Once upon a time there was a wonderful club. It was called The Missional Club. The purpose for its existence was to reach out in order to gain more members. Here is a sample of the Constitution.
Aims:
1. Get more members, so as to get more members, so as to get more members, etc.
2. Establish new members in branch clubs which will be self-governing, self supporting and self-propagating.
Activities:
1. Study books on Missional Growth like, The Prayer of Jabez for the Purpose Driven Missional Club for Those Who Are Left Behind in the Shack.
2. Mobilize every member for a continuous “Total Mobilization Membership Movement” (TMMM).
Club Motto: “Joined to Reproduce.”
Once in a while a crisis would arise. There would be a problem member in the club. One such member had the nerve to raise his hand in a meeting and ask:
“Why should I be a member of this club?” "What is the mission?"
The answer quickly came from the members in unison:
“You are “Joined to Reproduce’.”
“Reproduce what?” the rebel stammered.
“So that new members can be self-propagating,” sounded the chorus in an angry tone.
“Yes, but...why should we...?”
“Sit down.”
“Heresy.”
“Liberal,” shouted the angry mob.
Are we merely planting membership clubs? After all, nothing is born merely to reproduce - except maybe weeds, and missional church clubs.
Adapted from an article published in Evangelical Missions Quarterly, vol. 9. p. 38
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
Do We Teach the Bible, or Do We Teach Students?
First presented as a paper entitled: “Is Teaching Theology an Art or a Science?", (1988) at the Evangelical Theological Society, Taylor University. Published in Christian Education Journal. 10 1. (1989). Reprinted in Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology. Vol 13.1 (1994). Reprinted in the Taiwan Mission Quarterly, Vol 10 #2 & 3, (Winter 2001).
Both the clear teaching of Scripture and its application to the student, the church and society are necessary. But neither content nor application is sufficient by itself, and one without the other is dangerous. Yet much Bible teaching in the local church and in the seminary is either subject-matter centered or student-centered. We must re-examine the necessary interdependence between knowledge and practice.
A False Dichotomy
The tasks of biblical scholarship and biblical teaching are related, yet different. The novice Bible professor may be a competent scholar who has mastered ancient languages, developed skills of research and become an expert in a specific technical area of knowledge. But in the classroom the teacher is appalled to discover that students don't know if the book of Hebrews is in the Old or New Testament. Many have never heard of Calvinism or eschatology. The teacher is dismayed by the biblical and theological illiteracy of students and blames local churches for a lack of solid biblical teaching.
Content-centered educators suspect that biblical illiteracy is the result of "watered-down" student-centered education in the local church and argue for rigorous teaching of solid biblical content. They wage passionate battles against student-centered education which emphasizes feelings and felt-needs over the teaching of pure Bible content.
Personal-relevance educators, on the other hand, feel that the mere transmission of Bible content is not enough. They say that students soon forget Bible facts if they don't see their relevance, thus becoming biblically illiterate. From their viewpoint, the blame for biblical illiteracy is the personal irrelevance of content transmission models of teaching.
A Synthesis
Teaching the Bible is not like running a factory with empty-headed students as containers in which to deposit theological pearls of wisdom. But neither is Bible teaching simply a therapeutic exercise. Theology is not merely a tool to help students get in touch with their feelings so that they can become more self-actualized. Bible teaching that is divorced from life leads to dead orthodoxy, while merely teaching solutions to the problems of life without an understanding of Scripture leads to heresy and dead churches.
Subject-matter educators assume that learning biblical concepts will mysteriously develop spiritual maturity in learners. They assume that if students can refute the JEDP theory, outline the book of Romans, and trace the missionary journeys of Paul, the teaching task of the Bible professor is accomplished. From there it's the job of the Holy Spirit or the job of another academic department to help students put theological facts into practice and promote spiritual growth.
But personal-relevance philosophies of education may be even more dangerous than subject-matter philosophies. They rightly react against dead orthodoxy and the teaching of inert biblical facts, but their teaching may become a gimmick for simply helping one feel good about oneself. The original meaning of Scripture is ignored while "what it means to me" is overemphasized.
