Reframing Discipleship, Spiritual Formation, Christian Spiritual Formation

There has been much confusion about the meaning and usage of these words: discipleship, spiritual formation, and Christian spiritual formation. These words are sometimes used interchangeably by some teachers while others offered a more nuanced definition. Here I will offer some definitions of these terms.

Spiritual formation is the process of forming our inner spiritual beings (soul) which manifest outwardly as our character. This is an ongoing process which starts when we are in our mothers’ womb and continues until we die. There are numerous influences that affect our spiritual formation which includes our cultural legacy, our childhood experiences, our ethnicity, the socio-political environments in which we live in, the dominant culture in our society, and our social interactions with other people, including our family members. Often these influences act subconsciously by a process of socialization or enculturation. In other words, all of us are undergoing spiritual formation all the time, whether we are conscious of it or not.

Christian conversion (accepting Christ) involves a change in status by our justification by faith, and of the formative regeneration of our souls (sanctification). Christian spiritual formation starts after conversion. Christian spiritual formation is the process of the redemptive inner transformation of the character of a person to reflect the character of Christ himself. There are two components to Christian spiritual formation: (1) the work of the Holy Spirit, and (2) the willingness of a person to follow Christ in discipleship. Christian spiritual formation is a collaborative divine-human interaction. The influences that act on Christian spiritual formation are similar to those experiences by all living human beings. Additional influences are the formative practices of the Christian faith communities (Christian education) and the Word of God.

Discipleship is the part of Christian spiritual formation where we can be actively involved in. The Holy Spirit is ever willing to be involved but respect our choices and will not force us to be disciples. Discipleship is following and obeying the teachings of Jesus Christ and in doing so, we become Christ-like in our character. Jesus summarizes this by saying that, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). To be his follower, Jesus points out that there is a part about denying self, and there is another part about following him. Luke helpfully gives us some essential features on discipleship. These essentials are trust (Lk 9:37-43); suffering (Lk 9:44-45); humility (Lk 9:46-50); purpose (Lk 9: 51-56); commitment (Lk 9: 57-62); involvement (Lk 10:1-20), and prayer (Lk 10:21-24). However all these need the work of the Holy Spirit if Christian spiritual formation is to take place. We cannot will or discipline our bodies into spiritual transformation.

The purpose (telos) of Christian spiritual formation is three-fold reflecting the economy of the Triune God. Christian spiritual formation is (1) to restore image of God (imago Dei) within us so that we reflect the character of Christ; (2) to form a people of God –the body of Christ; and (3) to be part of God’s plan of reconciliation with all of creation (missio Dei). Christian spiritual formation is Trinitarian in basis as it is an invitation to join in the perichoresis or eternal dance of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So let us embark on the journey of Christian spiritual formation, availing ourselves to the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, and intentionally becoming disciples of Jesus Christ with “informed minds, hearts on fire, and contemplative in actions” until “we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:18)

.

Learning for Transformed Living

SFI Seminar 2009/2

Learning for Transformed Living

Learning strategies for disciples of Christ, and relevant approaches for those who teach them.

Speaker: Dr Allan Harkness

Date : 2.00pm- 9.30pm, Saturday 3 October 2009

Place : Berea, Holy Light Church English (HLCE)

Synopsis of Seminar

1. Learning that transforms: the nature, features and ecology of life-long and life-wide learning to be a disciple of Christ; and strategies to enhance that learning.

2. Teaching for transformation: principles and strategies for those who encourage others to be effective disciples of Christ, whatever age they are.

3. The Bible and prayer as transforming agents.

Speaker

Dr Allan Harkness, from New Zealand, has lived in Singapore for some years. A member of OMF International, he is currently heading up AGST Alliance, a SE Asian regional post-graduate theological study venture. Allan has a passion to see God's people of all ages formed and equipped together for effective service through the creative expressions of the Christian disciplines and through informed educational strategies which enable life-long and life-wide learning.

Worldview and Kingdom View

This is a book I am looking forward to reading. I like the way James Smith challenges our modernist thinking and our way of doing Christian education. My copy from Amazon.com is on the way and I am impatiently waiting for its arrival.

Christianity Today, August, 2009

Putting Worldview in Its Place

There's something more important than our intellectual framework.

Eric Miller | posted 8/18/2009 10:51AM

Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation by James K. A. Smith Baker Academic, August 2009 240 pp., $15.99

Worldview has been Christian education's byword, codeword, password, keyword, and—for some students—swearword for the past 30 years. Amid the modern cacophony, it has provided a rhetorical and philosophic unifying point for academic communities badly in need of the singularity and depth of vision their mission statements proclaim. So why in Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academic) does philosopher James K. A. Smith call for a "temporary moratorium" on this hallowed notion?

