Reclaiming Theological
Education as Education for Life
Hope S. Antone
Theological Education as Education for Life
During
my seminary days in the Philippines, I heard someone preach on a
borrowed title, "the hidden years of Jesus." The preacher, one
graduate student of the seminary, tried to compare the years
between Jesus' discussion with leaders in the temple when he was
12 years of age and the time of his baptism when he was 30 - to
the time seminary students spend preparing for the ministry. The
student preacher then called upon students to make good use of
their short time in the seminary in serious study and not to waste
time on the extras. Seminary or theological education was, to this
preacher, like the "hidden years of Jesus" - the time when
seminarians must seriously concentrate on preparing themselves for
ministry in the world.
Already at that time,
there was an ongoing debate on how students must spend their time
in the seminary. One side was for students to spend all their time
mastering the core courses, including languages in biblical
scholarship, and shunning any extra involvement, especially campus
and secular activism. At that time of a nationwide struggle
against former strongman Ferdinand Marcos, and with the growing
popularity of liberation theology as the theology of the masses
(not of armchair seminary theologians), many students were easily
distracted from their academic work. The other side of the debate
was for students to strike a balance between academic demands and
the need to be involved in the wider society. It was of course a
challenge trying to strike a balance.
If we think of those
"hidden years" of Jesus, they only came to be known as "hidden
years" because very little is recorded in the Bible about what
happened then. But we can imagine that those years were not just
spent in the safe enclosures of religious or educational
institutions but in the very "school" of life - which took place
at home, in the carpentry shop, market, fishing villages, and
farms, aside from the temple, synagogue, and rabbinic school. We
can surmise, using some history of Jewish religious education,
that Jesus had received nurture in his family through rituals, the
reenactment of their history as a people, and through storytelling
and interpretation. As expected of Jewish boys, Jesus must have
attended the school for boys, where rabbis taught the Hebrew
language, the oral traditions and the written scriptures. Then, as
expected of all adult male Jews, Jesus must have learned the Law
in the synagogues, which became the local centers of worship and
instruction. The home, school and synagogue were certainly places
where intentional and guided education took place. But whatever
religious education Jesus had in such places was further enriched
by his own formation through involvement in day-to-day affairs in
his home and community, and by his encounters with people in their
varied situations. I reckon that it was through such encounters
with people that Jesus' sensitivity to their needs and his
compassion and love for them were sharpened. This is the unique
thing about early Jewish education - that it integrated aspects of
religious/theological education and socio-cultural education. More
than intentional education, it was indeed socialization or
formation into a life grounded in the fear or knowledge of God.
Generally speaking,
today's theological education cannot parallel that integrated type
of Jewish education. In fact, the theological school, which is
often the place of training for a second career, has very little
or no direct control in the education or formation that happens at
school or in church, and least of all, in the public primary and
secondary schools. In our current set-up, theological education is
what is offered in seminaries where students prepare for ministry
in churches, in seminaries and other forms of faith-based service
to the wider community.
If theology is the
study about God, with God, and towards God, and since God is the
source of and reason for life, then theological education should
be holistic education for life. Theological education is
not just the "hidden years of seminarians" as they master what is
in the seminary curriculum. Rather, theological education is where
seminarians sharpen their faith commitments, clarify their life's
engagements, and broaden their perspectives. Theological education
helps them to integrate faith and life issues. Theological
education enables them to critique what is death-dealing and
affirm what is life-giving. Theological education helps them see
the interconnections of life and their interconnections with each
other and the rest of God's world. Theological education equips
them for their responsibility of claiming and proclaiming God's
will for fullness of life for all that they may enable and equip
others to do the same.
There are many
Christians who claim that the Bible is the book of life. But
feminists have shown that we cannot just make such a claim without
clarifying how and why the Bible has in fact been used to deny
life to some people, especially women and those outside the chosen
race. There are also Christians who claim that Jesus is the answer
to any question. But experience and common sense tell us that we
cannot just make such a claim about Jesus without knowing what the
questions and needs of the people are. Theological Education as
education for life involves critical approaches to learning so
that students/learners can critically appropriate the tools of
theologizing for the purpose of proclaiming fullness of life to
all people.
State of
Theological Education in Asia
Before I
touch on the issue of innovative methods in theological education,
let me share with you my research findings on the state of
theological education in Asia. In 1999-2000, I conducted a
curricular survey of a number of Asian seminaries. Here are some
of my observations/conclusions:
1.
Theological education in Asia reflects a variety of mission
orientations.
