Beyond Independence to Maturity

Human development can be divided into stages of growth. A newborn baby is dependent on its parents for every need. A mature adult can world with parents as an equal, and there can be genuine interdependence. During the in-between years a child needs to learn independence, to think for himself, and to solve his own problems. For the child to have a responsible, mature and equal relationship with his parents, he must go beyond independence.

Church development may have similar stages. A newborn church is often dependent on outside mission for much of its existence. A biblically mature church forms responsible partnership with the church world-wide. But often an in-between stage is needed before the church learns independence. The proper objective of the mission is not merely a self-reliant, independent church, but a church that is actively engaged in evangelism and nurture. Thus, while a self-reliant, independent church is not the ultimate goal of a mission, it may be a necessary and important in-between step. Responsible partnership may not be possible without the church first going through a stage of independence.

National churches are progressively becoming more independent and self-reliant. Many have assumed authority and responsibility for the work of local churches. Many national churches have been given authority for the work of the mission as well. But before responsible partnership can be achieved it's quite possible that the church must become fully independent. However, the ultimate goal goes beyond mere independence to the unfinished task of evangelism and building the Body of Christ.

(While the parenting metaphor has limitations) An illustration may help in understanding the stages. Before a father and son can take a bicycle trip together as equals, the father must teach the son how to ride a bicycle. Typically, this is done with the father running alongside the son while holding onto the bicycle. The son will not be able to ride as a responsible partner until the father lets go of the bicycle and the son first learns independence. Independence is a necessary but not sufficient stage in developing responsible partnership.

Today, many churches started by mission groups are ready to ride alone. Now is the time for the mission to more fully let go in preparation for responsible partnership. But if the mission is to actively encourage independence, there will need to be a change of thinking regarding typical mission strategy. If the mission is to both strategize and actively encourage independence, then it faces a dilemma.

In the past mission agencies have looked at needs, set objectives, planned a program, and gone to work. In the last few years the mission has tried to involve the church as a partner in the strategy process, but often with limited success. Church leaders often feel they wish to pursue different needs and priorities. They are not afraid to complain about mission strategy, even when they are asked to participate with the mission. This new assertiveness may be a healthy sign of development in the church.

But one wonders about the resulting role of the mission. Yes, we need to let go, but is there nothing the mission should be doing to help the church with the maturation process? One fears that if the mission ignores its own concerns and merely does what the church tells it to do, the mission may actually hinder development in the same way such treatment would spoil a child. Thus, the dilemma-we must let go, but to have no strategy is irresponsible. Mission boards should not force the church to do things our way; yet we may hinder mature growth if we unthinkingly do only what the church asks us to do.

A responsible father teaching a son to ride a bicycle will follow two principles: (1) He will let go. If the child learns to ride alone then all rejoice, but if the child falls, it is considered a learning experience. Where there is no freedom to make a mistake, there is no freedom to grow. (2) He will look for "hands-off" ways to help the child, looking for the day when he and his son can ride together as true partners. Developing a biblically responsible partnership should be the primary immediate concern. There are two principles for accomplishing this task: the mission should more fully let go, and the mission must look for supportive, nondirective ways to stimulate maturity in the church. 

1. The mission should more fully let go. We should more completely turn over authority and responsibility to the church. A domineering father will stifle the development of his children. But a maturing church is one that is free to determine, under the direction of the Holy Spirit and under the authority of Scripture, its own affairs. It must be free to make mistakes.

James Dobson, in the book The Strong Willed Child, writes that parents often hinder children from maturing. They even encourage their children to become irresponsible parasites. He writes, "The main fault of parents is that they prevent children from understanding the problems of survival by always solving their problems for them." Children mature through facing the consequences of actions that they have the authority to make.

Mission agencies must step aside and give the church the freedom to be accountable for her actions, and free to face the consequences of her actions. Even if the consequences may be painful, the mission should not interfere or "bail the church out" of the consequences. We don't need to assume, though, that when the church is given the freedom to face consequences the results will necessarily be painful. When a child learns to ride a bicycle, both the parents and the child become ecstatic.

The mission must put a greater emphasis on achieving process goals. The goal must be to foster the process of maturation and growth of people. Our top priority should be to foster the developmental process in church leadership. Our goals have often focused on programs and institutions. We have wanted to get a certain number of programs or churches going in certain places by a certain time and see certain results. Typically our goals have been product goals. Process goals often require more patience. We don't plan for the growth of a child through the use of a PERT chart. We don't measure human development on logarithmic graph paper. Process goals take a different kind of planning. We can foster, stimulate, and encourage growth, but we can't force it, no matter how efficient we are or how much money we spend, or how systematically we plan. Mothers of small children often know much more about process goals than even the most successful businessman.

Too great an emphasis on product goals usually hinders process goals. Often the most efficient, high-powered executives are successful in getting much work done, but they are least effective in developing innovative and creative subordinates.

Our objective must be to develop leaders who will take initiative and solve problems. It is not enough merely to develop programs and institutions, no matter how worthy they may seem, and no matter how often they are requested by the church. This doesn't mean missions should ignore product goals. But product goals are important if they foster process goals. For example, if our goal is to build a seminary, we could make faster progress if we take initiative. But if our goal is to develop leaders who will take initiative, learn how to solve problems, and learn how to build seminaries, then it is better for us to be patient and to use the situation as a tool for the process of leadership development. Often mission leaders are so concerned with the product, such as a new school, that we hinder the process of development of leadership in the church.

In order to foster process goals, missionaries must be withdrawn from leadership positions in church administration, even if national church leaders ask missionaries to remain. The church is not developing leadership when it only has authority to make decisions but does not need to take responsibility for carrying them out. The church can make irresponsible decisions and not have to face the consequences. Or the church can let missionaries continue to make decisions and avoid learning how to make their own responsible decisions.

Withdrawing missionaries from national church leadership positions in no way suggests a moratorium. The mission could increase the number of missionaries; place them in positions where they could have a great spiritual ministry, and still not hinder the development of leadership in the national church. But we should have a phasing out of missionaries in leadership positions in the national church.

In order to foster process goals, mission agencies must phase out of funding church institutional running expenses. Gifts toward running expenses create a parasite mentality, an inferiority complex, hinders local initiative, and stifles long-range planning. We hinder a responsible budgeting process. When a Bible school experiences financial trouble, it knows the mission will regularly supply emergency funds. There is thus little motivation to spend money carefully or budget wisely.

Yet time and again when the mission has not provided funds for programs that the church felt were important, the funds have come in locally. The only projects that die are those in which the church has little concern. We are in no way asking for a moratorium on funds from overseas. There is opportunity to increase mission giving for certain projects that do not hinder the development of a responsible church, without fostering an ongoing dependency. But we must phase out as rapidly as possible overseas funds for institutional ongoing running expenses. The first principle for developing a biblically responsible partnership was that the mission should more fully let go.

We will now discuss the second principle: 

2. The mission must look for supportive, non-directive means of stimulating maturity in the church. There are at least two ways a parent can hinder the development of a child: first by dominating the child for too long; second, by spoiling the child through giving everything asked for. If we let go and more fully turn over responsibility to the church we will avoid the first pitfall. But if we merely respond to every request of the church, we are in danger of the second pitfall. We must respond in a responsible and consistent manner.

