Sermons: June 2009

First Sunday after Pentecost: Trinity Sunday (Year B, RCL)

June 7, 2009

Isaiah 6:1-8    Psalm 29

Romans 8:12-17   John 3:1-17 
 

Our Gospel reading today is the story of Nicodemus. 

Actually, the story is not about Nicodemus at all, but I’ll get to that later. 

This passage today is sooo John: it has misunderstandings, comedy, theological tongue-twisters delivered by Jesus, seeming non sequiturs--and a pervasive “us vs. them” mentality.  

The nanosecond version of the story is this: Nicodemus, a Pharisee and         “leader of the Jews,” comes to Jesus with some questions. And Jesus answers not a single one of them. We last see Nicodemus totally befuddled—and then he just . . . disappears. 

John’s Jesus—it’s very important to pause here to note that I didn’t say “Jesus,” but rather “John’s Jesus”—John’s Jesus doesn’t want Nicodemus to understand. John’s Jesus speaks in non sequiturs, riddles, and befuddlements on purpose. 

But why on earth does he do that? 

Because John’s Jesus doesn’t want Nicodemus to understand what John’s community knows: "Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you won’t accept our testimony.” 

“We” vs. “you.”  

But did you hear John’s tiny enormous slip? In the next line he has Jesus say, “If I have told you about earthly things and you don’t believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”  

If I have told you. If I tell you. 

But just before this, as we heard, Jesus said, “we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen . . .” 

. . . yet you won’t accept our testimony. 

Who’s this “you”?  

What Jesus is saying is almost totally lost in English: the “you” Jesus is using doesn’t refer just to Nicodemus. In Greek all these “you”s are plural: ustedes, you guys, all y’all. Jesus is saying “none of you will accept our testimony.”1 

For John, John’s community, John’s Gospel--and John’s Jesus—“you” is “the Jews,” a phrase that’s almost a curse in John’s Gospel.  

And “the Jews” are not the “we” or “us” of John’s community. 

What we have just witnessed here is the final, seemingly irrevocable, split between Rabbinic Judaism and Jesus Messiah Judaism. 

The Gospels and Acts make it very clear that the first followers of Jesus Messiah2—we can’t yet call them “Christians”—were Jews. Jews for Jesus, so to speak. 

Luke’s Gospel tells us that after the resurrection, the followers of Jesus “stayed continually at the temple, praising God.”3 At the temple. 

In Acts, Luke confirms this: “Every day” the followers of Jesus “continued to meet together in the courts of the temple . . . . “4 

John never says anything like this.  

Here’s the last instance of the word “temple” in John’s Gospel. Jesus is speaking: "I have spoken openly to the world . . . . I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together.”5 

Where all “the Jews” come together.” As if they were an alien race. 
 
 
 

In John’s Gospel, Jesus last says the word “temple” when he is being interrogated by the High Priest—the High Priest of “the Jews.” The High Priest will immediately turn Jesus over to Pilate, who will execute him. 

I said earlier that we have just witnessed the final split between Rabbinic Judaism and the Jewish followers of Jesus.  

The “we,” the us in us vs. you, is John’s community. John’s people have just left the synagogue; they’ve left normative Judaism. Or they’ve just been kicked out. It doesn’t really matter. Like Howard Beale in the movieNetwork, John’s group is mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore.  

The Gospel of John is their restraining order, the clothes thrown out on the front lawn, and the divorce papers. 

I’ve preached on this subject before. Why is it so important? 

It’s important that we understand the moment when Judaism and Christianity divorced. Even more, it’s crucially important that we not recommit the sins of our forbearers—the sins of some Christians now—and crucify the Jews because John’s Jesus spits out the phrase “the Jews.” 

But I’ve also preached on that before. 

Today I want to stress that we learn how to read the Bible. Then I want to emphasize why that is so important to us in the here and now, especially in the United States, and especially in Bakersfield. 

I want to emphasize that we must--must—read the Bible within its context: its context of language; its context of historical, social, and political setting; its context of time and place; its context within the religious movements of that time. 

After Jesus befuddles Nicodemus, after Nicodemus simply disappears from the stage, Jesus begins his monologue. 

