Education for Pastoral Ministry

Should the Teaching of Pastoral Ministry be Church Based or Seminary Based?

Paper presented at an Icthus Research Centre symposium,
Singapore Bible College, 25 October 2004.

Introduction
This paper contributes to discussion on the education of candidates for pastoral ministry within the Christian church.

This paper follows the following sequence:

1. Identification of the task being prepared for
2. Discussion of present methods of education for pastoral ministry
3. Proposal for a different approach

In summary, I will argue that theological colleges and seminaries are at their best in the teaching of the content disciples needed for pastoral ministry, including a theology of pastoral ministry, and in teaching the skills and habit of learning through reflection on experience, and that the learning of skills for pastoral ministry is best done through reflection on church–based experience that is both well structured and supervised.

1. Identification of the task being prepared for

There is much literature on the nature of pastoral ministry. Much of it is an idealised description, perhaps starting from Biblical data and then articulating the task through a theological grid. Much of this is fine and useful material, as a statement of the ideals of pastoral ministry.

Another way to approach the task of definition is to look at what pastors actually do. The following paragraphs present the results of such a study.

Activities record – description A pastor in a senior position kept close track of his ministry activities over a one-month period. These activities were logged using a table, which was written up at the end of each day.

Activities were described with a brief factual comment on what was done. Preliminary analysis of the related learning needs was done on the basis of prior learning and in conjunction with discussion with a mentor. As the exercise passed, the analysis became richer.

In order to crosscheck the comprehensiveness of this table, a further and simpler record of activities undertaken was kept for the following three working months. This further record saw repeats of the data captured in the earlier record, along with some further significant leadership activities, such as leading strategic planning, participating in selection of new office bearers.

1. Activities record – preliminary discussion of findings
The activities undertaken were placed into the following groupings: Meetings, Administration, People, Staff, Teaching, Services and Leadership.

The percentage of time allocated to each grouping was calculated in order to better reveal actual working patterns and leaning needs. Time allocations, ranked in order from highest to lowest are presented below:


Activity type % of working time (rounded +, -)
Church services: 35.25% Includes all preparation as well as participation.
People: 24.69%
Administration: 12.98%
Meetings: 8.58% Includes staff meetings
Other: 7.76% Eg denominational duties; writing for outside publications, report writing;
Staff: 6.64% Includes individual contact with staff or FE students, as well as staff selection and admin
Classes: 4.09%

Several key learning needs can be identified from this table.

1. Bible and theology. It is basic to the role that pastors possess significant Biblical and theological knowledge and are skilled in communicating this through activities such as sermons and classes. They also need skills using this knowledge as a resource in many people helping roles. Such knowledge and skills are also relevant to informing church actions on apparently pragmatic matters as buildings and finances. For example, what is ethical with respect to the church’s financial strategies? What theological priorities can inform the church in allocating funds to building needs as compared with other church activities? As a community defined by Christian faith, the church should expect that its key leader is something of a guide in the faith.

2. Leadership. Leadership is another key learning need. Leadership was not calculated as a separate item on this table, because it is almost impossible to disentangle it from other items. In many of the things pastors do, they exercise leadership directly or lead by modeling. In most of what they do, pastors are being watched by others, either in the process of their work or in its product (for example, sermon preparation) – that is, they are modeling. In most of what they do, pastors influence the behaviours of others and affecting organisational outcomes – that is, they lead.

As an example, consider the roles in church services. Services are accompanied by a bulletin that is given to every member of the congregation. It may have the coming week’s announcements, sermon notes, prayer points and a variety of administrative matters. The pastor may write the announcements, prayer points and sermon notes. Each is a leadership function and affects individual and organisational behaviours: what items are included and excluded? What items are emphasised by different font / size / border treatments? What ‘frame’ is communicated by the way these items are written up?

Again, pastors do the spoken announcements and welcome in services. This is a most important activity as it helps set the mood of the congregation: will it be solemn, formal, warm, relaxed or whatever? What announcements are verbally emphasised and what is the ‘frame’ that is communicated with them?

The single largest time allocation in church services is to the sermon. Given the place of the Bible and preaching in protestant churches, preaching should be a high impact activity. What does the pastor choose to preach on? What frame does he place on the text? What aspect of the text does he choose to focus on in sermon preparation? What applications does he make from the text? What messages does he convey by body language, voice tone, pitch, speed and volume? What does he model about teaching and learning by the style of preaching?

These considerations regarding church services reveal how deeply leadership roles are embedded in the activities of pastors. A similar analysis could be performed for almost any activity recorded in the sample month. They reinforce the critical importance of the pastor’s own learning for leadership.

3. People The activity record also shows the importance of knowledge of people and skills in working with people. This is obvious in activities such as Meetings, Staff, People and Classes. Of all the types of activities listed above, administration appears to least depend on effective learning about people. This appearance is deceptive. Much administrative work is exercised through office staff or volunteer helpers and effective performance by them depends on establishing and maintaining good working relations with these people. Much of this work involves interfaces and impacts on leaders and members of the congregation. This again involves people skills, for example through anticipation of how administrative functions involving congregational impacts can be made most ‘easy’ for the volunteers who make up the congregation and its leaders. Learning about people is therefore another key learning area.

4. Organisational matters. A fourth major broad implication of pastoral activities is the extent to which they involve the pastor’s own learning and skills in organisational matters. Churches can be large and complex organisations and almost all pastoral activities are conducted within the web of the organisational matrix.

Pastors at senior levels have even deeper impacts on organisation life and behaviour, through informal sources of influence and power. These come though involvement in choosing key lay office bearers, shaping agendas for meetings, chairing meetings and participating in the many informal but highly influential meetings that characterise church life, especially in Asian cultures.

The extent of this organisational influence is such that pastors need good learning in knowledge of organisational behaviours as well as good skills to shape their own actions.

5. Community. The Church is more than an organisation. It is a community of people. These people have their fair share of loves, hates, laughs, loathings, difficulties and joys. For many of them, church is a place to ‘be’ as well as a place to ‘do’. This is seen in the way church members will linger around the premises and engage in extensive socialising with one another apart from church activities.

The fostering of healthy community life is a strategic leadership activity for pastors, due to the impact of a positive sense of community on church life, including formal meetings.

In a sense, this community role is the summation of much else about the church. The church is a gathering of people defined by Christian faith and whose community is expressed and shaped by organisational elements. It is a key role for pastors, to shape, maintain and extend the sense of community.

The activities record reported above captures some detailed data on the range and balance of pastoral activities . The above discussion includes a brief analysis of some key features derived from this data. The discussion identifies some key learning needs associated with pastoral roles. These needs can be seen as falling into two distinct groups. One group includes knowledge and skills in the underlying content of the Christian faith. This is Bible and theology learning area. The other group includes organisation, leadership and community skills.

It is now timely to ask how these extensive and varied learning needs are best satisfied.

2. Present sources of learning for pastoral ministry
Learning for pastoral ministry typically takes place as pre-service and in-service activities.

Of these, pre-service learning typically receives greater weighting, if measured by formal learning experiences. There are several factors relevant to this. Unlike other professions such as accountancy and medical practice, pastoral ministers are typically not required to do continuing in-service learning as a requirement for maintaining professional registration. Promotion and pay increments do not directly depend on continuing professional education and there is no formal relationship between such education and gaining a more highly regarded appointment.

While opportunities for continuing education abound in many courses and conferences, little financial and time provision is typically made to encourage and facilitate attendance. For example, churches may allow annual study leave to pastors, but do not necessarily provide funds for course fees and travel costs. It would be interesting to do a detailed study on the in-service education done by pastors. To what extent do they rush from one ‘tips and techniques’ conference to another, hoping to pick up the latest ‘magic button’ to a booming church and with little sense of the incoherencies between these techniques and between the techniques and the pastor’s own theology?

Pre-service learning for pastors arguably has major impact on the shape of their professional practice and on the content and style of their continuing learning. Subtle messages about the relative importance of different learning areas are given by the amount of attention given to them in theological college, as measured by teaching hours and their contribution to the credentialing qualification.

Pre-service learning is typically conducted through a three or four year tertiary level programme offered by a recognised theological college and resulting in a publicly certified award. These programmes typically include a mix of three elements. Firstly, courses in the core theological disciplines of Bible and theology, along with supporting disciplines such as church history and philosophy. Secondly, courses in practical ministry, such as preaching counselling, youth work, and worship . Thirdly, mandatory ministry experience with local churches or other Christian agencies through field education (FE). FE typically involves about eight hours weekly field experience during semesters and a fulltime internship lasting for a month or so. This FE also involves observation, participation, reflection and assessment and again involves a local church minister in supervision and assessment.

My own experience of teaching at theological colleges (including being a college Director of Field Education) is that students put far greater emphasis on the more content based subjects and often give light and dismissive attention to practical subjects as taught in the classroom. This may be reinforced if practical subjects are assessed on a less than rigorous basis and results merely recorded as ‘satisfied requirements’. Yet, field education often proves an engrossing experience and draws students to give extra hours of volunteer time. (Note however, Miner’s finding about the lack of preparation for students to gain most from FE ).

