Affirm Both the Learning and the Learner

Luke 10:1-24

Educators understand the importance of affirmation in the lives of their subjects. When people are in the process of preparing themselves for kingdom ministries, they often face insecurities and uncertainties unlike any other profession. Am I really called into ministry? Is this the will of God for my life? Should I leave all behind and dedicate myself to the ministry of the Kingdom? Sometimes people are driven into ministry preparation to answer some of these questions. A word of praise or rebuke from an instructor could be the very words that God uses to confirm a students calling or to send him away questioning his worth in service of the Lord.

It is interesting that in this training chapter, Luke describes how the Lord interacted with the large group of disciples providing affirmation for the successful implementation of a very practical learning strategy. When the 72 disciples returned from their mission experience and after Jesus unpacked some of the emotion and concepts learned, he started making several evaluative statements about the overall process.

Luke 10:21-24

An effective learning experience with successful unpacking of the learning activities brings great satisfaction to the learner centered instructor. In the case of the master teacher, we are told that Jesus was filled with happiness. “Jesus full of joy,” stands alone in the New Testament as a statement of positive emotion. This expression follows a positive learning experience and brings our attention back to the primary mission of the three and fraction years Jesus spent walking the paths of the Ancient Near East.

This happiness provoked a series of praises to God the Father for things hidden from the apparent wise and studied men of the religious status quo, but were revealed to those who were simple and, uneducated yet receptive men. Later in verse 24 we read that many other people desired to see and understand these things but they were reserved for the ones whom the Lord determined to reveal them.

These words of praise to the Father are really affirmations of the learning process and the students who demonstrate the acquisition of the desired skills and qualities. In this sense the Lord makes his statements of praise to the Father more direct affirmations of the disciples because in verse 23 he says, “blessed are the eyes that see what you see.” If I heard such words from Jesus, I believe I would conclude that He had recognized the value of the lessons I had learned and affirmed my gifts and abilities to serve in the Kingdom.

The Master Plan for Ministry Skill Acquisition

Luke 10:1-24

Nonformal education is concerned with competence and leads to certification of skills. In Christian ministry skills are not certified, but gifts are recognized, affirmed, and developed. This is not an intentional process because it does not lead to certification, but it is important to understand that ministry skills and gift development require a process similar to that used in nonformal education. Typically skills are acquired through a process which includes steps like 1) receive specific instructions relating to the skill, 2) observe the instructor demonstrate the skill, 3) attempt to practice the skill, 4) conclude the lesson with an evaluative debriefing and reflection.

It is interesting that when we look at Luke 10:1-24 we find these steps in the training of the 72 disciples. The 72 were selected to be sent out ahead of Jesus to the towns where he intended to visit. During the initial instructions he told them how they should behave, and what attitudes they needed to convey. They were to be like sheep among wolves. They were to eat whatever they were given. Bless a hospitable home with peace, etc., (vss.3-8). They were also given instructions for the ministry they were required to fulfill. They were to preach the Kingdom of God and heal the sick (vs. 9). Jesus anticipated that they would face hardships and persecution and warned the 72 what to expect.

Later the 72 returned filled with the typical enthusiasm evident in the lives of people who serve the Lord. They must have had very fruitful experiences and one of the impressions that the experience left on them was that the demons submitted to them in the name of Jesus. In their eager minds, this was the peak of effectiveness. These expressions were part of the evaluative debriefing session. Jesus responded to their keen observations by taking the time to rearrange their priorities. He told them, “however, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven (vs. 20).”

The rest of Jesus’ expressions are affirmations. These will appear in the next posting.

The Importance of Clarifying Training Assumptions

Precision in training outcomes requires that training assumptions be clarified.

While facilitating a modified DACUM process to determine training outcomes I crashed against the muddy wall of assumptions. All participants in a process of curriculum development approach the task of curriculum development with assumptions. Assumptions are unexamined beliefs. These are the expectations we bring to a process without previous intentional clarification. For example, will these objectified statements of desired results be addressed by traditional delivery systems? Will they lead to courses that are taught in a classroom? Do we know who the students are? What are they supposed to be able to do as a result of the training? Who will do the instruction?

An international group representing a coalition of national associations was set with the task of determining outcomes to train association leaders. When describing training outcomes relating to managing and implementing a variety of funding models the facilitation was easy and progress was pleasing to all. When we moved on to discuss partnerships everything bogged down. Progress was impeded by diverse opinion. We took twice as long to write a dozen outcomes and we concluded with a sense of ill ease. Were we on the same page? Did we really know what we were doing?