Now comes the most misunderstood verse in the Bible: 
 
 
 

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life.

This is the famous—or infamous—John 3:16.

This is the most abused verse in the New Testament.

What happens to those who don’t believe in him? They perish.

I think John has an uneasy feeling about this. Because he now has Jesus immediately say, "But God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

Unfortunately, John’s uneasiness doesn’t last long. 

John’s feelings about “the Jews” are so polarized, John is so angry, that he now has Jesus build a ghetto around everyone who isn’t part of John’s community. Imprisoning, and shutting out, everyone who doesn’t think like John: 

Whoever believes in [the Son of Man] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned . . . . This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light . . . .6 

Light vs. Darkness. Good vs. evil. Us vs. them. We are light and good. They are darkness and evil. Thus has it ever been for us poor benighted human beings when we demonize others. 

Christ calls us to tear down the walls of John’s ghetto; not only to tear down the walls but to bring out those imprisoned; not only to bring them out, but to bring them into our homes, to welcome them as family. Theyare family. 

Christ also calls us to have empathy for John, the ghettoizer, to have compassion for his situation. We should not too easily forgive him, but we should try to understand him, we should feel for him. And finally, wemust forgive him.  

Why is all this so important?

First, because every one of us is potentially a ghettoizer.

Second, just as John did two thousand years ago, some Christians today use John 3:16 to condemn anyone who doesn’t think like them.

But they’re wrong. They misread John.

John—not Jesus—is ghettoizing and condemning his community’s enemies (as he believes them to be).

This took place at the end of the first century

That condemnation was wrong then. That condemnation is wrong now.

But here’s what’s equally important: that condemnation belongs to the first century. It has absolutely no application today.

Those who repeat and hurl John’s condemnation do so partly because they don’t know how to read the Bible.

But, tragically, those who condemn also do so because they are anxious, they’re insecure, they’re angry. They’re afraid.

But just as Christ calls us to have empathy for John, Christ calls us to have empathy for those in our own day who continue to ghettoize and condemn.

But empathy does not mean we acquiesce to their condemnation; in fact, we need to oppose it. Christ calls us to tear down the walls.

But opposition does not mean we don’t try to understand them. We must understand them; we must feel for them. Feel their anger, feel their anxiety, feel their fear.

Finally, we must forgive them: forgive them their sins, as God forgives our own.

Amen.

Sermon, June 14, 2009

Pentecost 2, Proper 6

Grace Episcopal Church, Bakersfield

The Rev’d Vern Hill 
 

Ezekiel 17:22-24 Psalm 92:1-4, 11-14

2 Corinthians 5:6-10, 14-17 Mark 4:26-34 
 

Sermon Title:  “We’ll See” 

I have confessed before that I like the word “stuff.”  I use it often as a general noun to embrace everything happening to me and around me.  I understand that others use an expletive as a similar term, but the word “stuff” seems to serve well.   

Having said that, it seems as if there is a growing tide of stuff swirling around us.  An usher at church is shot to death at the door of the Sanctuary – a so-called safe place, and his death is celebrated as a righteous act by some who oppose what they consider murder, a kind of justifiable hypocrisy.  Another Sanctuary of a differing sort, a museum dedicated to how catastrophically wrong the human village can turn is violated by the same hate that was the cause for the museum’s creation.  And this morning with my coffee – this being Thursday as I write – I listen to the Channel 11 litany of senseless gang – read that terrorist – violence on the streets of the southland, Oxnard this time, not Los Angeles, an exception for the moment: a 13 year old senselessly gunned down by some youth only a few years his elder.  The violence is senseless – when does it become sensible?  I turn over to Fox 58 in Bakersfield with little improvement on the day. 

Once again this reminds me of the terribly difficult task placed before us as we Christian folk, we Table Gathers, come together each Sunday.  Our meeting is a gathering point for people carrying a lot of “stuff” that needs to hear and feel support, affirmation, forgiveness, and hope; we are a place to vent , to hurt and experience the healing embrace of love. 