In order for the mission to respond in a responsible and consistent manner, leaders must previously have sorted out priorities. The mission will not use these priorities in a coercive manner, but as guidelines for responding to the requests of the national church. An urgent need is for the mission to decide its own priorities for the work in a specific country. Naturally, the priorities are open to further-discussion with the church and there should be opportunity for "in-flight" changes of priorities. But without priorities, there is no basis for responding to requests from the national church. If a parent would merely respond to every demand of the child, the result would be a spoiled, irresponsible child. If a mission responds blindly to every request of the national church, the church will not learn to take responsible initiative.

Some may object to the mission unilaterally sorting out its own priorities. But for two people to have a responsible friendship, both must first have thought through issues as individuals. "People learn from one another, just as iron sharpens iron" (Prov. 27:17). True friends must be free to have their own ideas. Differing ideas help friends to sharpen each other, and ongoing dialogue allows intervals for individual reflection. The mission must not use these priorities in a coercive way to manipulate the church in a direction she is not interested in heading. In fact, not to individually reflect on priorities would be a sign of irresponsible friendship. Thus, a mission organization that has no priorities is irresponsible.

Once we have thought through priorities, there are at least three models for guiding the implementation of these priorities in a way that will neither dominate or manipulate the church in a direction she does not wish to go. We will call these models: (1) The Foundation Aid Model: (Z) The Cloud Seeding Model, and (3) The Catalyst Organization Model. Each model can be used by itself or with other models. The models are an exercise in matching priorities between the church and mission. 

1. The Foundation Aid Model. Many foundations exist to give aid to worthy causes. But a responsible foundation does not respond equally to all requests, neither does a responsible foundation try to coerce other organizations into accomplishing the objectives of the foundation. A responsible foundation has its own objectives and priorities, but has learned that if local people aren't genuinely behind a project or idea, the aid will be given in vain. A responsible foundation will not violate local initiative, but neither will it be without objectives of its own.

The mission leadership needs to think out prayerfully where, in its limited, humble, correctable wisdom, it senses the national church should be moving. It needs to sort out these matters privately and independently of its ongoing dialogue with the church. Otherwise, it will neither be a responsible friend of the church or a responsible servant of the Lord.

Yet the mission will not "push" these objectives and priorities on the church. It will use them as tools for evaluating requests by the church. The mission would then be ready to respond to requests for missionaries and funds. The mission should not respond equally to all requests, nor would the mission act unless requested. 

2. The Cloud Seeding Model. Cloud seeding does not create moisture that is not already present. Cloud seeding is a stimulus to help the rain to fall in a more predictable place.

Within the national church there often are large pockets of spiritual vitality. There are often churches, church groups, and individuals with deep spiritual concern for biblical maturity. One could give examples of certain women's fellowship groups, youth fellowship groups, urban churches, educated laymen, theological students and many others, who are eager, ready, and able to assume initiative in moving the church toward maturity.

When the mission leadership has sorted out priorities it will be better able to identify these groups in accomplishing their objectives. We must discern potential "prophets" in the church and discover how they can be activated, encouraged, and directed. Some national churches have already requested help in areas of theological education and church education. New ideas and new vision can be seeded into clouds of ready individuals. While the Foundation Aid Model can work at top administrative levels, there is much need for creative initiative on the part of each local missionary to discover where and how they can seed ready clouds. 

3. The Catalyst Organization Model. A catalyst aids or speeds up a chemical process. Usually the process would take place without the catalyst, but not as quickly. There are parachurch organizations outside national church structure that act as catalysts to stimulate the process of maturity. For example, the church in Africa has often been involved in evangelism, but New Life for All acted as a catalyst to speed up the rate of evangelism. Other African organizations have acted as outside agents to aid the spiritual maturation process, such as Boy's Brigade, Girl's Brigade, New Life For All, Campus Crusade, Scripture Union, The Bible Societies, Fellowship of Christian Students, and others. The church is already participating in many of these bodies. An indirect way of influencing and encouraging the church toward biblical maturity would be for the mission to stimulate and encourage parachurch catalysts. We can encourage church leaders to participate in these catalyst organizations more fully. We can encourage our local missionaries to become involved locally in parachurch organizations. We can loan staff to these organizations and support them financially.

The development of a biblically responsible and mature church must be the primary immediate concern for missions, or we could lose all missionaries have worked and sacrificed for.

The mission agencies must more fully turn over authority positions in the national church so that she can more fully learn from the consequences of her decisions.

We must more vigorously stimulate church maturity in an indirect, supportive, low-profile manner.

We do this in order to develop a responsible, mature relationship with the church, so that together we may continue the task of evangelism and of building up the Body of Christ around the world. We must change our present attitudes toward strategy. More than ever before there is the urgent need for Holy Spirit-directed, creative, and biblical innovation in missions. Because Jesus lives and answers prayer, we look forward to the task with excitement. 

Published in EMQ 1983 - Permission is needed from EMIS to reprint this article. 

The Missional Club

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

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.

Leadership Formation in the Missional Church

Book Review
The Missional Church & Leadership Formation:  Helping Congregations Develop Leadership Capacity


Craig Van Gelder, ed., Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 238 pages, 2009, $20.00.


The strength of this stimulating book is the key question it raises: “Can leadership for the missional church be developed in the seminary?” The answer seems to be, “not without radical reform.” The writers suggest that seminaries are good at providing fragmented encyclopedic information but are weak in “preparing leaders to engage the world through helping the church participate in God’s mission” (p. 38). Schools that focus on knowledge, objective reasoning and critical research are identified as Wissenshchaft institutions. In contrast, pideia schools emphasize formation and the culturing of the soul as teachers and learners interact in community. The authors downplay the importance of Wissenshchaft in favor of paideia.


The Missional Church & Leadership Formation is divided into three sections. The first two address missional leadership development in the seminary and in the local church. The third section provides helpful insights about actual missional churches. Chapter one, “Theological Education and Missional Leadership Formation: Can Seminaries Prepare Missional Leaders for Congregations?” provides a concise American history of the relationship between the seminary and church in leadership development. Chapter two, “Missional Theology for Schools of Theology: Re-engaging the Question ‘What is Theological About a Theological School?’” discusses the dynamic relationship between knowledge and formation. Professors and pastors would profit from rethinking ways to develop missional leadership through an integration of knowledge and formation.


My primary critique relates to the disturbing vagueness of the term “missional church.” The key problem arises from an unclear theology of missio Dei. Is it really the mission of the church to participate in the “whole mission of God”? Partly. But God stretches out the heavens like a canopy, brings out the starry hosts and call them each by name (Isaiah 40:22, 26). Our mission is only a small part of the mission of God and is primarily seen in the mission of Christ. “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). How can missional leaders foster the missio Dei while ignoring the sin-cancelling, reconciling mission of Christ?