This, then, is the dilemma between content-centered and student-centered philosophies. Do we teach the Bible or do we teach people? Is the aim of education best accomplished through transmission of absolute truth or through facilitating personal growth in students?
The Secular Debate
The debate is not unique to teaching the Bible. Traditional secular educators argue that schools should go "back to the basics" of teaching the academic disciplines and the great ideas of the classics, while progressive educators are committed to the task of helping students prepare for jobs, becoming good citizens, and developing into self-actualized human beings.
John Dewey (1902) argues against the dichotomy between the child and the curriculum, between the logical and the psychological, between freedom and discipline.
Whitehead argues against the teaching of "inert ideas" or ideas which are not connected with other ideas and with life. “Culture is an activity of thought, and the receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth" (Whitehead, 1929, p. 1).
The Danger
The dichotomy between teaching the Bible and teaching students is dangerous. Teaching the Bible for its own sake is idolatry. We study the Bible so we may know God. But we worship the God of the Bible, not the academic discipline of the study of God. On the other hand, teaching students for their own self-actualization makes an idol out of persons, ignores the power of sin, and ignores the absolute standard of God's revealed Truth.
Educators may attempt to solve the dilemma through balancing curriculum requirements between subject-matter courses and personal-relevance course. Bible departments may try to overcome the tension by having two tracks. The bright students study "hard" theology with Greek and Hebrew, while the more ordinary students follow a "soft" track of applied theology. But such strategies for curriculum balance only promote the worst of both worlds. These attempts at curriculum balance lead either to ivory tower thinkers or unthinking practitioners. Balancing two curriculum extremes seldom leads to real integration.
Another Paradigm Is Needed
Rather than argue between teaching content versus teaching students, and rather than attempting to balance curriculum between the two, another paradigm is needed. This paradigm places subject matter and the experiences of learners in interdependent tension. The interdependence between faith and life is not a new idea. Interdependent tension between the Word of God and life experience began with Adam and Eve. Old Testament patriarchs, judges, prophets and poets cried out for Israel to carefully follow all the commands the Lord had given. Each verse of Psalm 119 is an example of the interdependence between the Word and personal experience. Jesus' teaching does the same.
Jesus never taught subject matter which was divorced from life, nor did he teach solutions to practical problems without teaching the Word. Jesus' teaching of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus is one of the best examples of the interdependence between content and experience. Jesus began by asking questions about the present experience of the disciples. He began with their felt-needs, their problem situation. Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in the Scriptures concerning himself. His teaching was not an isolated lecture – it grew out of the sadness of two people with downcast faces and out of a comprehensive understanding of Scripture. There was lack of connection between the experience of the two disciples and the truth of Scriptures. Jesus helped them to see the connection between the Old Testament and their existential sorrow. He didn't teach an irrelevant theological concept (by threatening it would be on the final exam). Nor did he have them sit in a circle to learn a meditational therapy for handling grief and for improving their feelings of self-worth. Jesus compelled then to reflect on the discontinuity between the content of the Word and their present need.
Each of Paul's letters demonstrated the interdependence of truth and life. Even the most systematic writings of Romans 1 - 11 grow out of specific life-related needs of people in the church in Rome.
Barth was impressed with the way in which Calvin related truth to life.
"How energetically Calvin, having first established what stands in the text, sets himself to re-think the whole material and to wrestle with it, till the walls which separate the sixteenth century from the first become transparent! Paul speaks, and the man of the sixteenth century hears. The conversation between the original record and the reader moves round the subject-matter, until a distinction between yesterday and today becomes impossible (Barth, 1933, p. 7)."
To say the Bible is practical or pragmatic does not mean that there is a one-to-one correlation between each verse of the Scripture and present felt needs. The Bible is practical because it helps us to know God, and knowing God is infinitely practical. But knowing the Bible is not the same as knowing God. We progressively grow in our relationship to God as we explore the tension between our experience and the Bible and respond in obedience.