But how can we do this?  We all carry within ourselves our own particular collection of brokenesses and anger and pain and suspicion and it comes with us into this place.  The very story of this congregation began in coping with the rejection and manipulation of the twenty some years of life in a walled off diocese filled with gender bias limiting the gifts of those seeking a place of ministry granted to them rightfully by their baptism and a parade of homophobic preaching set to the tune of a flawed way of discerning what God wishes for us.  How do we the broken, broken even by our church experience, become menders within the same church?  What do we do when our “stuff” gets in the way of our intentions to welcome, to be open, and to embrace with healing love? 

First I think we have to remember the truth of this.  There is a certain amount of casualty in every one of us and its makes a difference.  It is important that we admit it, own it and remember it is a common burden.   I have said before that I am sorry that we no longer have in our churches the racks of votive candles that can be lighted representing this “stuff”.  Those simple, symbolic candles were a constant reminder of  this essential challenge of our common life and that each of us is never alone in whatever we are facing or carrying. 

But again, how do the broken become menders? Today’s story of the mustard seed may help.  Parables are a very special kind of story telling – they often border on the burlesque, nonsense-like, silly, mysterious but with a common precise purpose -  they are meant to derail the neatness of the little fictions we often create to deal with our stuff – the ways we try to self-medicate.  The things we try to do; the construction of new walls thrown up, to make sure we can never be hurt by “that” again – whatever “that” is.  Much of the fearful coping actions of our national life since 911, the willingness it often seems to walk away from the most core values our nation prizes - trust,  law and equal justice - this demonstrates the power of such hurt and a fear of repetition.  Parables such as those Jesus told are attention-getters, a slap across the face.  

“The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed.”  First, a difficulty – the Kingdom of God is a traditional English translation that implies a geography and location, perhaps someplace unearthly.  An unfortunate translation.  Some interpreters of scripture equate the Kingdom with the growing of the Church but that in many ways is equally unfortunate.  The verbal difficulty is that we are dealing with – trying to explain – a spirit-filled habitat that flows among us, within life, much like a current within a stream.  God’s habitat, God’s grace-filled meanderings, are among us, eager to embrace us, gather us up, and mend our brokenness.  The flow of grace is like that 2mm mustard seed which grows to a plant large enough to invite birds to gather, and is persistent enough to crack cement as it grows. 

Our most difficult task is to believe in grace.  To paraphrase the first of our two parables today,  the task is to scatter our “stuff” upon the holy ground, and give it rest,  and find the sprouting and growing of something quite different,  a Godly transformation of what we have given over to God’s nurturing soil.   Grace.  God understands suffering – Crosses!  Crosses, however, are not ending points.   

Let me tell you another story that has a similar parable-like quality.  I first heard this in the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” where it serves as a sort of quiet commentary running beneath the story line until the end when it too slaps you across the face.  I understand there are multiple versions of it.  It is the story of the Zen Master and the little boy.  There was a little boy who on his 14th birthday was given a horse.  All the people of the village said “how wonderful.”  The Zen master said, “We’ll see.”  Two years later the boy was riding the horse and took a horrible fall and fractured his leg.  All the people of the village said, “how awful.”  The Zen master said,  “We’ll see.”  A few years pass and a war breaks out and all of the young men go off to fight, but the boy can’t because his leg is so messed up.  And all the people of the village said, “how wonderful.”  And the Zen master said . . .  “We’ll see.” 

I find it humbling to have to admit that I probably would not be standing before you today as an Episcopal priest had John-David not taken my church family of St. Peter’s from me into the Southern Cone.  You have had this kind of experience too.  We really live in the land of connections, not end points as our “stuff” would tempt us to believe.  We really live in the time of “We’ll see.”  This is where the healing current of grace can do its work.  In our creation as humans cast in a divine image, God birthed us in that divine image as “choice-makers.”  What we do in the “we’ll see” time contributes to the refrain “how wonderful” or “how awful.”   When we so badly loose our way; when others loose their way and make for hell on earth,  God continues to lay before us the witness of his Son, Jesus – that in him and of him is what we were created to be.   It is the companionship of God that remains with us in the valley of the dark shadows and it is the companionship of God that celebrates at the moments of righteous Table joy. 

