As I said in a previous post, a number of influences lie behind much of the modern missionary zeal for reproducible methods. For many, it is the idol of speed. Others struggle to believe they are doing God’s will unless it can be measured with a number. Highly simplified tools facilitate the use of categories than can have a number attached to it (i.e. # of cycles, days, etc.).
A person once told me that using non-reproducible methods gives the teacher/trainer too much authority. He said to me, “What happens if someone sharper comes around? Then they will follow that other authority instead of you.”
Undermining Biblical Authority?
I suggest that the opposite is true. In reality, if we are only using rapidly reproducible methods, then we end up giving ourselves too much authority. We effectively compel those we train to trust us even over Scripture. That’s not necessarily over speak. Highly reduced methods depend on trainees taking the missionary at his or her word that this content is central and is interpreted correctly. They have no way of knowing whether we have taken something out of context. In the quest for speed and ease of understanding, biblical context is filtered is out and doctrines are abstracted. As a result, overly reduced methodologies are at least as likely to produce mere head-knowledge rather than heart change.
If a person’s obedience is not grounded in real understanding of Scripture, it will be due to his or her loyalty to the group leader or perhaps some other motive, like fear or people pleasing. As a consequence, authority in actual fact is increasingly given to the teacher and the group instead of the Bible.
If people are not careful, they can actually create an environment that fosters cult-like tendencies. I don’t say that for the sake of being provocative. Simply step back for a moment and consider––cults are especially proficient at using reproducible methods where simplicity enables strong leaders to better ensure obedience and conformity. I don’t at all accuse hard working practitioners who use “reproducible” methods of starting cults. However, it is surely wise to consider the strengths and limitations of our methodologies. How well do our methods reflect the witness of the entire Bible?
What are other consequences of only teaching what can be quickly reproduced? Rapid reproduction requires rapid understanding. However, the more integrated or complicated a topic, the more one needs background information. One may perhaps even need an understanding of the original languages to grasp key aspects of theological argument. (A brand new believer may not need that sort of depth; however, we are not only talking about brand new believers. We are talking about training leaders as well.)
The unfortunate casualty in this process is the Bible. All of our teaching can quickly get reduced to the material that everyone can easy and quickly understand. However, there are times when the author’s original and primary meaning is not readily apparent to the average 21st century reader, especially those less familiar with the Bible. In order to compensate, teachers can settle true but secondary points, neglecting the central thesis of the biblical authors. As I have said in a recent article, we compromise the gospel when we settle for truth. This is certainly not what it means to regard God’s word as supremely authoritative.
God gives us teachers
Let us not forget that there are reasons why God gave the church teachers! Teachers contribute their understanding into relevant background or to other perspectives that may help learners. Methods like T4T have been criticized in the past for having a low ecclesiology, in particular, minimizing the importance of a pastor’s role. After all, taking time to develop holistic and sound pastors takes time and can slow rapid reproduction. Is there a cycle to be noticed here?
Over pressing reproducibility creates under-trained church leaders who then are ill equipped to train others. As a result, church leaders need over simplified methodologies to do their job. Over time, these pastors continue hopping from method to method, depending on what tool is popular at the time. We must guard against overreaction here. Teachers do not all need to be scholars. I would certainly not endorse that idea. I want balance, not simply the out of hand rejection of one extreme for another.
A few concluding stray thoughts
(1) When rapid reproduction becomes the measure of a training’s worth, people lose appreciation for theological nuance. What results? Two different extremes. As I’ve suggested, one is being too open to new teachings, which veer to heresy. There is a second possibility. People in these conditions also tend to become more rigid, dividing ideas only into right/wrong rather than major/minor point. Dogmatic inflexibility turns into pride and divisiveness, not humility.
(2) Rather than settling for mere reproducibility, we should consider the importance of adaptability. In formulaic trainings, people are not taught how to adapt methods. They are taught what to do in any and every circumstance. Lacking background and a broader perspective of Scripture, people don’t know where they have flexibility to adapt. However, different cultures and contexts need this flexibility. Methods convey theology. What if the person who designed the one-size-fits-all method has flawed theological or methodological assumptions? How easy would it be for them to import contextually inappropriate assumptions and values in the name of reproducibility?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In