I especially like the statement below

If educating is indeed about properly ordering our loves, as Smith (following Augustine) believes, then formation rather than information should become the primary end of our institutions.

read the rest of Miller's book review here

Random Musings on Teaching in Higher Education (3)

Team-Based Learning

A concept I picked up recently is Team-Based Learning (TBL). Though the facilitator mentioned it only once, I was so intrigued by the word that I ‘googled’ it. The results opened up a new dimension of the learning process to me. Team-based learning is different from small group learning, Problem-based learning (or its modified Patient-based learning), cooperative learning, and collaborative learning. Mooted by an idea by Larry Michaelsen, team-based learning has been picked up by many medical schools all over the world which includes the newly formed NUS-Duke Graduate Medical School in Singapore.

This is from the website, Team-Based Learning Collaborative

Team learning or team-based learning (TBL) is a well-defined instructional strategy developed by Dr. Larry K. Michaelsen that is now being used successfully in medical education.

The TBL method allows a single instructor to teach through conducting multiple small groups simultaneously in the same classroom.

Learners must actively participate in and out of class through preparation and group discussion. Class time is shifted away from learning facts and toward application and integration of information. The instructor retains control of content, and acts as both facilitator and content expert. The team learning method affords the opportunity for assessment of both individual and team performance.

As an instructional method, team learning consists of repeating sequences of 3 phases:

• In Phase 1, learners study independently outside of class to master identified objectives.
• In Phase 2, individual learners complete a multiple-choice exam to assure their readiness to apply Phase 1 knowledge. Groups of 6-7 learners then re-take this exam and turn in their consensus answers for immediate scoring and posting.
• In Phase 3, which may last several class periods, groups complete in-class assignments that promote collaboration, use of Phase 1 and 2 knowledge, and identification of learning deficiencies. At designated times, all groups simultaneously share their groups' answers with the entire class for easy comparison and immediate feedback. This stimulates an energetic total-class discussion with groups defending their answers and the teacher helping to consolidate learning.

TBL stresses the importance of a priori, out-of-class learning based on clear learning objectives. It emphasizes the importance of holding learners accountable for attending class prepared to participate, and provides guidelines for designing group learning tasks to maximize participation.

TBL emphasizes three keys to effective active learning:

1. Individual and group accountability
2. Need and opportunity for group interaction
3. Motivation to engage in give-and-take discussion. In medical education, team learning has been successfully used in preclinical, clinical, residency, fellowship, and CME venues and in interdisciplinary settings.
   

Resources About Team Learning

• Three Keys to Using Learning Groups Effectively
• Team Learning: Putting sTEAM into Learning Groups

• University of Oklahoma Team-Based Learning Website (link)
  This is the original site developed by Dr. Larry K. Michaelsen who developed team learning. The site is intended for educators in any grade level or settings. It includes a e-discussion board with many useful pointers submitted by faculty from their experiences with team learning.

This is another pedagogical tool for effective learning. I wonder whether it can be used for theological education?

Random Musings on Teaching in Higher Education (3)

Team-Based Learning

A concept I picked up recently is Team-Based Learning (TBL). Though the facilitator mentioned it only once, I was so intrigued by the word that I ‘googled’ it. The results opened up a new dimension of the learning process to me. Team-based learning is different from small group learning, Problem-based learning (or its modified Patient-based learning), cooperative learning, and collaborative learning. Mooted by an idea by Larry Michaelsen, team-based learning has been picked up by many medical schools all over the world which includes the newly formed NUS-Duke Graduate Medical School in Singapore.

This is from the website, Team-Based Learning Collaborative

Team learning or team-based learning (TBL) is a well-defined instructional strategy developed by Dr. Larry K. Michaelsen that is now being used successfully in medical education.

The TBL method allows a single instructor to teach through conducting multiple small groups simultaneously in the same classroom.

Learners must actively participate in and out of class through preparation and group discussion. Class time is shifted away from learning facts and toward application and integration of information. The instructor retains control of content, and acts as both facilitator and content expert. The team learning method affords the opportunity for assessment of both individual and team performance.

As an instructional method, team learning consists of repeating sequences of 3 phases:

• In Phase 1, learners study independently outside of class to master identified objectives.
• In Phase 2, individual learners complete a multiple-choice exam to assure their readiness to apply Phase 1 knowledge. Groups of 6-7 learners then re-take this exam and turn in their consensus answers for immediate scoring and posting.
• In Phase 3, which may last several class periods, groups complete in-class assignments that promote collaboration, use of Phase 1 and 2 knowledge, and identification of learning deficiencies. At designated times, all groups simultaneously share their groups' answers with the entire class for easy comparison and immediate feedback. This stimulates an energetic total-class discussion with groups defending their answers and the teacher helping to consolidate learning.

TBL stresses the importance of a priori, out-of-class learning based on clear learning objectives. It emphasizes the importance of holding learners accountable for attending class prepared to participate, and provides guidelines for designing group learning tasks to maximize participation.

