p. 65 | The Sabbath-School by S. S. Times

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Feb 9, 1882

The Sabbath-School.

By S. S. Times

What is Teaching?

Our familiarity with a word often stands in the way of our knowing that word's meaning. We are so accustomed to the use of the word, and we have used it freely so long, that we do not stop to consider its real scope and limitations; nor would it be easy for us to declare these, if we were asked to define the word. Sometimes, therefore, there is a decided gain in putting ourselves directly at the task of settling what we mean by a word which is on our lips every day of our lives. We may find that we have had an utterly wrong conception of the idea involved in that word; or, again, we may find that we have had no particular thought of any idea involved in it, but have taken it merely as an arbitrary designation of a fact or a thing familiar to us.

"Teaching" is a word of this sort, as a moment's reflection will convince almost any one who uses the word. What is "teaching?" You say that you are "a teacher:" what do you mean by this? You say that you are "ready to teach" your class: what do you mean by this? You say that you "have taught" your class: what do you mean by this? How many who call themselves, and who are called by others, "Sabbath-school teachers," have a well-defined idea of what teaching is; yet how can one fairly call himself a "teacher," when he doesn't even know the nature of his mission? There is certainly very little hope of a man's being successful in any endeavor, so long as he is in doubt or in ignorance as to what he is trying to do. This truth would seem to be fairly beyond question.

One may be called "a teacher" without being a "teacher." A superintendent may appoint one to the office of teacher in the Sabbath-school, or the church authorities may duly designate him as such, without his being competent to teach. That makes him "a teacher"—by the record; but it doesn't make him "a teacher"—in fact. Nor does his acceptance of the position tendered him make the selected "teacher" a "teacher." His saying that he is "a teacher" no more gives him a fitness to "teach" than does the saying of those in authority over the school. "How many legs does a calf have if you count his tail one?" is a boy's conundrum. "Five," answers one. "Not a bit of it," says the other. "Counting a calf's tail a leg doesn't make it one. A calf has only four legs, however you count them." How many real "teachers" are there in all the Sabbath-schools of the United States, "counting" all who are on the rolls as teachers? There are two ways of answering that question; and the answers would be a long apart. Until each one of those teachers knows what "teaching" is, he is unable to decide for himself whether he is a "teacher" in fact, or only "a teacher" by the record. Yet it makes a vast difference to a Sabbath-school whether it has teachers who fill their places, or only teachers who hold them.

Perhaps the best definition of "teaching" which has been given, is "the causing another to know." There is such a thing as teaching by example, unconscious teaching; teaching others by the spirit we display, or by the manners we practice; causing others to know, from what they see in us, that our way is desirable, or that it is most undesirable; leading them in the path we pursue, or impelling them toward any other path than that. Teaching of this kind, all of us are given to, at all times. In this sense, we all are teachers, always. We are continually causing those about us to know the better way, or the worse. But it is not of this kind of teaching that we speak, when we say that we are Sabbath-school teachers; that we expect to teach our class next Sabbath; or, that we taught our class last Sabbath. We have in mind, in such phrases, an active and purposeful service, rather than that unconscious teaching of ours which is inevitable, whether we desire it or not. It is the causing another to know that which we know, and which he does not; that which we want him to know, and which we seek to have him know;—which is "teaching" in its technical sense; teaching in the sense in which we use the term, when we say that we have been teaching a particular lesson to a particular scholar or class. In this sense, "teaching" obviously involves the threefold idea of a teacher, a lesson, and a learner; it involves knowledge on the teacher's part, and, at the start, the lack of it on the part of the scholar; also, an actual transfer of that knowledge from the teacher's mind to the scholar's, before the teaching process is concluded. Hence, to say that you have "taught a lesson," includes the idea that some one has learned that lesson; for unless there is learning by a learner there can be no teaching by a teacher; and until the teacher has caused a learner to know a lesson, or a truth, the teacher has only been trying to teach—so far without success.

Just here is the great difference between preaching, or lecturing, or talking, or telling a thing, and "teaching." One can preach all by himself. He can lecture to a listless gathering, or to none at all. He can talk to himself, or to others who pay no attention to what he says. He can tell a thing to the winds, or to hearers who neither understand nor heed him. But he cannot "teach" all by himself; he cannot teach without attentive hearers; he cannot teach unless some one learns. Teaching always includes two persons, both of them active. Nor is it enough that there be two persons, both of them active; but active over the same lesson. This may be secured by hearing a recitation, and commenting on it; but that is not necessarily teaching. The scholar, in such a case, may be merely exercising his memory, reciting what he has memorized verbally without understanding a word of it; he learns nothing; he is not taught anything; he is not caused to know a single fact or truth, by his teacher's hearing him recite; nor does he learn anything by his teacher's wisest comment, if he pays no attention to that comment, or if he is unable to understand it. "Teaching" as "causing another to know," includes the mutual effort of two persons to the same end. The teacher must endeavor to cause the pupil to learn a particular fact or truth which he wants him to know; the learner must endeavor to learn that particular fact or truth. Until the two are at this common work, the process of "teaching" is not begun; until the learner has learned, the teacher has not taught.

"Teaching" is by no means all of "a teacher's" work; nor is it always the most important work of a teacher. Impressing one's pupils, and influencing them, are important factors in a teacher's work; when we speak of "a teacher," as one having children in charge, in a school—on a week-day, or a Sunday. A teacher's spirit, a teacher's character, a teacher's atmosphere, a teacher's life, impress and influence a pupil quite as much as a teacher's words. It is a teacher's duty to love his scholars, and to show his love for them; to have sympathy with them, and to evidence it; to gain a hold on their affections, outside of the class-hour, as well as during it; and to pray for them specifically and in abiding faith. There is no technical "teaching" in all this; but what would technical teaching be worth without this? There are "teachers" in the Sabbath-school who do a great deal of good without "teaching;" they perhaps do a better work in the Sabbath-school than those of their fellows, who do teach. Their work ought not to be undervalued because it is not "teaching;" neither ought it to be confounded with "teaching."

Impressing and influencing members of a class is one thing; teaching a Bible lesson is another thing; the two may go on together, or again, there may be the one without the other. Whether the one or the other is wanted, or both together are desired, it is important to bear in mind what "teaching" is, as distinct from any other desirable work of "a teacher." If a Bible lesson is worth teaching, it ought to be taught; if it is taught, it must be by the process of "teaching;" and there is no such thing as teaching by a teacher, unless at the same time there is a learning by a learner. The question, therefore, at the close of each Sabbath-school hour, is—not, Were you with your class? not, Did you prepare yourself on the lesson of the day before coming to your class? not, Did you state and illustrate important truths which it would have been well for the members of your class to know? not, Were your hearers attentive, and seemingly impressed? but—Did you cause anybody to know anything about the lesson of the day? That question you cannot properly answer, unless you have proof that some one of your hearers learned what you tried to make him know. Until you can speak with positiveness on this point, you cannot say whether or not you have taught the lesson, or any part of it, to all of your class, or to any one scholar.

Although "teaching" is by no means the exclusive, nor yet always the foremost, duty of "a teacher," yet teaching is teaching; and no prevalence of popular opinion can make anything else than teaching, teaching. And let it be remembered that the proof of the teaching process always rests with the learner; not with the teacher, whether the scholars be young or old. The teacher can prove that he tried to teach; the scholar alone can show that the teacher succeeded. —S. S. Times.