I’m puzzled as to why many missional churches are mono-cultural and seemingly anti global missions. Proclaiming the Word of God to the nations is described as “colonizing peoples to Christianity” and imperialistic (p. 121). The writers don’t want missional churches to be mistaken for “the older emphasis on missions” (p. 209). Truly missional leaders must not disregard Christ’s reconciling commission to the church for all the nations.

As a missionary I found this book helpful for understanding how insiders define the missional church; and as a professor the book stimulated my thinking on how both formal and nonformal education must be used to develop leaders for the church.

From forthcoming issue in Evangelical Missions Quarterly

A Call to Prayer for World Revival

We strongly urge that extraordinary prayer be made for the ten days between the Ascension of Christ and Pentecost. (Declaration of Dependence)

We urge all churches and all Christians around the world unite in seeking the face of God through prayer and fasting, persistently asking our Father to send revival to the Church and spiritual awakening to the world so that Christ’s Great Commission might be fulfilled worldwide.


In 2010 Ascension Day is May 13 - and Pentecost May 23.

I just finished re-reading The Power of Extraordinary Prayer by Robert O. Bakke, and was deeply moved by stories about the power of prayer in God’s people. The concerted effort of prayer led to Great Awakenings where churches were revived and a fervor for world missions was awakened. Could the Lord God Almighty bring another Great Awakening in the 21st century? Let us call all of God’s people to pray for a world-wide Great Awakening. This, I believe, is the way world missions will move forward.

One of the founders of SIM (through merger with the Africa Evangelical Fellowship) was Andrew Murray. For ten days each year, Andrew Murray challenged churches in South Africa to pray for revival. He took his model from the ten days between the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost when the disciples “all joined together constantly in prayer.” (Acts 1:14) The Lord often blessed the concerted prayer of God’s people by sending revival.

In 2010, Ascension Day is May 13 and Pentecost Sunday is May 23. What might happen if each of us were to personally set aside extra time during these 10 days to pray for the renewal of the church around the world and for an awakening of fervor for world evangelization? What might happen if every mission challenged missionaries and churches to concerted prayer for the Holy Spirit to be poured down on our ministries and our churches?

Could individuals, churches and mission agencies unite in ten days of prayer? What if every mission organization and every mission-minded church would join together in pouring out our hearts to the Lord? For ten days, millions of God’s children would flood the throne of grace pleading for a world-wide spiritual awakening.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Pray with vision. Picture in your mind the impact of your prayers on mission agencies, on churches, and on the world. Picture the impact and pray that this vision might come true. Pray with eyes of faith.

2. Confess sin. Confess and forsake all known sin. Spiritual awakening must begin with those who are praying for the world-wide awakening.

3. Pray from Scripture. Paraphrase Daniel 9 or Ezekiel 36 or Nehemiah 9 or any other promises from the Word. Great awakenings in the Bible often took place when leaders prayed from the promises of the Word.

4. Pray together. After Jesus ascended into heaven the disciples went to the upper room to pray for the promised power of the Holy Spirit. They “joined together constantly in prayer.” I’m not suggesting that we should have a single world-wide prayer meeting. Instead, I picture tens of thousands of small groups on their knees pleading for personal and worldwide awakening during the 10 Days of Prayer.

To paraphrase the Declaration of Dependence:

We strongly urge all churches and all Christians around the world to unite in seeking the face of God through prayer and fasting, persistently asking our Father to send revival to the Church and spiritual awakening to the world so that Christ’s Great Commission might be fulfilled worldwide. We strongly urge that extraordinary prayer be made for the ten days between the Ascension of Christ and Pentecost. (Ascension Day May 13 to Pentecost May 23 2010).

In Praise of Long-Term Missionaries

In the last few years, we have made repeated visits to 56 different countries. Our minds often reflect on the heroes we’ve met – highly effective long-term missionaries. We stand in awe of these enduring servants of the Lord who not only survive but thrive in the most challenging circumstances.

We appreciate their effectiveness, singles and families who have taken years to become fluent in a language, have learned to enjoy cultural differences, and have taken time to build the trust that takes decades to grow. Because of their long endurance they have been richly used of the Lord to make a powerful impact on the Kingdom through evangelism, healing the sick and planting vibrant churches.

We appreciate their long-term sacrifice. They have given up well-paying jobs to live in countries where they will never quite feel at home. Some live where they are targets of terrorists and armed robbery. Others live in the most polluted cities of the world, where malaria and AIDS are rampant. Part of the sacrifice is not being home for Christmas, birthdays and family reunions.

Yes, we understand the importance of short-term missions. Both of us had positive and influential experiences as short-term missionaries. Jim spent three months with Wycliffe in Peru, which confirmed his desire to serve long-term in missions and Carol grew up as a missionary kid in Ecuador and then spent a summer while in college with her parents, working with them with HCJB radio and church planting. Our two children have also had life-changing short-term encounters working with SIM. Our daughter Shari taught English to Somali refugees in the Chicago area, and Danny spent six months living with a Bolivian family. We thank the Lord for our excellent short-term experiences.

While short-term experiences provide valuable insights for the missionaries, and often provide important services on the field, the majority of the most critical tasks are best done by missionaries who take the time to learn the culture, learn the language and build lasting friendships. Bible translation demands years of study, friendship-building, teaching as well as translating. Cross-cultural seminary teaching requires not only academic qualifications, but a deep understanding of the needs and challenges of pastors. Mentoring local leaders is best done by people who have earned respect of lasting friendships. There is a critical need for many more long-term missionaries.

While we appreciate short-term missionaries, we wonder if the ratio is balanced? It’s estimated that each year about a million short-term missionaries travel from the United States to serve cross-culturally. Compare this to about fifty thousand long term missionaries sent out from churches in the United States. We wonder if U.S. churches should be sending 95% of their missionaries as short-termers while sending only 5% as long-termers. Many long-term candidates become discourage and drop out because of the difficulties of raising support. Yes, we see the value of short-term missionaries but why are we sending so few who are willing and qualified to serve long-term?

Here are some suggestions
1) Those who have had short-term experiences – Ask the Lord to show you if your experiences should be a stimulus for long-term service.
2) When you return from a short-term trip, work hard to communicate your experiences to the church. We realize that many of you have had life-changing experiences and few in your church seem to care.
3) If, after a short-term missions experience, the Lord definitely leads you to stay home, pray fervently for missionaries, and be an example of someone who is willing to sacrifice financially to support long-term missionaries.
4) If you are considering a short-term missions trip ask the Lord to touch your heart with the opportunities of long-term service.
5) Church mission committees, we encourage you to make the support of long-term missionaries the backbone of your missions program. We realize that short-term missions might seem more “glitzy” but your first obligation is not to provide interesting experiences for members of the church, but ask yourself “how can our church make the most difference in the worldwide Kingdom of God?
6) Long-term missionaries, hang in there. Yes, you are sacrificing much but your effectiveness for the Kingdom can grow every year you are on the field. No reward in the whole world can begin to match the commendation from Jesus “well done, good and faithful servant.”

Jim & Carol Plueddemann

Adapted from World-Shapers – World Pulse April 23, 2004

The Power of Piaget

By James E. Plueddemann
Adapted from a chapter in Nurture That is Christian, James C. Wilhoit and John M. Detonni (eds) BridgePoint Books. 1995.