What is next?  “We’ll see.”  Our work is to press on as best we can in Godly grace, in our tributary to the Great Stream.  This is the work God calls us to in this place and by this Table.  

Everything we hope to be here at Grace Church is derived from the simple ministry of providing space for persons to bring themselves, their “stuff”, and cast it out upon holy ground and see what grows.  Here we celebrate what we all know to be the Truth about ourselves, that in Jesus, God is with us.  Despite how hard we try to appear competent and in control of our stuff,  always remember we are pretty fragile creatures.  Therefore, be generous with each other, love kindness, strive after it;  and let us walk together humbly in God.   Amen.

Evaluating Jesus, the Teacher1

Dr. Louis Wildman

Professor of Educational Administration

California State University-Bakersfield 
 

      In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.  Amen. 

      A number of months ago I mentioned to Fr. Vivian that I thought it would be interesting to hear how members apply Christianity in their day-to-day lives.   Perhaps I shouldn’t have said anything, because now, here I am! 

      I teach educational administration at California State University-Bakersfield, preparing teachers and counselors to become school vice principals, principals, and superintendents.  One topic in that program is teacher evaluation.   

      Teacher evaluation is controversial because there is not a lot of agreement about how it should be done, and because in a school with twenty or thirty teachers and just one principal, if that principal wants to maintain a sense of collegiality within the school, he or she had better be careful about writing too many bad evaluations!    

      Nevertheless, there are at least five methods of teacher evaluation:  (1) evaluating teachers by surveying public opinion; (2) evaluating teachers by obtaining student opinion; (3) evaluating teachers by examining student outcomes, i.e. how much the students learned; (4) observing teachers in a classroom; and (5) through studying a teacher’s reflective knowledge about student progress. 

      Now, as if the topic of teacher evaluation wasn’t controversial enough, please allow me to consider how Jesus the Teacher would have fared, utilizing each of these five approaches to teacher evaluation. 

1.  Let’s consider how He would have done had He been evaluated Utilizing Public Opinion 

      Consider Jesus’ teaching over the three years which led Him to the cross.  The Pharisees, Sadducees, priests and the scribes were the learned group in the Jewish religion.  They did not rate Him highly.  They criticized Him and sought to find fault with Him (Mt. 22-25).  They labeled Him as a rebel, a lawbreaker, a blasphemer (Lk. 5:21; Jn. 10:33) and as a person who was possessed by the devil.  They even said He chased out devils by the power of Beelzebub, the king of devils, whereas He said He was working with the power of God (Mt. 12:24, 28).  On one occasion His own family thought He was going out of His mind and they came to take charge of Him (Mk. 3:20). 

      The ordinary people also thought that He was possessed and crazy (Jn. 10:20)—again a very low rating!  Tax collectors (Lk. 19:07), prostitutes, sinners and all types of marginalized people flocked around Him, perhaps not because they understood His message, but because He cured their sicknesses (Mk. 6:56), fed them with bread and fish (Mk. 6, 35-44), and was sympathetic towards them. 

      When Levi (Matthew) was called to be a disciple, those who sat at the table in his house with Jesus were mostly oppressive tax collectors and sinners.  This was a horrible and unacceptable act in the eyes of the Pharisees and the scribes (Mt. 9.10).  The joyful attitude of the disciples of Jesus—their feasting instead of fasting—was unconventional to the Pharisees (Mt. 9:14).  At the meal at a Pharisee’s house where a prostitute came and with her tears wet the feet of Jesus, wiped them with her hair and anointed Him with oil, Jesus praised her act of repentance.  In response to His critics, Jesus said, “I did not come to call the just but the sinners” (Mt. 9:13).  Hence, all sinners with repentance could reach Him.  But these acts did not raise His stature among the public.  Public opinion did not favor Jesus the Teacher. 

      Even His own chosen twelve did not really understand Him.  They expected Him to establish an earthly kingdom, free from the power of the Romans (Acts 1:6).  After the resurrection, the disciples expected Him to establish an earthly kingdom, even though He said that His Kingdom would not be of this world (Jn. 18:36). 

