你为什么想要主日学
虽然我不能完全肯定，但在我接触的所有教会，他们正在抛弃主日学。这样做的教会可能是有原因的，但我要说：他们可能正在失去一个训练教会成员强有力的工具，失去一个可以使会众更智慧更有信心的手段。
所以在这篇文章里，我要为主日学去辩护。我先说说一些个人经历。
有主日学和没有主日学的经历
不管是参加还是教主日学，在这将近20年的经历里，有两次经历是我记忆特别深刻的。
第一次是在伊利诺伊州枫城的福音自由教会，那是我大学时信主之后参加的第一个教会。在那段日子里，有一个退休后去读了神学院的老人在教主日学，他教的内容大致和古德恩的《系统神学》相似。作为一个菜鸟式的基督徒，每个星期我所领受的真理像放烟花一样从我心里喷出来。我那个时候的成长全都得益于那个忠心传讲真理之人的教导。
更喜人的是，这个教会在主日聚会结束之后还会有一堂课，并且发展非常之快。大学生们每个主日都聚集在一对年长夫妇家里一起吃午饭，一起讨论一本神学书或录影（例如R. C. 史鲍尔的《上帝的圣洁》）。过了二十多年，我还清晰地记得我们所读的书，以及它们对我的影响。
第二段关于主日学的经历其实是一段没有主日学的经历。我在英格兰读本科的时候，我注意到我的教会没有主日学，而且看起来，他们在成人主日学上的缺乏已经使他们的会众越来越少地了解圣经了。
我确定还有别的原因，而且在英国还有一些教会在圣经知识和成人主日学上可以作为示范。但是这一次的经历让我对主日学有了一个新的认识。
为主日学的辩护
我对主日学的辩护主要有三个层次：第一是知识在门训中的根基性角色；第二是讲道与教导的分工；第三是主日学在与其它方法相比之下的教导潜力。
1. 知识在门训中的根基性角色
第一，知识是门训的基础。福音是一个信息。三一神已经在圣经里向我们启示了他。并且他要我们尽心，尽性，尽意地去爱他（太22：37）。
所有的基督徒都被呼召在知识上去增长以便能在敬虔上成长。希伯来书5：12里作者责备他的读者：“看你们学习的工夫，本该作师傅，谁知还得有人将神圣言小学的开端，另教导你们。并且成了那必须吃奶，不能吃干粮的人” 他期望这些读者能持续地在知识上得以成长。
保罗也在哥林多前书14：20里写道：“弟兄们，在心志上不要作小孩子。然而在恶事上要作婴孩。在心志上总要作大人。” 保罗这里告诉我们有责任在对神的认识上能够成长。
所以，那些领导教会的人应该有一个负担就是用成熟的，基于圣经的，不断增长的对神的知识去装备他们的羊群。我们作牧师的应该盼望每一个成员都可以在圣经知识上得以成长，养成一个合乎圣经的世界观，更是把福音应用他们生活的方方面面。
2. 讲道与教导的分工
第二，在教会中会有而且也必须要有讲道与教导的分工。讲道是教会生活的核心，但这不是教会日常生活中唯一传授神话语的方法。
讲道的目的在于尊崇神以及他的福音并且听道的人得以改变。这是一种宣告，庆祝，推崇。讲道是根植于教导里的，所以会有很多的教导，但其目标是很单一的：讲道是要把听道之人的心完全剖开，将真理注入以带来悔改、平安、喜乐、顺服和敬拜，这是贯穿于听道始终的。
另外，讲道是一个人对一群人传话。听道的人包括信徒与非信徒。而且在场的各个基督徒都有着不同的生命时期，不同的呼召，还有属灵成熟度。
另一方面，教导，尤其是在主日里的教导有一个不同的目标，而且达成目标的方法也有些不同。在没有忽视向心说话的同时，教导也更专注于对理性讲话。而且教导既可以是一个人讲，也可以是一些对话。实际上，这就是教室环境所特有的长处。
进一步讲，主日学是更有针对性的。如果你教的是如何做父母，那么你的听众大部分都会是父母或即将做父母的。那些感兴趣的人自然会来，没兴趣的也当然不会来。这可以让你更专注于你所教导的东西，而且讲得比对整个教会讲道更透彻。
随意的气氛、更注重知识、教导中的对话、还有听众的自助选择，这所有加起来使教导更有优势去讲一些在讲道中没有办法讲得深入的主题。
我们拿养育儿女这样既实际又具教牧性的话题来说，如果一个牧师在通过经文讲道，有关养育儿女的教导只会在箴言或以弗所书6章里偶然出现。牧师需要经常地把另外一些经文应用到养育儿女中去，从而让父母们知道神的话语对他们所讲的话。
但是讲台上所讲的养育儿女是有限的。如果我们岔开话题去讲一些对于管教与教育的深奥哲学，这就不合适了。而且因为讲道是一个人在讲，父母也就没有办法去问问题，给反馈，澄清事实。在学习的过程中有几个重要的步骤，特别是涉及到一些灰色地带、次要问题和实际操作这些其他基督徒可以存在不同意见的时候。
所以，主日学可以多方面地完成一系列讲道所不能完成的任务。而且我再重复一遍，主日学可以更深入地探讨一些问题，因为主日学里只是对一部分与话题相关的会众讲课。
还有一些需要更多思考有关门训的话题只能在课堂里而不是讲台前学到。例如，如何读圣经。
现在，一个属灵的忠心讲道的确可以做我们读圣经的榜样。一个常听忠心讲道的人也可以学到如何去读圣经，他们也会注重上下文和自己生命的改变。
然而通过听讲道去学习如何读经就好像和大师玩一局高尔夫一样：你所经历的是最后的成品。所以你会吸收一些他们的习惯和本性，但是你也只能去模仿。