Growing up is both difficult and exciting, exhilarating and frustrating. The wonderful task of Christian education is to help people grow to become all God intends of them. Piaget does not tell us all there is to know about human development, but he does provide valuable insights for the Christian educator.
The pendulum of Christian education seems to swing between two unhealthy extremes: mindless learning of Bible facts and an emotion-filled philosophy that neglects the authoritative Word of God. Healthy Christian education is both true to the Word of God and relevant to the needs of the person and the world. Emotionalists claim “If it feels so good, it must be true.” On the other hand, rationalists assume that if people know the truth intellectually they will automatically be good people. Insights from Piaget bring balance to Christian education.
One of Piaget’s most important contributions was to provide a philosophical and empirical connection between external and internal knowledge. How does objective knowledge from outside the individual relate to the subjective meaning-making activity of the individual? How does Bible knowledge relate to being a godly person? How does one avoid cramming raw facts down the throats of children, or at the other extreme, merely using the Bible as a tool for feeling good about oneself?

The Practical Problem
Insights from Piagetian theory might suggest a rethinking of the theory and practice of Christian. But is such a radical rethinking really needed?
The church around the world is growing rapidly. The ratio of Christians to non-Christians is higher than it has ever been since the first coming of Christ. Both the percentage of Christians and the number of Christians in the world is higher than ever in history. Christianity is growing rapidly in Africa, South America, Asia, and Eastern Europe.
Bible-believing Christian education professors and publishers are increasingly aware of developmental psychology and at the same time are able to integrate psychology with historic orthodox theology. This is an encouraging trend.
But families are falling apart and seminaries seem to be less and less relevant to the needs of the church. Ethnocentric and racial hatred is sweeping the world. Bible teaching in the Sunday school often seems strangely unrelated to the frustrations of life. Economic and ecological prophets of doom are sounding more persuasive, while prophets of the Lord are often ignored. Hundreds of thousands of new Christians are not growing in their faith. While the number of Christians in the world is higher than ever in history, the number of non-Christians is also higher than ever before because of rapid population growth.
Though there are encouraging trends in the field of Christian education, the overall picture provides many hints of a discouraging state of affairs. Bible-believing Christian educators must not relax, but must work and pray for a quiet revolution in the field. We can’t go on like we are! Christian education is in need of a gracious, Bible-based revolution. Piaget suggests a theory and practice of Christian education that might be a beginning.

The Influence of Piaget
Piagetian theory does not have answers for all of the problems of Christian education, nor are these theories complete or adequate to fully explain human development. Piaget suggested a general skeleton for thinking about knowledge and that general structure is being modified and fleshed out by modern researchers. Piaget himself would have been disappointed if fresh thinking about his theory ceased when he died. While he was alive Piaget encouraged his students to go into new directions, to use the basic insights from his theory to understand new problems ( Shulman, Restiano-Baumann & Butler. 1985, p. xi). Piaget’s theory was dynamic and changing while he was alive, and fresh thinking about his theory needs to continue.
Robert Kegan a neo-Piagetian, believes that “in Piaget we discover a genius who exceeded himself and found more than he was looking for” (1982, p. 26). Kegan has enlarged Piaget’s theory to include personality development, with implications for clinical psychology.
While Piaget’s theory is incomplete and developing, his insights about thinking and growing may be some of the most important of the century. Several scholars have lauded the impact of Piaget and conclude, “Assessing the impact of Piaget’s work on developmental psychology is a little bit like assessing the impact of the automobile on American society” (Dolezal p. 3), or “assessing the impact of Piaget on developmental psychology is like assessing the impact of Shakespeare on English literature or Aristotle on philosophy - impossible. The impact is too monumental to embrace and at the same time too omnipresent to detect.” (Beilin, 1992, p. 191).

Overview of Piaget’s Life (1896-1980)
Piaget was born in 1896 in the small Swiss university town of Neuchtel. “His father was a historian who specialized in medieval literature, and his mother was a dynamic, intelligent, and religious woman” (Gainsburg & Opper, p. 1). Piaget was a brilliant child. He published his first academic paper at age 10. By the time he was 21 he had earned a doctorate in natural sciences from the University of Neuchtel, had published twenty-five professional papers and was considered one of the world’s experts on mollusks. By the time he was thirty Piaget held a job in the Rousseau Institute in Geneva and had a world-wide reputation (Gardner, 1981, p. 56). Piaget was a disciplined person who organized his thinking on long walks and wrote down his ideas the next day. During the summer months he would retreat to a hideaway in the Alps, take long walks, write, and come down in the fall with another book. For Piaget, writing was the way he organized his thoughts. When traveling he would sometimes go to the airport several hours early so he could have uninterrupted time to write (Gardner, 1981, p 57). By the time he died Piaget had written or co-authored about 50 books and hundreds of articles.
Piaget discovered that the shape of mollusks would change when put in a changed environment and concluded that mollusks could assimilate changes because of the need to adapt to the environment.
After finishing his doctorate, Piaget shifted his interests to psychology and began to work in a laboratory with Binet to standardize intelligence tests. Piaget was intrigued with incorrect answers children gave to questions on tests. (Wadsworth, 1974, p. 3). For example many older children would be able to distinguish between the right and left hand of a picture of a boy standing on his head, whereas children a year younger would almost always be confused by the question. He observed that the process of adaptation in children had common elements to adaptation in mollusks.
Piaget spent many hours observing his own children, watching them learn to perceive the world in radically different ways every few months.
He worked in Geneva for the rest of his life. His theories have continued to generate much interest and research.
Piaget argued that in order to understand an idea, a person in one sense has to invent that idea. Invention of ways in which the world works is a challenging task with many pitfalls. Piaget’s theories went counter to Freudian psychoanalytic theories that encouraged parents to avoid frustrating the developing child in any way. He felt such theories led to an excess of unsupervised liberty (Piaget, 1973, p. 6). Piaget felt that children do not learn unless there is an optimum level of dissonance.
He also disagreed with the ideas of Skinner and of programmed instruction. “Programmed instruction is indeed conducive to learning, but by no means to inventing. . . unless the child is made to do the programming himself” (1973, p. 7). Piaget would also disagree with Mager-type behavioral objectives. He would likely prefer problem-posing educational objectives.