      When He was arrested and tried, all of His disciples fled (Mk. 14:50).  The educated called Him a blasphemer (Mt. 26:65).  The high priests, the guardians, the promoters of God’s commandments, completely misunderstood Him and called Him a blasphemer.  They condemned Him to death (Mk. 14:64).  The multitude shouted that He should be crucified (Mk. 15:13; Lk. 23:21).  Instead of worshiping Him, they spit upon Him and struck His face (Mk. 14:65).   

      In sum, Jesus the Teacher received the worst possible evaluation from the public.  But in so doing, He teaches educators that doing what is right is not always popular. 

2.  Let’s reflect on how He would have fared Utilizing Student Opinion 

      If we think of Jesus’ most immediate students as the chosen twelve, what they might have said about Him would have depended upon when they were asked to fill out a teacher evaluation survey.  St. Peter was their spokesman.  St. Peter said Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  He said we should follow Him to have eternal life (Jn. 6:68).  In saying this, St. Peter gave Jesus the Teacher the highest possible rating.  But at another point in time St. Peter denied Jesus three times, saying he did not even know Him (Lk. 22:57, 58, 60), even after being warned that he would deny Him three times (Lk. 22:34). 

      What about the other eleven?  Judas Iscariot, the one who was in charge of the little money they had, handed over Jesus to His enemies (Lk. 22:47, 48).  While something changed Judas’ mind—he wanted his Master back and was regretful—Judas was too late.  Judas did not understand the forgiveness of the Master about which Jesus extensively spoke (e.g. the parable of the king who takes account of his servants (Mt. 18:23-35)).  Jesus told St. Peter to forgive limitlessly (Mt. 18:22).  Nevertheless, Judas went and hung himself, and the rest of the disciples hid themselves, except John who knew the high priest (Jn. 18:16).  Hence, by this time Judas couldn’t have filled out a survey form because he was dead, and most of the rest couldn’t have either, because they were hiding! 

3.  Let’s examine how Jesus would have fared Based Upon Student Outcomes 

      Even though Jesus’ teaching has had a profound impact, the outcome has not been pleasing in His sight.  We have failed to deeply understand the meaning of His teaching—even with the miracles that He performed as part and confirmation of His teaching. 

      Consider the following “student outcome” failures:  When Jesus said He would lay down His life and take it again with His power (Jn. 10:20), people thought He was possessed and mad.  When He said that His Father and He are one, not only did His fellow Jews misunderstand Him, they also took stones to kill Him (Jn. 10:24-33).  Even when St. Peter said that Jesus was the Son of God the Most High, it was clear that St. Peter did not grasp the full meaning.  When Jesus said that suffering, rejection and the cruelest death on the cross was part of His being the son of God and the Savior, St. Peter rebuked Jesus. 

      Jesus the Teacher taught us that we are all brothers and sisters, yet many discriminate on the basis of skin color, land boundaries, economics, or education.  The command of God to man was to increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over creation (Gen. 1:28).  But the opposite is taking place.  Instead of subduing and ruling the earth, we destroy it in numerous ways.  Instead of sharing the goods of the earth, we possess them and destroy the abundance, leaving the majority to suffer hunger and thirst, and leaving many without shelter.  Too often we don’t practice what we preach. 

      Jesus said that no one can serve two masters and no one should put anything before God (Mt. 6:24).  Yet we often put everything before God and place God last, if there is time left over. 

      Jesus has been a limitlessly forgiving teacher.  Jesus talked about the unconditional love and forgiveness that is solely needed.  He pleaded with His heavenly Father from the cross for His executioners (Lk. 23:34).  He found excuses to forgive all who were at wrong.  Yet we have not grasped the subject matter.  Hence, judged in terms of student outcomes, Jesus the Teacher did not do well. 

4.  Let’s recall that Jesus was evaluated Utilizing Teacher Observation 

      Teacher observation is inherently subjective, due to inadequate sampling, qualitative differences in the way teachers teach different subjects, cultural and perceptual differences in what constitutes good teaching performance, environmental change due to the act of observing, and lack of an empirical basis for specifying the best teaching method.  There is no one right way to teach.2  However, Jesus was observed by no mere mortal.   The Great Evaluator, God, the Master’s Father was “well pleased” with Jesus’ work (Mt. 17:5; Lk. 3:22).   