An instrumental approach does not mean that absolute truth is generated by experience. To say that the Bible is pragmatic does not negate the fact that it is at the same time absolute truth. God tells us that all Scripture is not only God-breathed, but it is also useful. God alone is the author of truth. But, until we see him face to face, our understanding of truth is not absolute, and our understanding of truth is significantly influenced by experience.
The effective teacher is like a person who takes a strong rope, ties one end around the big ideas of Scripture, ties the other end around the major themes of life, and then through the power of the Spirit struggles to pull the two together. The subject-matter educator is busy tying one end of the rope to the Word, while the personal-relevance educator is tying a rope to the felt needs of students. Even if by chance both are using opposite ends of the same rope, there is urgent need for Spirit-filled rope pullers.
Educational Analysis
In order to better understand the paradigm of interdependent tension, the two sides of the dilemma will be analyzed by seeing how each would answer these three questions:
1. What are the assumptions about the nature of the learner?
2. What educational aims should we seek?
3. Which are the best educational methods?
The Content-centered Educator
The content-centered educator assumes the learner to be ignorant, with limited understanding and knowledge. Educational aims come from the deficiency between what the learner knows and what the educator thinks the learner should know. The Bible is taught from the perspective of its original meaning and its historical-grammatical interpretation.
Techniques of higher criticism are taught along with book outlines. Preferred educational methods stress means for efficiently imparting knowledge and truth. Creative subject-matter educators may also be fascinated by the use of technology for transmitting information. Videos, programmed instruction, computers, and PowerPoint presentations might be used. The subject-matter educator assumes that the learner is like raw material for the theological assembly line of knowledge.
Transmission of information through clearly presented lectures and the appropriate use of technology is good, but it is not sufficient.
The Student-centered Educator
The student-centered educator tends to idealize the current state of the learner. The learner is seen not as deficient or immature, but as a person with rich experiences, deep feelings, great dignity and worth. Aims for teaching the Bible emphasize building relationships with God and with others. Goals include emotional health, becoming aware of one's feelings, and self-actualization. Piety, worship, and the spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting, and meditation are included in the curriculum. The Bible is taught not so much from the standpoint of what it said to the Hebrews and Greeks, but what it says to the modern hearer.
Educational methods provide opportunities for social interaction, building interpersonal relationships, stimulating personal reflection, and encouraging a caring community. Group sharing of experiences, journaling of reflections and prayer for the needs of others in the class might be specific methods. The personal-relevance educator assumes the learner is like a wild flower, ready to bloom under the right conditions. But personal relevance without a deep understanding of absolute truth revealed by God is meaningless. The search for relevance without an understanding of Truth is ultimately irrelevant.
The Pilgrim Educator
The pilgrim educator sees the learner not as an assembly line product or a wild flower, but as a pilgrim. The learner is in process, but the process is only a part of the aim. The personal process has an external goal. The present state of the pilgrim is not seen as a deficit, but neither is it idealized.
The educational goal is to equip the pilgrim with understanding of the Map God has given (the Bible) and in the power of the Spirit to help him or her benefit from the experiences of previous pilgrims, so that the pilgrim may reach the fullness of the stature of Christ. The intended outcome of theological education is the full development of the pilgrim, so that the pilgrim may also be a blessing to the world. God is not only interested in the temporal position of the pilgrim, but in his or her character. Biblical subject matter is a necessary tool for guiding and developing the pilgrim. But the pilgrim must keep one eye on the Map of the Word while also keeping an eye on the path of experience.
Pilgrim educational methodology seeks to compel critical reflection between personal experience and the Bible. The Bible is taught clearly, but the teaching of content is not the end – it is a means. The teacher must challenge the student to explore the tension between God's standard and life experiences, and help the student pull the two together. This can be done in many ways – through a stimulating lecture, through educational technology or through a dialectic discussion method. Many methods and combinations of methods are appropriate. The effective Bible teacher is a good teacher of the subject matter, but also constantly challenges students to wrestle with biblical implications for ethical dilemmas, problems in the church, and personal lifestyle. The effective teacher will constantly hold absolute Scripture in creative tension with modern world-and-life views.