Overview of Piaget’s Theory
The Process of Growth
Piaget is best known for exploring the mechanism and the stages of cognitive development from birth to adulthood.
Piaget has generated important studies on the factors that promote development. Two important factors are social interaction and the process of exploring tensions, or “disequilibration.” People tend to grow and develop as they struggle with problems in a social setting.
Interestingly, people tend to make the most progress in learning when things don’t make sense! For example, a small child may have one single mental category for animals - the family dog. Everything with four legs, a tail, and a wet nose is a dog. When the child sees the neighbor’s cat, which has four legs, a kind of tail, and sort-of a wet nose, the child labels the animal a dog. The process continues until the child sees a cow, or any animal that doesn’t fit the "dog" category. The cow has some of the characteristics of a dog, yet is very different. The cow doesn’t fit the child's mental category. This causes “disequilibration.” The problem prompts the child to construct a broader mental category for animals and produces cognitive development.
Adults also grow as they explore tensions and create new categories. This process is enhanced through interaction with other adults. This means that small groups can provide an ideal setting for healthy growth. For example, when a Presbyterian and a Pentecostal think together over a passage in the book of Acts, it's very possible that interesting "disequilibration" will take place. As they explore the tensions of their differences in interpretation, both will see things they never saw before in that passage. Interaction with people who have different perspectives can be a powerful stimulus to growth.
Ultimately, growth toward Christlikeness is a gift of God. Each Christian has spiritual gifts, so the group itself can become a means of grace. Though groups can facilitate growth, godly development is a result of God’s grace.
Piaget has described the strategies used by children to make sense of their world. The mind at birth is not a passive blank slate, but has built-in structures or schemata for organizing information. The child takes in information from the surrounding environment and puts that information in a mental file folder. Piaget calls this process assimilation. Children transform or re-write the information to fit existing mental categories. But not all the information a child receives seems to fit the existing file folders. When young children hear the story of Pontius Pilate, they put him in the mental file folder labeled “pilot.” Maybe this is why one child drew a picture of the flight to Egypt of Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus in an airplane, with Pontius as the pilot. Such a picture makes sense given the child’s limited number of mental file folders. But eventually the child begins to figure out that there may be two kinds of pilots, and such an understanding results in confusion or disequilibration in a puzzling situation (LeBar & Plueddemann p. 212). The child realizes the need for accommodation, or the need to add more file folders to accommodate the new category. So the child has one category for airplane pilots and creates another category for a person named Pilate. Learning as defined by Piaget is not solely an inner or outer process, but is the interaction of the inner thinking of the child with the outer world.

Stages of Growth
Piaget spent many hours observing his own children in natural settings and found that growth takes place in spurts or stages. These stages are “great leaps” followed by times of calm and integration. He described four major stages. Many researchers have confirmed these general patterns of developmental stages in people from many cultures.
1. Sensorimotor stage (ages 0-2). The sensorimotor infant makes sense of the world primarily through physical observations - by seeing, hearing, and touching. If a baby is playing with a rattle and the rattle should fall from sight, the baby will not look for it. For babies, objects seem to cease to exist when they are out of sight.
In some ways, the sensorimotor age is the most complex of the developmental stages. Piaget discovered at least six sub-stages in infants. At birth children react entirely with their reflexes, and by the time children reach two years of age they have begun mastery of language and have discovered how to perform scientific experiments with concrete objects. For young children each day produces dozens of miracles both for the child and the parent.
2. Preoperational stage (approximately ages 2-7). At this stage there is the new capacity to make sense of the world through language and fantasy. Preschoolers learn through intuition rather than through systematic logic, and they have a creative imagination.
In some ways preoperational or intuitive thinking is the most interesting and creative stage. Children may have difficulty seeing the perspective of a parent or another child, and thus have difficulty with cooperative play. But preoperational children have a most creative way of thinking about the world. Since they are not burdened with abstract logic, cars can fly, dreams can hide under the bed, and the moon follows them as they go for a night walk. Elkind (1979) calls children at this stage “cognitive aliens.” Children speak a different language and make up words such as “mouth brow” for mustache. A three-year-old neighbor told her mom I was “lawning” when I was mowing the lawn. “We cannot take anything for granted insofar as the child’s knowledge or understanding is concerned” (p. 147). But children are logical thinkers. Their rules of logic are just based on different ways of knowing the world.
While preoperational children are “cognitive aliens,” Elkind (p. 151) calls them “emotional countrymen.” Children are least like adults in their thinking and most like adults in their feelings. Children aren’t little “thinking machines” when they read. Thinking and feeling are always tied together. Adults must treat children with love and respect.
3. Concrete operational stage (approximately ages 7-11). The elementary school-age child has the new capacity to use mental logic but is limited to situations that are real and observable. Ten-year-olds in my Sunday school class assume that “tent-making” missionaries, unless people live in tents. Children at this stage learn facts easily, are very literal, and see social issues in terms of black and white, right and wrong. They love the Guinness Book of World Records and have numerous collections of rocks, stamps, and sports cards.
4. Formal operations stage (often 12 and up). In adolescence and adulthood an important way of making sense of the world is through abstract thinking. Now there is the ability to solve hypothetical problems with logical thinking. Many principles of Scripture cannot be fully understood from the perspective of concrete operational thinking. But complex concepts such as the atonement take on deeper understanding when adults are able to see the abstract conflict between justice and mercy.
In one important sense people can have a mature faith at any level of cognitive development, but for a more adequate understanding of Scripture formal operational thinking is probably needed.
Piaget found that growth is promoted thorough interaction with other children and with parents. And progress in stage development is motivated or enhanced as the child encounters perplexing situation.
The theories of Piaget provide valuable insights for teaching children about God and the Bible. He would suggest that we encourage young people to struggle with problems rather than give them easy answers. He would also suggest we give children plenty of opportunity to explore for themselves and to interact with other children.

Growth in Perspectivism
According to Piaget, the process of growth is like the widening ripples caused by a stone falling into a pond (Plueddemann & Plueddemann, 1990). Each stage of human development leads to wider horizons and broader perspectives. The more mature person can appreciate a point of view from a greater number of perspectives, making it possible for empathetic and caring relationships with people of different perspectives. As people grow in the ability to see problems from the perspective of the other person, they can better "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep." Perspectivism makes discussion possible as people listen and interact with each other's views. Missionaries who can present their message from the perspective of a person in another culture are more likely to be effective.
Parents know that small children are egocentric, seeing the world from their own limited perspective. A wise parent knows it does no good to tell a hungry baby to wait sixty seconds for milk. God didn’t create screaming babies with the mental capacity to contemplate the future.
As children grow older, their awareness of the points of view of other people increases, but the depth of their interaction with others is rather shallow. This is why young children tend to interact in what is called “parallel play.” They are aware of other children playing near them, but they "play alone together" (Selman, 1976). Minimal interaction for children begins to take place about the age of seven. They can now discuss concrete situations with each other and begin to take the perspective of other children. But they are still not able to discuss abstract concepts such as “sharing.” For the seven-year-old, sharing means letting another person use one particular object. So a child may remember to share an umbrella, but not a jump rope. Sharing in the abstract is a difficult concept for children.
From about the age of twelve, perspectivism grows rapidly. Teens experience a revolution of world-view when they are able to see themselves as others see them. Such perspectivism is a strong motivation for boys to begin combing their hair and for girls to pay special attention to what they wear. Teens are growing in their ability to participate in group discussions because they are better able to analyze and reflect on comments from others in the group. Teens often question the religious up-bringing of their home because they are able to reflect on what life might be if they were raised in a Muslim home. Perspectivism can lead to doubt or to a stronger personally-owned faith.
Many adults are capable of genuine perspectivism, but some adults have difficulty “wrestling” with new ideas from different perspectives. Adult Sunday school classes often end in an argumentative discussion with one person not really hearing the point of the other adult. Class comments are often a string of unrelated observations from different members of the group. At times overly simple answers are dogmatically given to complex questions. Piaget never assumed that all adults would reach formal operational thought, so genuine dialogue among adults is not something to be taken for granted.