Later I realized how the problem was that we had not achieved consensus about what a partnership was. There was suspicion from international colleagues who saw partnerships as a Western concept. Some admitted there was no equivalent word in their own language to communicate the idea of partnership. Since there was no foundational agreement about what a partnership was we could not agree on what the outcomes would be to which we would direct our training. So simple, but so critical.

Clarifying assumptions in the curriculum development process lays a foundation upon which everything else is built. How can you train someone to develop and manage partnerships if you are not sure what a partnership is? I realized this applies to every area. Consensus on the desired outcomes is derived first from consensus on the assumptions.

No matter how messy or seemingly unproductive the process of clarifying assumptions seems, it is absolutely necessary and required. Now the question to answer is, how can we clarify assumptions without creating the mess and chaos during a consensus building process?

The Quality of the Trainer Impacts the Outcome

The Quality of the Trainer Impacts the Outcome of the Program

Matthew 10:24

A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.

Last week we looked at how the quality of trainees in a program will directly impact or effect the training outcomes for every student.  Trainers also impact the process in significant ways.  Programs employing ineffective trainers will produce unsatisfactory results.  The training will always be less than ideal and could have otherwise achieved greater success.  Developing quality training staff should be a priority of every institution.

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but that is the point – they are exceptions.  A young prodigy like Mozart can soon leave his teacher behind, and this has little bearing on the effectiveness of his teacher.  In most cases, an ineffective teacher leaves his or her mark on the program and, if we are keen stewards, we will attempt to minimize that negative impact.

Think of it this way.  If a training program can anticipate that its alumni will not exceed the quality of the trainers, what is the best that can be expected?  The best that can be hoped for is that the program reproduces what it models.  You might expect that the trainees will come to look like the trainers.  The character deficiencies evident in trainers will likewise be seen in the trainees.  The spiritual depth of the trainer will be mirrored in the spiritual depth of the trainees.  Jesus said, “it is enough for the student to be like his teacher (Matthew 10:25),” but what if that level of training does not achieve the desired outcomes?

In the same way that care should be taken to select quality students, trainers need to be chosen with the utmost consideration.

Character Qualities, Spirituality and Attitudes

I am not aware of any qualitative studies that research the causes of pastoral ministry attrition and/or retention.  The two research projects conducted by the Mission Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, now published in the books Too Valuable to Lose (book or PDF)  and Worth Keeping, demonstrate that the primary causes of attrition from the field of service are brought on by issues relating to character qualities, attitudes and spirituality.  This says nothing about effectiveness.  However, effective people will make effective ministers.  It has now been clear in the minds of missionary trainers that academic learning does not produce the kinds of results that will impact the longevity of service or effectiveness in ministry.

Debates in education have frequently vented about the significance of the Null and the Hidden curricula.  These are the things that students learn by a) not teaching them at all (Null, meaning by not teaching something we are implicitly teaching something else.), and b) by accidentally passing on learning unwittingly (Hidden, meaning not intentional and more likely an accidental by-product).  It is precisely in the areas of character, spirituality and attitudes that we should be concerned about what we teach accidentally or by not teaching them at all.  For example, if our sense of modesty does not permit us to raise the problem of internet addiction to pornography, we are failing our trainees to be aware of this evil and to fight it in their lives and the lives of others.

Our programs may suffer from the greater evil of reinforcing negative character traits, attitudes and spirituality because our trainers do not model the outcomes we want to see achieved in our programs.  While we were short of personnel for our training program some suggestions were made to bring people on board who were available to help.  In one case, I was familiar with the people and felt an immediate concern because it was not clear that they really wanted to be missionaries.  There did not appear to be a happy and contented embracing of the missionary life and calling.  How could we have somebody training missionaries who did not really want to be a missionary?  Our best trainers are the ones who do not want to be here.  They would rather be over there, but for some reason are not able to and are therefore available to train.

There are other issues relating to the quality of training staff.  These will be considered next week!

Training Will Never Exceed the Quality of Trainees

Mark 3: 13-19 Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him.

We have been told that you are what you eat. Eventually, the food we eat impacts our physical state. Nutritionists remind us that a healthy diet should improve longevity and produce healthier lives.

