Mutual Improvement

“Stand therefore . . . having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6:14, 15 — RSV).

You who would preach, have you equipped yourself? Have you tested your equipment? — tried it out? — learnt how to use it? Not in the full-scale battle – – that might be to court disaster—but in private, on the testing-ground with your fellow contestants — or warriors—or messengers?

There are all sorts of ways of learning how to use your equipment for the work of preaching, but one that has been tested — and was once much used, but is now less heard of — is through the organized practice of Mutual Improvement. By our mutual attitudes and actions in all sorts of situations, we can frequently help one another in ways that are genuinely mutually improving; but what we have specially in mind is the organized Mutual Improvement Class.

Classes with this name and of this type existed long before the Christadelphian preaching that we know reached this country. Such classes were one of the means of self-education that the artisan class, unable in early Victorian days to obtain facilities for further education, devised to help one another to progress beyond the restricted elementary education then available to them. They studied and wrote papers for presentation and discussion among themselves, with the objects both of learning about new subjects and new ideas, and of training themselves in presenting them.

Christadelphians used similar methods, against the same background, to increase their knowledge and understanding of the Bible and to train themselves in running metings and presenting the message of the Bible to others. Could they reasonably have done less? They had the responsibility, in a world that was loud with preaching and theological argument, of presenting not their message and their arguments but the Lord’s message and His Gospel of hope and deliverance, and of doing this in ways that would be accepted and listened to. So they painstakingly practiced the arts of chairing meetings, of public Bible reading, and public speaking in their own classes, so as to reach acceptable standards before attempting such activities in public.

We all know the pattern. Those willing to accept this form of training — especially the younger brethren and those who were novices in speaking in public —took on the duties of presiding, of reading, of giving Bible addresses (usually intended to instruct and persuade those who did not know the true Bible message) in a class of their peers and elders, knowing and expecting that afterwards their efforts would be publicly commented on with such commendation and criticism as was deemed appropriate. It was the elders’ responsibility to contain, direct, and temper the enthusiasm of those present to ensure that criticism was fair, and related not so much to ideal standards as to the capacity of the one criticized.

The system has its risks and dangers: some find public criticism unwelcome; others are unable to give criticism tempered to the circumstances and individuals concerned. But, in the absence of any other kind of formal training, it is a means by which we can practice public preaching without doing harm, and get what we need if we are to improve — namely, a knowledge of the effect we have conveyed — the impression our efforts have made on others. Needless to say, this must be properly related to the content of what is said as well as to the form, style and mannerisms with which it is spoken.

Don’t we all need such opportunities for training and practice if we are to improve? We are fortunate in having, in these days, many more educational facilities at our disposal — fortunate if we turn these facilities to good account in the Lord’s work. We ought to start off better equipped than our grandparents and great grandparents; but we still need practice in circumstances where our faults and failures will do no harm.

Necessary Discipline

What about the dangers both to the criticizer and the criticized in the exercise of public comment? These dangers are related to pride; criticism can feed the pride of the critic and wound the pride of the one criticized. None of us is immune from these human feelings, yet the Christian above all people must overcome them. If we cannot first submit to the discipline of sound mutual improvement, can we pretend to the exercise of Christian discipline — which after all is discipleship — in the face of opposition, or even calumny, that faithful witnessing may bring?

The Mutual Improvement Class can be a good proving ground in many respects if we want wholeheartedly to prepare for preaching. It would be a pity if it disappeared.