Moral Reasoning
Why do people do what they do? The level of cognitive development is reflected in why people do or do not obey rules.
Piaget observed children playing marbles and wondered about their attitudes toward rules. Children seldom learned rules for playing marbles in a formal setting with rewards and punishment set by adults (Duska & Whelan, p. 9). Piaget wanted to know how children thought about rules, how rules could be changed, and if children actually followed the rules.
Before the age of two children play marbles without rules, but practice many of the skills of playing the game of marbles.
After the age of two, children learn from older children that there are rules to the game, and they imitate those rules. Piaget would call these children egocentric because they assume their rules are followed by all people in the world. They believe that their particular rules are sacred and should not be changed. “They believe that the rules of marbles have been handed down from adults, and some even believe that God may have originally formulated them. Any alteration in the rules is considered a transgression” (Duska & Whelan, p. 10). Children feel an obligation to play by the rules, but often play with little cooperation with other children, or according to the rules.
At about seven years of age, the child begins to play marbles according to rules set by the group, but becomes legalistic in enforcing obedience to the rules. Piaget would call this heteronomous obedience to rules. Rules can be made by the children if they all agree to a particular set of rules.
Twelve-year-olds often develop ability for abstract reasoning, and the making of rules becomes a most important task in playing a game. Rule-making becomes a social activity, rather than blind obedience to external rules. There may be a serious desire to cooperate, so children actually abide by the rules to which they mutually agree. Piaget calls this autonomous reasoning.
Younger children understand doing good as doing what one should do, obeying the rules of adults. Younger children seldom consider the intentions of people as to why they do what they do. For example if a child because of clumsiness or by accident breaks fifteen tea cups, that child is considered a worse offender than a child who out of anger intentionally breaks only one tea cup. Older children pay more attention to the intentions of the child.
Piaget’s understanding of the moral thinking of children supports the idea that children don’t merely absorb character traits from adults, but are actively involved in making sense out of moral behavior from their developmental perspective.
Piaget’s work on the moral reasoning of children stimulated much of the thinking of Lawrence Kohlberg and James Fowler in the fields of moral reasoning and faith development.

Religious Thinking in Children
David Elkind (1979b) built on understandings of Piaget when he conducted research about how children think about religious issues. He was not interested in what children were taught in formal education, but what they really thought about religious ideas in a spontaneous setting. He investigated children’s conceptions of prayer, God and religion. His method was to ask questions. “The only requirement in formulating questions is that they be so absurd, to the adult way of thought, that one can be reasonably certain children have not been trained one way or the other regarding them” (1979, p. 259).
He asked questions such as: Can God be president of the United States? Can God talk French? How did God get his name? Does God have a first name? Along a similar line he would ask a Baptist child: Can a dog be a Baptist? How can you tell a person is Baptist? Can you be an American and a Baptist at the same time?
Elkind found stages similar to those of Piaget. He found young children to be undifferentiated in their thinking (Baptists have blond hair), older children to be concretely differentiated (They don’t allow dogs in our Baptist Church so a dog could not be a Baptist), and young teens to be abstractly differentiated (Yes one can be both American and Baptist).

An understanding of Piaget can be helpful in understanding the broad task of religious education. People grow as they interact with people, with the physical world around them. and with knowledge. People are not merely empty sponges to be filled with knowledge but are active in the process of growth. Education is not something one gives to another such as teachers giving an education to a student. True education is the reflective interaction between the student and the environment.

Implications for Ministry across Cultures
The Church around the world is in serious need of Christian education that is related to the world-view and needs of culture and at the same time is under the absolute authority of the Word of God. Good teaching in another culture is most challenging.
Piaget would argue that most cultural differences are variations on a set of common themes. There may be thousands of different ways of looking at life, but Piaget would contend that such differences build on similar deep structures in the person.
Traditional IQ tests are thought to be culturally biased, but Piaget redefined intelligence. Piaget claimed that the foundational structures of intelligence are genetic, and thus are potentially available for every human being in every corner of the earth. Piaget did not promote an elitist or Western definition of intelligence. The rate of development may be slowed or optimized by cultural influences, but highest levels of intelligence are possible for every culture ( Ashton, 1975. Dasen, 1977. Price-Williams, 1981). The doctrine of Creation affirms that every person is made in God’s image with all the potential implied by that creation.
Since the fundamental components of teaching and learning are the same in every culture there are basic principles of teaching that are appropriate in every culture.

Implications of Piaget for Christian Education
Piaget’s theories need to be evaluated and modified in light of the authoritative Word of God and must be empowered by the Holy Spirit for effectiveness in Christian education. While Piaget made no claim of being a follower of Christ, his insights can remind the Christian educator of basic biblical principles.
* Piaget helps us to see that the purpose of education is development. The ultimate goal of human development is for people to glorify God by becoming like Christ in every aspect of life. The task of the Christian educator is to foster the development of people so they will become like Christ - people who more fully love, know and glorify God. Too often Christian educators become sidetracked with idolatrous purposes such as building bigger programs or merely transmitting knowledge. Church growth and program development must always be means toward the bigger goal of Christ-likeness or they become idols.
* Piaget helps us see that learning is a social activity. Christians should not need to be reminded that good education must involve the body of believers, the Church. People develop as they interact with other people. People don’t learn the most important things in life by sitting in a pew taking notes from one-way communication. Good lectures and powerful preaching may be a stimulus for significant education, but Piaget reminds us that people must interact with each other in order to grow. Education that merely fosters passive reception of information will seldom develop people.
* Piaget helps us to see that learning is a disequilibrating and re-equilibrating process. We grow as we wrestle with the problems of life in light of the Word of God. Life is filled with frustrations and challenges. We are influenced by sin at every stage of spiritual growth. There will always be tension between the way we live and the way we should live. The good news of the Gospel must always be the answer for the bad news of our human situation. The purpose of knowledge, even knowledge of the Bible, is that it be a tool for helping us to resolve the deepest dilemmas of being human.
Through the power of the Word of God and by the Spirit of God these three principles could spark renewal in the Church around the world. The purpose of Christian education is to promote the godly development of people. We must involve the whole Body of Christ in this process, using God’s Word as a means for resolving life’s tensions. If these principles are indeed revolutionary, let us be gracious and humble in implementing them, but let the revolution begin!