 

When it comes to training our programs become what we put into them. The most significant resource we bring to training is the quality of student. The best learning interventions and planned skill development activities will never produce the desired outcomes if the student does not enjoy the innate giftedness, endowment and, in the case of Christian ministry, calling.

 

Jesus knew the importance of selection to the overall training outcome. The significance of the selection process in the lives of the Apostles is not new. Much has been made of the fact that Jesus spent the whole night in prayer prior to choosing the twelve apostles and calling them to him.

 

Luke 6: 12-13 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (13) When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.

 

Jesus appointed the twelve as Apostles, but they were apostles in training. Prior to the title and office came the in-service training. Jesus dedicated the remainder of his life on earth to the achievement of specific training outcomes. In order to ensure that the training was effective he spent a night in prayer and chose twelve men begin the process of equipping for ministry. After all, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. No training program will ever exceed the quality of student selected for equipping.

 

Mark’s Gospel tells us that Jesus called to him those he wanted (Mark 3:13). This statement determines that the selection process was also intentional. Not only was his training program intentionally designed to achieve specific outcomes, but the selection process was predetermined and premeditated to ensure that those outcomes would be safeguarded throughout the process. Imagine how different our ministry training programs would be if the selection process attempted to ensure that only called people were admitted?

This raises the additional problem or tension between access and excellence. How accessible is our training? Are the doors of our institutions flung wide open hailing any living soul with the ability to achieve a decent GPA (Grade Point Average)? Or worse, does our training assume that academic achievement is the best guarantee for the eventual selection of adequate quality of people for service in ministry? In other words, we might also ask, are our selection criteria too heavily dependent on the academic history of the candidate? Perhaps, the criteria for selection needs to be redefined in order to ensure that the program is accessible by those who are called into ministry and that excellence be defined as the demonstration of achieved desirable outcomes, not merely a high GPA.  In a perfect world, training programs would be accessible to those who demonstrate the capability and calling to excel in Christian service, not merely to those who demonstrate ability in academic achievement. 

Inadequate selection reduces the quality of the overall program. When a training program admits students who are not called into ministry the end product of the training is affected. Every student in the program is impacted by those who are not really called. The sum total of the trained students achieves a less desirable outcome. So, what do we do about this?

Every school has selection criteria. Administrators of training programs concerned about the excellence of training they offer will examine and evaluate the selection criteria to ensure that those entering the program are truly called into ministerial service. For example, Gateway Missionary Training Centre will only admit students who are sent as missionaries. There is not general admission. Every student must be sent by a missionary agency or by a church with the prior determination that this person will be commissioned and sent to the field. This selection criteria greatly reduces the number of students, but remarkably improves the quality of training for those admitted.

I should think that our selection process could use some improvement. Certainly a little more prayer would help!

Excellent Training Is Always Intentional

Mark 3: 13-19   Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him.   14 He appointed twelve— designating them apostles— that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach    15 and to have authority to drive out demons.    16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);    17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder);    18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot    19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

The intentional trekking school of Jesus received its initiating class with the appointing of the twelve sent ones.  They had a mission – for this is what a sent one really is.  The mission had several stages, and the first priority stage was to receive adequate training.  So, as Jesus appointed the twelve he gave them a title and an immediate task.  This task was their training.  The intentionality with which Jesus appointed and designated his followers is no less applicable to the training program he developed for them.  Yes, Jesus, the master trainer, developed an intentional training program.

What did the training consist of?  How was the training completed?  What methodologies did Jesus use?  Can we really call this training?  The first hint about the content and methodology of the master training program begins half way through verse fourteen; “that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach (15) and to have authority to drive out demons.  If you read these verses and never imagined that they referred to training, don’t fret.  If it looked more like what we experienced as training we might have recognized it.

Those of us who have traversed through the many years of a formal educational system have come to view training as principally academic.  We associate learning with schools, schools with classrooms, classrooms with podiums, podiums with elevated levels of understanding and cognition. On occasion this is even accompanied by excellence in teaching and communication skills.  Yet, the training that Jesus developed for his sent ones did not look in the least like that.

