A priest pointed out a major problem in our church as follows in an online discussion:
“How many Orthodox believers make themselves available for a serious Bible study, church history, praxis of Orthodoxy, sponsored by the individual church, or initiated by the priests? In fact American protestant groups have their adult spiritual educational programs run on Wednesday evenings or on Saturdays. All of their classrooms are full with attendees. If Orthodox Church starts that kind of programs, how many of our believers would attend such classes?”
This observation points to a deep-rooted unwillingness to learn in our people. We need to ask why our people are unwilling to learn.
I can think of a few possible reasons:
1. Most Orthodox Christians believe that they know everything about the Bible, faith, and church history.
2. Although we don’t know, we think that we know. But the Protestants are willing to admit their ignorance.
3. We think that it is the job of the clergy to keep in their custody the right knowledge, faith, and history, and as long as they do their job, the church is fine.
I don’t think anyone would consider the first as true. But the second and the third will sound true to many of us.
Even Jesus complained about the unwillingness of people to listen and learn. He said, “They have eyes, but they don’t see; they have ears, but they don’t hear.” Also in the parable of the sower, the rocky field represents the hard-hearted people who are not receptive at all. Probably most of the people in our church belong to this group –with very low receptivity.
Now the question we need to ask is this: What can be done to increase the receptivity of the people? How can people be more open to new knowledge?
To suggest an answer to this question, let me present two ways of conducting a study meeting. Let us imagine a youth meeting in which they study Psalm 23.
Here is one way:
All participants sit facing the teacher. A participant reads the psalm loudly for everyone to hear. Then the teacher makes an excellent speech for about 30 minutes explaining all the different meanings and aspects of the psalm. The meeting concludes with prayer. The participants praise the teacher for “making such a wonderful study which they had never heard before in their life”.
Here is another way:
All the participants including a facilitator sit in a circle. Then the facilitator introduces the study as follows: “Today we are going to learn something very important from God. We will use psalm 23 as a study material. I want someone to read it loudly first. Then each of us will read it again silently and quietly for a few minutes. When we read the psalm, we need to listen to God so that God can teach each one of us an important lesson from this psalm today. We need to make sure we keep our minds and hearts really quiet and still in order to listen to God’s soft voice. Finally we will share with the others the lesson we learned today.” After the silent reading, the facilitator will be the first one to share what he/she learned from God. Following this example, everybody in the circle will share what they learned. Finally the facilitator will summarize the lessons they all learned from God that day with any additional concluding remarks.
The first way of study is the common one. The teacher comes in with knowledge and pours it into the empty minds of the learners. And they go home “happily” almost as empty as they come in.
In the second way, all are learners before God. Once they learn, they share with each other the lessons they have learned. Receptivity will be close to 0% in the first way, but it will be close to 100% in the second way. Also, the latter type of interaction will remain as an unforgettable experience in their lives, and they will eagerly attend the future meetings. Whatever they learnt in that session is likely to influence their lives too.
Here I am not suggesting to replace the lecture method altogether by discussion method. When a priest gives a sermon in the parish, lecture is appropriate, but in small groups, there can be more interaction among the participants. But I presented the two scenarios as an example of a shift that needs to happen in our fundamental outlook. Whether it is a lecture or a discussion, we need to admit that God is our teacher. It is similar to a doctor admitting that although he treats an illness, it is God who really heals. Although a doctor is an authorized person to treat illnesses, he/she also gets ill at times, and will seek healing just like anybody else.
Teachers are usually good at teaching, but they can be very unwilling to learn. In the story of the Prophet Jonah, this is what we see. How hard it was for Jonah to learn a lesson! Compare his hard-heartedness with the people of Nineveh who repented as soon as they received the message of God. The primary and essential qualification of a teacher is that he/she should be a learner. Unless someone receives wisdom, how can he/she give out wisdom? How can the moon shine if it does not receive light from the Sun?
Several years ago, when I was in Ethiopia, an Ethiopian friend of mine used to talk about “illiterate Ph.D.’s”. It didn’t make sense to me because an illiterate person cannot earn a Ph.D. I asked him what he meant by that expression, and he explained it as follows: They are those who earned Ph.D. years ago, but they continue to believe that they know everything, and that they don’t need to learn anything more. Their minds are closed to new knowledge.
Back to Contents
No comments:
Post a Comment