Dewey (1902) uses the metaphor of maps to teach the mutual interdependence between the logical and the psychological. Maps are useful tools for pilgrims.
Content-centered educators might teach courses in the history of maps. the original languages of maps, theories of interpreting maps, and the higher criticism of maps. But the study of maps must not take the place of the use of maps for an actual journey.
Student-centered educators might encourage each student to design his or her own map from personal experiences. Experiences and maps of previous explorers are ignored. Students are encouraged to wander through the wilderness of life. The student-centered educator isn't overly concerned if students wander into the swamps as long as they build meaningful relationships with others and better understand their own feelings as a result of the experience. There is little sense of history or sense of direction.
Dewey argued that experience is not necessarily educative but helps the child to better understand the map of bodies of knowledge. Maps and experience are dependent on each other. It is unwise to divorce the study of maps from the experiences of the traveler. And it is useless for a pilgrim to begin a journey with no sense of direction or purpose. Without the Map of revelation from God, we have no knowledge of who we really are, where we are going, or how we get there.
Suggestions for Teaching
Most Bible teachers agree that more can be done to effectively compel critical reflection on the tension between biblical truth and the needs of the person, the church and society.
The Holy Spirit is a powerful supernatural force in helping to tie together absolute standards of the Word with our sinful condition. Yet the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God, through spiritually gifted teachers, and through spiritually sensitive learners. To depend on the Holy Spirit means that spiritually gifted teachers must continue to "fan into flame" the gifts God has given. Because we are involved in a supernatural struggle between the forces of good and evil, there can be no specific guaranteed outcomes no matter how sophisticated our educational paradigms or methodologies. But spiritually gifted teachers must intentionally do more to challenge students to wrestle with truth in light of the problems of life.
1. No teacher should be satisfied with merely depositing "inert ideas" into the heads of students to be regurgitated on the final exam. We must teach to higher levels of learning. Students must be challenged to think, analyze, and synthesize ideas in terms of life issues. Examinations should go beyond informational recall and include questions that force students to interpret and use information – to demonstrate insight into current issues. Assigned papers and classroom lectures should compel students to struggle with major biblical concepts. We must also compel students to use these concepts in grappling with problems in the church and society. For example, students can be given assignments to investigate the "folk-theology" of the average lay person and compare that theology to the teachings of historical trends in theology.
2. Entrance requirements into seminary or graduate school should require students to have previous experience in working with people as well as previous studies in Scripture. How are students to integrate theology and life if the only life they have ever known is school, and the only theology they know comes from books? Seminaries worry about low students enrollments and they feel forced to recruit students with a "raw B.A." Students would not need lengthy experience but should have enough experience to know people and their problems. They could be required to spend a summer as a camp counselor or be a lay youth worker in a church. A high grade-point average is not a predictor of the ability to integrate theology and life.
3. Graduation requirements must include more than Bible credits. Every Bible major should include courses in human development, anthropology and communication. All master's or doctoral programs should have at least one course pointing out the implications of the particular subject for the needs of the church or society today. Academic programs which teach mere theological "maps" with no concern for the "journey" are sub-biblical.
4. Bible professors must have more than academic credentials. Their resume should include experience in ministry and personal concerns for contemporary theological needs in the church.
5. Majors in Christian education must constantly be challenged to reflect theologically on what they are doing. Too often a course in methods of evangelism does not relate to soteriology, and church management courses ignore insights from ecclesiology. Too often practical internships in ministry are not debriefed in light of theological understanding.
Conclusion
Radical educators are calling for a "de-schooling" of theological education, but the proposed pilgrim paradigm is not so radical. Seminaries can serve as the Interpreter’s House in Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress. Biblical knowledge is necessary for pilgrims and must be taught. Most teaching methods will not need to change. Current structures of theological education do not need to be demolished. Many Bible professors are already teaching in such a way as to promote the intentional interdependence of Bible content with problems of life, and many professors in the social sciences constantly interact with biblical and systematic theology.