I have supervised FE students in both Australia and Singapore and notice that students can become quite enthusiastic about FE, giving extra hours and becoming closely identified with the church where they serve. What it is about FE that attracts this interest? Is it because students come into college motivated by a desire to serve in the local church and FE gives them an opportunity to do just that? Or is it because the nature of the learning experience in FE (observation, participation, reflection) better addresses felt learning needs?

This contrast in student attitudes to classroom courses on ministry practice and to FE is a ‘puzzle’ whose investigation holds promise of interesting findings.

Such is the common pattern of ministers’ pre-service education. This education is often criticised for its failure to prepare students for the actual demands of professional practice. It is worth looking at some of this criticism and some of the alternative models that have been proposed.

Based on his 1980s study of NSW Presbyterian ministers, Fullerton comments:

'This study has shown that theological education is an important period within which a candidate's theological orientation and expectations of the ministry may be reinforced or modified depending upon the candidate's prior orientation and the emphasis of the theological training institution. Currently, theological education has a heavy emphasis on the imparting of doctrinal and biblical knowledge and little attention is given to training or preparing the candidate to cope with the multitude of pressures and conflicts that he/she is likely to encounter in the parish ministry. During their time in theological college candidates need to be exposed to the vulnerability of the faith, the pressures that they will face, the conflicts that they will experience and the church's position in a secular society. There is a need for a greater emphasis on practical training and the equipping of candidates with personal skills to help them deal with stress and conflict.'

In response to the perceived inadequacies of pre-service training Fullerton calls for more support for in-service learning:

‘The church needs to provide opportunities for ongoing education, evaluation, reflection, planning, development of existing skills and the gaining of new skills. Such educational opportunities may have to be made mandatory for ministers in order to ensure that those who especially need such assistance do actually receive it’.

Miner echoes similar concerns in her 1990s study of NSW Presbyterian ministers. She focussed on professional stress; finding that all ministers surveyed were vulnerable to stress and two thirds were moderately vulnerable. 45% felt that deficiencies in their theological training caused stress in their early ministry, with the most common complaint concerning a lack of training in practical, interpersonal and counselling skills . Her criticism of existing theological training is sharp when it comes to the adequacy of training to meet the professional expectations created during the very same training:

‘Two expectations arise: firstly, that exit students will be competent in their use of biblical languages, biblical history and theology, particularly applied in preaching and teaching; and secondly, that they will be able to carry out the tasks of ministry with minimal supervision and assistance. There is also the expectation that the minister will be a generalist but have specific competencies in a range of semi-professional areas. At the level of skills, there is insufficient time to teach beyond the basics in management and counselling, while skills in evangelism, religious education and youth work are not formally addressed. There is no time for theoretical background in developmental psychology, mental health issues or organisational theory, all of which would provide a basis for specific skills. So theological education raises expectations about priorities and skills in ministry but in its present form cannot equip ministers thoroughly to meet these expectations. For these reasons theological education was perceived to be deficient by a majority of ministers and training inadequacies directly contributed to depersonalisation and anxiety.’

Miner reports some pastors who found resources to cope in some non-formal aspects of their course. One spoke of the practical knowledge gained by holding a church pastoral employment simultaneously with doing the formal course and another of having done courses at another college that focused on practical skills .

Like Fullerton, Miner sees part of the remedy in continuing education:

‘Finally, continuing education will be needed to equip current ministers for greater role specialisation in the future. Courses in people skills (counselling, conflict management), evangelism, youth work, religious education, administration and group processes (from a systems perspective, for example) would be appropriate.’

The Fullerton and Miner studies are both based on the same data set, but at different times and with different methodologies. They are not alone in commenting on the problems of existing pre-service education. Both see a remedy by making some adjustments to pre-service training, but both major on the importance of continuing education. But, must effective learning for pastoral ministry wait for the ad hoc opportunities of such continuing education, by which time bad habits may be irretrievably set?

In the 1960s a group of theological educators in Latin America developed an approach known as Theological Education by Extension (TEE). TEE developed in response to the difficulty of providing a satisfactory seminary-model extraction style programme in developing countries. TEE is designed to facilitate the training of practicing Christian leaders and involves an integrated programme of self-teaching materials delivered to students through the most convenient technology available, learner seminars at a local level for the purposes of enrichment and enlargement of learning (but not for content delivery); and practical ministry tasks. A key distinctive element is the use of the local peer group learner seminars to integrate content learning and practical assignments – these seminars have been compared to the ‘post’ that connects the two rails of a fence .

TEE is very interesting from the interests of the present research. As I have previously written:
‘TEE also offers the individual learner the value of self-reinforcing learning through the related practical ministry projects … For example, students may be presented with new information in their self-teaching materials and have a related ministry task of teaching that same material to members of a church small group. The ministry relatedness of this assessment task gives it an urgency and importance more likely to reinforce learning than the endless writing of seminary papers for the eyes of professional seminary teachers only! In common with other forms of distance education, TEE has the extra benefit of contributing to the development of self-directing and continuing learners with high levels of skill and motivation. This feeds nicely into the goal which is common to much adult education, namely of producing an independent lifelong learner. It contrasts sharply with the seminary model of closed pre-service training followed by decades of ministry characterised by increasing dullness and diminishing knowledge, punctuated with the occasional in-service seminar to which learners are compelled or persuaded to attend.’

In addition, TEE offers education that is liberating to the learner, with its Freirean combination of a lively process in which reflection and action join in a continuing dynamic in which themes are named, problems identified and action taken to achieve solutions. TEE is, however, vulnerable to criticism at several points, including a possible loss of rigour in learning, lessened professional socialisation and problem of quality assurance for field based learning, given the lack of supervision . However, its strengths have attracted attention as a mainstream method of theological training and not just as a poor cousin for churches and students unable to afford a seminary. Part of these strengths is a challenge to the whole basis of seminary education and development of an approach that is empowering, inclusive, transformative, liberating and, above all, tied to development of good practice .

3. Proposal for a different approach

Some common threads are emerging in the above discussion. Pre-service theological education is typically focused on knowledge and skills related to the ‘content’ side of professional practice. It includes a measure of education in practical subjects that occupy a minority part of the curriculum and which may be of low status in gaining the key tertiary qualification needed for professional entry. While constituting a small part of the formal requirements of pre-service education, FE may be highly regarded by students at the time and later found to be of considerable use. Meanwhile, TEE has emerged as a widely adapted form of pre-service education whose several advantages involve integration of theory and practice via integrative learner seminars and reflection.

A recent study on educational methods in the whole church calls for a general shift from what is identified as a predominant schooling model towards a relational model centred on ‘discipling’ . Collinson notes the literature on dissatisfaction with traditional seminary models and responses in the now-common emphases on spiritual formation, supervised field education and Clinical Pastoral Education and a general shift towards more nurturing models of education . She surveys recent studies by Robert Ferris and Robert Banks, both of whom emphasise the practical context of learning and the importance of critical reflection as a tool for learning. Ferris writes: ‘Helping students apply learning in ministry is our first challenge; helping them reflect critically and Biblically on that experience so as to learn from it is our second’ .

Collinson sees Banks as especially strong and clear in his call:

‘ .'… he also emphasises a life-related, practical ministry approach to all theological learning. Thus he advocates collaborative learning and field based education using Groome’s action-reflection cycle and including observer participation and reflective action. He sees use of Scripture in the reflective process as being essential, because it provides a foundation for the learner’s conversation for life as she or he is involved in daily service of the kingdom

In the remaining part of this paper I focus on the issue of generating good professional learning through reflection on experience and how this could be incorporated into pre-service theological education.

But first, let us be explicit about what this should not involve. People in pastoral ministry need a high level of competence in the core theological disciplines. If anything, a case can be argued for increasing attention to these in pre-service training, as well as encouraging continuing attention to them during in-service learning. Indeed, one unfortunate consequence of the earlier noted shifts to more practical emphasis in theological seminaries is that students are doing less of these key content disciplines. This is noticeably evident in the lack of skills in the Biblical languages among theological graduates – a lack that is a source of profound concern with respect to their (in)ability to satisfactorily perform a core professional task of the pastor, namely to interpret and teach the Bible well . I believe that more time needs to be given to the core content disciplines in the theological curriculum and that this is achieved, not by adding to classroom hours, but by re-shaping the learning programme. I argue that much (but not all) learning for practical skills should be removed from the classroom and located in churches. However, this is more than a matter of pushing theological students out to spend more time in FE appointments and hoping for the best .

Specifically, I argue that seminaries and theological colleges should focus on: (a) teaching the core content subjects needed for ministry; (b) teaching a good theology of ministry; (c) teaching skills of learning through reflection on practice; (d) organising and supervising church-based field experience opportunities where students can gain practical experience and learn for pastoral ministry through reflection experience.

I have just commented on the need for more emphasis on teaching the core content subjects. What of a theology of ministry?