Bibliography

Ashton, P.T. 1975. Cross-cultural Piagetian research: An experimental perspective. Harvard Educational Review. 45, In Harvard Educational Review reprint # 13 Stage theories of cognitive and moral development. pp. 1-32.
Beilin, H. 1992. Piaget’s enduring contribution to developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology. 28: 191-204.
Dasen, P.R. (Ed.). 1977. Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions. NY: John Wiley.
Dolezal, J. G. 1984. A summary and systematization of Jean Piaget’s position on affectivity. Wheaton College, IL MA Thesis.
Duska, R. & Whelan, M. 1975. Moral development: A guide to Piaget and Kohlberg. New York: Paulist Press.
Elkind, D. (1979a). The study of spontaneous religion in the child. In The child and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elkind, D. (1979b). Piaget and Montessori in the classroom. In, The child and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gainsburg, H. & Opper, S. 1979. Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Gardner, H. 1981. The quest for mind: Piaget, LŽvi-Strauss, and the structuralist movement. (Second edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacob, S.H. 1984. Foundations for Piagetian education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LeBar, L. & Plueddemann, J. 1984. Education that is Christian. Revised. Wheaton: Victor Books.
Piaget, J. 1973. To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman.
Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1969. The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Plueddemann, J. 1986. Theorists who influenced the study of James Fowler and faith development: Piaget, Kohlberg, Erikson. Christianity Today June 13, 1986
Plueddemann, C. & Plueddemann J. (1990). Pilgrims in progress. Wheaton: Harold Shaw.
Price-Williams, D. 1981. Concrete and formal operations. In R.W. Monroe, R.L. Monroe and B.B. Whiting (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural human development. NY: Garland STMP Press.
Pulaski, M. A. S. 1980. Understanding Piaget. New York: Harper & Row.
Shulman, V.L., Restiano-Baumann, L.C.R. & Butler, L. (Eds.) 1985. The future of Piagetian theory: The neo-Piagetians. New York: Plenum Press.
Selman, R. 1976. The Development of Socio-Cognitive Understanding: A Guide to Educational and Clinical Practice. in Morality: Theory, Research and Social Issues, ed. Thomas Lickona New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wadsworth, B. J. 1974. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. New York: David McKay.

Will the Real Leader Stand Up?

From forthcoming book by Jim Plueddemann - Leading Across Cultures (IVP).

There must be hundreds of definitions of leadership, each one reflecting philosophical, theological and cultural values. People from a goal-oriented culture might define leadership as accomplishing the task through other people. Leaders from a relationship-oriented society would prefer to define leadership as the ability to build alliances and friendships. Societies with a low tolerance for ambiguity insist on a precise definition, while those with a high tolerance for ambiguity would likely not bother with any definition.

Recently the U.S. News & World Report editors selected their choice of the best leaders. They defined a leader as a person who “motivates people to work collaboratively to accomplish great things.” [i] The selection committee used three criteria for the best leaders: they set direction, by “building a shared sense of purpose” [ii] they achieved results that had a positive social impact that exceeded expectations, and they cultivated a culture of growth by inspiring others to lead.[iii]

Since there is no divinely inspired definition of leadership I will show my theological and cultural bias with the following description:

Good leaders are fervent disciples of Jesus Christ, gifted by the Holy Spirit, with a passion to bring glory to God. They use their gift of leadership by taking initiative to focus, harmonize and enhance the gifts of others for the sake of developing people and cultivating the Kingdom of God.


[i] Amanda Ruggeri, “America’s Best Leaders: How They Were Picked.” U.S. News & World Report, December 8, 2008, p. 55.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.

Are All Christians Missionaries?

(From forthcoming book, Leading Across Cultures by James E. Plueddemann, by IVP. Publication date October 2009)

The word missionary has mixed connotations. For some people, missionaries are heroes and spiritual giants, worthy to be put on a pedestal. At the other extreme, missionaries are thought to be religious fanatics who destroy cultures and stir up sectarian strife. Many times, they are stereotyped as being from the West and having white skin. More recently the idea has surfaced that all believers are missionaries. I remember a missions conference with the theme, “You are either a missionary or a mission field.” I recently visited a church that featured a large sign over the exit: “You are now entering the mission field.” Some Christian organizations define a missionary as anyone needing to raise support. A prayer letter from a Christian camp announced that the camp staff were all missionaries, meaning the camp didn’t pay them a salary. One of my American friends jokingly defines a missionary as anyone who receives a tax-deductable receipt for the cost of their travel.

Most missionaries are neither spiritual giants nor destroyers of culture. They go out from every country in the world, they have a unique calling, and they are not defined by whether they raise support or not.

A missionary is anyone, from any country, who leaves home in order to proclaim the gospel, usually in another culture. The term is derived from the concept of “apostle,” or “sent one,” so by definition, missionaries move beyond their home ministries.

In the Old Testament, priests had local responsibility for taking care of the temple, while prophets spoke the word of God both to Israel and to the nations. Jesus’ disciples were also called apostles or “sent ones.” They were called to leave home, family and occupations for the sake of Jesus and for the gospel (Mark 10:29). New Testament pastors, elders and deacons were responsible for local house churches, while “apostolic bands” left home to preach the gospel. During much of the history of the church, parish priests led local congregations while religious orders carried the gospel to distant places. Put simply, missionaries are people who leave home for the sake of the gospel. While differences between local and non-local ministries become fuzzy at times, the basic distinction helps to avoid confusion of roles.

The Holy Spirit gives many gifts. Local pastors, evangelists and teachers play a most important, God-given role in world missions, but they are not missionaries. Christians living or doing business in another country are not necessarily missionaries unless they intentionally seek opportunities to share the gospel. Church groups visiting missionaries in another country are most likely Christian tourists. In my definition, Christians doing relief work in Southern Sudan are not missionaries unless they also seek to talk about Jesus. Many people provide outstanding service to humanity by building houses, drilling wells, stimulating micro-enterprises and feeding the poor. But unless they also intentionally seek opportunities to communicate the gospel, I would not call them missionaries. I’m grateful for philanthropists such as Bill Gates and the Red Cross. They aren’t second-class citizens; I just don’t classify them as missionaries.

Yet, communicating the gospel is not the only thing that missionaries do. They do in fact hold verbal proclamation of the gospel together with meeting human need. Through the centuries missionaries have holistically proclaimed Christ as they healed the sick, built schools, provided clean water, initiated agricultural innovation and spoken out against injustice.

When an Indian family moves away from their own culture in south India to the Islamic North in order to do the work of evangelism and discipleship, they are missionaries. Chinese family members setting up a market stall in Afghanistan for the sake of taking the gospel westward are missionaries. An Australian English teacher in China who looks for informal opportunities to share the gospel is a missionary.

Should Women be Leaders?

My Disequilibrating Journey

I’m sorry to admit that I was 36 years old before I really thought seriously about the role of women in ministry. In 1979 I was being interviewed by a woman member of the Board of Regents for a teaching position at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Out of the blue she asked me if I thought women should teach men. Without thinking I quoted 1 Timothy that Paul did not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. (1 Tim. 2:12) She didn’t say anything but gave me a slight smile. I then asked her if she taught Sunday School in her church and if there were men in the class. She nodded, yes. With an embarrassed look on my face I mumbled that I assumed that she was a good teacher and admitted that I hadn’t thought much about the issue. My disequilibration had begun.

If women shouldn’t teach men, how could many of my most influential teachers be women? If women aren’t to teach men because women, like Eve are more easily deceived (1 Tim. 2:14) then for sure women shouldn’t be allowed to teach children or even worse, other women. Should men read books or sing hymns written by women? It didn’t fit my theology or my experience. My mother’s teaching led me to accept Christ as savior. If women shouldn’t have authority over men, how could some of the most dynamic, visionary leaders in missions be women? Does God’s inerrant and fully inspired Bible contradict itself when it says women should keep silent in church, while on the other hand they should cover their heads when they prophesy? (1 Cor. 14:34 and 11:5) My naïf position didn’t make sense theologically or experientially. I began to reflect on my experience, and went to Scripture again with a fresh curiosity.

