Teaching Theology

The Lead Climber

Once we agree that it is the relationship between the teacher and the student which is central to good teaching, there are many different analogies and models out there in the literature which we can use to understand it – such as teacher as host, midwife, friend, paraclete.

One I came across recently is particularly useful, that of the lead climber – the one who climbs the rock face first, belays the rope and then makes available his skill and the safety of his holding of the rope to those who climb after him. I saw it first in a book review of Care to Dare a book on contemporary leadershipbyKohlrieser, Goldsworth and Coombe (and one good way of describing out task vis a vis our students is leadership).

Doing biblical studies and theology as a Christian student whose previous encounter with either has mostly been sermons by their minister and talks on discipleship by their youth leader, is quite a mountain to climb. It may well be exhilarating but the rarefied atmosphere of academia is not without its dangers and there are slippery rock faces to traverse. What makes it worse is that our students generally begin their climb while only starting to learn the basic skills needed.

No model of teacher/student relationship is adequate on its own. They should be regarded as actors on the stage of understanding – sometimes one steps forward to emphasise one idea, then another, but we need them all on stage at one time or another in order for the strengths of one model to plug the weaknesses of others. The model of lead climber, however, says something we need to hear particularly carefully at the moment in theological education.

It is that “assurance of faith” is one of the key gifts we can give to our students. In the midst of academic work on scripture and theology, faith may well be challenged but there is no reason for it to take a fall. We know, we have been there. Safety can never be absolute but the skilful climber who has already done the climb and is now holding the rope above them is a re-assurance that makes their studies free and open and without fear. It encourages them to go and continue to explore. Some would prefer that we take away the difficulty of the task and the exhilaration simply by keeping their feet on the ground and telling them what to learn and believe, but that is hardly a recipe for safety because one day they may well be stuck on the mountain on their own. Better to climb it now while you are above them holding the rope.

No teacher can abdicate from the duty of care towards a student. This is especially true in respect of their faith.

Competitive Kingdom Building

At the weekend, I was told a story about Rick Warren’s statement in a US conference. He said “The most important task we have, especially for those in church leadership is to pray for the success of our neighbouring churches”.

It is, of course, simplistic and over-stated, like much of Rick Warren’s work, but does the job intended – of making us think about a competitive spirit in Christian service. No-where does the issue raise its head more than in theological education. There is a limited pool of potential students out there and theological education does function like a market, although hopefully not so much as higher education today, at least in the UK. If Jonny goes to another college in your country, he will not come to your college. If too many Jonnys and Marys make that choice, your numbers go down and you get into trouble financially. That, of course, is why we spend so much money on publicity and quality brochures and our Principals go out preaching in churches up and down the country.

And yet. If you believe in your own vision, if you have worked hard to ensure that excellent theological education is well reflected in your college, you believe that you have something special to offer students. Surely then you can rejoice that they come to you rather than to a college that does things differently and quite possible not so well. Such a stance can be taken in all humility and a desire for the glory of God.

For instance, I can imagine an inter-denominational college amid a number of denominational colleges honestly believing that, in today’s church and society with all its separations and divisions and denominationalism, it is better that the future leaders of God’s people be trained together, regardless of their denominational affiliation, and encounter differing views in students and staff as an essential part of their preparation. Colleges governed by statements of faith that prescribe views on secondary issues and live within the culture of a particular denomination may well find it hard to offer such openness that is the best atmosphere for growth and unity. (OK, comments on this paragraph are expected.)

Nevertheless, our competitiveness is damaging for two reasons. Firstly, it is the extension of a business model into theological education, where it does not belong. We are not into growth projections, fighting for market share or other management mantras which have become connected with our leadership patterns. Secondly, whatever stance the other colleges take, theological education takes place whenever a teacher stands up in front of students or relates to them in other ways. Sometimes the most inspiring, free-ing teaching takes place in the least inspiring, least free colleges!