TBL emphasizes three keys to effective active learning:

1. Individual and group accountability
2. Need and opportunity for group interaction
3. Motivation to engage in give-and-take discussion. In medical education, team learning has been successfully used in preclinical, clinical, residency, fellowship, and CME venues and in interdisciplinary settings.
   

Resources About Team Learning

• Three Keys to Using Learning Groups Effectively
• Team Learning: Putting sTEAM into Learning Groups

• University of Oklahoma Team-Based Learning Website (link)
  This is the original site developed by Dr. Larry K. Michaelsen who developed team learning. The site is intended for educators in any grade level or settings. It includes a e-discussion board with many useful pointers submitted by faculty from their experiences with team learning.

This is another pedagogical tool for effective learning. I wonder whether it can be used for theological education?

Random Musings on Teaching In Higher Education (2)

Teaching Values in Higher Education

Recently I received an email about medicine with this equation

E² - evidence + experience = good medicine

I beg to differ from my learned colleague whom I respect very much. While the practice of medicine has improved with the introduction of evidence-based medicine, it is important to realize that evidence based-medicine is not the holy grail of medical standards. Even the highest level of meta-analysis has its limitation. It is just a statistical program which analyses data fed into it. It is important not to forget the old axiom: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Also not everything that is done in the practice of medicine is available in the evidence-based medicine databases.

Experience is a good teacher but repetition is not a proof of expertise or even of competence. A doctor may be repeating the same mistake repeatedly. However, not repeating mistakes and increased competence may be achieved by combining evidence with experience. I believe that there is still another component to the equation. This component is good character. Thus I will suggest that the equation should be

E²GC- evidence + experience + good character = good medicine

I believed that good medicine can only be practiced by a doctor with good character. I have seen surgeons who have excellent surgical skills who could not bother with whom they operated upon. “The operation was successful but the patient died” was their creed. I have seen doctors who treat their patients as objects- some problems to be solved and then move on. True care, concern and compassion can only come out of good character. Good characters are formed by good beliefs.

It is a fallacy in many institutions of higher learning that knowing will automatically lead to believing. For example, if we teach our students to be compassionate to their patients, they will automatically be compassionate because of their knowledge. Unfortunately this is not true.

Educator Emeritus Professor Brian Hill of Murdock University identifies in How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values the three dimensions in how students respond to the teaching of values. These dimensions are the psychological dimensions of the cognitive, the emotional, and the volitional. While writing about teaching in schools, I believe his findings have implications in centers of higher learning. The possible response of a student to the teaching of a value X may be:

Cognitive

(1) I don’t get it. What do you mean by X?

2) Ah, I understand what you mean by X.

(3) I understand what you mean by X, but I don’t believe X is true.

(4) I accept your claim that X is true.

Emotional

1) Knowing X makes no difference to me.

(2) I have a bad feeling about X.

(3) I don’t feel I can leave up to X

(4) I have a good feel about X.

Volitional

(1) I’m not willing to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(2) I’m willing, so far as I can, to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(3) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life, but I don’t regard it as something everyone else should necessarily prioritise.

4) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life and, whenever appropriate, will commend its priority to others.

According to Hill, the cognitive plays a small role in the learning of values. The emotional dimension is more important and it is that dimension that influences the volitional in prioritizing its values. In the teaching of values, I agree with Hill that teachers have a tendency to use conditioning, coercion, indoctrination and persuasion as possible pedagogies.

Instead he suggests the following:

(1) I will model X in my own behaviour before students.

2) I will, where necessary for the common good, require students to behave in the classroom in a manner consistent with X.

(3) I will encourage maturing students to engage in critical examination of the grounds for and against prioritizing X in their lives.

4) I will represent to students that X, in my opinion, points to a defensible value by which to live, but I will respect and not penalize dissent.

Hill highlights that in the teaching of values, we need to be aware of the cognitive, emotional and volitional dimensions of learning. Our pedagogy must be based on these dimensions and should involve modeling, reflection and respect.

Reference:

Hill, Brian V., How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values, Journal of Education and Christian Beliefs, 12:2 (2008) 101-113

Random Musings on Teaching In Higher Education (2)

Teaching Values in Higher Education

Recently I received an email about medicine with this equation

E² - evidence + experience = good medicine

I beg to differ from my learned colleague whom I respect very much. While the practice of medicine has improved with the introduction of evidence-based medicine, it is important to realize that evidence based-medicine is not the holy grail of medical standards. Even the highest level of meta-analysis has its limitation. It is just a statistical program which analyses data fed into it. It is important not to forget the old axiom: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Also not everything that is done in the practice of medicine is available in the evidence-based medicine databases.