Many seminaries list ‘Pastoral Theology’ as a subject in the curriculum. However, this is often a misleading title. Inspection of the college handbook reveals that these courses would be better entitled ‘Ministry Practice’, for they are typically courses on preaching, counselling, ministry to different ages groups and such like. Some of these courses doubtless include some theological reflection, but the focus is often very practical - a kind of ‘tips and techniques’ approach. Is there a coherent, consistent and comprehensive pastoral theology? Often, the answer is ‘no’, for courses on ministry practice are not the same as a theology of pastoral practice.

A good pastoral theology will arise from the core theological disciplines and may be best taught by those qualified in these disciplines. It supplies a conceptual framework for practice. It will enable students to choose, design and evaluate different specifics of practice and should help keep pastors from the rank pragmatism that is often identified as characteristic of the evangelical church . In short a pastoral theology will help keep practice from being blind. In turn, good pastoral practice will help keep theology from being empty. It is through a genuine pastoral theology that the Scriptures remain central to ministry practice.

What of learning for practice through reflection on practice? What constitutes good learning from practice and how can it be justified as a replacement for classroom lectures in pastoral practice?

It is a long-held belief that knowledge is generated in academic institutions and that the role of professional practice is to develop skill in the application of that knowledge. In recent decades there has been recognition that real knowledge can be developed from practice. If so, this has profound implications for both professional practice and for education for professional practice.

For example, some epistemologists speak of the emergence of new modes of knowledge production in response to the greatly increased demands for specialized knowledge in western societies after World War II. These new modes are applied, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, heterarchical, socially accountable and reflective, wider and more temporary . They are outside of traditional institutions and mechanisms for the generation of knowledge.

The generation of knowledge through reflection on practice is prominent among these new epistemologies. Donald Schon traces the rise of what he calls ‘technical rationality’ (TR) in which an underlying theoretical discipline gave rise to applied sciences and then to development of the skills and knowledge needed for professional practice . In practice, he argues, TR simply fails to deliver the kind of knowledge needed for the world of actual practice in professions as varied as medicine and the social sciences. This is a world of uncertainties, instability, uniqueness and fast changing realities. The unchanging and universal nature of TR knowledge is largely inadequate as a guide to practice . Meanwhile, there is a vast body of knowledge developed by professionals as they ‘think on their feet’ – much of it is spontaneous, unaware and not readily describable . But it does ‘work’ and it is what, in fact, guides much practice. What is needed, according to Schon, is exploration, analysis and development of reflection on practice as a rigorous source of knowledge, so as to avoid the present dilemma of choosing between irrelevant TR based knowledge and non-rigorous knowledge derived from practice .
Schon and others have given considerable attention to the generation of knowledge through reflection on practice, such that it is systematic, open to scrutiny and justifiable as a new form of ‘science. This extended development of knowledge through reflection on practice has grown into ‘action science’ Action science has a well-developed set of approaches for helping practitioners ‘map’ out a problem situation by examining contexts, action modes and frames and how these impact on the way participants ‘see’ a situation and how this works out in cycles of actions and reactions of participants. By exposing these ‘frames’ and dynamics, reflective practitioners are enabled to better understand their own behaviour and that of others and then to effect changes based on re-acting, re-framing or re-designing as is appropriate.

However, this reflective learning is more than the common practice of professional journaling and reflection ‘after’ practice. Good reflection after practice is a valuable tool for professional learning. As a further stage, practitioners might also move to reflection ‘before’ practice. That is, to the anticipation of a coming challenging situation in which advance reflection enables the exchange to be better designed and managed. In its highest forms, reflective learning involves high level skills of ‘reflecting in action’ where the practitioner is self-aware of the multiple elements and unfolding dynamic of a situation and able to use this awareness to change his / her actions towards better quality practice.

How are people to learn this reflective knowledge and the associated skills? At present, learning from experience may often be hit and miss, especially in Christian ministry. For example, a group of pastors may be talking about their experiences and taking mental notes of these ‘lessons for life’. There may be real wisdom here, but is it tested and justifiable? Or again, a theological student may blunder his way to failure in an FE assignment, but be skillfully unaware of what caused the blunders. Instead of examining the episode in a way designed to learn from it, he may be scolded, or scold himself, and resolve never to go near that area of ministry again.

What I am suggesting here is that much good learning in the knowledge and skills needed for the actual world of pastoral ministry (as outlined in Part 1) is available from reflective learning on actual practice in the working life of the church. Such learning from reflection also echoes some of the themes raised in my earlier discussion about FE and TEE. To gain maximum benefit from this kind of learning, pastoral students need at least two things.

First, they need a lot more time in pastoral practice than at present and this needs to include well-rounded exposure to the full range of pastoral experiences. Can this be achieved making the academic year more compact through better timetabling and the earlier suggested redesign of the theological curriculum? Or, can better use be made of the time served after theological college graduation and before ordination by treating it as a rigorous professional internship on the medical school model?

Second, students need to be taught how to learn through reflection on practice . This could be a key role for a theological college and could be a worthy replacement for some or most of the courses in ministry techniques that presently clutter many a curriculum. What is attractive about this is that students are being given a powerful tool for their own life-long learning. Pastoral ministry is a changing field of practice and no two ministries are alike at a given moment. No amount of pre-service teaching in set-piece pastoral approaches can adequately prepare students for the unique, complex, messy realities of their ministries where the unique, complex, messy reality of who they are intersects with the unique, complex messy reality of the ministry where they serve and the people who they are privileged to serve. However, if pastoral students have learned ‘how to learn’ through reflection on experience in theological college, and if this has been inculcated as a learning habit, they are well equipped for better practice and better learning.

I do not suggest an uncritical borrowing of the approach to professional knowledge suggested by Aygyris, Schon and others in their field. In particular, the utmost care is needed to develop a good pastoral theology and use it as the conceptual framework to guide both ministry practice and to ‘discern’ the knowledge gained through reflection on experience. However, I do suggest that much pastoral practice would gain if seminaries and churches combined to teach and develop good skills of reflective learning. This should result in a good principled pragmatism. ‘Principled’, in that pastoral practice is guided by good theology and the core theological disciplines. ‘Pragmatism’ in that practice is adjusted to the working realities of ministry.

Conclusion
The title of this paper is ‘should the teaching of pastoral ministry be church based or seminary based?’. My answer is, not surprisingly, ‘both’.

The seminary has an indispensable role in helping students grow in their knowledge of the Christian faith, in providing a conceptual framework within which the practice of ministry is exercised and in developing the skills of reflective learning. For their part, churches can provide the venue where students learn and grow in ministry skills as they apply skills of reflective learning to the actual ministry practice that they engage in.

David Burke


Bibliography

Argyris, C; Putnam, R; Smith, DM (1985). Action Science. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Burke, D, (1997). Theological Education by Extension – More Than Education At a Distance. Unpublished paper.

Collinson, SW (2004). Making Disciples – the Significance of Jesus’ Educational Methods for Today’s Church. (Paternoster, Carlisle).

Davies, JA (1993). Language and The Theological Curriculum. Reformed Theological Review, Vol 52,1, pp1-11.

Ferris, RW (1993). Towards a Theology of Training Methods. Unpublished Paper presented at 15th Biennial Conference of South Pacific Association of Bible Colleges.

Fullerton, G (1989). Theological Orientations, Ministerial Roles and Role Conflicts – A Study of Presbyterian Ministers in NSW. Unpublished report on research presented as a Doctor of Ministry dissertation, San Francisco Theological Seminary.

Gibbons, M; Limoges, C; Nowotny, H; Schwartzman, S; Scott, P; Trow, M (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. (SAGE, London).

Jenson P (1996). Maturing the Mind: Intellectual Attainment and Theological Education. Reformed Theological Review, Vol 55,1, 109-120.

Miner, M (1996). Discussion Paper On Theological Education. Unpublished report based on a UWS PhD thesis, The Human Cost of Presbyterian Identity; Secularisation, Stress and Psychological Outcomes for Presbyterian Ministers in NSW.

Noll, M (1994). The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).

Schon, D (1983). The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. (Basic Books, USA)

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Wells, D F (1993), No Place For Truth (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).

Review: Engaging With God, by David Peterson

Engaging With God - A Biblical Theology of Worship, David Peterson (IVP Academic 1992). 293 pages plus indices.

Peterson is the recently retired Principal of Oak Hill Theological College in London and is in the Anglican evangelical tradition. His previous scholarly work on Hebrews makes him well qualified to write on worship from the perspective of Biblical Theology. He has a keen sense of how the gospel of Jesus Christ changes our thinking from a mere Christianisation of OT worship forms into Christian worship.

The first two chapters set the scene with an Old Testament study, followed by a summary and preview chapter that sets the scene for what follows. The great strength of the book is in Chs 3-9 where Peterson systematically mines the various parts of the NT for their teaching on worship. These chapters present careful scholarship rather than glib phrases.

Ch 10 is a goldmine as Peterson brings the whole together in a theological consideration of how worship relates to the gospel. The Epilogue gives a tantilising hint as to what all this might mean in practice.

It's outside Peterson's scope in this study, but I wish he had written more chapters ... especially doing more to apply his findings to worship in today's church.