主日学学读圣经就不一样了，就好像一位大师给你上一系列的高尔夫球课一样。他们教你合适的技巧，一步一步带你去体验比赛，评价你的挥棒，等等。他们会把玩好高尔夫的数十种技巧传授给你，都是经过他们实践检验的，也是你想一辈子也没有想过的。对于如何读圣经这样的话题，你会讲到释经学、体裁、翻译、还有其它一些在讲道里不会讲出来的东西。但这些对于读好圣经至关重要。一个好的讲道可以是你读经的榜样，但一个主日学课程可以训练你去读好圣经。
总结来说，我会建议把讲道与教导分开来，这将会使教会受益无穷。两者必然会有重叠的部分，但两者的目标与方法是截然不同的。还有一些既实际又理性的话题可以在主日学里比在讲台上更深刻地讲解出来，也带着教牧性的影响。
3. 如果不用主日学，那用什么呢？
第三，主日学更适合讲一些其它场合，尤其是小组里不适合讲的东西。
现在看来有一些没有主日学的教会是通过小组完成相同的目标。这些小组可能包括了团契、祷告、传福音或者其它的圣经问题探讨。
在开始的时候我想说小组的确是有很多好处，我自己家里也有一个小组，这么多年我们也一直在感受到小组带给我们的祝福。但是当我们谈到通过圣经教导去进行门训，小组也确实捉襟见肘。
首先，环境决定了小组将关系优先于教导。一般来说在一个人的家中促膝而谈是不适合严肃的知识教导的。而且，这也不是不好，这样的气氛可以帮助人们建立感情，而感情是教会生活里最最重要的东西之一。这样看来，小组真心不适合教导。
其次，小组就是小组，小为特点。小组的长处就是人少更容易建立感情。十个八个人在一起总比七八十甚至一两百个上主日学的人在一起容易得多。如果教会过度依赖小组进行教导的工作，就会有许多小组。这也意味着教会需要更多的人去带领他们。反过来也就是说你要把更多不是那个有恩赐的人放在领导的位置上，让他们做老师。所以，如果一个教会想利用小组去讲严肃的神学话题，例如离婚，他们恐怕找不到那么多的神学老师去带领。
另外，主日学在发挥作用的同时，可以任意调整上课人数。这意味着他们不需要很多的老师，所以那些有恩赐的合适老师就会最大程度地发挥他们的作用，建立教会。
所以，我主张“课堂容量与老师数量”的动态关系是主日学的另外一个长处，比小组不知道要好多少倍。小组只是基于教导的门徒培训。主日学又可以让有恩赐的老师在教会里的事工发挥最大的作用。这样把长老和教师的熏陶作用成倍地释放出来，他们在讲的时候就把讲台上不宜讲的东西充分地解释出来。
深入圣经并把真理应用到圣经神学问题上的老师的数量总要比成熟稳重的小组长要少得多。所以，主日学能使教会稀有资源得以充分利用。使一小部分有恩赐的老师可以影响更多的教会成员。这样便为教会里的门训提供了强有力的动力。
现在的问题是，如果你不用主日学，那你用什么呢？如果不用主日学，你怎么去教人读圣经？怎么去教人系统神学？怎么去教父母教育孩子？怎么教人恋爱或传福音？
我担心当教会抛弃主日学的时候，有些东西在教会里永远不再被学到了。教会继而失去了一个非常好可以装备人们做忠心门徒的机会。
想想还会失去什么
因为以上这些原因，我要说：主日学是一个绝好的工具，可以让我们的教会更像基督。它供给教会成员成长所需要的知识。它与讲台事奉相互配合补充。它也可以做其它形式如小组所不能做的事，就是把广泛的神学议题以一种更深的维度讲解出来，这对门训是十分重要的。
我的目的不是骂那些没有主日学的教会。我更希望他们去考虑一下他们所失去的。考虑一下他们怎样才能更好地一周一次地去装备信徒，除了主日的讲道以外，也要把理性、实际的东西运用到整个会众中，使他们作为耶稣门徒得以成长。
作者 Bobby Jamieson
Bobby Jamieson 是九标志英文事工的助理编辑，第三大道浸信会成员，毕业于美南浸信会神学院。目前在剑桥大学进修博士学位。
作者 Jonathan Pennington
Jonathan Pennington是肯塔基路易斯维尔美南浸信会神学院的新约副教授。
翻译肢体：高蒙恩
用圣经视野和实用资源装备教会领袖
进而通过健康的教会向世界彰显神的荣耀
许可声明： 本平台内容归健康教会九标志版权所用。如果你想在微信等网络使用，请务必注明内容出处。
英文原文：
Why You Want Sunday School
I’m not entirely sure why, but it seems that everywhere I look, churches are abandoning adult Sunday School. There may be some valid reasons for this, but I would suggest that such churches are in danger of throwing away a key tool for training church members to be wiser and more faithful disciples of Jesus.