Still, the paradigm shift could make a significant difference for students and for the church around the world. Bible courses too often have a reputation of being an exercise in memorizing grocery lists. Students complain that Bible classes are boring, and boredom becomes the powerful hidden curriculum. Christian education courses too often have a reputation of being exercises in techniques in the use of the sandbox and role-plays . Education in the church faces the same problems as those of the seminary or Bible College. There is an urgent need for a gracious, quiet revolution – a pilgrim paradigm of Bible teaching. The common paradigms of content-centered or students-centered education will not adequately develop students or strengthen the church.
May we communicate the Map of the Word through the power of the Spirit in such a way that students will be challenged and the world-wide church will be strengthened for God’s eternal glory.
Bibliography
Barth, K. (1933). The Epistle to the Romans. (Trans. from sixth ed. by E.C. Hoskyns). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The Aims of Education. New York: The Free Press.
Both the clear teaching of Scripture and its application to the student, the church and society are necessary. But neither content nor application is sufficient by itself, and one without the other is dangerous. Yet much Bible teaching in the local church and in the seminary is either subject-matter centered or student-centered. We must re-examine the necessary interdependence between knowledge and practice.
A False Dichotomy
The tasks of biblical scholarship and biblical teaching are related, yet different. The novice Bible professor may be a competent scholar who has mastered ancient languages, developed skills of research and become an expert in a specific technical area of knowledge. But in the classroom the teacher is appalled to discover that students don't know if the book of Hebrews is in the Old or New Testament. Many have never heard of Calvinism or eschatology. The teacher is dismayed by the biblical and theological illiteracy of students and blames local churches for a lack of solid biblical teaching.
Content-centered educators suspect that biblical illiteracy is the result of "watered-down" student-centered education in the local church and argue for rigorous teaching of solid biblical content. They wage passionate battles against student-centered education which emphasizes feelings and felt-needs over the teaching of pure Bible content.
Personal-relevance educators, on the other hand, feel that the mere transmission of Bible content is not enough. They say that students soon forget Bible facts if they don't see their relevance, thus becoming biblically illiterate. From their viewpoint, the blame for biblical illiteracy is the personal irrelevance of content transmission models of teaching.
A Synthesis
Teaching the Bible is not like running a factory with empty-headed students as containers in which to deposit theological pearls of wisdom. But neither is Bible teaching simply a therapeutic exercise. Theology is not merely a tool to help students get in touch with their feelings so that they can become more self-actualized. Bible teaching that is divorced from life leads to dead orthodoxy, while merely teaching solutions to the problems of life without an understanding of Scripture leads to heresy and dead churches.
Subject-matter educators assume that learning biblical concepts will mysteriously develop spiritual maturity in learners. They assume that if students can refute the JEDP theory, outline the book of Romans, and trace the missionary journeys of Paul, the teaching task of the Bible professor is accomplished. From there it's the job of the Holy Spirit or the job of another academic department to help students put theological facts into practice and promote spiritual growth.
But personal-relevance philosophies of education may be even more dangerous than subject-matter philosophies. They rightly react against dead orthodoxy and the teaching of inert biblical facts, but their teaching may become a gimmick for simply helping one feel good about oneself. The original meaning of Scripture is ignored while "what it means to me" is overemphasized.
This, then, is the dilemma between content-centered and student-centered philosophies. Do we teach the Bible or do we teach people? Is the aim of education best accomplished through transmission of absolute truth or through facilitating personal growth in students?
The Secular Debate
The debate is not unique to teaching the Bible. Traditional secular educators argue that schools should go "back to the basics" of teaching the academic disciplines and the great ideas of the classics, while progressive educators are committed to the task of helping students prepare for jobs, becoming good citizens, and developing into self-actualized human beings.
John Dewey (1902) argues against the dichotomy between the child and the curriculum, between the logical and the psychological, between freedom and discipline.
Whitehead argues against the teaching of "inert ideas" or ideas which are not connected with other ideas and with life. “Culture is an activity of thought, and the receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth" (Whitehead, 1929, p. 1).
