Billeder på siden

and the scope of reflex action, and its tremendous importance to life and character. So, also, habit and its laws, how to render permanent reactions that are desirable, or to transform or eliminate undesirable ones. There should also be some comprehension of the instincts and instinct feelings, and how out of them are developed all the virtues that are pure and divine, or the vices that are base and devilish.

Further, the teacher must know the stages of growth, and the laws of their unfoldment, in order to bring the right material at the right time and in the right way, or to properly aid the child to pass from stage to stage, without burdening himself with psychic rudiments, or atrophying in any of the stages. We know to-day that the child is not a miniature man, but rather one potentially, and the specific function of the educator is not so much instruction as facilitated growth. How can one accomplish this if he does not understand these developmental periods and appreciate their significance? or how can he bring the proper material of instruction at the right time, or how sympathize with the growing boy or girl in the midst of idiosyncrasies?

Again, sympathy with childhood and a comprehension of child nature is absolutely needful in order to produce the highest type of manhood and womanhood, so the teacher should be familiar with the results of the child-study movement, and be able to interpret the individual child in the light of such facts.

The instructor should have some knowledge of pathological defects and the laws of mental and moral hygiene, the relation of degeneracy to vice and crime, and the play of heredity and of environment in determining future character. In a word, the nature that he proposes to guide in its developmental experience should be thoroughly known.

Knowledge of the Bible and knowledge of the child are not enough. These two must be brought together. The laws of teaching form the link. One must, therefore, familiarize himself with the philosophy of education, in order to reap the results of the experience of the race, and not spend needless years in discovering facts that he might have had as a rich legacy from the past. A study of the great teachers is desirable, and will be found helpful. Especially is this true of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Herbart, and Christ. One can afford to give considerable time to the pedagogy of Christ, for his practices incorporate all that is best in method.

Teaching is more an art than a science, hence the practical side must not be neglected. Study of this will involve familiarity with the principles that underlie method, discipline, organization, and management, development of courses of study, story-telling, and illustrating, and methods of preparing and presenting the lesson, and class management.

You will see that teaching is no mean art. What could be higher than that of helping in the harmonious development of a human being? And having assumed the office, shall one not pay the price of success?



Taking it for granted that the Sunday schools of the future will ultimately be graded as completely as day-schools are, and that the teachers will vary in the scope and character of their Biblical knowledge as in everything else, we reach the question whether there are some general conceptions of the Bible and the way to use it which all teachers should have in common.

I believe that the time has come when the entire body of Sunday school teachers of our continent should know and should lay at the basis of their teaching those fundamental conceptions of the Bible which the prodigious efforts of devout scholarship during the last halfcentury have established. Never in the history of mankind has so much prayer, so much devout reflection, so much industry, so vast, prolonged, and minute examination of particulars, and so much mental acumen been concentrated upon a single subject. The work is still in progress and must go on for an indefinite time to come, like that in all realms of knowledge. But this is no reason why the results so far as already fully assured should not be generally and unequivocally accepted. Progress in Biblical knowledge, like progress always, has been partly destructive and partly constructive. The fact that it has been at all destructive is sometimes brought up as a very serious indictment. But a little thought will, however, show the necessity of the law. The Ptolemaic system had to be destroyed in order to give place to the Copernican. The discovery that Columbus had not discovered India destroyed his cherished theory in order to give to the world a new hemisphere. We have nothing to lose by the destruction of any mistaken notion, however vital it may have seemed to our religion; for the truth of God must certainly be better, larger, and more helpful in all our relations both to the earth and to the heavens. If disaster is to be avoided, the entire body of Sunday school teachers must be speedily initiated into those general conceptions which distinguish the new Biblical scholarship from the old. Dread of an illiterate ministry was one of the powerful motives of our Puritan forefathers. By

that term, "illiterate ministry," they meant unscholarly guidance in religious thought.

The Bible is literature, to be interpreted and used as literature, according to the general laws of grammar, rhetoric, and psychology that apply to other books. It is no occult cabala with mystic meanings. It is not a rebus to be guessed. If I felt justified in making any specific recommendations to-day, I should propose that every Sunday school teacher should be required to have a reasonable acquaintance with the works of Professor Richard G. Moulton, who has done so much to popularize the knowledge of the Bible as literature.

