Sunday, September 25, 2011
quicko: good teaching
It might be Sydney Anglican circles (a whole stereotype immediately emerges there if you're up on these things, too ...) but it seems that "good teaching" is the single church attribute I hear more widely sought after, lauded and generally discussed. I agree it's good (it was part of the definition, after all), but I have two complaints. First, I just think it sounds odd and overly Christian-y. Where else in life would you ever hear the phrase? University? I spent four years in one -- a Christian one -- and I don't think I ever heard the phrase. (Creation fall redemption, yes, total depravity, yes, responsible freedom, yes, good teaching, um ... um ... no.) Second, as good as good teaching is, what about the whole "and they'll know we are Christians by our love"? I promise I'm not taking the loosey-goosey "love only" approach, but personally I think I'd put it a rung higher on the "ideal church" scale than "good teaching." Or equal. Equal I'm good with. Good teaching (which means, really, sound doctrine, hey?) and love. Oh, what a church that would be!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And then there's that other term to set the teeth on edge that has come out of Sydney Anglican (probably from Moore College - it's the people from there who tend to use either / both of the terms) "sitting under the Word". The implication is that if you disagree with the (obviously self-evident) "good teaching" of the speaker, then you aren't "sitting under the Word" and are therefore rejecting "the Word's authority" (nothing at all to do with the speaker's interpretation, no, no).
Post a Comment