The Danger
The dichotomy between teaching the Bible and teaching students is dangerous. Teaching the Bible for its own sake is idolatry. We study the Bible so we may know God. But we worship the God of the Bible, not the academic discipline of the study of God. On the other hand, teaching students for their own self-actualization makes an idol out of persons, ignores the power of sin, and ignores the absolute standard of God's revealed Truth.
Educators may attempt to solve the dilemma through balancing curriculum requirements between subject-matter courses and personal-relevance course. Bible departments may try to overcome the tension by having two tracks. The bright students study "hard" theology with Greek and Hebrew, while the more ordinary students follow a "soft" track of applied theology. But such strategies for curriculum balance only promote the worst of both worlds. These attempts at curriculum balance lead either to ivory tower thinkers or unthinking practitioners. Balancing two curriculum extremes seldom leads to real integration.
Another Paradigm Is Needed
Rather than argue between teaching content versus teaching students, and rather than attempting to balance curriculum between the two, another paradigm is needed. This paradigm places subject matter and the experiences of learners in interdependent tension. The interdependence between faith and life is not a new idea. Interdependent tension between the Word of God and life experience began with Adam and Eve. Old Testament patriarchs, judges, prophets and poets cried out for Israel to carefully follow all the commands the Lord had given. Each verse of Psalm 119 is an example of the interdependence between the Word and personal experience. Jesus' teaching does the same.
Jesus never taught subject matter which was divorced from life, nor did he teach solutions to practical problems without teaching the Word. Jesus' teaching of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus is one of the best examples of the interdependence between content and experience. Jesus began by asking questions about the present experience of the disciples. He began with their felt-needs, their problem situation. Then beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in the Scriptures concerning himself. His teaching was not an isolated lecture – it grew out of the sadness of two people with downcast faces and out of a comprehensive understanding of Scripture. There was lack of connection between the experience of the two disciples and the truth of Scriptures. Jesus helped them to see the connection between the Old Testament and their existential sorrow. He didn't teach an irrelevant theological concept (by threatening it would be on the final exam). Nor did he have them sit in a circle to learn a meditational therapy for handling grief and for improving their feelings of self-worth. Jesus compelled then to reflect on the discontinuity between the content of the Word and their present need.
Each of Paul's letters demonstrated the interdependence of truth and life. Even the most systematic writings of Romans 1 - 11 grow out of specific life-related needs of people in the church in Rome.
Barth was impressed with the way in which Calvin related truth to life.
"How energetically Calvin, having first established what stands in the text, sets himself to re-think the whole material and to wrestle with it, till the walls which separate the sixteenth century from the first become transparent! Paul speaks, and the man of the sixteenth century hears. The conversation between the original record and the reader moves round the subject-matter, until a distinction between yesterday and today becomes impossible (Barth, 1933, p. 7)."
To say the Bible is practical or pragmatic does not mean that there is a one-to-one correlation between each verse of the Scripture and present felt needs. The Bible is practical because it helps us to know God, and knowing God is infinitely practical. But knowing the Bible is not the same as knowing God. We progressively grow in our relationship to God as we explore the tension between our experience and the Bible and respond in obedience.
An instrumental approach does not mean that absolute truth is generated by experience. To say that the Bible is pragmatic does not negate the fact that it is at the same time absolute truth. God tells us that all Scripture is not only God-breathed, but it is also useful. God alone is the author of truth. But, until we see him face to face, our understanding of truth is not absolute, and our understanding of truth is significantly influenced by experience.
The effective teacher is like a person who takes a strong rope, ties one end around the big ideas of Scripture, ties the other end around the major themes of life, and then through the power of the Spirit struggles to pull the two together. The subject-matter educator is busy tying one end of the rope to the Word, while the personal-relevance educator is tying a rope to the felt needs of students. Even if by chance both are using opposite ends of the same rope, there is urgent need for Spirit-filled rope pullers.