      Given this evaluation, the public’s opinion, a student survey, or student outcomes doesn’t mean much.  Given that the Father was “well pleased” with His Son’s performance, no other evaluation matters. 

5.  Finally, let’s apply the current teacher evaluation approach: Examining The Teacher’s Reflective Knowledge 

      First, a little background: 

      Teacher evaluation in the 1970s often involved determining whether the teacher was applying Madeline Hunter’s “Seven-Step Teaching Model,” which involved whether lessons included an anticipatory set, a statement of objectives, instructional input, modeling, checking for understanding, guided practice, and independent practice. 

      Teacher evaluation in the 1980’s often involved examining whether the teacher set high expectations and applied effective teaching strategies, discipline models, and cooperative learning. 

      Teacher evaluation in the 1990’s often emphasized critical thinking, drawing on content knowledge and pedagogy, alternative assessment, multiple intelligence, collaborative learning, authentic pedagogy, and cognitive and constructivist learning theory. 

      In contrast, teacher evaluation today emphasizes teaching for understanding, consistent with a much greater emphasis upon student learning.  Recognizing that students come from diverse backgrounds and socio-economic levels, the emphasis is not on teacher performance as an isolated act, but rather upon teacher guidance and response to student learning.  Within this conception of teaching it is essential that teachers accurately assess student learning, because without accurate assessment, teaching strategy can not be adjusted to meet student needs (Wildman, 1989).   

      Too often, perhaps due to student or administrative pressure, teachers have not accurately evaluated student learning, falsely stating that students have learned what standardized tests show that they have not learned, resulting in a lack of public accountability.    This is why teacher evaluation must emphasize accurate evaluation and the provision of alternative instruction when the students do not understand what they are being taught.   

      Notice that this is not evaluating teachers on the basis of student outcomes, because-- to use an old saying-- “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”    Teachers are not totally in control of student learning.   However, they are responsible for accurately evaluating student achievement and providing students with alternative instruction when the students do not understand. 

      Examining Jesus’ teaching within this construct, we note that though Jesus never rejected anyone, He accurately knew the sins of those that came to Him.  There were Jews, Pagans, priests, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, and all types of other people.  As a good public educator, He welcomed all of them and rejected none. 

      Of critical importance to this teacher evaluation strategy, Jesus had an accurate knowledge of how much and how firmly the students understood the material being taught.  He was therefore able to focus His teaching, appropriately.  For example, when Nicodemus came to Him at night for more information and explanation, even though Nicodemus was a teacher of the law, Jesus knew how much Nicodemus could understand.  Jesus started from what Nicodemus knew and then talked about eternal and spiritual things: known to unknown, empirical to spiritual.  Jesus used very simple analogies (Jn. 3:1-21) to illustrate His points. 

      When St. Peter said that even if he was to die that he would not deny Jesus, Jesus corrected him.  For sure St. Peter didn’t lie here, as he did not know exactly what he was going to do; but Jesus knew.  So Jesus told him what he would do later, namely deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed (Mt. 26:34).  When the disciples came for further explanation, Jesus explained patiently and more elaborately (Mt. 10:10, 18).  Jesus always used authentic examples from familiar content for the people.  The people knew what a farmer does and how the seeds grow; hence the parable of the sower.  Marriage was a familiar theme yet how the virgins waited for the bridegroom was special for them; hence the parable of the ten virgins (Mt. 26:1-13).  The parable of the friend that came at night was a familiar scene for them.  They knew how the people slept just in one room, next to each other, often covering themselves with one big blanket making it difficult for anyone to get out without disturbing others. 

      Jesus the Teacher was extremely persuasive and patient with His disciples.  At the parable of the multiplication of loaves, Jesus knew even His disciples were going to be misled together with the crowd, with the notion of making Him an earthly king.  So Jesus immediately sent the disciples away while undertaking the task of dismissing the crowd Himself (Mt. 14:22).  After this miracle, the crowd looked for Him, and Jesus said that it was because of the food they got.  From this that He knew they knew, Jesus developed the theme of laboring for eternal life (Jn. 6:27). 