So, should we pray for our fellow colleges, regardless of our own particular vision? Yes. If it does nothing else, such prayer is an acknowledgment that the prosperity of the Kingdom of God is more important than the success of our college. And double grace on those colleges fighting to survive in a competitive market if they are able to so do.

[My apologies to those followers of this blog who received today a post I should have sent to a website through which I am tutoring some students. I hit the wrong button.]

Being Trinity

The nature of God should determine the way we live, act as church and serve God. Colin Gunton has lamented that, whereas Christianity developed a special Christian ontology for talking about God and Christ, it never did for talking about the Church. His strategy then (after Moltmann) is to borrow Christian ontology about God in Trinity to talk about the church.

If there is something we need in theological education today (certainly part of the Church), it is a specifically Christian ontology to avoid us being so pushed around in our practice and our thinking by secular cultural and higher education patterns that we lose our soul. What then of the Trinitarian nature of theological education? This is surely much more than a happy analogy but an attempt to be distinctly Christian and reflect the very nature of God in what we do. Where would this apply? Let me state three propositions;

God is fundamentally relational. Our theological education is therefore most Christian when it is the same.

Of course, relations between the three persons of the trinity, even in their most eastern form are different from ours. They are absolute, of same nature, and exhibit a perfect unity of will, thought and intention. But they do declare that relationships are at the very heart of God’s nature. Anyone who has been in a college or seminary where theological education is not practiced through fundamentally a relational approach between teachers and students, teachers and teachers; management and staff, knows how ungodly that becomes.

God – wholly one and yet three – provides a specifically Christian pattern for understanding holistic theological education.

We are asked to practice holistic theological education but are presented with at least a tripartite taxonomy of educational objectives in the spiritual, academic and practical ministerial realms. Somehow they need to become one. The Trinitarian doctrine of perichoresis or dynamic co-inherence is a help here. It talks of the circulation of the divine life between the three, bringing each to fullness of divinity, so that when you encounter one you encounter God, in all his threeness.  The idea that spiritual objectives could bring to life academic teaching, academics could bring to life Christian service and so on, is a delightful picture of good theological education. And to ensure that when our students encounter one, they encounter in some way all three objectives is a beautiful aim.

Trinity says that mission is at the heart of the nature of God. It must therefore be at the heart of our theological education.

As Barth has pointed out, mission is at the heart of the very nature of God because the father sends the son. The mission of God comes first and we participate. To be Trinitarian is to be missional in intent and practice. We see ourselves not doing many things but one thing, participating in the great mission of God to this needy world. It is this that determines our relationship with Church, society and our students.

I know. The experience of most of us in theological education would cause us to shy away from regarding it as divine. But, to the extent that we work for it to be relational, holistic and to have fundamental mission intent, we can honestly say that it partakes of the nature of God. And to the extent that we do not, it is less than it should be.

Who lives in the real world?

Yesterday, at a short conference on assessing Masters level students, I felt rather lonely. In a small group discussion we were asked to prioritise our aims for Masters students. The other four group members aimed to develop students’ research skills, critical skills and the like. I said that I wanted students’ work to be strongly related to the ‘daily life’ (or the real world or contemporary society). When we ranked the aims, not surprisingly, mine came bottom. Feeling rather sad, I returned to the plenary. When the facilitator (Prof. Sally Brown – brilliant) asked the other groups I was stunned at one other group saying the same as me… guess who? None other than the computer scientists! As theological educators we can find both hostility and support in strange places. The ‘geeks’, whom we often assume live in virtual worlds, were actually committed to making their work wholly relevant to real life. I’m not saying that they were altruistic or driven by the betterment of humanity; I’ve no doubt that commercial funding for projects was somewhere in the back of their minds but, at least in some sense, we were moving in the same direction.