Peterson is not a light read but should be within reach of the serious 'lay' reader. This work is worth the effort and it is a good challenge to some views on worship that have a greater audience at present. In particular this is true of his emphasis that worship is largely  a life of faith, godliness and witness.

Financial crisis

What is God doing?

David Burke (Oct 2008)

The present financial crisis hurts people and institutions at large and among Christian people and Christian causes.

The question
What is God doing? The question needs refining.

Let’s start with some basics about God. The earth and all its fullness is his (Ps 24:1). He is the God was who incarnate here and who continues to be hands-on. He moves all things in our world according to his will (Eph 1:11). He gives our every breath, and it is in him that we live and move and be (Acts 17:24-28). He even uses the godless as his servants (eg Is 45:1-5). Not only is God the sovereign Lord but he is good, always works for good and does only good (eg Ps 34:8; Nah 1:7). How is God working for good in the financial crisis?

The question is intensified when we consider God’s promises to his people. The Bible tells us that he is with his ‘city’ and that it will not be moved even as nations rage and kingdoms totter (Ps 46:4-7). Further, he promises to work all things together for good for those who love him and says that nothing will separate them from his love (Rom 8:28,35-37).

Let’s re-state the question? How is God working for general good? How is he working for the good of his people?

How do we answer these questions?
It’s hard to answer these questions with certainty for ‘who can know the mind of God?’ (Eg Is 40:13, Rom 11:33). The OT prophets were able to interpret history because they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). Christian people now have the same Spirit of wisdom (eg Jas 1:5) but we cannot claim prophetic certainty for our understanding. Nor can we expect to understand all at present. Hindsight may give 20/20 vision, but we now see through the mirror darkly (1 Cor 13:9-12). This darkened vision includes our attempts to make God-centred sense of the financial crisis.

So let’s now be modest in our interpretation of present events. Later observers may more definitive. What we can do with more certainty is encourage one another to remain loyal to God in this and to be caring towards those who suffer.

Some theological guesses
Several theological lenses may be used to consider the crisis.

Judgement. The financial crisis is centred in the US. The US has been greatly blessed by God since settlement. Yet there is a dark underbelly. Much of the church is weak. This includes theological and moral libertinism and the widespread silence of the church before the privatisation of faith and social inequality and especially before the idolatry of wealth.

Has the US has lived up to its privilege or abused it and presumed on God’? Presumption on God led to the 586BC exile. See 2 Kings 24:20 for just one of many such interpretation of Israel’s exile. See Hebrews 3:7 – 4:11 for an example of driving the lessons home in a different context.

What is true of the US is true of the rest of us. We know about God but do not give him his worth as we should. Our trust is largely in ourselves and our achievements. Is the crisis is an act of judgement? Has God his protective hands and left us to the fruits of giving ourselves to the world of created things and the associated idolatry of greed? (Rom 1:18-32; Col 3:5).

A prophetic word The Bible points out the illusion, precariousness and temporality of the world’s wealth in contrast with the heavenly treasure of God (eg Eccles 2:1-11; Is 55:1-2; Matt 6:19-21; Lke 12:33; 1 Tim 6:17-19; Jas 5:1-6).

The present crisis is a painful, public and dramatic object lesson of these Biblical teachings. For those with eyes to see, heaven’s ‘wealth looks more valuable and more secure as apparently secure financial institutions tumble and investment instruments look like Monopoly money. Is God using this crisis to reinforce his words about wealth and greed?

Is God doing a good new thing? God moves his plans forward in all things (Eph 1:11). ‘All things’ means all events at all times. It fits with an eternally optimistic and linear Biblical view of history. God moves history to a good place of reconciling all things in Christ (Eph 1:9-10).

The 586BC exile brought down one God-defying kingdom and paved the way for the kingdom of Jesus. Is he now bringing down a financial kingdom in order to advance further his kingdom plans? This is hard to assess, for the future ‘glass’ is pitch black. We can’t predict what God may be doing for the future. However, we can be sure that he is moving forward in a good way towards his eternal kingdom.

Pastoral and personal
We are on more certain ground if we turn to a personal and pastoral approach. Encouragement and care of one another are more immediately useful than attempts to try and explain what God is doing and why.

The Bible and its people know a lot about suffering. The ‘why?’ and ‘how long? questions are often asked (eg Hab 1:2). The Bible generally does not answer these questions but instead gives a revelation of God’s character and words of encouragement to see God’s people though tough times (eg Job 40:1-8, 42:1-6). The following are just a few of the many pastoral and personal words that can be said on the present crisis.

The storm catches all. When judgement comes, godly people may be caught in its path as much as the ungodly. Thus Jeremiah went from God’s land to Egypt (Jer 43) and Ezekiel was with the exiles in Babylon (Ezek 1:1-2). These examples can be multiplied. God does not always protect his people from pain and the effects of judgement. Knowledge of this does not ‘solve’ the problem of the godly suffering in his judgments, but it is a consolation. The fact that a Christian suffers in the financial crisis does not mean that they are under judgement.

God’s protection in suffering. Romans 8:38-38 assumes that believers suffer calamities of various kinds including ‘hardship’ which, in context, may be a reference to poverty. That is, God’s action to work all things for good (v28) does not necessarily mean that he protects from pain. However, the passage is insistent that such things do not separate them from God’s love but that they are ‘more than conquerors’ (v37) through such things. It’s an act of great faith to thank God that he is working for personal good through the sufferings of the financial crisis, but that’s what the Bible teaches. And hence 1 Thess 5:18 applies to the bad times of the financial crisis as much as to the bull markets. Will we only accept and thank him for the good (Job 2:10)?

Prayer. We are told to ‘pray continually’ (1 Thess 5:17). We are not to be anxious but to be thankful as we bring our requests to God with the result of knowing God’s deep peace (Phil 4:6-7).

We need care in this prayer. Perhaps we don’t think it right to pray that God will reverse the markets, just as Jeremiah was not to pray for Jerusalem’s relief (eg Jer 14:11-12). However it is always right to pray that God will provide for our needs and keep his promise (Rom 8:37) to protect us through the hard times.

Continued trust. Ps 46:4-7 was cited earlier. Now look at the wider context: vv1-3, 8-11. God’s people are not to fear, despite appearances, for God is our refuge and strength. As we see his works (and note that these are works of judgement – vv8-9) we are to be still and know that he is God and that he shall be exalted (v10). Because we are persuaded that he is always sovereign and always good (see references above) we stand firm in him. That confidence in him is the basis of Christian calmness under fire. Those in the front line of the financial crisis can be calm and poised, not because they know what is happening or know what to do but because they know the one who is sovereign over the markets.

Care and compassion The Bible urges sympathy with the suffering (eg Rom 12:13) and care for the needy (eg Jas 1:27a). Most of us will suffer through the financial crisis. Some will suffer more than others. We need a sense of perspective wealth to stop ourselves being consumed by self-pity and given to selfish behaviours. Have you lost your job and all you? Even if you have lost all you are still alive to live and earn for another day. This sense of perspective about our own sufferings and our sense of loving our neighbour should lead us to share from our ‘little’ that there might be greater equality (2 Cor 9:13-15). There is a powerful Christian witness here. Let’s not be like Job’s friends and offer long-winded explanations for the crisis and its pain, but let’s get out there in Christ’s name and help from our widow’s mite.

Self examination. The crisis is a personal wake-up call and opportunity for self-examination. Let’s be still and be on our knees before God to ask such questions as these ..
• To what extent is my pain at the crisis increased because I have made an idol of earthly wealth?
• How much is my fear increased because I trust myself andf not God?

• Where is my real sense of wealth: earth or heaven?
• To what extent is my heart in the wrong place, as seen by my preferred treasure?
• How much of my pain is pride, because I made wrong decision or worse ones than others?
• Am I envious at those who have done less worse and do I covet their position?
• To what extent am I resentful because my plans for a comfortable life are now set back?

Finally, Martyn Lloyd-Jones urges that we should be thankful at anything that brings us to our knees before God. That is a good place to stop pondering and start praying.

What is a Christian Education?

What is a Christian Education?

 Paper delivered at TCF Conference in Singapore, March 2004

David Burke

 Overview

This paper ‘locates’ a Christian view of education within Christian world-view and advocates consistency from thought to practice. It discusses how the Bible is used in this, identifies some specific aspects of education for attention and illustrates a Christian perspective in one of these. There are more questions than answers, for this is a vast and ongoing project.

 Introduction

In its broadest form, education is concerned with the totality of the teaching / learning process.

 The term ‘Christian education’ is sometimes used to refer to education in the Christian faith. A wider use of the term refers to a distinctly Christian perspective on education in all learning areas and at all levels. This wider use of the term is the focus of this paper and hence the title; What is a Christian education. There is a growing body of literature in the field[iii].

 A distinctly Christian view of education will be concerned with many of the same topics as other approaches to education. In some respects, its contents will overlap with those of other views, but it has important distinctives.