There are at least three groups of theological institutions
offering theological education in Asia. One group is the strongly
denominational institutions - whose curricular offerings are
mandated by their denominational bodies. Another group is the
so-called non-denominational institutions - with their own bodies
which mandate what gets into the curriculum. The third group is
composed of ecumenical institutions, which constitute a minority
group in Asia. Gleaning from their curricular offerings, I noticed
that both denominational and non-denominational seminaries tend to
uphold the traditional mission orientation of Christianizing the
whole of Asia and to emphasize church growth or church planting.
Together, these two groups constitute the majority of theological
institutions in Asia. Incidentally, this church planting approach
is the current strategy being used by many Asian missionaries in
countries other than their own in Asia
and elsewhere - a proof that many Asian missionaries have learned
so well from the Western missionary movement of the 19th
century and are now the zealous promoters of such a mission
orientation.
2.
Theological education in Asia generally follows the Western
"specialist approach".
Generally, the curricula in many Asian seminaries have been
patterned after the curricula of Western seminaries - after all,
most of the teachers and administrators were trained in the West;
or if they were trained in Asia, they studied under professors and
supervisors who either came from or were trained in the West. This
type of curriculum follows the model of having so-called major or
core disciplines (i.e. Bible, theology, ethics, history) required
in more credit numbers and the so-called minor disciplines
(usually education and others that are lumped together as
"practical theology") required in fewer credits or offered as
electives only. This "specialist" approach in education has
dissected the ministry of the church and created a hierarchy of
courses to the neglect of equally important areas. With this fixed
framework of curriculum planning in seminaries, it has been
difficult adding new and important courses - except by adding them
to the list of occasional electives - such as feminist theologies,
interreligious dialogue, ecumenical education or formation, etc.,
which are among the needed courses in Asia at this time.
3.
In terms of methodology, theological education in Asia generally
puts more emphasis on cognitive or intellectual development to the
neglect of other aspects of human development.
Can a deep grounding in Christian ethics and spirituality be
measured by how well students write their papers and how many
references they can make to famous scholars and authors on the
fields? Do teachers model a flexibility and variety in their
teaching methods so that learners also learn from the processes
and not just from the contents? This over-emphasis on cognitive
development has reduced creativity which is much needed in the
field - where graduates have to deal with grassroots people in
their day-to-day needs and who won't be so impressed by the use of
high theological jargons or the citing of popular authors and
scholars.
Towards
More Innovative Methods
When we
speak of innovative methods in theological education, what do we
mean? Innovate comes from the Latin word innovare
which means to make new, or alter. Innovative therefore means the
ability to bring in new methods, ideas, perspective, etc; or the
ability to make changes, better alternatives.
At the
beginning of year 2003, CCA General Secretary Ahn Jae Woong shared
his challenge to the staff at our regular Wednesday chapel
service. He said there are three possible ways of doing things:
(1) one is doing the same thing the same way; (2) another is doing
the same thing in a new way; and (3) still another is doing an
entirely new thing in a new way. He said that sometimes, some old
things need to continue in the same way; but there are times when
the same thing must be done in a new way; and there are also times
when new things have to be done in new ways.
I think
by using the word "innovative" you mean something that is not only
new but also relevant to your context. Instead of giving you a
list of innovative methods, I would like to offer you some
principles which could hopefully guide you in your planning
together of innovative methods.
1.
Relevant and innovative methods begin with clarifying your
mission orientation as a seminary and as a theological
association in Myanmar. If you affirm
to be an ecumenical seminary, one implication is that of providing
a genuine ecumenical theological education to your students who
come from various ethnic and denominational groupings here in
Myanmar. How do you foster unity while respecting diversity? How
do you encourage the uniqueness of each group to flower but at the
same time build up a genuine sense of community? How do you teach
effectively in order to build up the ecumenical spirit? For sure,
building up the ecumenical spirit takes more than the acquisition
of facts as to when ecumenism started and who the leaders were. It
has to do with a mindset and lifestyle, which are not simply
"taught" but are in fact "caught".
Even as Myanmar
Institute of Theology (MIT) affirms its being ecumenical, what do
we mean by ecumenical? Through history, there have been changes in
the understanding of the meaning of ecumenism. When it started, it
had to do with the cooperation of mainline Protestant
denominations from the West as they carried out their mission
activities in the mission fields here in Asia. Hence, it was
basically intra-confessional. Later, the cooperation broadened to
include Catholics and Orthodox, hence, it became
inter-confessional. Soon, the ecumenical movement also had to come
to terms with groups of other faiths and groups that did not even
profess to have any faith. Faith-ideology encounters and
interfaith dialogues then opened up new possibilities of
ecumenical exploration and cooperation. More recently, studies on
the roots of the word "oikoumene" have revealed that it is not
simply pointing to the description of "the whole inhabited world",
but also to the action or task of "managing the whole household of
God" (from oikos or household and mene or manage).