Another interesting comment came from the Gibson (no relation!) Institute for Land Food and the Environment. Their representative said that she wanted their students ‘to change the world’. I thought, ‘Here’s another fellow traveller’.  We want our student to change the world and as they go to work in Parishes, Ministries and Missions we want them to be enablers of all Christian people in our quest to change the world. Of course we don’t look for the same type of change as the Agriculturalists and Environmentalists and we are not saying that the Kingdom of God will be fulfilled in this age or by our own efforts. But if we can be fellow travellers with others, who knows what authentically missional opportunities might arise?

My third little ray of sunshine came from the school of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology. The presenter’s first slide contained the following: ‘No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other…’ (Matthew 6:24)’. I’ve no idea whether or not the presenter was a Christian but at least she had some knowledge of the Biblical text and expected her audience to have some familiarity also.  Here again is a little link with the academic world that might be exploited by theological educators in a secular university. If we can model this sort of interaction for our students then they might be enabled to teach and model it for the Christian communities of which they are a part.

For those of us who work in secular educational contexts, let’s keep our eyes open for fellow travellers with whom we can walk, at least a little way.

Drew is professor of practical theology at Union Theological College, a constituent college of the Institute of Theology, the Queens University Belfast

Grey hair theology

How old should a theological educator be? The old adage that students keep you young and make you old all at the same time hides a few important truths.

Firstly, that much of what we do today in our classrooms is cross-cultural teaching; from the culture of an older generation of teachers to the culture of a younger group of students. Different countries and situations have varying respect for the older person, but none escape the difficulty of bridging the generation gap. In many classrooms, a teacher brought up with enlightenment attitudes to the value of theology, a generational pattern of being a Christian and a bundle of methodologies and attitudes from a previous generation, has to work hard to perform his or her job well among contemporary students. Teachers in that situation need to understand the dynamics of contextualisation, the importance of listening and humility. And, I am sorry to say, schools sometimes have to appoint younger lecturers.

Secondly, there is (or can be) a special value in older teachers. There are many ways to describe this but let me use the concept of significance. In one way, very very few people have enduring significance in a world of 6 billion people spread across a vast globe. But an enduring theological teacher, year after year influencing the lives and thoughts of students who will carry that influence into many places near and far, has a special significance.  This does not happen to all. However, there are teachers who so influence their students by the demonstration of core values of what it means to belong to and serve Christ, to think carefully and well, to be relational with students, who have a ripple effect over great historical and geographical  planes. Such a teacher, significant for these factors over a long ministry, has gained not just respect but value for their students today as demonstrations of enduring values, spiritual, academic and ministerial. And the students of their students rise up and call them blessed.

So there are two questions to be answered.

1. Am I humble enough to try to genuinely understand my students and practice as far as I can good contextual teaching?
2. Am I willing to be what I should be in myself as a Christian teacher and go on being that in front of my students year after year as a significant marker of enduring values?

Then some of our students will move from being suspicious of grey hairs to become grateful for them.

Competition

When we stand in front of students, or sit down with them, what are the burning issues in their minds? Probably not the pros and cons of dynamic Christology or a revisionist view of Thomas Cranmer.

For instance, many of our students are of an age when they are either falling in love or longing to do so. And falling in love with someone who is falling in love with you is still the most lovely, intense experience on earth (except listening to our lectures of course). Or maybe they are looking forward to a strange and little understood future and wondering about themselves, who they are and what they can do (rather than who you, the teacher, are and what you can do). We compete for the students’ attention against formidable opponents.

Looking back over my journals kept while I was at college, I note that at one time my two great concerns were whether I was called to the ministry or not and why a stunningly beautiful Portuguese girl refused to go out with me. The lectures had to compete with all that. In case you are interested, I have now been married to that beautiful girl for almost 40 years and we entered the ministry together on leaving college, all by the grace of God.

Nowadays, with a larger proportion of older students in some of our colleges, student heads and hearts are often deeply involved with home, children, finding the money to live while studying and keeping a dozen balls in the air at the same time – balancing the commitments of college, home, church, job and much else. Again, this is pretty tough competition for their attention.