So, in this article I’m going to present an apologetic for Sunday school. I’ll begin with a couple reflections on personal experience.
EXPERIENCES WITH AND WITHOUT SUNDAY SCHOOL
In addition to either participating in or teaching Sunday School for about twenty years, I’ve had two especially noteworthy experiences with it.
The first was at the Evangelical Free Church in Sycamore, Illinois, which I attended immediately after I became a Christian during college. In those days, an older man who was a second-career seminary student taught a theology class in Sunday school that was similar in scope and content to Grudem’s Systematic Theology. As a brand new Christian, I had fireworks of truth going off in my mind and heart every single week. My early growth in Christ was profoundly shaped and helped by that faithful, weekly doctrinal teaching.
Further, the church had a thriving “after-church Sunday school” for college students. Students would congregate for lunch every Sunday and discuss a theological book or video series (such as RC Sproul’s Holiness of God) in an older couple’s home. Twenty-plus years later, I still remember the books we read during those times and their impact on me.
The second experience with Sunday school worth mentioning is actually about a lack of Sunday school. During my graduate studies in Scotland, I noticed that many churches didn’t have Sunday school, and there seemed to be a correlation between the lack of adult Sunday School and the generally lower biblical literacy among the congregation.
I’m sure that there are other factors involved, and that there are many churches in the United Kingdom that are exemplary in both biblical literacy and adult education. But the experience stuck with me, and it cast the value of Sunday school in a new light.
AN APOLOGETIC FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL
There are three planks in my argument for Sunday School: first, the foundational role of knowledge in discipleship; second, the division of labor between preaching and teaching; third, the unique teaching potential of Sunday School compared with other contexts.