The main modern conceptions of the Bible are so simple and comprehensible that they can be learned from a brief course of lectures such as every Sunday school teacher can find time to attend. And who can so appropriately give such a course at the teachers' meetings as the pastor of the church? Where, for any reason, the pastor prefers not to undertake it, it will generally be easy to secure some college or seminary professor who will gladly serve. The course should be very simple and non-technical. It should not be expressed in the jargon of the professional workshop. It should deal only with large ideas.

Correct general ideas regarding the Bible are essential in those who are to form the religious thinking of the young. But is the main hope of the Sunday schools of the future in more accurate knowledge of Biblical minutiæ on the part of the teachers? I greatly doubt it. Not in more intense study of the details of the book, but in broader and more thoughtful study of the subject of which the book treats, lies our hope. From the Old Testament we learn of the religious life of the ancient Jews, and from the New Testament we learn the life of Jesus and the founding of the Christian Church.

One of the dangers of the lesson-help system is that the simple and practical truths of a Scripture passage may be buried under an avalanche of erudition. Oriental customs, the disclosures of buried cities, the zoology, botany, philology, and what not of all Biblical lands, are thrust in masses upon us. Perhaps the most serious danger now of Bible study is pedantry. If Assyria happens to be mentioned, Sargon and all of the other kings with longer and less pronounceable names must be passed in review. The parable of the good Samaritan may be the lesson. Then the word down in the statement, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho," is seized upon. The extraordinary topography of the Holy Land is described. The fact that Jericho lies in a great cleft in the surface of the earth much be

low the level of the sea. and that the surface of the Dead Sea is 1,292 feet lower than that of the Mediterranean, are made clear by reliefmaps and cross-sections. Then the treatment of wounds with oil and wine may be enlarged upon, and the theories of therapeutics prevalent at the Christian era. Then the incident of taking out twopence, or shillings, or denarii offers a peg whereon to hang an excursus upon Hebrew and Roman money, and the value of the precious metals in different ages. This sort of thing is not wholly to be condemned. A certain amount of it may make clearer some details of the picture. But its usefulness has often been vastly overestimated. I should say, curtail this kind of Bible study and save time for study in which the children shall be familiarized with the various kinds of good Samaritan work going on at present in their own city and throughout the world. And the teacher of this second class will not need to know how far down Jericho is below Jerusalem or what was the value of a denarius.

But it is time for all Sunday school teachers to know that the minute verbal study of the Bible, even in a sober way, is unprofitable. The comparative study even of the four gospels in the original shows how far the evangelists were from accuracy in detail. Now, when these unstudied and often inexact phrases of the Greek renderings of Aramaic traditions come to be rendered into English according to that curious psychology of translators which is itself a realm of sacred mystery, it is vain indeed to put the microscope upon words. Lists of the "whosoevers" of Scripture and the "in no wise's" of Scripture are wholly delusive. Our translators put in whosoever at their own caprice, according to no discoverable system. In no wise is inserted even more at random. And these are but specimens. The study of the history of the English versions, now happily stimulated by the generosity of Miss Helen Gould, must remove at least a part of this illusion regarding mere words. It is unfortunate that any part of the Sunday school hour should be spent in comparing the old version with the new, or in interpreting the archaic words of the English of three hundred years ago (which we will strangely regard as the only proper dialect of religion) into modern speech. It is a pity to have to stop to tell a scholar that in religion prevent means to help, and that to let means to hinder.

Thank God, religious thinkers have escaped from subjection to the lexicographers and the grammarians. Many weary years have I spent upon Greek and Hebrew, thinking that in the etymologies of these languages I could know the exact mind of God, only to find that the Bible was not written by college professors and that the writers

with their Oriental rhetoric, never dreamed of the mechanical accuracy and the verbal niceties we have attributed to them. Jesus spoke generally in hyperboles, or in parables or metaphors, so that his teachings are for the most part clear out of the realm of the grammar and lexicon. The words do not pretend to formulate his thought; they only suggest it. Let us turn from that world of fanciful constructions with which we have so often deluded ourselves in solemn trifling over words, and study God's truth writ large in characters, in nature, and in the march of events.

« ForrigeFortsæt »