Educational Analysis
In order to better understand the paradigm of interdependent tension, the two sides of the dilemma will be analyzed by seeing how each would answer these three questions:
1. What are the assumptions about the nature of the learner?
2. What educational aims should we seek?
3. Which are the best educational methods?
The Content-centered Educator
The content-centered educator assumes the learner to be ignorant, with limited understanding and knowledge. Educational aims come from the deficiency between what the learner knows and what the educator thinks the learner should know. The Bible is taught from the perspective of its original meaning and its historical-grammatical interpretation.
Techniques of higher criticism are taught along with book outlines. Preferred educational methods stress means for efficiently imparting knowledge and truth. Creative subject-matter educators may also be fascinated by the use of technology for transmitting information. Videos, programmed instruction, computers, and PowerPoint presentations might be used. The subject-matter educator assumes that the learner is like raw material for the theological assembly line of knowledge.
Transmission of information through clearly presented lectures and the appropriate use of technology is good, but it is not sufficient.
The Student-centered Educator
The student-centered educator tends to idealize the current state of the learner. The learner is seen not as deficient or immature, but as a person with rich experiences, deep feelings, great dignity and worth. Aims for teaching the Bible emphasize building relationships with God and with others. Goals include emotional health, becoming aware of one's feelings, and self-actualization. Piety, worship, and the spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting, and meditation are included in the curriculum. The Bible is taught not so much from the standpoint of what it said to the Hebrews and Greeks, but what it says to the modern hearer.
Educational methods provide opportunities for social interaction, building interpersonal relationships, stimulating personal reflection, and encouraging a caring community. Group sharing of experiences, journaling of reflections and prayer for the needs of others in the class might be specific methods. The personal-relevance educator assumes the learner is like a wild flower, ready to bloom under the right conditions. But personal relevance without a deep understanding of absolute truth revealed by God is meaningless. The search for relevance without an understanding of Truth is ultimately irrelevant.
The Pilgrim Educator
The pilgrim educator sees the learner not as an assembly line product or a wild flower, but as a pilgrim. The learner is in process, but the process is only a part of the aim. The personal process has an external goal. The present state of the pilgrim is not seen as a deficit, but neither is it idealized.
The educational goal is to equip the pilgrim with understanding of the Map God has given (the Bible) and in the power of the Spirit to help him or her benefit from the experiences of previous pilgrims, so that the pilgrim may reach the fullness of the stature of Christ. The intended outcome of theological education is the full development of the pilgrim, so that the pilgrim may also be a blessing to the world. God is not only interested in the temporal position of the pilgrim, but in his or her character. Biblical subject matter is a necessary tool for guiding and developing the pilgrim. But the pilgrim must keep one eye on the Map of the Word while also keeping an eye on the path of experience.
Pilgrim educational methodology seeks to compel critical reflection between personal experience and the Bible. The Bible is taught clearly, but the teaching of content is not the end – it is a means. The teacher must challenge the student to explore the tension between God's standard and life experiences, and help the student pull the two together. This can be done in many ways – through a stimulating lecture, through educational technology or through a dialectic discussion method. Many methods and combinations of methods are appropriate. The effective Bible teacher is a good teacher of the subject matter, but also constantly challenges students to wrestle with biblical implications for ethical dilemmas, problems in the church, and personal lifestyle. The effective teacher will constantly hold absolute Scripture in creative tension with modern world-and-life views.
Dewey (1902) uses the metaphor of maps to teach the mutual interdependence between the logical and the psychological. Maps are useful tools for pilgrims.
Content-centered educators might teach courses in the history of maps. the original languages of maps, theories of interpreting maps, and the higher criticism of maps. But the study of maps must not take the place of the use of maps for an actual journey.
Student-centered educators might encourage each student to design his or her own map from personal experiences. Experiences and maps of previous explorers are ignored. Students are encouraged to wander through the wilderness of life. The student-centered educator isn't overly concerned if students wander into the swamps as long as they build meaningful relationships with others and better understand their own feelings as a result of the experience. There is little sense of history or sense of direction.