How could it, of course, look like something so modern as a school?  Jesus was a product of his time, after all, and schools are modern things that eventually emerged from the monastic movement, or so our persuasive argument would go.  How preposterous are some of the assumptions we maintain about scripture, our Lord, and his methodologies!  Schools are not modern creations.  They did exist.  Jesus could have easily selected from at least five common models of schooling that were evident in the Ancient Near Eastern cultures of his day.  One such system was undoubtedly the one that he endured as a child … the synagogue.  Why would we ever assume that Jesus did not start a normal school because they did not exist yet?  The arrogance with which we dismiss his methodologies as antiquated or provincial is astounding.  More likely is the scenario that Jesus examined the possibility of training his disciple using a Greek system (The model from which our concept of academic education is derived) and determined it did not suit his needs.

Just because the training the disciples enjoyed looked different than modern missional training does not mean that Jesus was not intentional, nor that he was inexperienced or random in his methodologies.  On the contrary, the argument presented here is that Jesus intentionally developed a school that looked different than our own.  This school had observable predetermined training outcomes and most importantly, it was successful.  On the other hand, what else would we expect from the master trainer?  And, if he really is the master trainer, it would appear we have more learn about how to train people for ministry.

This requires a little more development and in the following musings I hope to examine what training outcomes Jesus targeted in his schooling system.  Furthermore, we will look at the results of that training.  During these developments I hope to establish that Jesus chose methods that suited the desired outcomes.

Happy reading!

What work did Jesus fulfill? John 17:4

I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

I recall the giddy class president announcing that we were finished and would be graduating within the month. Lacking just a few assignments, one term paper and one final exam, it still felt a little premature to celebrate. My work was not yet done.

In His high priestly prayer Jesus speaks of glorifying the Father by completing the work he had been given to accomplish. What work was Jesus referring to? The past tense clearly speaks of something terminated, completed, accomplished. Yet, we inevitably see this statement as a reference to the cross of Calvary.

Other passages describing the work Jesus fulfilled can be found in John. For example, in John 9:4 Jesus claims to be doing the work of the one who sent him. ´As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no-one can work (John 9:4). Further, he frequently insisted that what he did was according to the Father’s will or by the Father’s empowering (John 5:30, 6:38 and 15:10). In these cases, we normally have little difficulty finding an immediate fulfillment and recognize, only in general terms, Jesus was also focused on fulfilling the work and will of God by going to the cross.

As a devout evangelical I have no difficulty embracing the centrality of the cross in the work of Christ, but I am still left pondering the possibility that Jesus was referring to another work, less significant in the scope of eternity, but tremendously important in the plan of God to reach the world. What work could this be?

Jesus spent three and a half years trekking around the Galilean countryside sometimes surrounded by a throng but usually maintaining a small and dynamic group in tow. These were his students, his protégés. The death of Jesus was the final blow that destroyed the dominion of the devil, ripped apart the divide between man and God and opened the pathway to the throne of grace. Yet, the life of Jesus was dedicated to another cause. Jesus had an intentional plan and it was not merely in precipitation of the cross. His plan was to train the twelve to carry on his mission.

The training of the twelve and seventy-two was the completed work that brought glory to God. The prayer concluding the Upper Room discourse focuses on the disciples. Jesus prayed for his followers and those in the room, and during the introduction of that prayer he states that his work is complete; the work of preparing them to take the Good News of the Kingdom of God to the rest of the world.

Imagine yourself sitting in that room content as you mark the passage of another year and in celebration of the Passover your leader offers a prayer and says the work is completed. You would ask yourself, what work is the master speaking of? Most likely, you would consider the work of the past three years, traveling from town to town. Going out on mission trips two by two; learning to cast out demons, developing skills to proclaim the word of God, and to heal the sick. It is quite possible you would determine that the completed work was your own training.

Naturally, in the shadow of the cross such a singular important act in the work of Christ influences our subsequent interpretation of earlier statements by Jesus. There is little resistance to reading the cross into the meaning of John 17:4. Suddenly, the statement becomes a prophetic utterance prescribing the full and complete work of Jesus. As Leon Morris said, There is a sense in which each stage of His work may be regarded as perfect and complete. And there is a deeper sense in which nothing is complete without the cross. (Morris, 1981). Absolutely, and hearty “amen,” but we should not let the deeper sense cause us to loose site of the immediate.

The stage of work that should be regarded as perfect and complete was the task of equipping the disciples for the challenging ministry of raising up a missional and international Church. Jesus succeeded at this task and we must assume, as others have before us, that he was a master trainer, and did so perfectly, thus bringing glory to the Father. Because his training program and methods were effective we should render them greater scrutiny.

Leon Morris, Leon. NICNT, The Gospel According to John. Eerdmans, 1981.