1. The Foundational Role of Knowledge in Discipleship
First, knowledge is foundational to discipleship. The gospel is a message. The Triune God has revealed himself to us in a book. And he calls us to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22:37).
All Christians are called to grow in the knowledge of God as a means of growth in godliness. In Hebrews 5:12 the author rebukes his readers, saying, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food.” He expected these believers to be consistently growing in knowledge.
Or again in 1 Corinthians 14:20 Paul writes, “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” Paul here shows us that it is the responsibility of every Christian to grow in their thinking about God.
Therefore, those who lead the church should have a burden to equip every single member of their flock with a well-rounded, scripturally derived, steadily increasing knowledge of God and his ways. We pastors should want every single person in our churches to grow in their knowledge of Scripture, to develop a biblical worldview, and to be increasingly able to apply the gospel to every area of their lives.
2. The Division of Labor between Preaching and Teaching
Second, in the church there is, and should be, a division of labor between preaching and teaching. Preaching is central to the life of the church, but it is not the only ministry of the Word that a church should regularly receive.
Preaching aims to exult in God and the gospel and to transform those who hear it. It is proclamation, celebration, and exhortation. Preaching is grounded in teaching and contains much teaching, but its aim is more focused: preaching aims to slice right through the heart of the listener and bring about repentance, comfort, joy, obedience, and worship, all in the moment of hearing.
In addition, preaching is a monologue addressed to the entire congregation. This will usually include believers and non-believers. And the Christians present will represent a wide range of seasons of life, callings, and degrees of spiritual maturity.
On the other hand, teaching, specifically in a Sunday school context, has a different end and a slightly different means toward that end. While not neglecting the heart, teaching gives special focus to the mind. And while teaching will involve monologue, it should also feature dialogue. In fact, that’s one of the great strengths of a classroom setting.
Further, Sunday school classes are to some degree self-selecting. If you teach a class on parenting, parents and would-be parents will be the bulk of your attendees. Those who are interested will come, and those who aren’t, won’t. This allows you to devote more attention to a subject and to delve into greater depth than if you were addressing the whole congregation.
The less formal and more intellectually focused atmosphere, the possibility for dialogue, and the self-selecting nature of the classes all adds up to a great opportunity for addressing subjects more comprehensively than the pulpit is suited to.
For example, consider a practical and pastorally sensitive subject such as parenting. If a pastor is preaching through Scripture, parenting will come up occasionally in places like Proverbs and Ephesians 6. And pastors should regularly apply other texts to issues in parenting to help parents see how the word of God bears on that important calling.
Yet the pulpit’s ability to address parenting issues is limited. It would be inappropriate and distracting to delve into conflicting philosophies over discipline or schooling. Further, preaching’s monological mode limits the congregation’s ability to ask questions, push back, and clarify matters. These are important steps in the learning process, especially when dealing with gray areas, second-order issues, and practical matters on which Christians can legitimately disagree.
Thus, in many ways a Sunday school class on parenting can accomplish more than a sermon series. And again, a Sunday school class would generally be a more appropriate way to address the topic at length, since it will only be directly relevant to a portion of the congregation.
There are also more intellectually demanding topics that are foundational to discipleship which are better addressed from the lectern than the pulpit. Consider, for example, the subject of how to study the Bible.
Now, a scripturally faithful sermon does model how to read the Bible. A church member who sits under a steady diet of faithful preaching will learn much about how to read Scripture in a contextually sensitive and spiritually transformative way.
Yet listening to a sermon in order to learn how to read the Bible is like playing a round of golf with a master: you’re experiencing the final product. So you absorb some of their habits and instincts, but only what you can pick up by imitation.
On the other hand, a Sunday school class on how to study the Bible is like a series of lessons with a master golfer. They teach you proper technique, walk you through the game step by step, evaluate your swing, and so on. They make you aware of dozens of factors that go into playing the game well—things they now take for granted, but that you have likely never even thought of. A course on how to study the Bible can address hermeneutics, genre, translation, and many other issues that are generally out of place in a sermon, yet are foundational to reading the Bible well. A sermon models good Bible reading, but a Sunday school class trains people in good Bible reading.