Experience is a good teacher but repetition is not a proof of expertise or even of competence. A doctor may be repeating the same mistake repeatedly. However, not repeating mistakes and increased competence may be achieved by combining evidence with experience. I believe that there is still another component to the equation. This component is good character. Thus I will suggest that the equation should be

E²GC- evidence + experience + good character = good medicine

I believed that good medicine can only be practiced by a doctor with good character. I have seen surgeons who have excellent surgical skills who could not bother with whom they operated upon. “The operation was successful but the patient died” was their creed. I have seen doctors who treat their patients as objects- some problems to be solved and then move on. True care, concern and compassion can only come out of good character. Good characters are formed by good beliefs.

It is a fallacy in many institutions of higher learning that knowing will automatically lead to believing. For example, if we teach our students to be compassionate to their patients, they will automatically be compassionate because of their knowledge. Unfortunately this is not true.

Educator Emeritus Professor Brian Hill of Murdock University identifies in How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values the three dimensions in how students respond to the teaching of values. These dimensions are the psychological dimensions of the cognitive, the emotional, and the volitional. While writing about teaching in schools, I believe his findings have implications in centers of higher learning. The possible response of a student to the teaching of a value X may be:

Cognitive

(1) I don’t get it. What do you mean by X?

2) Ah, I understand what you mean by X.

(3) I understand what you mean by X, but I don’t believe X is true.

(4) I accept your claim that X is true.

Emotional

1) Knowing X makes no difference to me.

(2) I have a bad feeling about X.

(3) I don’t feel I can leave up to X

(4) I have a good feel about X.

Volitional

(1) I’m not willing to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(2) I’m willing, so far as I can, to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(3) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life, but I don’t regard it as something everyone else should necessarily prioritise.

4) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life and, whenever appropriate, will commend its priority to others.

According to Hill, the cognitive plays a small role in the learning of values. The emotional dimension is more important and it is that dimension that influences the volitional in prioritizing its values. In the teaching of values, I agree with Hill that teachers have a tendency to use conditioning, coercion, indoctrination and persuasion as possible pedagogies.

Instead he suggests the following:

(1) I will model X in my own behaviour before students.

2) I will, where necessary for the common good, require students to behave in the classroom in a manner consistent with X.

(3) I will encourage maturing students to engage in critical examination of the grounds for and against prioritizing X in their lives.

4) I will represent to students that X, in my opinion, points to a defensible value by which to live, but I will respect and not penalize dissent.

Hill highlights that in the teaching of values, we need to be aware of the cognitive, emotional and volitional dimensions of learning. Our pedagogy must be based on these dimensions and should involve modeling, reflection and respect.

Reference:

Hill, Brian V., How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values, Journal of Education and Christian Beliefs, 12:2 (2008) 101-113

Do You Have the Courage to Teach?

Home > Faith in the Workplace > Interviews

I have been personally touched by Parker Palmer's book, The Courage to Teach and, his other books and especially by his lecture, The Violence of Our Knowledge which challenged me to think about the way we teach and learn.

Interview with Parker Palmer, Part 1
Do You Have the Courage to Teach?
by Marcus Goodyear


Ten years after its first release, Parker Palmer is republishing his book of encouragement for teachers called The Courage to Teach. The book helped countless teachers and other professionals to recover meaning in their work lives, in the midst of troubled, sometimes toxic systems. Recently, TheHighCalling.org spoke to Mr. Palmer about helping teachers and other professionals reconnect with their vocations and reclaim their passion for work.

What advice do you have for public school educators who are trying to serve God in their daily work?

School educators are the subjects of intense public, media, and political criticism. They are often misunderstood, berated by larger society. Public education is hard-pressed by "No Child Left Behind." The motives behind the bill were to hold public education accountable to results, and to make sure all schools measured up, no matter how many disadvantaged children they serve. Unfortunately its major impact has been to get children to pass standardized tests. Teachers find themselves having to "teach to the test," which is very different than trying to educate the whole child to become a whole adult. Kids get factoids, rather than dealing with deeper educational tasks, with values, with relationships, with questions of character, ethics, and one's own vision for one's life. Education is in a world of trouble. Teachers need help to sustain their vocation. The Courage to Teach is aimed at nurturing the teacher's heart. If they bring their truest, best self, or as we Quakers say, "that of God and every person" to their work as educators, they will find courage to resist those things that deform education and ill-serve our children.

You have said, "Good teachers join self, subject and students in the fabric of life." How does a Christian do this in public schools without indirectly imposing their faith on their students?

In the early years of the American experiment, Quakers were persecuted, even hanged, on Boston Common by other Christians who were threatened by their beliefs.

