith. Sunday School serves a variety of purposes. One is pedagogical, as I state. Another is to foster interaction and camaraderie within the ward–something that is more difficult in Sacrament meetings. Content does have its place in the lesson as well, as I wrote, but the primary purpose isn’t content-related. It is faith-related.
Gerrit, nicely done. I attend and sometimes teach the Gospel Essentials class, which is vital in the lives of the new members and visitors who attend the class. John C’s arguments focus largely on Gospel Doctrine, which comprises a relatively small part of the second hour classes (though a large portion of the audience, depending on the demographics of the ward).
Spiritual food comes from many sources in a day at church — it may be a verse of scripture; it may be a discussion of a gospel topic; it may be the love of a good teacher; it may be strains of sacred music. All have a place, but it will, in the end, come with the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.
Gerrit,
I don’t disagree with you. Having the Spirit in the room is the most significant aspect in Gospel teaching. Without the Spirit, you get nowhere. I was trying to argue that the reason (I think) that we encounter it so infrequently in the Church is that so little effort is put into the classes by both student and teachers. I know that this isn’t always the case, but it happens often enough to note the issue. My first problem with the manuals is that they support putting little effort into preparation.
My second problem with the manuals is that because they are designed to emphasize a small number of ideas over and over, they dilute the efficacy and the power of those ideas. I think this is especially the case because the manuals do the work of finding those ideas in the scriptures each week so that we don’t have to. To me, testimony is built when (amongst other things) I find Gospel Principles for myself in the scriptures (or in life). Giving people the opportunity to do that every week in class would invite the Spirit to confirm those notions every week (something I was trying to get at in my post).
Thank you for your critique.
I have to agree with kevinf. Content matters. Sunday School is not meant to be a testimony meeting, although testimony can be a desired element but one that is refracted through intellectual exertion aimed at the scripture or topic at hand. The spirit is just as evident in acts of understanding as it is in anything else.