[Part 3 in a series about improving gospel teaching. Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2]

Taking the next step from adequate to good is not as easy as going from poor to adequate. At this level, there aren’t specific things a teacher can mark down on a “To Do” checklist before class to make sure it’s a ‘good’ lesson. Teaching now involves more than just ‘not getting in the way’–good teachers actually add something to the lesson, augmenting the inherent spiritual power of the gospel instead of just being a non-obtrusive bystander. At this stage, good teaching starts to rely much more on the skill and preparation of the teacher.

Some principles that differentiate good teachers from adequate ones:

Good teachers have the desire to teach: Poor teachers are forced to teach, adequate teachers are willing to teach, but good teachers want to teach–they want to share important principles and experiences with students, and connect spiritually with them. Oftentimes, the first sign of a good or bad teacher is how much (or little) they look forward to class time. Students can tell when a teacher is really excited about the lesson and about sharing gospel truths–and, frequently, that excitement rubs off on them as well.

Good teachers take ‘ownership’ of the lesson: Good teachers tell the class through words and actions that “this is a lesson that I want to teach you”, not “this is a lesson that the manual wants to teach you”. Lesser teachers will often just act as a ‘translator’ for the lesson manual–like those that translate word-for-word what a conference speaker is saying into a foreign language. Good teachers make it seem (even if they happen to refer to it throughout the lesson) that there is NO lesson manual present at all–that the lesson was something that the teacher personally developed because that’s what he/she felt the students needed to hear right at that moment.

“Ownership” happens when a teacher takes personal responsibility for the success or failure of a lesson. If a lesson doesn’t go well, a good teacher says “How can I do a better job next time?” instead of “Not MY fault. Some of those lessons from the manual just aren’t very interesting…”

Good teachers take ‘ownership’ of the classroom: Good teachers have a feel for when to invite class discussion or opinion…and when such discussion needs to end to continue on to the next part of the lesson. Good teachers manage class time properly so that each point of the lesson has a natural flow, including a proper conclusion, without the lesson ending abruptly with the teacher saying, “Whoops, time’s up! InthenameofJesusChristamen…”

Good teachers prepare well…but are also prepared to change at a moment’s notice: Part of taking ‘ownership’ of the classroom is the recognition that lesson plans can and will change on the fly as class proceeds, and good teachers will adjust. Sometimes class discussion is very productive and uplifting, and a teacher should have flexibility to spend more time on one topic than previously planned. Even the best teachers will find it hard to predict ahead of time exactly how long each part of the lesson will take…but for good teachers this won’t matter, because they are in control of the classroom and can adjust their lesson as needed. They can let a promising discussion continue a little while longer, and then dynamically alter the remainder of the lesson by abridging (or skipping) less important sections to get to more important principles within the time remaining.

Good teachers use the manual effectively: Teachers do not have to be a ‘slave’ to the lesson manual. Most lesson manuals contain far more actual material than can be taught in a normal class period. Less effective teachers think: “If it’s in the manual, then I HAVE to teach it!” and then oftentimes they rush through a large number of scriptures and principles to get everything in by the end, without really teaching any of them effectively.

Good teachers aren’t racked with guilt if something in the manual goes untaught (provided, of course, that what DID get taught was valuable). During lesson preparation, good teachers will analyze everything in the lesson, and then ask themselves, “What are the most important principles from this lesson? What do I want my students to understand by the end of the class period? And how can I teach those principles effectively?” Good teachers will often use only 30-40% of the actual lesson content from the manual–not randomly, of course, but chosen deliberately according to priority–and then they make sure they teach that subset of doctrine effectively within the time period.

(Last year, during the OT lesson on Proverbs, the lesson manual outlined seven different principles from different chapters of Proverbs to cover. I ended up teaching two of them–feeling certain that I was only capable of effectively covering those two subjects in the time period (with a third prepared as ‘backup’ just in case), and didn’t stress out about trying to fit everything in.)

