Bible Teaching Styles in Asian-American Educational Ministry
11/19/14 
손대권 Timothy D. Son
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Cornell University(B.A.)
Princeton Theological Seminary (M. Div. & Th. M.)
Teachers College, Columbia University(Ed. D)
전 산돌교회 담임목사
In teaching the Scripture, the role of a teacher is indispensable. The teacher teaches not only with the competence of the subject matter, but also with everything that one is and who s/he is as a person. Teaching the Scripture to God’s people concerns with more than delivering of its contents but also communicating how the Scripture has impacted in the life of a teacher. Of course, knowing the contents, facts, and the narratives of the Bible well is significant in learning. For they serve as a pool of mental and cognitive resources in the minds of the learners when they later articulate the meanings and purpose of their life.However, we need to remember that in the process of delivering the contents of the Bible, the teacher as a deliverer of God’s Word plays a significant role in providing important educational implications through sharing of one’s identity as a teacher who is willing to yield oneself before the Scripture and yet also embodies what it means to live according to the biblical mandates. It is in this sense, we do not merely just read nor study the Bible, but rather allow the Scripture speak to us, direct us and transform us in a radically new way often resulting in transformation of one’s entire self.Those who are called to teach the Word of God must be willing to become “open bibles” in the presence of their learners. This must be so because we teach the Bible with identity and integrity. In teaching the Bible to others, the irrevocable sense of ‘who one is’ as a teacher as well as ‘upon these principles I stand’ serve as an extension of educational pedagogy in that our students constantly observe a teaching person in everything that s/he does in the process of teaching. They observe whether or not teachers follow what they teach; they keep mental record of the degree of congruence between what they proclaim and what they actually practice. When the degree of incongruence grows significantly, then teachers may not longer exercise their authority and be unable to impact their students’ lives for transformation. The interwoven dynamics among identity, integrity and pedagogy as well as ethics of teachers are critical in biblical teaching.
Another important matter that concerns us in teaching the Scripture is to reflect carefully, ‘How have teachers used the Bible? How has the Bible been understood by the majority of the Asian American congregations?’ This is also to ask, ‘How have those who teach the Bible interpreted (or appropriated) its content?’ The crux of matter in teaching the Holy Scripture is that everyone who encounters the Word of God does so with wearing a unique set of perceptual lenses of one’s own. These perceptual lenses are formed by worldviews which allows a person to engage in the activity of meaning-making and attributing with respect to events and incidents in one’s life. A person’s ideological beliefs, preference and conviction come into play in providing prescription as well as his/her unique tinted color in one’s perceptual glasses. Likewise whenever we approach the Holy Scripture we engage in certain interpretative process by seeking, appropriating and interpreting the significant meaning and insights from the Bible.
Therefore, it is imperative for all those who are called to teach God’s Word to aware of the necessary challenge to set oneself free from this inevitable tendency of teaching the Scripture according to one’s own interest and perspectives in order to authenticate one’s learning about the truth of the Word and the authentic intention of God revealed in the Scripture. Some teachers emphasize the importance of inward conviction in teaching the Bible. They often ask questions like ‘So how does this verse enhance your faith inwardly and with conviction?’ Others may raise questions like ‘How can we express what we believe outwardly and concretely?’ Both group of teachers approach teaching ministry with a different set of presupposition. The former believes that what is visible outside has its deep root inwardly, while the later believes that in order to demonstrate the efficacies of biblical knowledge, we must express what we learn and believe outwardly in public arenas of life.
In order to highlight this point further I am adopting insights and a typology provided by Richard J. Mouw.[1] Based on Mouw’s analysis, I suggest that the following four categories are often incorporated by many Bible teachers of Asian American churches in their educational processes. How teachers view the Bible and how they theologically appropriate its content in searching for meanings especially during crisis are worthy of our reflective study. Identifying such an interpretative typology helps us understand the habits of our hearts and minds in biblical teaching and learning.
I have conducted surveys and interviews with many people and observed them in order to learn the general ways by which how people understand the interpret the contents of the Bible in Asian American congregations. The above diagram provides one way to understand this issue. I found that in their struggle to live faithful Christian life, the Bible serves as an authoritative resource in articulating the appropriate tension of interplay between their faith and beliefs(i.e., the inner aspect of faith) and their moral and ethical practice in daily lives (i.e. the outward expression of their faith). This represents a vertical axis between inward aspect of faith and outward expression of faith.
The particular ways in which the Asian Americans understand who God is also represented in the horizontal axis with respect to either God is primarily understood as transcendent or immanent. Depends on personal understanding of whether God is willing to be in the mist of human kind, or God sits on the heavenly throne to judge His people, exhibited different ways to approach the Bible. Often teaching children based on theological prescriptions of doctrines lands on the latter case where God is understood primarily in terms of God’s transcendental nature. In contrast, more anthropocentric descriptions and teachings are adopted by the former where God is primarily understood as a supreme deity whose presence and intention are personally relevant thus immediately accountable.
Let me expound on this issue further. In the quadrant B, people value certain pious experiences and practices as fundamental to their Christian life. These people are generally distant themselves from those who are in the quadrant A, approaching the Bible as dogmatic and doctrinal authority. They regard doctrinalism as dead orthodoxy or primarily intellectual in studying the Scripture. This is so even when they both(people in both A and B) pursue the inward spirituality.
Depending on the teaching styles of the Bible will generate different educational culture and pedagogical implementations. For example, those who are in the quadrant A, (regarding the Bible as doctrinal source), tend to emphasize the instructional aspect of congregational education. They often flourish with different programs of bible studies often structure in a hierarchical and linear sequences. People often appear to be knowledgeable about the Bible. Such merits are without expenses. While achieving higher level of biblical competence knowing facts and contents of the Bible, they tend to deemphasize other aspects of the Christian personhood-such as living Christian moral and ethical life to witness the love of God in the world.
What has been generally realized is that many of Asian American congregations teach the Scripture either as doctrinalism approach or as personal pietism approach. There have been little intentional efforts to bring God’s people closer toward more outwardly aspects of Christian faith. That is to say that through studying the Scripture, the outcome of educational learning would be nurturing God’s people to engage in more public realm to be catalyst for cultural transformation and becoming the exemplary agents whose life reflects clear theological conviction and belief. Even though it is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate the correlation between how the Bible is taught and what is the primary world view shared among congregation members, such reflection is worthwhile to note for the future investigation.
What cannot be ignored here is that no one style of teaching the Bible should take precedence over all other categories. The proper balance between inward and outward faith as well as maintaining a balanced understanding of who God is between God’s transcendence and immanence is critical at all time in any teaching/learning situation. If not, then the long term effect of such educational ministry results in detrimental consequences- the closed rigid and non-interactive learning process where primarily the behavioral approaches to the teaching/learning insights are applied while neglecting other intrinsic educational methods.
[1] Richard J. Mouw, “The Bible in Twentieth Century Protrestantism: A Preliminary Taxonomy,” in the Bible in America, ed. Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 139.