 Forming a Christian view of education is part of a wider project of developing a Christian world-view. This world-view functions as a map to guide thinking and behaviour over the whole of life – it is part of the renewing of the mind that Paul mentions in Rom 12:2[iv]. Like other topics within a Christian world-view, a Christian view of education starts with the basic reality of the God who created, saves, rules and speaks in his triune nature.

 Thinking about education

All educators have to grapple with some common basic issues[v]. The answers to these form a philosophy of education. In turn, philosophies of education give rise theories of education and these give rise to the practice of education.

 In an idealist world, educators and clients of educational providers would be aware of the philosophies and theories that lie behind educational practice. Practicing educators would then choose and use approaches to education that are consistent with their educational philosophy.  (Of course, the reverse is true in a pragmatist world where theory would be developed from reflections on practice[vi] and, if educational philosophy were ever a concern, it would be derived from practice via an inductive logic.)

 As it stands, anecdotal evidence suggests that much educational practice is conducted on a pragmatic basis, with little attention to the theory and philosophy behind it. Teachers have an instinct to identify what ‘works’ and then use it without much further consideration.

 For example, methods of teaching that rely on rigid control and systems of reward and punishment are common tools. These methods are quite effective in certain contexts (and perhaps appropriate in learning tasks such as spelling lists, math’s time’s tables and safety routines). But, how many teachers and parents are able to label these methods as behaviouralism and how many have thought about and agree with the rather bleak view of the learner undergirding this approach[vii]? Yet, Christian parents and teachers may laud behaviouralist methods as reflecting good discipline and delivering ‘real learning’.

 My point here is not to argue for this or that approach to education. It is rather to observe that much educational practice is rather blind, in that it is conducted with little concern for consistency between different approaches to practice and even less concern to think Christianly about educational philosophy and theory. What passes for a Christian view of education is often an uncritical mish-mash of elements drawn from widely varied sources that do not ‘fit’ with each other, let alone add up to a coherent Christian view[viii].

 As Immanuel Kant said: theory without practice is empty and practice without theory is blind. Theory and practice need to feed into and depend on each other. Theory is to be embedded in practice and practice in theory. What is needed is for Christians to think backwards and forwards through the linkages between a Christian world-view, Christian philosophies of education and Christian theories and practices of education[ix].

 The sources of a Christian education

Where does a Christian view of education come from? The Bible has much to say about education and is a real goldmine for those seeking to develop a Christian view of education[x].

 A little thought is needed however. It is an evangelical view that Scripture is sufficient, in that it tells us all we need to know. However, there is a very important distinction between the sufficiency and the exhaustiveness of Scripture[xi]. Put simply, the Bible does not tell us everything about everything[xii]. It is not an encyclopedia or a textbook on education.

 When we come to education, this means that the task of developing a Christian view of education involves more than looking up relevant concordance references and linking the results together like pieces of a jigsaw. We must learn to think with regard to theological and philosophical categories and with an eye to the subtle distinction between different kinds of material in the Bible that are relevant to education.

 Three categories of Biblical material are relevant here. The Bible sometimes gives us principles, precedents and precepts.

 A precept is a lower-order statement directly related to action. A precept tells us what to do. Our response is one of obedience or disobedience. For example, Ephesians 6:4 tells fathers that they are responsible for the Bible education of their children. How is a father to obey God in this today?

 A precedent is a case study from the Biblical world. It is a description of something that happened.  Our proper response to a precedent is not to automatically replicate what was done, but to investigate and evaluate it. For example, Acts 20:7-9 tells the story of an overly-long Bible lesson that resulted in danger to a somnolent learner. What does this tell us about the way attention spans, timetabling and class seating impact on effective education?

 A principle is a broad higher-order statement of a universal. Our proper response is to investigate and understand the principle in its context and then interpret and apply it to our context.  For example, Proverbs 1:7 states that ‘fear’ (or awe) of God is the start point for all true knowledge. How does ‘fear’ of God serve as the foundation of knowledge in the sciences?

 A mature Christian view of education works within and under the authority of the Bible’s teachings, bearing in mind the differences between different kinds of Biblical material.

 But, what about using material from declared non-Christian sources? Some Christian people will resist this, saying that we should use the Bible alone. Others will assert that all truth is God’s truth, and feely utilise non-Christian sources. I am personally cautious both about claims to use the Bible alone[xiii] and plundering all sources uncritically. I advocate developing a Biblical world-view as the framework of Christian thinking and practice in education and then working this through the issues common to all educators, using principles, precepts and precedents from the Bible carefully. On this model, a Christian view of education is more about the control point than about sources. In short, it is not enough to see a Christian firm listed as the publisher of an educational text. Likewise, a text should not be resisted just because it is from a non-Christian source. The issue is whether its contents are consistent with the Scriptures and a Christian world-view.

 Aspects of education

Education has several central and overarching questions. They can be summarised in the single sentence: Who is teaching what, to whom, why and how?[xiv] A host of further questions can be developed under each of these.

 Who is teaching? What attitudes, knowledge and skills are essential and / or desirable in the teacher? How can these be developed? What do we do with significant differences in giftedness between teachers?

 What is being taught? What learning areas are to be taught in a well-balanced curriculum and what is a good balance between them? What impact does the nature of each learning area have on the way it is to be taught?

 To whom is it being taught? What is the nature of people in general? How do understandings of human development impact on readiness for learning in particular learning areas and particular teaching approaches?

 Why is it being taught?  What are good motivations in those offering or providing education? What kinds of affective, cognitive and psychomotor learning targets are appropriate in different situations and what is the balance between them? What kinds of purposes or goals are appropriate? How are these to be broken down into specific learning targets and how is achievement of them to be monitored and assessed? What teaching methods will best contribute to different kinds of learning goals?

 How is it to be taught? What is wise when it comes to choosing and using methods that reflect the nature of the teacher, the subject matter, understandings of the learners and the purposes of teaching? These are the most common question asked by teachers, arising from their practical concerns and the time pressures on them. Any view of education that does not enable teachers to answer these questions is, in my view, incomplete.

 

There is an order in these questions, broadly corresponding to a movement from theory to practice. The ‘Who, What, To Whom and Why’ are contributive questions. The answers to them contribute to the final question that has an integrative nature. I am persuaded that the giving of attention to the contributive questions is an important step in ensuring that educational practice has a consistency about it. I also believe that it makes it easier to answer the ‘How’ question after giving attention to the contributory questions.

 

Each of these sets of questions raises profound issues and there are Christian distinctives applicable to all of them.

 

For example, consider questions relating to educational goals (the ‘Why?’ questions). In many countries, educational agendas are commonly expressed as outcome statements and these are generally written in economic terms. That is, education is organised to achieve purposes of delivering productive workers for the next phases of economic development. Typically this is seen in a move away from education in the liberal and performing arts and towards scientific, professional and technical subjects. This move is generally a matter of emphasis rather than absolutes and is implemented through such devices as the number of teaching hours given to different subjects; the combinations of subjects needed for such ‘gatekeeper’ exercises as PSLE, O and A levels, university entrance; and the allocation of postgraduate research grants. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Christian parents and schools have accepted these economic agendas. Parents aspire for their child to enter well-paid employment and schools laud the number of their graduates who gain entry to training for this employment.

 From a Christian perspective, a purely vocational or economic purpose for education is questionable. We do need our daily bread and are taught to pray and work for it. However, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Our highest human aspiration is to fulfill our created nature as God’s image bearers by growing from infancy to adulthood as measured by our likeness to Jesus. Jesus’ own growth trajectory is a model of this [xv].

 In short, a Christian sense of educational goals will have a wider range of goals. It will seek to develop students who are economically useful, but it will challenge the materialism that leads to education based primarily around economic goals. It will have social and spiritual agendas. It will laud the graduate who becomes a loving stay-at-home parent or carer; who steps back down the ladder of career success in order to achieve a balanced life; who takes early retirement to attend to family, community or spiritual responsibilities and who uses their education to love God and man rather than to fill barns with overflowing wealth while neglecting an empty soul[xvi].

 Hopefully, this short discussion on education goals shows that there is a distinctive Christian view on all aspects of education and at all levels of thought and practice. It could be extended with respect to educational goals and expanded to take in each of the Who, What, To Whom, Why and How questions.

 Conclusion

This paper has tried to show that a Christian education is more than education in the Bible, although it certainly includes that[xvii]. Rather, it includes a distinctly Christian view of all aspects of education, from educational philosophy to educational practice. In many places this will overlap with other views of education (for truth is to be found in many places), but it will have a distinctive form arising from its foundations in the God from whom all is and to whom all shall be[xviii].

 

---

Endnotes

[iii] Some examples of introductory level reading follow: Renewing the Mind In Learning (ed. D Blomberg & I Lambert, CSAC, 1998); Foundational Issues in Christian Education (R Pazimo, Baker, 1988); The Greening of Christian Education (B Hill, Lancer, 1985); The Christian Philosophy of Education (S Perks, Avant, 1992); The Christian School (N Weeks, Banner of Truth, 1988); Christian Education: Its Philosophy & History (K Gangel & W Benson, Moody, 1983); A Biblical Psychology of Learning (Accent, 1982); For The Children’s Sake (S Schaeffer-Macauley, Crossway, 1984); Philosophy & Education (2^nd edit, G Knight, Andrews Uni, 1989); Philosophy of Education (M Peterson, IVP, 1986); Christian Education & The Search For Meaning (J Wilhoit, Baker, 1986); The Crumbling Walls of Certainty (Ed. I Lambert & S Mitchell, CSAC, 1997); Reclaiming the Future( ed. I lambert & S Mitchell, CSAC, 1996).

[iv] There is a huge literature in the field of Christian world-view, much of it coming from a reformed theological perspective. The following works may provide a starting point: Building a Christian World View, Vols 1&2 (ed. W Hoffeker, Presbyterian & Reformed 1986 & 1988); Worlds Apart, (N Geisler & W Watkins, Baker 1989); The Transforming Vision (J Middleton & B Walsh, IVP, 1984); Truth is Stranger Than It Used To Be (J Middleton & B Walsh, IVP, 1995); The Making of a Christian Mind (ed. A Holmes, IVP, 1985); The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (M Noll, Eerdmans, 1994); The Christian Mind (H Blamires, Servant, 1963); Foundations of Christian Scholarship (ed. G North, Ross House, 1979); Every Thought Captive (R Pratt Jnr, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979).

[v] This can be illustrated from the field of adult education: for example, see Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education (J Elias & S Merriam, Kreiger, 1980). Also see endnote (iii) above for some Christian texts relating to these issues.

[vi] There is a well-respected body of literature that argues for deriving theory from practice. Consider the following: The Reflective Practitioner (D Schon, Basic 1983) and The New Production of Knowledge (M Gibbons et al, Sage, 1994). No epistemology of education can ignore this literature. For my part, I would argue for a combination inductive / deductive approach in which philosophy, theory and practice inform each other in a two-way dialogue.

[vii] G Clark’s Christianity & Behaviorism (Trinity, 1982) evaluates Skinner’s behaviouralism from a Christian perspective.

[viii] Some years back I conducted a review of many texts relating to Christian education as part of a project to develop a teacher-training curriculum. At one level, there were comments from Christian sources about the dangers of using insights from non-Christian sources, specifically Piaget’s development approaches as applied to education about the Christian faith by people such as R Goldman in Readiness for Religion? Somewhat to my dismay, I discovered that many educational texts published by Christian publishing houses used Piaget’s work, but never acknowledged it or discussed its philosophical or theoretical basis. Was this ignorance or inconsistency? It certainly creates the suspicion of an uncritical use.

[ix] My use of the plural is intentional. I resist the suggestion that there is a single philosophy, theory and practice of education arising from a Christian world-view. Faith and reality are too complex to allow for reductionism to a convenient binary formula in which all is seen in blacks and whites. Even black and white TV had shades of grey!

[x] A concordance search under such words as ‘teach’, ‘instruct’, ‘knowledge’, ‘learn’ etc will throw up many references as starting points. The plethora of the Biblical material on education makes it easier to develop a Christian view of education than it is for other learning areas.

[xi] Noel Weeks discusses the sufficiency of Scripture in: The Sufficiency of Scripture (Banner of Truth, 1988).

[xii] Deut 29:29.

[xiii] See endnote viii above.

[xiv] I have used these questions as an organising structure for Christian teacher training in several different cultures and think that there is some universality about them.

[xv] Mt 6:11; 2 Thess 3:6-12; Lke 4:4; Gen 1:26-27; Eph 4:11-16; Lke 1:52.

[xvi] Mt 22:37-40; 6:19-24.

[xvii] In some ways, Dt 6:7ff is the fundamental task of education. Its proximity to the Shema reinforces this priority.

[xviii] Rom 11:36.

Knowledge and Indoctrination

Revised version of paper presented at the July 1998 conference of the National Institute of Christian Education, Sydney.

 

The Nature of Knowledge:

Some educational implications concerning indoctrination

David Burke[i]

 

Abstract

Indoctrination is generally regarded as the dark side of educational activity and some would exclude it from that which is properly labelled education. Religious education is sometimes identified as a paradigm case of indoctrination, in part, because the nature of religious knowledge is held to exclude educational possibilities and compel indoctrinating practices. However, several factors suggest that religious education is not, of necessity, indoctrination. These factors include varied analyses of the nature of religious knowledge; argument that all knowledge forms part of belief systems; the distinction between formative and critical education; and the nature of the relationships between epistemology and pedagogy.

 

Education and indoctrination

Indoctrination and education are frequently set against each other in scholarly discussion. In part this arises from understandings of education, which stress the ideal of learner autonomy and discussions of indoctrination, which focus on its denial.

 

Hence Peters (, 1983, p.44) who sees autonomy as a key educational virtue and threats to it as vices, Gardner (1991, p.69) who mentions autonomy as key to the liberal idea of education, and Kazepides (1983, p.260) who speaks of how ‘... all education must prepare for self education.’

 

Discussions of indoctrination centre on issues of method, content, intention and consequences (eg, Leahy, 1990, p.432; Astley, 1994, p.45-48; and Sealey, 1985, p.63-65). Method wise, indoctrination is held to be education without the presence and development of critical faculties enabling learners to appraise learning content (eg, Leahy, 1990, p.432). The content of indoctrinating education includes non-evidential propositions (McLaughlin, 1995, p.155) such as ‘... superstitions, prejudices, doctrines, false beliefs and the like’ (Kazepides, 1987, p.398). With regard to intent and consequences, indoctrination is said to aim at beliefs being held in a manner impervious to criticism (Peters, 1983, p.83) and which stick by non-rational means (Sealey, 1985, p.61-2), such as to create ‘... a condition where rationality is distorted by accepting arbitrary claims as foundational’ (Morgan, 1996, p.247).

 

 

Religious education - a paradigm case of indoctrination?

As distinct from education about religion, which is of a phenomenological nature, religious bodies may offer education in religion. As defined by Astley, with application to the Christian churches, this is a ‘... confessional, churchly activity of evangelism, instruction and nurture’ (Astley, 1994, p.9). It is religious education, which tries to nurture belief where it is present and foster it where it is not.

 

For some, this, along with Marxist political education, is a paradigm case of indoctrination. Hence Kazepides (1987, p.398) who cites issues of content, educational methods and goals. Astley refers to Hirst’s view that ‘Christian education’ is a contradiction in terms, on the criteria of learning content and educational goals (Astley, 1994, p.41). Gardner expresses concern over belief involving an autonomy denying acceptance, the role of authority figures in religious education (Gardner, 1991, p.74-78) and doubts Hare and McLaughlin’s argument that people can be both committed to a belief and open minded (Gardner, 1996, p.274).

 

The content of religious education has been given particular attention as a feature constituting indoctrination. For Peters, the question of whether religion is a matter of knowledge is central to debate about the possibility of religious education (Peters, 1983, p.46). Hirst is just one cited for holding the view that because religion is fundamentally a matter of belief, not knowledge, there cannot be religious education (Phillips, 1970, p.440).

 

 

The nature of religious knowledge

Accounts of religious knowledge vary widely with respect to its sources, justification and certainty.

 

Sources of religious knowledge might include intuition (as in private revelations or perceptions); evidence and reason (as in natural theology of both a rationalistic and empiricist bent); and authorities (as in divine revelation in Scripture, or divine testimony in church tradition).

 

These different sources of religious knowledge give rise to different justifications. Foundationalist justifications hold that religious knowledge rests on certain indubitable and incorrigible foundations which are open to inspection and from which subsequent truths are deduced. Fideist justifications stress the importance of the act of commitment and the ‘eye of faith’ as preliminaries to an inner persuasion of the truth of religious claims. Coherentist justifications speak of systems of religious knowledge which are commended as consistent, comprehensive and congruent. Others again speak of the importance of underlying dispositions and presuppositions in which the content and justification of religious knowledge, like all knowledge, is dependent on the ‘rules of the game’ with which people start. A useful introduction to the range of positions regarding the nature of religious knowledge is found in Geivatt & Sweetman, (1992).

 

In turn, religious knowledge is seen to have varying degrees of certainty ranging from the sceptical, to the probable and to the certain, in which there is seen to be a high level of correspondence between the content of religious knowledge claims and things as they are.

 

These varied accounts are educationally important because they contribute to different evaluations of how far religious knowledge is compatible with conventionally accepted accounts of knowledge and therefore admissible as a proper object of education. Hence Hull’s observation that traditional theology is treated as a divine ‘given’ and is therefore in tension with education (Hull, 1996, p.97). Gates notes that fewer problems arise with intuitive models of religious knowledge or with ‘inductive’ uses of the Bible which approach it with assumptions of fallibility and the active use of critical apparatus (Gates 1996a, p.viii; 1996b, p.19). Referring to views of religious knowledge which ‘infallibilise’ either the Bible, church or conscience, he observes that the denial of freedom is at its strongest here: ‘... a logical transition from that to a desire to control the lives and thoughts of individuals ..’ (Gates, 1996b, p.24).