And yet it can work, and it works in three ways;

Firstly, there can be an intensity about the learning experience at college or seminary which, for a while blots out all other thoughts and feelings. We speak glibly about the power of ideas but many of our students are capable of feeling that power in a glorious way. They laugh when they see something clearly, frown when their pre-suppositions are at risk, challenge statements, rush off to the library to read more. And when the ideas are theological, they touch even deeper into their hearts and minds.

Secondly, for all, but especially for the down to earth students who do not become so emotionally involved in theological ideas, we can relate what we teach to their lives, needs and feelings. What does the text under consideration say to the 21^st century 21 year old about love, relationships, faithfulness and the future? What does Christology have to say about how they regard their own human-ness?

Thirdly, as teaching in theological education is ministry of the Word, we can and should rely on the Holy Spirit to stir the heart and make useful and exciting the material we give. This does not absolve us from working at the first two issues but does say that we as teachers have a co-conspirator inside the very heart of the student to give our words power.

The competition between our teaching and the hopes, worries, loves and cares of our students is a reality and is intense. We cannot teach well without taking it into account. But I have seen that competition won, again and again, by teachers who are passionate about what they are teaching, understand the needs and thoughts of their students and see their work as ministry aided by the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, in this most intense of daily competitions, we do not stand a chance.

Measuring Success

How do you describe the success of a theological college or seminary? The answer to this question is often pulled around by the pressures of the times and even staying afloat financially is often success of a sort these days.

Let me describe a way of looking at the question and afterwards, feel free to respond.

At the centre of each human being, there is a small core set of attitudes that makes them what they are and do what they do. This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. Above all else, a college is in the business of forming and growing a key central basket of attitudes in students. To the extent that it does so, it is successful.

What are the key factors involved?

1. The students themselves often come to the college at a liminal moment in their lives – just at a point when they are open to attitude change. We know this to be true of the student who comes up from school to higher education. It is also true of our students who have entered college in preparation for a change of employment or ministry – or because of a sense of need to work things out, grow or start again.
2. The selection process, if run within this understanding of what a college is to do, will often be able to select those students who are already disposed towards these key attitudes or have them in embryo or as a growing presence in their hearts.
3. The college is a teaching institution where truth and ideas which, if they are grasped and accepted become the soil in which new attitudes grow. Despite the despair of many about views of the significance of theology today by our students, the glorious moment of “seeing” a truth is still the basis for adopting an attitude and turning round a life.
4. Staff can, and sometimes do, attractively embody a set of attitudes – show what it means to live by a core of key attitudes blended together in a life. Students are moved by lived truth, by seeing what they want to be as much as by what they know.
5. College life can provide the atmosphere where the key attitudes are affirmed, expected, grown and embedded in a student’s soul and thereafter in his or her life. This is especially true of colleges which create intense, family like communities based on a clear ethos.

It is not surprising then that, historically, colleges have been very effective in moulding that core basket of key attitudes in students. Certainly this was so in my case. But what are the key attitudes at the centre of this vision of success? The tendency nowadays in accreditation is to emphasise the process whereby a college manufactures and achieves its objectives rather than the objectives themselves. And it is true that the college staff must get together and sort out what attitudes it wishes to inculcate in the students, but there are key attitudes which make a student both pleasing and useful to God which have a certain universality.

These would include; the fundamental authority of the Word of God – handled with good and open hermeneutical skill; the division between gospel fundamentals and secondary opinions; the importance of hard thinking about theology and the world; the richness of the Christian community of all of God’s people; the centrality of the personal spiritual godly life; the great purpose of serving God with your life; the pleasant task of being a joyful human being. If our students go out with these attitudes occupying the central place in their souls, we have been a success.

A college then is a powerful institution. But the power of the tool cuts both ways. We can exemplify and inculcate attitudes which, when lodged in the soul are deeply damaging and I have seen times in the life of outwardly “successful” colleges when staff have done just that. What did Jesus say about millstones and necks?