So I don't have any romanticism for the good ol' days when someone's religious beliefs could dominate our public processes and public institutions. But I also have very little patience with a system of education that ignores the questions of meaning, purpose, and value. I don't want to go back to Boston Common, but at the same time I want to open public education to the profound questions of meaning that young people have in our times. I think in a public school classroom, it's possible to help young people with questions, meaning, purpose, who they are and why they are here on earth without ever sending a child home saying to Jewish parents, or Muslim parents, or atheist parents, "Mom and Dad, this teacher is trying to turn me into something else." We owe children a gracious, open exploration of these questions, and adult companionship, without trying to engage in the sort of proselytizing that crosses the church/state barrier in inappropriate and destructive ways.

What is dangerous about proselytizing?

As a Christian, who grew up Methodist, I was deeply influenced by the scripture in 2 Corinthians that says, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." I think those earthen vessels include our language, and theological formulations. I think the mystery of God, and the mystery of God in Christ is so vast. It's idolatrous to claim that my church is the one who has been able to boil that down into a right set of words that everyone must agree with.

You've said, "The sense of self is very closely tied to what people do." How does one bring identity into a profession, without losing oneself to that profession?

You're asking, "How do we live open-heartedly in the world without having our hearts broken?" At 68, I have come to a simple conclusion: I have a choice to make.

Either I live with my heart open, investing in my work and taking the risks that come when the expression of my own truth might get me crosswise with people. Or I exist in my work and in the world in a closed-hearted way. To me this choice is a no brainer, because to be in the world in a closed-hearted way is to risk a kind of spiritual death, a death of integrity really. As Thomas Merton said, most of us live lives of self-impersonation. To be in the world as an impersonator of yourself, when selfhood is your birthright gift from God, is an insult to your Creator and certainly a diminishment of yourself. I have learned to choose to be in the world in an open-hearted way, because pain itself is a sign that I'm alive. Being open-hearted is my only chance at the joy that life can bring.

So why is living with integrity so difficult for us?

Our work institutions compromise the integrity of their mission. Public schools try to win favor under "No Child Left Behind." Some HMOs and even hospitals are more interested in the bottom line, rather than the well-being of the patient. In these examples, the personal integrity of teachers or physicians become threatening to the institutions in which they work. When personal integrity threatens institutions, the Jesus story happens all over again. He was crucified, because his integrity got him crosswise with the major institutions of his time, with the arrangements of power. The Christian story has moments that contain a penetrating, sad, and sometimes depressing description of reality. But ultimately, the Christian story is hopeful. We can stand in the midst of a death dealing reality, open-hearted, bringing new life, taking the risk of threatening the hard-heartedness of institutions.

In this new life that comes from being open-hearted, what is the relationship between renewal and courage?

A powerful book in my life is by a Guatemalan poet named Julia Esquivel. A political refugee in Guatemala, she was forced into exile. For simply trying to help her grade school students survive, she got on the wrong side of an oppressive regime. Esquivel wrote a book of poetry, Threatened with Resurrection. When I first saw that title, it just turned me upside down. I was raised in a church that said, "Death was the big threat and resurrection was the great hope." But here was a woman of great courage and integrity saying, "Sometimes a living death is more comfortable than being truly resurrected, which is a threat." She means if you can tamp down your feelings, get your heart in a box, and not get crosswise with anything that's wrong around you, maybe they will not see you. Maybe they will ignore you and let you live your little private life. But if you embrace resurrection and new life, God knows what you might be called to. The teachers who suddenly understand their calling is not to satisfy the people who make the tests but to serve the children, these teachers need resurrection or renewal. They need the courage to act on what their hearts say. The doctors who remember they have taken a hippocratic oath and say to themselves, as one physician said to me a while back, "You know I work in an HMO, which has me right on the edge of violating my hippocratic oath three or four times a week." That's a person who will need courage to act on his renewal of heart.

When we start connecting and bringing our identity to work, suddenly there's a tremendous pressure to avoid failure, because our egos may be tied to our performance. How do we reconcile that?

I think ego is strongest when we are not in touch with our own identity as children of God. My ego, or false identity, is the piece that tells me that I'm something special, that I'm not anybody's child, that I'm the leader of the pack. That's the piece of me that doesn't want to fail. The failures I've experienced and the pain brought as a result were because I was working heavily out of ego. When one works out of ego, the aim is not to serve your patients or your children. Instead it becomes about winning, looking good, and not being deprived of one's perks. Identity and integrity rightly understood are the antidote to ego.

It's baffling and troubling to me that there is this Christian cult of success that I actually think is very ego driven. So many Christians have embraced this cult of success.

So by contemporary standards, you're saying that resurrection isn't a success story?

If you read it as a success story by contemporary standards, you're distorting the fact that Jesus did none of the things that contemporary success cult members tell us that we can do by believing in him. Jesus opened himself to shared suffering with the poorest and the most oppressed. The right belief will not make my bank account bigger, my reputation brighter, and all things well.

Inner and spiritual renewal doesn't reduce our stress or get us comfy with life.

For me, the most powerful meaning of the cross and of Jesus' life is God's willingness to suffer with us, to bring redemption and meaning out of that suffering, with a sense of purpose.

Are we called to suffer or to be renewed?

We Quakers have a saying that renewal is about getting in touch with "that of God within me." When people do this, they hear more clearly their calling. And they recognize their need for courage to walk this path to which they've been called.

read more

© 2001 - 2008 H. E. Butt Foundation. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Laity Lodge and TheHighCalling.org.

Do You Have the Courage to Teach?

Home > Faith in the Workplace > Interviews

I have been personally touched by Parker Palmer's book, The Courage to Teach and, his other books and especially by his lecture, The Violence of Our Knowledge which challenged me to think about the way we teach and learn.

Interview with Parker Palmer, Part 1
Do You Have the Courage to Teach?
by Marcus Goodyear


Ten years after its first release, Parker Palmer is republishing his book of encouragement for teachers called The Courage to Teach. The book helped countless teachers and other professionals to recover meaning in their work lives, in the midst of troubled, sometimes toxic systems. Recently, TheHighCalling.org spoke to Mr. Palmer about helping teachers and other professionals reconnect with their vocations and reclaim their passion for work.

What advice do you have for public school educators who are trying to serve God in their daily work?

School educators are the subjects of intense public, media, and political criticism. They are often misunderstood, berated by larger society. Public education is hard-pressed by "No Child Left Behind." The motives behind the bill were to hold public education accountable to results, and to make sure all schools measured up, no matter how many disadvantaged children they serve. Unfortunately its major impact has been to get children to pass standardized tests. Teachers find themselves having to "teach to the test," which is very different than trying to educate the whole child to become a whole adult. Kids get factoids, rather than dealing with deeper educational tasks, with values, with relationships, with questions of character, ethics, and one's own vision for one's life. Education is in a world of trouble. Teachers need help to sustain their vocation. The Courage to Teach is aimed at nurturing the teacher's heart. If they bring their truest, best self, or as we Quakers say, "that of God and every person" to their work as educators, they will find courage to resist those things that deform education and ill-serve our children.

You have said, "Good teachers join self, subject and students in the fabric of life." How does a Christian do this in public schools without indirectly imposing their faith on their students?

In the early years of the American experiment, Quakers were persecuted, even hanged, on Boston Common by other Christians who were threatened by their beliefs.

So I don't have any romanticism for the good ol' days when someone's religious beliefs could dominate our public processes and public institutions. But I also have very little patience with a system of education that ignores the questions of meaning, purpose, and value. I don't want to go back to Boston Common, but at the same time I want to open public education to the profound questions of meaning that young people have in our times. I think in a public school classroom, it's possible to help young people with questions, meaning, purpose, who they are and why they are here on earth without ever sending a child home saying to Jewish parents, or Muslim parents, or atheist parents, "Mom and Dad, this teacher is trying to turn me into something else." We owe children a gracious, open exploration of these questions, and adult companionship, without trying to engage in the sort of proselytizing that crosses the church/state barrier in inappropriate and destructive ways.

What is dangerous about proselytizing?

As a Christian, who grew up Methodist, I was deeply influenced by the scripture in 2 Corinthians that says, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." I think those earthen vessels include our language, and theological formulations. I think the mystery of God, and the mystery of God in Christ is so vast. It's idolatrous to claim that my church is the one who has been able to boil that down into a right set of words that everyone must agree with.

You've said, "The sense of self is very closely tied to what people do." How does one bring identity into a profession, without losing oneself to that profession?

You're asking, "How do we live open-heartedly in the world without having our hearts broken?" At 68, I have come to a simple conclusion: I have a choice to make.

Either I live with my heart open, investing in my work and taking the risks that come when the expression of my own truth might get me crosswise with people. Or I exist in my work and in the world in a closed-hearted way. To me this choice is a no brainer, because to be in the world in a closed-hearted way is to risk a kind of spiritual death, a death of integrity really. As Thomas Merton said, most of us live lives of self-impersonation. To be in the world as an impersonator of yourself, when selfhood is your birthright gift from God, is an insult to your Creator and certainly a diminishment of yourself. I have learned to choose to be in the world in an open-hearted way, because pain itself is a sign that I'm alive. Being open-hearted is my only chance at the joy that life can bring.

So why is living with integrity so difficult for us?

Our work institutions compromise the integrity of their mission. Public schools try to win favor under "No Child Left Behind." Some HMOs and even hospitals are more interested in the bottom line, rather than the well-being of the patient. In these examples, the personal integrity of teachers or physicians become threatening to the institutions in which they work. When personal integrity threatens institutions, the Jesus story happens all over again. He was crucified, because his integrity got him crosswise with the major institutions of his time, with the arrangements of power. The Christian story has moments that contain a penetrating, sad, and sometimes depressing description of reality. But ultimately, the Christian story is hopeful. We can stand in the midst of a death dealing reality, open-hearted, bringing new life, taking the risk of threatening the hard-heartedness of institutions.

