Gospel Essentials, Redux
I recently posted something of a bleg for suggestions on lesson topics and materials for a Gospel Essentials course which I have occasion to teach in my local ward. I made a couple of mistakes in the post and comments, and consequently the thread never really took the direction I had hoped, and instead resulted in (mostly) comments on gospel instruction generally in the LDS Church. The point of the post was to seek ideas for 5-6 lessons which could be taught at any given moment with little advance notice as the need arises. The basic issue at hand is that, on many Sundays, we don’t have any actual investigators or new members attending, and the course is made up primarily of recently reactivated folks, the missionaries, and a handful of others who attend for reasons I’ve never been quite certain of. On those Sundays, I don’t really have a preference for lesson topics, since the attendees have enough experience in the gospel and the Church to handle about any lesson they’re given.
However, from time to time, we do have actual investigators, and on those Sundays, I feel the need to accomplish a few main goals: First, I want to knock their socks off, so to speak–I want them to come away from Sunday school uplifted, inspired, and feeling like they had a meaningful experience in a Mormon meeting. Second, I want them to walk away from the class feeling like they personally contributed something to the lesson or discussion. Lastly, I want them to not be completely and utterly lost because of a lesson that was given out of order with what the missionaries have been teaching. These goals are all closely related, and difficult to accomplish if the lessons come from a manual or are based on material which is completely foreign to them. I believe that participation is key to feeling the Spirit, and the less familiar the material being presented is, the less comfortable a visitor is likely to feel about speaking up and sharing their own thoughts. While there is certainly a strong temptation to “wow” new investigators with the great and fascinating and true doctrines of the Restoration, if an investigator is approaching the Church with a sense of suspicion, hesitation, or fear (as is, frankly, often the case), delivering a mind-blowing sermon on the meaning of the temple might actually blow their mind–but not in the desired way. In this situation, presenting lessons which are less “new” and less focused on helping an investigator learn the required information for baptism may actually help alleviate their concerns about the Church, which alleviation may ultimately pave the road for a humbler and more open heart and mind.
Naturally, there is danger in designing lessons which stay away from some of the more unique LDS doctrines: If we present only what investigators or visitors already know, or push too hard for the comfortable feelings of common ground, then we run the risk of failing to demonstrate the added value living prophets, additional scripture, and an open canon bring to lived religion and our eternal outlook. Similarly, if we eschew the spicier doctrines too much, we risk appearing as if we’re hiding them or apologizing for them.
In any case, I wanted to post this quasi-post/comment now, and will then post how I felt like all of the goals were accomplished in the first attempt at this a couple of weeks ago, and challenges going forward at a later date.
I find that usually if I pray before planning the lesson, find two or three scriptures that support the idea, and can tie it together with a personal experience, it usually works out great. You just have to let the spirit guide you Scott.
No, but in seriousness, it seems like with the line that you’re trying to walk (and its a good idea) you’re kind of limited to the basic principles of the gospel. Kind of the stuff that the old “six discussions” were based off of.
I think if I were to gather 5 lessons for first/second time investigators I would stick to:
The Godhead
The Atonement
The Restoration
Faith, Repentance, Baptism
Eternal Families
I know thats exactly the stuff they’re getting from the missionaries already, but while they may seem like very basic things to us, around which every lesson we’ve ever had has revolved, it might be a little harder to grasp the LDS nuance for an investigator, and just hearing them again from a different teacher might help them gain deeper understanding and appreciation.
B. Russ,
I agree–the part of this equation that I’m not (clearly) doing a good job of communicating is the ad hoc use of these lessons: I go to sacrament meeting without planning on teaching, because typically an investigator doesn’t show up. However, if one does show up, then I am asked to teach the lesson. Thus, “planning” for the lesson ahead of time is slightly different–it has to be such a lesson that requires no “additional” study time; it can be pulled out of my pocket at a moment’s notice.
The need for a lesson which can be given without preparation, and the need for a lesson which will knock peoples’ socks off, are typically directly opposed to teach other.
B.Russ,
When I post what I did a couple of weeks ago, I think you’ll see what I am shooting for. I have done a horrible job of explaining the thoughts behind my approach–so it’s no one’s fault but my own that I keep saying, “No, that’s not what I mean” over and over.
My first comment was completely sarcastic, however, if I missed it with the second one . . . I guess I’m not getting it.
Another possibility is that I am making much ado about something simple that everyone but me understands.
The reality is that I am a tinkerer and explorer in this sort of thing–I hate leaving things like programs, procedures, and policies alone. I like starting from scratch and examining whether we do things well, or if we just do them. The important thing is that I naturally lean toward the starting assumption that things are just being done, and not done well.
I wonder if it wouldn’t work for you to pick out your 5 or 6 lessons from the Gospel Principles manual that line up best with the lessons investigators are getting from the missionaries and Preach My Gospel. You could have them thoroughly prepared and be ready to give them at the drop of a hat, just as the missionaries are with their versions.
Your versions, though, could include somewhat broader content than the missionaries cover, with additional scripture and illustration and whatever else is part of your teaching style. Since your investigator wouldn’t be the only one in the class, the discussion could be broader and deeper than he may have got with the missionaries. This would be something familiar, something that reassures an investigator that we’re consistent in our teachings (i.e., the missionaries aren’t sugar-coating what we believe), but it almost certainly would include something unfamiliar about the familiar subject.
I guess I’m really just repeating B. Russ’s suggestion, with the reassurance to you that you *could* have these lessons ready at a moment’s notice, and they *could* have a knock-your-socks-off quality if you had prepared and tried them out enough so that your delivery and organization were the best they could be, and your stories worked because you had knocked off the rough edges, and your scriptures were delivered with the spirit in part because you had memorized them and knew how to quote them with the right emphasis. A lesson that really communicates what prayer is, how it works, and what it can do would be more effective and immediate to an investigator than any lesson on the temple or church history or anything else too foreign to him at this stage could possible be.
I thought that the most useful comments in the other thread were the ones by people who are converts themselves. Matt W in #25, Molly Bennion in #64, Tracy M in #32. And Ardis always has useful things to say.
Sure, investigators come to church because a neighbor has been a good example, or they like the attention from the missionaries or whatever, but the ones who keep coming around are looking for something: the burden of sin lifted,
some sense of the meaning of life- why are we here, etc. They’re not looking to be wowed necessarily, but it’s more like– what’s in this for me? In the best sense possible, of course.
But still probably not what you’re after, right?
I am a convert to the church and I had a pretty negative experience with the Gospel Essentials Class. I think the first one I attended was on the topic of Chastity and it went down hill from there. I love the idea that the lessons be tailored to the needs of investigators and focused on basic topics such as faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism.