One of the most important disciplines I learned while pursuing my education was peer review. All assignments were graded by my professors. Occasionally, a professor would submit assignments to fellow classmates for their review. In fact, in the preaching class I teach at Pentecostal Theological Seminary the final project, the student’s presentation of a sermon, is graded through the process of peer review in which fellow students listen and critique the sermon.
Since coming to PTS, I’ve often commented that all my work is being graded by my peers. Also, a major portion of my work as Professor is grading papers – sometimes hundreds of pages at the end of each semester. Papers are graded on the basis of grammar, form, content, research, and critical thinking. In the end, when assigning a grade, the most important question is “Does this paper reflect graduate level writing and thinking?” Students are not always happy with their grades. But one of the jobs of the professor is to properly critique students writing and thinking so that the student becomes a better writer and thinker.
I often tell the story of my first preaching class. I was attending a Baptist college and the professor assigned me Acts 2:1-4. My sermon was assessed by fellow students, all Baptists, and my Baptist professor. I made a B+. So, for years I’ve told people that I’m a B+ preacher. As a pastor, I would periodically ask the listeners in my congregation to assess my preaching. I was not always happy with what they said. But the assessment process made me work harder, and become a better preacher. Peer review is essential for improvement.
The process becomes even more involved when writing for publication. For example, a few years ago I was invited to write a paper for the Church of God Doctrine and Polity Committee. My assignment was to write on the relationship between church and state. So, I wrote the paper and submitted it to the committee. The paper was critiqued by all members of the committee. Everything was critiqued. My sources were verified. My facts were challenged. Many suggestions for improvement were offered. After the members of the committee offered their suggestions, I was instructed to revise the paper and resubmit it. So, I did. I met a second time with the committee for review. A few more changes were recommended. After approval by the Doctrine and Polity Committee, the paper was submitted to the Church of God Executive Committee for final approval. The laborious process took several months. But the final paper was much better than my initial submission (see paper here). That’s the purpose of peer review.
This is not a process for those who are thin skinned and easily offended. But I’ve learned that if I want to be a better preacher, I must allow myself to be critiqued by those who are better preachers. And, if I want to be a better writer, I must allow myself to be graded by better writers.