I grew up in a godly, fun-loving home with a strict German father and Scotch-Irish mother. Both parents were well educated, committed Christians and influential leaders in our local church. In the home my Dad was clearly in charge, but my Mother took most of the initiative in raising and punishing me when I deserved it. Because Mom taught Good News Clubs in our home, I learned most of the Bible stories in our living room filled with children and a flannel-graph board. Even today, when I hear the stories of creation, Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Jesus and Paul, I still picture my mom moving flannel-graph figures around the board with a room-full neighborhood children.

Many other women teachers had a strong impact on my life. My fourth grade teacher Mrs. Phillipson, gave me a sense of confidence and self-worth that changed my worldview. Once, in front of the whole class, she told me that I might be president of the United States some day. As a 12 year old I recommitted my life to Christ under the dynamic Sunday School teaching of Nettie Baird. At Wheaton College, the teachers who influenced me the most were Vivian Bloomquist and Mary and Lois LeBar. When I began dating Carol I quickly realized that she was a lot smarter than I and had gifts where I was sorely lacking. She began to tutor me in Spanish, and helped edit of my papers. Because of her, my grades dramatically improved under her teaching.

After we were married, Carol and I joined the Sudan Interior Mission (now Serving In Mission) and began working with the Christian education department of a dynamic church in Nigeria. I realized that Carol along with Ruth Cox and Mary Marbaugh were much more qualified than I, at teaching, through the means of curriculum development. Mary replaced me in the leadership team when we went of furlo and became the first woman to serve on the SIM West Africa Council. Later when I became the International Director of SIM, I realized that a couple of our field countries were stagnating for lack of visionary leadership. When I appointed Becky Welling as the SIM Director of Sudan, her love for the local pastors, fluency in Arabic along with her enthusiasm and possibility-thinking revitalized the ministry.

On our first vision consultation in India we sensed a deep ingrown discouragement. When I asked the director about his vision for the country, he answered, “the last person to go, turn out the lights.” After we replaced the depressed leader with a dynamic woman medical doctor, Aletta Bell, the field took off. Seldom have we seen such a dramatic turn-around. Aletta traveled to most of the SIM sending offices, exuberantly pounding the pulpit with fresh vision for the ministry in India. In our last visit to India as International Director, the SIMers were buzzing with excitement and enthusiasm about fresh possibilities for ministry. On the last evening of a vision consultation, we sat on the beach, sang praise hymns and watched the sun set over the Arabian Sea. One of the younger folks played music on a “boom-box,” and the whole team made up of members from Ethiopia, Japan, Korea, the United States, India, and many more, lit sparklers and began to dance on the beach. Carol and I watched in amazement. What a difference between our first discouraging visit and our last one with dancing on the beach. India was our fastest growing field. God used this powerfully-gifted, possibility-thinking woman to bring dynamic change.

Journey Toward Re-equilibration

I consider myself a conservative evangelical Christian holding firmly to the fundamentals of the historic faith. I gladly ascribe to the verbal, plenary and inerrant inspiration of Scripture. Was I on a theological slippery slope toward liberalism? Did I sin by appointing women missionaries to positions of authority over men?

I continued reflecting on my life. My professional career has been either as a missionary or a professor. For 24 years I’ve been a cross-cultural missionary, and for 19 years I’ve been a professor at Wheaton College or Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I’ve lived, studied, written and taught in areas of leadership and cross-cultural studies. Both help me understand the dilemma of women in leadership.

The Bible is filled with universal moral ethical principles. Yet where Scripture seems to contradict itself—as in the command for women to be silent, and prophesy with covered head—the principle must not be universal but be intended for a specific or cultural situation. The church in Corinth well-known for specific tensions and squabbles. Many of the commands—such as the length of hair and wearing of hats in church—are generally thought to be culturally-specific. If the apostle Paul were writing to missionaries working in the Islamic world, he might say that it is not appropriate for a man to teach women. It would go against the morays of the culture. If the command is situationally cultural, then both men and women should be alert to times when it would be better for the other gender to do the teaching and leading.

My experiences and studies in cross-cultural leadership leads me to a rival hypothesis regarding the passage where Paul tells Timothy that he “does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:11). In a many parts of the world a high power-distance leadership is the expected cultural value, where a domineering leadership style is assumed by both followers and leaders. Jesus consistently taught a counter-cultural low power-distance leadership value when he told the Jews not to call anyone Rabbi (Matt. 22:8), and his disciples to avoid the Gentile style of lording it over others (Matt. 20:25). Many of the translations of the 1 Timothy passage add the footnote with the alternate reading that Paul did not permit a women to teach man in a domineering way. Since leadership struggles were common in the New Testament church, Paul equally might have written, I do not permit a man to teach either men or women in a domineer way. Most likely a woman was giving Timothy problems by her domineering teaching style. The underlying principle probably refers to leadership styles of both men and women.

Resolution

The universal principle regarding the ministry role of men and women is that they are interdependent. “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (1 Cor. 11:11). Men and women are different but interdependent, where the only hierarchical relationship is God. The position isn’t quite egalitarian or complementarian.

My understanding of the doctrine of progressive revelation helps me to respect both the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. I don’t find the term “ordination” in the New Testament. If folks ask me if I believe in the ordination of women, I tell them “no,” but neither do I believe in the ordination of men. (I enjoy being an iconoclast.) The whole idea of a priesthood limited to the males of one family of one of the tribes of Israel is done away in the New Testament. But if we give in to the cultural temptation to “ordain” people let’s not restrict it to the Old Testament doctrine of the limited priesthood. The laying on of hands seems to be a public indication of the giftedness of an individual and there is no indication that spiritual gifts are gender specific. Surely the doctrine of the priesthood of believers is not limited to males. Galatians lists barriers broken down in the New Testament, both men and women are one in Christ Jesus (Gal 2:28).

I don’t quite fit either the egalitarian or complementarian mold. Maybe I’m an interdependent, egalitarian-complementarian. I praise the Lord for the differences between men and women. Without these differences no one except Adam, Eve and Jesus could be born. I remember reading brain research that discovered a tendency for the left hemisphere to handle abstract functions while the right hemisphere helped with more intuitive ways of thinking. The disconcerting observation is that women usually have more connections between the two hemispheres. In order to make the best decisions it makes sense to have both men and women on governing boards, on leadership teams and highest positions of leadership.

I’m sorry it took me so long to become disequilibrated. From the perspective of a cross-cultural missionary I realize that there are times when, for the sake of the gospel, both men and women need to step back from leadership positions. I respect hierarchical complementarian men and women who, because of their high view of Scripture, struggle with the dilemma. Usually these folks do all they can to include women is as may leadership roles as they can. But as I look at a world in pain, a struggling and lukewarm church and billions of people around the world who don’t know Christ, I am passionate about the urgent need to employ the giftedness of the whole church.

We hurt ourselves when we limit the leadership gifts of at least half the Body of Christ.