      While Jesus was so sympathetic and understanding with the poor, the ordinary, the simple, the marginalized and the open hearted, He also was firm with those who were hard hearted like the Pharisees, scribes and priests.  This was simply because even though they knew the scriptures, they did not want to apply them because they feared losing their positions and possessions (Jn. 18:14).  Jesus understood what they knew, but never rejected them.  Instead, even on the cross, He asked the Father to forgive them, as they did not know what they were doing. 

      Hence, Jesus would have received an excellent rating, utilizing this teacher evaluation strategy which emphasizes examining the teacher’s reflective knowledge.  Jesus knew His subject matter perfectly.  He accurately knew what His students knew and also what they didn’t yet know, so He was able to teach important lessons for us today. 

Summary 

      Applying teacher evaluation procedures to Jesus’ example, we see that Jesus—the Greatest Teacher—was not always popular among the public.  He may not have received high student evaluations.  The outcome of His teaching leaves much to be desired.  But His Supervisor, namely God the Father, was “well pleased,” and Jesus was able to adjust His teaching based upon His accurate knowledge of His students.   

      We are well advised to follow His example.   Amen. 

Footnotes: 

(1)  Much of the above comes from an article Fr. Titus Rodrigo, a former graduate student of mine, and I wrote for The International Journal of Arts and Sciences, (Vol. 2, 1(2007), 15-18, titled “Evaluating Jesus the Teacher.” 

(2)  Kimball and Milanowski studied teacher evaluation based upon principal observation in a large western school district with more than 60,000 students in 88 schools and employing about 3,300 teachers.  (The specific observational system utilized was Danielson’s 1996 Framework for Teaching.)  They hoped to be able to find a high correlation between value-added student achievement in reading and mathematics and teacher evaluation ratings.  Instead, over three years, the overall correlation was just .22   That correlation would explain less than 5% of the variance. 

      Kimball and Milanowski looked for principals with high and low correlations, and found 11 with average correlations of .68 and 12 with average correlations of -.37  Since this data was only based on one year of data, the researchers decided to find principals who had high or low correlations for two years.  Only 4 of the original “high” 11 met that criteria; and only 4 of the original “low” 12 met that criteria.  The “high” principals had an overall correlation of .55 and the “low” principals had an overall correlation of -.28 

      These results showed that there was considerable variation among evaluators in the relationship between their ratings and value-added student achievement in the classrooms of the teachers they evaluated. 

      The researchers concluded that 

Providing evaluators with relatively detailed rubrics or rating scales describing generic teaching behaviors thought to promote student learning, coupled with initial training in applying them, is not enough to ensure that all evaluators’ ratings will be positively related to student achievement.  . . . Our findings suggest caution in using principal evaluation decisions for teacher compensation outcomes. 

Source: Kimball, Steven and Milanowski, Anthony, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity and Leadership Decision Making Within a Standards-Based Evaluation System,” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45, Num. 1, February 2009, 34-70. 

References 

Danielson, C., Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching.  Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996. 

Flanders, N.A., Analyzing Teacher Behavior.  Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1970. 

Kimball, Steven and Milanowski, Anthony, “Examining Teacher Evaluation Validity and Leadership Decision Making Within a Standards-Based Evaluation System,” Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45, Num. 1, February 2009, 34-70. 

Lortie, Dan C., School Principal: Managing in Public.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 

Wildman, Louis, “Best Practice: Instructional Leadership Through Teacher Evaluation,” in Dembowski, Frederick and Lemasters, Linda (Eds.), The 2006 Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.  Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Destech Publications, Inc.2006, p. 31-41. 

Wildman, Louis, “A Teacher Evaluation Procedure Which Encourages Teacher Professionalism and Protects Student and Public Accountability,” The State of California Association of Teacher Educators Conference Proceedings, May 24-27, 1989. 

Wildman, Louis and Rodrigo, Titus, “Evaluating Jesus the Teacher,” The International Journal of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 2, 1(2007), 15-18.