In sum, I would suggest that it is healthy for there to be a division of labor in the church between preaching and teaching. There is surely much overlap between the two, yet they have distinct means and ends. And there are crucial topics on both the practical and intellectual ends of the spectrum that can be addressed much more thoroughly—and with greater overall pastoral impact—in a class than in a sermon.
3. If Not Sunday School, Where?
Third, Sunday school is suited to addressing these topics in a way that other contexts, particularly small groups, are not.
It seems that today many churches which don’t have Sunday school rely on small groups of one kind or another to accomplish some of the same ends. These small groups tend to incorporate fellowship, prayer, missional outreach, and some kind of Bible-based discussion.
Let me say at the outset that small groups like these have many strengths, and I have experienced much blessing through leading one in my home for several years now. But when it comes to making disciples through biblical teaching, small groups have several serious weaknesses.
First, the environment inherently prioritizes relationship over instruction. Sitting knee-to-knee on a couch in someone’s living room is generally not a context that is conducive to serious intellectual engagement on many topics. Again, this is not a bad thing in itself, and this context can greatly aid in building relationships, one of the single most important aspects of church life. But small groups are not primarily geared toward a teaching context.
Further, small groups are just that—small. Their strength is in the greater intimacy which a group of eight or twelve people can attain compared with a gathering of thirty, seventy-five or even two hundred that might attend an adult Sunday School. If churches are going to rely heavily on small groups for teaching discipleship, there will need to be a lot of them. This means that a church will need a lot of people to lead them. This, in turn, means that you will need to enlist people who are less gifted and experienced teachers. So, if a church intended to use small groups to address serious, theologically challenging issues such as divorce (or any other theologically and pastorally difficult topic), they would be hard pressed to find enough teachers who could handle such tricky territory and handle it well.
On the other hand, a Sunday school class can be almost any size and still retain most of its usefulness. This means that fewer teachers are needed, and, therefore, the more gifted and qualified teachers are able to use their gifts to build up the church, which is as it should be.
Thus, I would suggest that this “size vs. number of teachers” dynamic is another strength of Sunday school over against small groups as a vehicle for teaching-based discipleship. Sunday school allows the most gifted teachers in the church to exercise a vital, life-giving ministry. It multiplies the elders’ and other gifted teachers’ ability to minister the word to the congregation for their edification, all the while addressing topics that are not best handled in the monological pulpit.
The number of teachers who can dig deep into the Word and equip the church regarding challenging biblical and theological issues will always be smaller than the number of those who are sufficiently relationally mature to lead a small group. So, Sunday school allows a more precious resource of the church to be invested more widely and strategically. It allows a smaller number of gifted teachers to influence a larger portion of the body week in and week out. This creates a bigger, stronger engine for the church’s discipleship.
The bottom line here is, if not Sunday School, then where? If you don’t have Sunday school, where are you going to teach people how to study the Bible? Where are you going to give them a thorough grounding in systematic theology? Where are you going to discuss the ins and outs of parenting, or dating and marriage, or evangelism?
I’m afraid that when churches abandon Sunday school, some of these things are simply no longer being taught to the congregation as a whole. And churches are thereby missing a significant opportunity to equip their people with biblical building blocks for faithful discipleship.
CONSIDER WHAT YOU MIGHT BE MISSING OUT ON
For all these reasons, I would argue that Sunday school is a valuable tool for conforming our churches to the image of Christ. It feeds our people the knowledge they need to grow in godly living. It complements and supplements the regular pulpit ministry. And it is able to do what other contexts such as small groups can’t, namely, foster rigorous intellectual engagement about a wide range of matters that are crucial to discipleship.
My goal is not to scold churches that don’t do Sunday school. I’d rather offer an invitation to consider what you might be missing out on. Consider how you might be better able to equip your church for works of service if you devoted weekly time, in addition to the sermon, to laying intellectual and practical foundations that will equip your whole church to grow as disciples of Jesus.
▼▼▼▼▼ 平台经典文章阅读