In this new life that comes from being open-hearted, what is the relationship between renewal and courage?

A powerful book in my life is by a Guatemalan poet named Julia Esquivel. A political refugee in Guatemala, she was forced into exile. For simply trying to help her grade school students survive, she got on the wrong side of an oppressive regime. Esquivel wrote a book of poetry, Threatened with Resurrection. When I first saw that title, it just turned me upside down. I was raised in a church that said, "Death was the big threat and resurrection was the great hope." But here was a woman of great courage and integrity saying, "Sometimes a living death is more comfortable than being truly resurrected, which is a threat." She means if you can tamp down your feelings, get your heart in a box, and not get crosswise with anything that's wrong around you, maybe they will not see you. Maybe they will ignore you and let you live your little private life. But if you embrace resurrection and new life, God knows what you might be called to. The teachers who suddenly understand their calling is not to satisfy the people who make the tests but to serve the children, these teachers need resurrection or renewal. They need the courage to act on what their hearts say. The doctors who remember they have taken a hippocratic oath and say to themselves, as one physician said to me a while back, "You know I work in an HMO, which has me right on the edge of violating my hippocratic oath three or four times a week." That's a person who will need courage to act on his renewal of heart.

When we start connecting and bringing our identity to work, suddenly there's a tremendous pressure to avoid failure, because our egos may be tied to our performance. How do we reconcile that?

I think ego is strongest when we are not in touch with our own identity as children of God. My ego, or false identity, is the piece that tells me that I'm something special, that I'm not anybody's child, that I'm the leader of the pack. That's the piece of me that doesn't want to fail. The failures I've experienced and the pain brought as a result were because I was working heavily out of ego. When one works out of ego, the aim is not to serve your patients or your children. Instead it becomes about winning, looking good, and not being deprived of one's perks. Identity and integrity rightly understood are the antidote to ego.

It's baffling and troubling to me that there is this Christian cult of success that I actually think is very ego driven. So many Christians have embraced this cult of success.

So by contemporary standards, you're saying that resurrection isn't a success story?

If you read it as a success story by contemporary standards, you're distorting the fact that Jesus did none of the things that contemporary success cult members tell us that we can do by believing in him. Jesus opened himself to shared suffering with the poorest and the most oppressed. The right belief will not make my bank account bigger, my reputation brighter, and all things well.

Inner and spiritual renewal doesn't reduce our stress or get us comfy with life.

For me, the most powerful meaning of the cross and of Jesus' life is God's willingness to suffer with us, to bring redemption and meaning out of that suffering, with a sense of purpose.

Are we called to suffer or to be renewed?

We Quakers have a saying that renewal is about getting in touch with "that of God within me." When people do this, they hear more clearly their calling. And they recognize their need for courage to walk this path to which they've been called.

read more

© 2001 - 2008 H. E. Butt Foundation. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Laity Lodge and TheHighCalling.org.

Wanna Attend a Second Life Church?

The First Church of Second Life
What is the role of real Christians in a virtual world?

by Angie Ward


Second Life is—well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and “in-world” at any given time, create their own names and “avatars” (virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman “looks”) that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls—and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn’t real?

read more

Wanna Attend a Second Life Church?

The First Church of Second Life
What is the role of real Christians in a virtual world?

by Angie Ward


Second Life is—well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and “in-world” at any given time, create their own names and “avatars” (virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman “looks”) that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls—and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn’t real?

read more

The Making or Unmaking of an Asian Theologian

Tony Siew from Trinity Theological College (TTC), Singapore, has mooted an excellent idea about a series of books on theology/commentary on the books of the Bible written by Asian scholars or theologians. Kar Yong from Seminari Teologi Malaysia (STM) whole heartedly supports the idea.

Doing my daily musings on my doctor’s chair, it occurs to me to try to define an Asian theologian. The obvious answer is that anyone who is born in Asia and has a theological degree qualifies! My impression is that Tony and Kar Yong has something more in mind. An Asian scholar/theologian is a person who is born in Asia and has a higher theological degree (PhD) and has published in some significant journals or book(s) by a reputable academic publisher. This narrows the field considerably. What about a person of Asian origin but was born and brought up in a first world country? Maybe not. So this leaves me with these Asians who is born in Asia and have achieved a PhD. The implication is that this person will be able to write theologically from an Asian perspective.