Dewey argued that experience is not necessarily educative but helps the child to better understand the map of bodies of knowledge. Maps and experience are dependent on each other. It is unwise to divorce the study of maps from the experiences of the traveler. And it is useless for a pilgrim to begin a journey with no sense of direction or purpose. Without the Map of revelation from God, we have no knowledge of who we really are, where we are going, or how we get there.
Suggestions for Teaching
Most Bible teachers agree that more can be done to effectively compel critical reflection on the tension between biblical truth and the needs of the person, the church and society.
The Holy Spirit is a powerful supernatural force in helping to tie together absolute standards of the Word with our sinful condition. Yet the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God, through spiritually gifted teachers, and through spiritually sensitive learners. To depend on the Holy Spirit means that spiritually gifted teachers must continue to "fan into flame" the gifts God has given. Because we are involved in a supernatural struggle between the forces of good and evil, there can be no specific guaranteed outcomes no matter how sophisticated our educational paradigms or methodologies. But spiritually gifted teachers must intentionally do more to challenge students to wrestle with truth in light of the problems of life.
1. No teacher should be satisfied with merely depositing "inert ideas" into the heads of students to be regurgitated on the final exam. We must teach to higher levels of learning. Students must be challenged to think, analyze, and synthesize ideas in terms of life issues. Examinations should go beyond informational recall and include questions that force students to interpret and use information – to demonstrate insight into current issues. Assigned papers and classroom lectures should compel students to struggle with major biblical concepts. We must also compel students to use these concepts in grappling with problems in the church and society. For example, students can be given assignments to investigate the "folk-theology" of the average lay person and compare that theology to the teachings of historical trends in theology.
2. Entrance requirements into seminary or graduate school should require students to have previous experience in working with people as well as previous studies in Scripture. How are students to integrate theology and life if the only life they have ever known is school, and the only theology they know comes from books? Seminaries worry about low students enrollments and they feel forced to recruit students with a "raw B.A." Students would not need lengthy experience but should have enough experience to know people and their problems. They could be required to spend a summer as a camp counselor or be a lay youth worker in a church. A high grade-point average is not a predictor of the ability to integrate theology and life.
3. Graduation requirements must include more than Bible credits. Every Bible major should include courses in human development, anthropology and communication. All master's or doctoral programs should have at least one course pointing out the implications of the particular subject for the needs of the church or society today. Academic programs which teach mere theological "maps" with no concern for the "journey" are sub-biblical.
4. Bible professors must have more than academic credentials. Their resume should include experience in ministry and personal concerns for contemporary theological needs in the church.
5. Majors in Christian education must constantly be challenged to reflect theologically on what they are doing. Too often a course in methods of evangelism does not relate to soteriology, and church management courses ignore insights from ecclesiology. Too often practical internships in ministry are not debriefed in light of theological understanding.
Conclusion
Radical educators are calling for a "de-schooling" of theological education, but the proposed pilgrim paradigm is not so radical. Seminaries can serve as the Interpreter’s House in Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress. Biblical knowledge is necessary for pilgrims and must be taught. Most teaching methods will not need to change. Current structures of theological education do not need to be demolished. Many Bible professors are already teaching in such a way as to promote the intentional interdependence of Bible content with problems of life, and many professors in the social sciences constantly interact with biblical and systematic theology.
Still, the paradigm shift could make a significant difference for students and for the church around the world. Bible courses too often have a reputation of being an exercise in memorizing grocery lists. Students complain that Bible classes are boring, and boredom becomes the powerful hidden curriculum. Christian education courses too often have a reputation of being exercises in techniques in the use of the sandbox and role-plays . Education in the church faces the same problems as those of the seminary or Bible College. There is an urgent need for a gracious, quiet revolution – a pilgrim paradigm of Bible teaching. The common paradigms of content-centered or students-centered education will not adequately develop students or strengthen the church.
May we communicate the Map of the Word through the power of the Spirit in such a way that students will be challenged and the world-wide church will be strengthened for God’s eternal glory.
Bibliography
Barth, K. (1933). The Epistle to the Romans. (Trans. from sixth ed. by E.C. Hoskyns). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The Aims of Education. New York: The Free Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)