Hence, ecumenism has to do with proper stewardship or management
of God's whole household. This is why ecumenism is no longer
centered on Protestant churches; and no longer just on people. It
now includes all other members of God's creation. It is not
genuine ecumenism if we are only concerned about the unity of
churches. Genuine ecumenism includes the unity of all peoples and
of the whole creation.
If we follow this
growing awareness of the meanings and implications of ecumenism,
our content and methodology in teaching ecumenics and other
related topics would never be the same year in and year out. Of
course it is not just the ecumenics professor who should be
helping learners to become ecumenical; all other courses also need
to be taught in ways that equip leaders to be ecumenical. Being
ecumenical means having and knowing one's roots in something as
well as being open to live and grow with the other around us. If
we only know our roots but have no connectedness with the other
around us, we may not be developing ecumenically.
2. To overcome the
specialist approach that our theological institutions in
Asia have become so used to, we need to think of theological
education as holistic education. Specialization has its value
and any theological institution is lucky to have experts in
various disciples such as the Bible, theology, education, and so
on. But we must remember that within a four-year study in the
seminary we are not to be turning out experts in certain
disciplines. In fact, the actual need out there in the field is
for pastors and church workers who are general practitioners
- knowledgeable and effective in all areas of the ministry. Hence,
we must reclaim our vital role as general practitioners,
who are expected to deal with situations in the field right there
and then. The same role is expected of our seminary graduates - to
be general practitioners in the field. Hence, we need to be good
in all disciplines. Some seminaries put too much emphasis in one
or two of these areas to the neglect of others. In my personal
experience of teaching in the seminary, I know that attitudes of
teachers towards certain fields reflect their low regard for other
fields. And students can feel these attitudes which should not be
there in the first place if we think of our role as general
practitioners who are equipped in all areas.
Recently, in my work with
grassroots women of Cambodia through the Asian Women's Resource
Centre for Culture and Theology, I experienced what it means to be
a general practitioner who could use basic knowledge of the Bible,
history, ethics, education, sociology, feminist theology and
social analysis all at the same time. It would have been difficult
for Cambodian women, who were just starting to read and write in
their Khmer language and who were also just learning to read the
Bible, if we had called on experts/scholars who would follow the
specialist approach. Instead, the team of three resource persons
took upon ourselves the role of general practitioners, combining
all that the fields had to offer as we prepared a special
curriculum for grassroots women.
In the
seminary, we have many of those gifts of expertise and training
from various teachers, so let us utilize them through team
teaching and interdisciplinary teaching. When we intentionally do
this, students will be much better prepared to be general
practitioners in the field. By interdisciplinary or team
teaching, I mean that courses may be taught by a team of
teachers who plan and implement courses together. This kind of
teaching is not only enriching for students but also for teachers.
For example, imagine studying the Bible using the expertise of a
Bible scholar, an educator, and a feminist theologian all in one
course! Students would get a good background of the Bible,
appropriate philosophy and methodology of teaching, and the
critical lenses of re-reading the Bible with the eyes of the
oppressed. Interdisciplinary or team teaching can also be fostered
when teachers regularly have a time of sharing about how they can
improve their teaching - from different disciplinary perspectives.
It is important for teachers to know and learn from each other's
philosophy and methodology. What does it mean to read the Bible
contextually, or with feminist lenses? What does it mean to be
ecumenically orientated as teachers in our respective fields?
Interdisciplinary teaching is not just about the different
disciplines required by the seminary curriculum. In fact, we need
more help from the so-called secular disciplines. In a meeting I
attended recently of the Ecumenical Enablers' Team in Asia, I
learned that one common weakness of our churches and ecumenical
bodies is the lack of skillful know-how in planning, monitoring
and evaluating development programs as well as in reporting and
accounting for the same. I remember a joke that was often thrown
at students entering the seminary: "Have you come to the seminary
because of a calling or because you are poor in math and science
and cannot be accepted in the other departments?" Somehow we have
come to think that the seminary specializes in things of the
spirit or the soul - hence, there is no need to be good in math or
science. But now, we realize that we do have to be knowledgeable
in other areas. Part of the stewardship of the churches is the
management and generation of resources. Hence, we also need skills
in planning, monitoring, evaluating, accounting, and reporting,
among other things.
Interdisciplinary teaching is necessary because of emerging issues
that are often times beyond our training and expertise. Issues
such as environmental degradation, spread of HIV/AIDS, war and
terror, globalization, fundamentalism, and interreligious dialogue
demand that we open our seminary doors to other disciplines, even
secular disciplines, and even to other faiths for help in our
analysis and attempts at finding ways of dealing with such issues.
If our approach to interreligious dialogue has simply been the
comparative study of religions done by one teacher, we need to do
more and venture into a real interreligious encounter with
teachers or scholars from different religions, addressing emerging
issues of the day. How enriching that would be for everyone, even
as it also helps to foster better relations among faith
communities! Like many Asian countries, Christianity in Myanmar is
a minority religion while Buddhism is a religion of the majority.
Does our seminary prepare students for genuine interreligious
dialogue through living together as neighbors?
3.
In order to come up with innovative methods of teaching, we also
need to assess how we regard and relate with students. Do we
relate with students as whole persons, with minds, with
bodies, and with feelings? Just as Jesus' growth is described
as increasing in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and
people (Luke 2:52), let us also aim for our students a holistic
growth in mind, body, soul/spirit, and behavior/lifestyle. If we
think of our students as whole persons, then methods of teaching
that only affect the intellect are not good enough.
Ministry
is about relationships, loving and just human relationships. How
does overemphasis on intellectual development enhance the ability
to foster loving and just human relationships? What if we produce
graduates, pastors, who may be very good in the art of preaching
but who cannot deal with problems of human relationships, who lack
skills in mediation, counseling, and conflict resolution?
Overemphasis in intellectual or cognitive development is not a
healthy sign. We need pastors who are good preachers and
educators, but who are also skillful counselors and who can help
foster loving and just human relationships.
Related
to our ways of dealing with students, how do we regard
teacher-student relationship? Is it a hierarchical relationship -
a relationship between un-equal parties - one with the knowledge
and power; the other with no knowledge and no power? How do we
foster partnership and equality right during seminary training?
Our methods of teaching show how we regard our students. The
banking method of teaching is one way that treats students as
spongy recipients of what we have to give; like empty vessels that
we have to fill up. Banking method needs to be overhauled for it
is not a good image of teaching - teachers deposit something in
order to be withdrawn during examination time. What for do we want
to deposit and withdraw information? Such a method of teaching is
not at all liberating for both teacher and learner. We need
methods not simply for the purpose of students' accumulation of
facts and information, but for lighting up their creative
imagination to dream new dreams for the churches and the people in Myanmar.
How do we fire up that imagination that has long been suppressed
by fear and isolation, and the basic need for day-to-day survival?
We need to think of methods that reflect a relationship of
partnership between students and teachers in the seminary. For
indeed, we are already partners in discipleship and service.
4.
Feminism has taught me many things in terms of critiquing ways of
relating with others as well as ways of doing things - whether it
is theologizing, teaching, worshipping, or reading a text. Since
feminism envisions a relationship of partnership and justice
instead of hierarchy and domination - a liberation that is for
all, not just for a few - feminist theologians and educators have
come up with new ways of doing things. Here are some of my
experiences at attempting to incorporate an Asian feminist
perspective in what I do in my teaching and theologizing.
In
feminist praxis, education becomes experiential. Since
experience of oppression is the starting point of feminist
theologizing, we need not always begin with definitions of
feminism, feminist, or feminist theology but with a sharing of
students' experiences of discrimination because of their sex,
gender, or sexual orientation. A survey of the different streams
of feminism - e.g. Western feminism, African American womanism,
Latin American feminism, Hispanic Mujerista, African feminism, and
Asian feminism - need not dwell on intellectual discussion but in
experiential glimpses of doing theology or reading the Bible from
the different streams of feminism. When education is experiential,
it is more meaningful and I believe, long lasting.
In
feminist praxis, critique is a vital component as we raise
questions of why oppression, why discrimination; as we probe the
roots of suffering and the interconnections of issues such as sex,
gender, class, race, culture and religion. We do not just hear
words at their face value; we hear the hidden nuances of words and
language. We do not take handed down interpretations of religious
texts and teachings; but we ask who interpreted them and why they
made such interpretations. Moreover, we offer our alternative
interpretations using our feminist lenses and all our wisdom
sources of intellect, faith, feelings, experiences, dreams and
aspirations. What can be more fun and exciting if learners are
enabled to draw from these wisdom sources that are already there,
within them and among them?