 

This paper will now focus on traditional accounts of religious knowledge because they appear to raise the more serious problems with respect to the matter of indoctrination. Such accounts tend to see Christian knowledge as deriving from authoritative sources, having foundationalist, presuppositionalist or modified coherentist justifications and as having high levels of certainty.

 

Traditional Christian theology is expressed in doctrines. Attention has been given to the links between the nature of doctrines and the educational question of indoctrination.

 

Doctrines are the formal expression of religious ‘beliefs that’ which, in turn, arise from ‘beliefs in’.

 

A useful analysis of doctrines is provided by Thiessen who refers to their systematic character, comprehensive scope; and momentous subject matter (Thiessen, 1982, p.377-381). He also refers to the function of doctrines in belief systems. They are the first order principles on which later generalisations and observational statements rest (p.391). As will be noted later, Thiessen sees close parallels between these functions and the first order principles of knowledge systems in the sciences.

 

Kazepides is highly critical of doctrines and raises issues which go to the heart of the question as to whether religious education deals with something properly called ‘knowledge’. He distinguishes between hard and soft forms of doctrines. ‘Soft’ constructions are merely unjustified rules for life dressed up in word pictures (Kazepides, 1987, p.403). In ‘hard’ constructions doctrines combine some or all of the following elements: they are unfalsifiable, outside the criteria of rationality, form part of a comprehensive system, have prescriptive functions, and presuppose authorities to support (Kazepides, 1987, 402-3). Whether ‘hard’ or ‘soft’: ‘... however one interprets doctrines they do not belong within our rational tradition and therefore they should have no place within our educational institutions’ (Kazepides, 1987, p.404).

 

A chorus of voices echo these views. Hence the view that faith commitments are a matter of how the world is seen in a way that is not open to empirical refutation (Sealey, 1985, p.12); reference to religious views as totalising but scientific uncertain (Gardner, 1991, p.72); and Kazepides’ earlier view that religious beliefs are knowledge stoppers because they violate criteria of good knowledge and are ‘... one of the most effective ways of undermining the building of an open society’ (Kazepides, 1983, p.264).

 

In short, religious doctrines are charged with failing the conventional test for knowledge that it is justified true belief. By being outside conventional justification by scientific means, religious statements cannot hold any recognisable truth-value. If taught simply as matters of belief, opinion or perspective, religious statements are educationally less problematical. However, on the above views of doctrines: ‘.. teaching religious beliefs in any way which suggest that they might be true cannot amount to anything less than indoctrination’ (Carr, D. 1994, p.227).

 

 

Response

The above material constitutes a substantial challenge to religious education as being unacceptable because it constitutes indoctrination.

 

In the remaining part of this paper, several considerations relevant to that challenge are discussed.

 

One solution to the challenge of indoctrination in religious education would be to give one side or the other of the problem away. Thus, someone with an educational presupposition in favour of autonomy and against indoctrination might solve the 'problem' by reconstructing their notion of religious knowledge into a 'softer' form. On the other hand, someone with a theological presupposition in favour of a traditional construction of religious knowledge might solve the problem by making indoctrination a tolerable practice, if not a virtue.

 

However, abandoning one side or another of the problem is hardly a solution. People cannot be reasonably expected to abandon beliefs important to them just because they conflict with an educational ideal. Nor should they be encouraged to make a virtue out of indoctrination merely to solve a problem.

 

 

1. Is religious knowledge really different?

The material reviewed earlier suggested that religious knowledge is of a fundamentally different nature to conventional knowledge and that these differences create a disposition to indoctrinating practices. Knowledge given by divine authority, not open to critical questioning and outside of conventional evidence testing was seen as undermining or contradicting autonomy in learners.

 

It is hard to deny that traditional accounts of religious knowledge do have these characteristics and that indoctrination is a possibility in religious education.

 

However, it is worth considering whether the difference between religious and scientific knowledge is one of kind or degree. If it is a difference of degree, this raises further questions as to whether the teaching of doctrines compels indoctrination or whether the teaching of religious doctrines, like all knowledge, involves, finally, a body of beliefs, paradigms or assumptions on which knowledge rests. In this latter case, it behoves all educators to be aware of and to make explicit the basis and nature of the knowledge they teach.

 

Following Kuhn's work on paradigms and Polanyi's work on the role of presuppositions in all thought, elements of a belief structure have been identified as underlying scientific knowledge.

 

Thiessen argues that all forms of knowledge involve central beliefs which are broad in scope and neither verifiable nor falsifiable (Thiessen, 1982, p.392). These beliefs act as epistemic primitives (Leahy and Laura, 1992, p.335) on which further knowledge is built (Cooling, 1994, p.43), against which evidence is tested and interpreted and which define a system of knowledge held by a community sharing the basic beliefs.

 

An example of such a belief is the assumption of inductive predictability underlying empirical science. Commitment to this belief persists, despite the enduring scepticism of Hume. This is a core belief, a presupposition, an epistemic primitive which, with other such beliefs, defines the scientific community and sets the parameters for its research and its evaluation.

 

Commitment to inductive logic is not irrational or lacking evidence. However, it is one of those points where sceptical regress either stops, and science proceeds on the basis of a formally unjustified assumption, or the regress continues to infinity and any possibility of empirical knowledge collapses (Astley, 1989, p.64).

 

Thiessen insists that scientific and religious beliefs are not polar opposites and that they share common features. Science, like religion, is capable of false beliefs and beliefs with ambiguous evidence. Religious beliefs, like scientific, do change and are widely accepted. Scientific beliefs, like doctrines, have momentous content and systematic character and evolution is just one example of evangelistic fervour in scientific circles (Thiessen, 1982, p.383-392). Therefore, argues Thiessen, not all religious beliefs fit the criteria of doctrine, but some scientific beliefs do. Indoctrination and education are possible in both (Thiessen, 1982, p.392).

 

Kazepides grants the existence of bedrock beliefs underlying scientific knowledge, but argues that they are different to religious doctrines in that they involve criteria of rationality, have alternatives, are acquired by thought or justification, can be doubted, and enable, rather than exclude, thought (Kazepides, 1987, p.405).

 

Different bedrock beliefs constitute different systems of knowledge and rationality can be assessed within systems as well as between systems. On this basis, rationality is not so much a matter of objective detachment, as a matter of internal consistency and a systemic pattern of beliefs (Astley, 1989, p.55). The difference between religious belief and its denial is not then a '... difference between rational and irrational beliefs, but between holders of different epistemic primitives for ordering a particular area of experience' (Leahy and Laura, 1997, p.337).

 

This understanding of knowledge represents a welcome humility in which claims to universality are set aside and the contribution of presuppositions is acknowledged. Knowledge does have a social aspect, in which communities of people bound together by common starting points view the world in similar ways and are able to explore, agree and disagree within a shared framework.

 

Acknowledgement of the role of presuppositional communities could result in a view of knowledge, which is both Balkanised and detached from any claims to represent reality. This is a phenomenological view, where '... truth reduces (at best) to some uncertain blend of coherence and utility (Carr, 1994, p. 224). This is far from the claims of both traditional religion and traditional science.

 

Understandings of both religious and scientific knowledge benefits from analysis of the role of presuppositions and the corresponding acknowledgement that traditional foundationalism lacks credibility. To do this is '... therefore to recognise the inescapably provisional nature of much if not all human knowledge' (Carr, D, 1994, p.236).

 

However, the epistemic baby need not be washed out with the foundationalist bath water in the case of either science or religion. Accounts of knowledge which lay emphasis on coherence, consistency, comprehensiveness and congruency allow for recognition that all look at the world through a lens of their own adopting, but that a vital test of the lens is that it enables a workable view of the world.

 

 

2. Indoctrination: a religious virtue?

Anecdotal and other evidence, suggest that some religious groups, Christian and otherwise, reject 'openness' as a virtue and are explicit about control over learners as an educational goal. Members of groups are given teaching materials shaping the way the text is to be viewed and are told things such as: 'In your discussion group you will hear all the questions answered', and, 'Often there is an open and shut answer to a question.' (BSF, 2&3). Note though that these are control-tending behaviours rather than unqualified indoctrination.

 

Other voices speak of the importance of openness in the learning process.

 

The Christian Scriptures use the metaphor of development from fickle, dependent infancy to mature adulthood to describe the goal of ministry (Ephesians 4:11-16). This development is directly linked to having engaged in effective learning processes, one product of which is the exercise of discernment (Hebrews 5:11 - 6:2). A seminal passage in Paul's description of the Christian life refers to an ability to '... test and approve what God's will is ..' (Romans 12;2). The preceding and following contexts suggests that this refers to an ability to form wise Christian judgements about life issues which are not the object of direct Scriptural prescription.

 

Some conservative Christian writers reflect this openness when discussing the goals of adult Christian education:

 

'In a sentence, we are to draw persons to God that they may grow in him, maturing in community with other believers, issuing in service to all persons.' (Hill, 1985, p,103-4)

 

' .. discipleship  involves growth throughout life, ... . This growth takes the Christian towards wholeness in body, mind and spirit and in his relationship with God, with others and with God's creation' (Baumohl, 1984, p.8).