Good teachers communicate complete sincerity to their students: Just recently we had to replace one of the gospel doctrine teachers in our ward who moved away–who, frankly, was one of the best teachers I’ve ever had the privilege of listening to. I met with her replacement soon after, who was understandably nervous about trying to adequately replace this previous teacher.

I asked her, simply, when you attended Sister X’s class, what was the strongest impression you received while she was speaking. What was the defining attribute of her class—-the very first thing that came to mind whenever you thought of her as a teacher. It wasn’t “Wow, she’s smart!”, or “Wow, she really knows the scriptures” (although both were true), but rather: “Wow…she really, really believes everything she says.” Every word that came out of her mouth came directly from the heart, and consisted of things that she believed, lived, and cared deeply about.

What I told this new teacher is the same thing I’m writing about now–it is a mistake to think: “I’m not smart enough to be a good teacher”, or “I don’t have a deep enough gospel knowledge to be a good teacher”. Good teachers are fundamentally based on communicating their sincerity to their students–that is, the students understand that everything they say, they really mean. Anyone, regardless of education, speaking ability, or years in the Church, has the capability of sharing personal feelings and experiences sincerely and effectively, and good teachers use that personal foundation of belief as the primary catalyst for the workings of the Holy Spirit in their lessons.

With that, let’s return to the issue of what to do if you are called by the manual to teach something you don’t personally follow or even really believe in. There’s an old story that goes:

One day, a woman brought her young child to visit a great monk who lived in the village.

“Thank you, Master,” the woman said, “but may I ask, why you couldn’t have just told him that last week when I came?”

“Last week, I was still eating sugar,” came the monk’s reply.

Good teachers know that sincerity is a vital characteristic for gospel teaching–therefore, if situations arise where that sincerity might be compromised, decisions must be made.

One Sunday, last year, I was preparing a Sunday School lesson from the Old Testament manual, when I came across a section that, frankly, made no sense. The manual listed a section of scripture (the specific section is not important for this article) and then had an ‘explanation’, including suggestions for teaching. I read the section of scripture…and then the section of the manual related to it…and then read the section of scripture AGAIN…and could not for the life of me figure out how the manual came to the conclusion it did from the scriptural passage as written.

I had two choices–‘pretend’ and hope nobody asked the same question I did in class and make me look silly trying to explain it…or simply skip over that section and teach something else. Since, as noted, the manual contains far more material than is needed for a 40-minute class anyway, choosing the second option was easy. Fundamentally, I did not want to teach something I didn’t really understand or believe. I was not going to purposely create a roadblock to students by teaching something that lacked sincerity–something that I didn’t understand and couldn’t explain credibly.

Sometimes, a little time pondering and ‘wrestling’ with the scriptures will open up new avenues of understanding–another important reason why teachers need to spend adequate time in preparation. Also during Old Testament last year, I was reviewing the SS material for the lesson from Joshua. One part of this lesson didn’t seem to make much sense on the face of it, either, but after some thought I came up with a ‘solution’–shared in a blog post here, coincidently. I didn’t end up teaching the lesson that week–but had I, I could have faced that section of scripture bravely, having come to terms in my own mind a (possible) interpretation and a lesson to draw from it that I could teach persuasively, without ‘pretending’.

What if more than just a small section of a lesson doesn’t agree with you? Suppose you believe strongly that tithing is only an Old Testament principle–having no application after Law of Moses times–but are then called to teach a lesson entitled “Tithing–The Lord’s Law”. What to do? ‘Pretend’? Teach your opinion on tithing honestly and hope your students don’t ‘rise up in rebellion’ against you, or get you released by the bishopric? Ignore the manual and teach your own lesson on “Chastity” instead?

I personally would have great respect for someone who (well in advance, mind you) goes to the SS/EQ/RS president and says, “I have some personal ‘issues’ with this lesson…perhaps it would be better to have someone else substitute on Sunday, or perhaps we could switch lessons with next week’s?” If I were that president, I would value the teaching power of ‘sincerity’ above all others, and would work something out so that students wouldn’t be faced with the roadblock of a teacher who quite obviously was teaching things he/she didn’t believe.

Next: More on being ‘good’…