In
feminist praxis, advocacy is very important. It is not so
much the acquisition of knowledge and information; but a process
of growing in commitment to women's empowerment, to genuine
partnership of women and men, and to a total transformation of
society. We do not want our vision to remain a vision. Our vision
of partnership in love and service, justice in relationships,
fulfillment in our calling, and empowerment of all for fullness of
life must be translated into action, the expression of our
feminist commitment, lifestyle, and mindset.
Feminist
praxis is not limited to what happens within the four walls of the
classroom. It regards the whole life's context as the classroom,
bringing in experiences from the field, the grassroots, and the
environment as integral components of the curriculum. Nowadays,
Asian feminism is seriously making connections and reconnections
with the diverse gifts of peoples and their varied forms of
spirituality; even with the things in nature and creation. With
feminism as one of the lenses in theological education, there will
surely be a lot of innovative methods and exciting processes of
education that do not only develop the brain, but also the hearts,
the spirits and the lives of students.
5.
In order to come up with innovative methods in theological
education, I would like to go back to the model of Christ Jesus by
whose inspiration we do what we do in theological education.
Stephen Moon, a Korean theologian, described the model of Jesus as
educator in the following which I have modified for our context:
First,
when he called his students or disciples, he offered himself as
a friend. Can you imagine what it is like to offer ourselves,
teachers, as friends to our students? It means getting to know
each of our students as a friend - a person with needs and
aspirations; a person with a history or herstory of pain and
struggle; a person with weaknesses and strengths; a person with
potentials; and above all, a person who is loved by God and who
mirrors God's very image. Friendship is a way of relationship that
guards against hierarchy; it is a relationship of equals. I took
this seriously when I taught an intensive course in feminist
theologies in a seminary in the Philippines in 2000. Although I
had planned the course for one-month-and-a-half, I began on the
first day we met with a session of knowing each other, making
friends, and sharing our varied perceptions of feminism, feminist,
and feminist theology; and of how we wanted to spend the rest of
our time together. Through that exercise, I was able to see the
levels of awareness and openness of students; hence, I revised my
plan in order to make it a collective plan with the students. The
course therefore became our learning covenant during our time
together.
Second,
when Jesus taught his disciples, the core of his teaching and
preaching was always the vision of God's reign being real
in people's lives. Such a vision was an alternative to the life
that they knew: it was a vision of a life abundant. It included
good news to the poor; freedom for prisoners; sight for the blind;
release for the oppressed; and proclaiming jubilee or release from
all debts. I am sure you have expounded on this vision many times.
And so I will just sum it up by saying that all these different
aspects of the good news point to genuine liberation from anything
that deprived the people of abundant life. It is relief from
hunger, want and poverty; freedom from anything that imprisons;
having the gift of healing or wholeness instead of sickness or
anything that blinds; release from all forms of oppression,
including gender, class, and racial discrimination; and the
announcement of the jubilee as socio-economic justice through
freedom from all debts and return of lost or stolen land,
inheritance, and identity. Does our teaching encourage the
dreaming of such dream? Does our teaching fire up the creative
imagination of our students to dream such dream?
Third,
when Jesus taught, he did not just speak about the vision,
describing it in beautiful words. He also showed them how to
actualize the vision through his acts of healing, feeding,
feasting with the so-called questionable people, and exorcising
evil. We know that through these actions, Jesus was accused of
violating laws; and that the powers-that-be were watching his
every move, finding fault whenever they could in order to accuse
him of wrongdoing. Actualizing the vision can be a dangerous
thing. And how we prepare ourselves and our students for the
possible dangers of actualizing the vision in our time and context
is indeed a challenge for us today.
Fourthly, Jesus always commanded the disciples to do the things
that he was doing and to do even greater things than
what he did. This is not to be understood simply in the sense of
students surpassing the teacher. I take this as a reminder of many
more challenges ahead which our graduates will need to deal with
on their own. There are so many issues today that challenge not
only our faith but also how we can live out our faith truthfully
and meaningfully. Issues of HIV/AIDS, religious fundamentalism,
war on terror, globalization, human rights and human dignity,
environmental protection, are among such issues. How to actualize
the vision of God's reign in the midst of such issues poses a
great challenge for students and graduates to do greater things
than what their teachers have done before them. Hence, our
teaching should be challenging, inspiring the students' creative
imagination, so they can deal with emerging issues as they arise
in their own time. That way, they will know how to strive to be
better than their teachers before them.