 

Sisemore includes Christian knowledge and conviction, Christian attitudes and appreciation, Christian living and service as goal areas for adult Christian education. (Sisemore, 1970, p.17).

 

Hestness likewise refers to the purpose of adult education as:

 

'To enable Christian growth towards maturity and to equip Christians for ministry', and as; 'Experiences in which groups of people come together to study and reflect upon the interrelatedness of their Christian heritage, the world in which they live, and themselves as thinking feeling, acting and willing persons.' (Hestness, 1985, p.39).

 

Wilhoit mentions: '... Biblical literacy, a delight in the Scriptures, submission to the Bible, an appropriate method of interpreting it, a Christian world view, and use of God's word as a spiritual tool. (Wilhoit, 1986, p.142).

 

The pattern in these later references is for adult Christian education to have the purposes of growth towards a measure of self-reliance, within deep respect for, and commitment to the Scriptures. Growth and self-reliance are hardly goals compatible with the autonomy-suppressing nature of indoctrination.

 

Therefore, while some Christian groups may not be embarrassed over a charge of indoctrination and some may practice it, others groups strive for educational openness and disavow indoctrination. It should be noted however, that this is a qualified openness - it is openness within Christian belief structures.

 

 

3. The nature of religious education - formative and critical

Religious education involves a balance. On the one hand, a traditional view of religious knowledge includes momentous truth claims and involves recognition of the role of presuppositional commitments in the generation of that knowledge. On the other hand, it is inherently ‘a ... confessional, churchly activity of evangelism, instruction and nurture’ (Astley, 1994, p.9), yet one which seeks to promote maturity and discernment with an absence or minimisation of indoctrination.

 

Several call for religious education combining formative and critical elements. Hence Cooling who speaks of working within the framework of religious faith and helping growth within it, while encouraging encounter with other frameworks (Cooling, 1994, p.48). Leahy and Laura (1997, p.341) speak of a critical exploration within faith and the importance of helping learners to develop their critical factors by identifying the links between epistemic primitives, assumptions and beliefs (Laura and Leahy, 1989, p.415&422).

 

Astley (1994, p.106) recognises that religious beliefs function as an ideology and that religious education both forms adherents in the belief system and should help them criticise it. Both formative and critical elements should be present, with the formative normally preceding the critical and critical elements only introduced as is appropriate for each learner (p.73). The formative should be present for educators: '... must beware of giving an account of autonomy that constitutes it as incorporating an untrammelled cognitive freedom. That is not a possible account of what it is to believe and therefore to know anything' (p.206). On the other hand, learning to criticise a tradition from within its basic beliefs is vital to avoid indoctrinating outcomes (p.95). Astley's view is summarised in a Kantian style quote from R.S. Peters: '... content without criticism is blind, but criticism without content is empty' (p.81).

 

An emphasis on formative and critical religious education modifies the educational goal of autonomy noted earlier. Gardner's (1991, p.79) call for religious education which values autonomy more than faith overlooks the faith element in religious knowledge and the faith goals of religious education. Kazepides concedes that autonomy does not equate to radical free choice, but is coherence within one’s free choices (Kazepides, 1996, p.246). Autonomy and indoctrination are not absolutes but should be defined within and relative to the knowledge and learning community concerned (Astley, 1994, p.96). As Sealey notes, religious educators seek an element of autonomous self-government within faith, while much general education has goals of control and commitment (Sealey, 1983, p.69-71). The drilling of children in correct spelling, mathematical times tables and road-crossing rules are widely accepted examples of indoctrinating behaviours in general education. Autonomy and indoctrination may be in the eyes of the beholders.

 

 

Conclusion: indoctrination and education

Different understandings of the nature of knowledge do have impacts on educational activity. However, the nature of those links is more one of degrees of (in)compatibility rather than inevitability. Completely open views of knowledge may be seen as incompatible with indoctrination, just as completely closed views of knowledge may be seen as incompatible with completely open views of education.

 

(Note, however, that even these assumptions can be challenged. Consider, for example, the case of someone holding a quite closed view of knowledge, but who is so confident of its self-evident truthfulness that they are prepared to embrace radically open pedagogies in the expectation that an honest search for truth will invariably lead learners to their perspective. Or, consider the oft noted pattern where strident dogmatism masks uncertainty about content.)

 

However, such views of knowledge and education are the (imagined) poles of a continuum between which functioning views of education and knowledge are found. No rational enquiry is possible if any possibility of objective knowledge is denied. Nor are closed approaches to education possible on the recent understandings of knowledge reported above. Recognition that all knowledge involves some degree of 'open' elements of faith, perspective and presuppositions means that religious education which seeks to promote commitment can never properly let education become indoctrination in the unqualified forms noted above.

 

References

 Astley, J. (1994). The Philosophy of Christian Religious Education. Religious Education Press, Birmingham, Al..

Baumohl, A, (1984). Making Adult Disciples . Scripture Union, London.

 Bible Study Fellowship, (n.d.). New Member Information. Bible Study Fellowship, San Antonio.

 Carr, D. (1994). ‘Knowledge and Truth in Religious Education’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 28, 2, 1994, 221-238.

 Cooling, T. (1994). ‘The Epistemological Foundations of Modern Religious Education’, Journal of Christian Education, 37, 3, Sept. 1994, 37-50.

 Fowler, S. (1998). ‘Rationality, Certainty & Education’. (Unpublished conference paper, National Institute of Christian Education, 1998 Scholarly Conference.)

 Gardner, P. (1991). ‘Personal Autonomy & Religious Upbringing,’     Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 25, 1, 1991, 69-83.

 Gardner, P.      (1996). ‘Four Anxieties and a Reassurance: Hare & McLaughlin on being Open Minded’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 30, 2, July 1996, 271-176.

 Gates, B. (1996a). ‘Introduction’, In Gates, B. (ed.), Freedom & Authority in Religious Education, Cassell, London,            

Gates, B. (1996b) ‘Freedom and Authority in Christianity’, In Gates, B. (ed.), Freedom & Authority in Religious Education. Cassell, London, 18-27.

 Geivatt, R.D. & Sweetman, B. Eds. (1992). Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

 Hestness, R. (1985). Adult Formation and Discipleship: An Expanded Course Syllabus, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.

 Hill, B. (1985). The Greening of Christian Education. Lancer, Sydney.

 Hull, J. (1996). ‘Freedom and Authority in Religious Education’. In Gates, B. (ed.), Freedom & Authority in Religious Education. Cassell, London, 97-113.

Kazepides, T. (1983). ‘Is Religious Education Possible?’ Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 17, 2, 1983, 259-265. Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.

 Kazepides, T. (1987). ‘Indoctrination, Doctrines and the Foundations of Rationality’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 1987, 229-240.

 Laura. R.S. & Leahy, M. (1989). ‘Religious Upbringing and Rational Autonomy’       Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 23, 253-265. Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.          

 

Leahy, M. (1990). ‘Indoctrination, Evangelism, Catechesis and Religious Education’, British Journal of Religious Education, 12, 1990, 137-144.                      

           

Leahy, M & Laura R. (1997). ‘Religious ‘Doctrines’ and the Closure of Minds’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 31, 2, 1997.

 MacIntyre, A. (1985). ‘Relativism, Power & Authority’. Proceedings & Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 59, 1985, 5-22, Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.

 Markham, I. (1991). ‘Faith & Reason; reflections on MacIntyre’s ‘tradition constituted enquiry’’, Religious Studies, 27, 1991, 259-267. Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.

 McLaughlin, T. (1990). ‘P. Gardner on Religious Upbringing and the Liberal Ideal of Religious Autonomy’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 24, 1, 1990, 107-126.

 McLaughlin, T. (1995). ‘Review of ‘Freedom & Indoctrination in Education’, Sprecker, B & Straughan, R. (ed.s). Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 29,1, March 1995, 155-157.

 Morgan, J. (1996). ‘A Defence of Autonomy as an Educational Ideal’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 30, 2, July 1996, 239-252.

 Peters, R.S.      (1983). ‘Philosophy of Education’ in Hirst, P.H. (Ed.), Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

 Phillips, D.Z. (1970). ‘Philosophy and Religious Education’.  British Journal of Educational Studies, 18, 1970, 5-27. Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.

 Sealey, J. (1985). Religious Education: Philosophical Perspectives. Allen & Unwin, London.

 Siegal, H. (1995). ‘Radical’ Pedagogy Requires ‘Conservative’ Epistemology’, Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 29, 1, March 1995, 33-46.

 Sisemore, J.T. 1970. The Challenge of Adult Christian Education, In Zuck, R. & Getz, G. (eds.) Adult Education in the Church, Moody, Chicago.

 

Thiessen, E.J. (1982). ‘Indoctrination and doctrines’. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 16, 3-17. Reprinted in Astley, J. & Francis, L.J. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Christian Education, Gracewing, Leominister, 1994.     

 Wilhoit, J. (1986). Christian Education and the Search for Meaning, Baker, Grand Rapids.

---