Here are my musings:

First, almost all Asians have to go overseas to get their PhDs. Finishing a PhD averages from 5-7 years or longer, full time. One must add in the time for a ThM which is about 2-3 years. Altogether, we may be talking about 10 years. Earning a PhD is a formative process because a person has to be trained to think and write in an ‘academic’ way. Basically it is a very Western model of thinking, based on deconstructing and reconstructing propositions. It is actually an antithesis of the Asian way of consensus thinking. This is not a criticism of the PhD process but an observation. I may be wrong but I believe that those who have gone through a PhD process do not think like an Asian anymore. Let us say, a person get his or her PhD at 40 years old. Even though born in Asia, 25% of his or her adult life will be involved in learning how not to think like an Asian. Is it possible for such people to think like an Asian again?

Second, these 10 years of the higher degree process will be spent in a first world country. Though many students are poor, they are living in a first world country; enjoying its support services, attending a first world church and sending their children to schools there. For these 10 years, they have been out of touch with the Asian church of their home country. Will it be possible for them to go home and continue as if nothing has happened? Will they be able to adapt to the low payscale now when they have accomplished so much? Having being transplanted and are out of circulation in the local environment, will they ever able to readapt, let alone be like the locals again.

Third, most of those who return with a PhD end up with the local seminaries because they find that they had difficulty fitting into the local churches. They think differently from the locals. Again, this is an observation and I have no particular person in mind. Seminaries are great and I want to live there too (especially in their libraries). However, seminaries are not the grassroots and occasional preaching in churches do not really enable one to know what it is really happening at the grassroots. Without the common touch with the grassroots, is it possible to do a really contextualised theology?

Finally, do they know enough or their own heritage and culture to really contextualise what they have learnt overseas? Again, this is my personal observation. Many PhD holders regurgitate what they have learned overseas with a bit of ‘window dressings’ to make it look local. They use overseas textbooks and recycle overseas lectures notes. Is that Asian theology?

I hope these musings will not get me into trouble. I wonder if there is such a person as an Asian theologian. Or a theologian who is Asian. No, don’t throw that stone….

.

The Making or Unmaking of an Asian Theologian

Tony Siew from Trinity Theological College (TTC), Singapore, has mooted an excellent idea about a series of books on theology/commentary on the books of the Bible written by Asian scholars or theologians. Kar Yong from Seminari Teologi Malaysia (STM) whole heartedly supports the idea.

Doing my daily musings on my doctor’s chair, it occurs to me to try to define an Asian theologian. The obvious answer is that anyone who is born in Asia and has a theological degree qualifies! My impression is that Tony and Kar Yong has something more in mind. An Asian scholar/theologian is a person who is born in Asia and has a higher theological degree (PhD) and has published in some significant journals or book(s) by a reputable academic publisher. This narrows the field considerably. What about a person of Asian origin but was born and brought up in a first world country? Maybe not. So this leaves me with these Asians who is born in Asia and have achieved a PhD. The implication is that this person will be able to write theologically from an Asian perspective.

Here are my musings:

First, almost all Asians have to go overseas to get their PhDs. Finishing a PhD averages from 5-7 years or longer, full time. One must add in the time for a ThM which is about 2-3 years. Altogether, we may be talking about 10 years. Earning a PhD is a formative process because a person has to be trained to think and write in an ‘academic’ way. Basically it is a very Western model of thinking, based on deconstructing and reconstructing propositions. It is actually an antithesis of the Asian way of consensus thinking. This is not a criticism of the PhD process but an observation. I may be wrong but I believe that those who have gone through a PhD process do not think like an Asian anymore. Let us say, a person get his or her PhD at 40 years old. Even though born in Asia, 25% of his or her adult life will be involved in learning how not to think like an Asian. Is it possible for such people to think like an Asian again?

Second, these 10 years of the higher degree process will be spent in a first world country. Though many students are poor, they are living in a first world country; enjoying its support services, attending a first world church and sending their children to schools there. For these 10 years, they have been out of touch with the Asian church of their home country. Will it be possible for them to go home and continue as if nothing has happened? Will they be able to adapt to the low payscale now when they have accomplished so much? Having being transplanted and are out of circulation in the local environment, will they ever able to readapt, let alone be like the locals again.

Third, most of those who return with a PhD end up with the local seminaries because they find that they had difficulty fitting into the local churches. They think differently from the locals. Again, this is an observation and I have no particular person in mind. Seminaries are great and I want to live there too (especially in their libraries). However, seminaries are not the grassroots and occasional preaching in churches do not really enable one to know what it is really happening at the grassroots. Without the common touch with the grassroots, is it possible to do a really contextualised theology?

Finally, do they know enough or their own heritage and culture to really contextualise what they have learnt overseas? Again, this is my personal observation. Many PhD holders regurgitate what they have learned overseas with a bit of ‘window dressings’ to make it look local. They use overseas textbooks and recycle overseas lectures notes. Is that Asian theology?

I hope these musings will not get me into trouble. I wonder if there is such a person as an Asian theologian. Or a theologian who is Asian. No, don’t throw that stone….

.