Three different paradigms of Christian religious education

Christian education is a vast and diverse field and is characterised by a wide variety of approaches to practice and theory. It is shaped by and shapes the context in which it occurs. While reflecting the particular Biblical, theological, educational and philosophical emphases of its sources, it simultaneously informs and transforms those involved.

Christian education has a “pre-paradigmatic character”, that is, it is a discipline that is yet to develop a dominant model that guides all thought and practice, because of its focus on complex human subjects and their creation in the very image of God[1]. Hence, any educational concept or practice is by its nature tentative and changeable. Christian educators need to constantly reconsider the foundational questions, and need to be open and intentionally rely on the work of the Holy Spirit, who works as the unseen catalyst for learning through every aspect of the teaching-learning process.[2]

Nevertheless, Seymour and Miller[3] [4] have identified five different contemporary Christian educational approaches that have been of historical importance to Christian education. Five primary metaphors of Christian education are derived from studying current praxis, reflecting on some of the foundational assumptions and exploring the theological correlates. These metaphors are: Religious Instruction, Community of Faith, Development, Liberation and Interpretation. While no one particular viewpoint will fit precisely under these broad categories, they provides a set of organising principles that reflects and clarifies the state of the church’s education, and allow specific approaches to Christian education to be classified.

Hence, the biblical, theological, educational and philosophical foundations of three of these differing educational “paradigms” will be evaluated, using exemplars of current usage in the teaching ministry of congregations. My own preferred framework of Christian education will be explored within the discussion and critique of these perspectives, appropriating Pazmiño’s definition of education as “the process of sharing content with persons in the context of their communities and societies”[5]. Pazmiño’s educational trinity is based on a studying the content, context and persons of Jesus’ teaching, and follows the ideal of effective teaching as incarnated by Jesus the Master Teacher.

Content, persons and context thus provides the standard by which to prepare, implement and evaluate Christian education in its various forms. My personal approach is a therefore hybrid of the three educational paradigms under review. The content of the faith, based on the framework of “Religious Instruction”, will be explored from the evangelical perspective of Pazmiño[6], and address the content of the faith and the nature of tradition.
The connection of experiences of persons with the life of faith through the process of “Interpretation” will be addressed with reference to the work of Groome[7] [8], evaluating theological method and how religious and theological meanings are made. Finally, the context for faith, experienced in the “Community of Faith” will be outlined, engaging with the contribution of the Reformed Christian community as explained by Dykstra[9], and exploring the nature of the community of faith and how the church provides and transforms the activities of education.

Despite their diversity, the central theme all these approaches is the teaching of the Good News[10] – uniquely embodied in Jesus Christ as the very Son of God, and also as fully human. Jesus stands alone as the Master Teacher, “the exemplar or model for teaching whose life and ministry are worthy of passionate consideration and emulation”.[11]

---

[1] Robert W. Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education: An Introduction in Evangelical Perspectives, 2nd rev. edn. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 87.
[2] Gary Newton, “The Holy Spirit in the Educational Process” in Michael J. Anthony (ed.), Introducing Christian Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 129.
[3] Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller (eds.) Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982).
[4] Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller (eds.) Theological Approaches to Christian Education (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990).

[5] “I define education as the process of sharing content with persons in the context of their communities and societies. This definition identifies an educational trinity of content, context and persons, that can serve to appreciate the teaching ministry of the Second Person of the divine Trinity, Jesus the Christ.” Robert W. Pazmiño, God Our Teacher: Theological Basics in Christian Education (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 60.
[6] Robert W. Pazmiño, Principles and Practices of Christian Education: An Evangelical Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2002).
[7] Thomas H. Groome, Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980).
[8] Thomas H. Groome, Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1991).
[9] Craig Dykstra, Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices (Kentucky: Geneva Press, 1999).
[10] Donald E. Miller and Jack L. Seymour, “The Future” in Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller (eds.) Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 162.
[11] Pazmiño, God Our Teacher: Theological Basics in Christian Education, 60.

Religious Instruction

The first educational paradigm under consideration is the approach of “Religious Instruction”, simply described by the goal of assisting learners in encountering God’s self revelation and tradition[1]. This is usually achieved through a process of formal theological reflection, of teaching and learning, involving knowing, interpreting and incarnating the faith in order to live responsibly and faithfully in the world – a “practical theology”.

Evangelical educator Robert Pazmiño discusses this approach within an “educational trinity” of content, persons and context, centred on God. God-centred Christian education establishes as its starting point the authority of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and illumined by the Holy Spirit through Scripture. The guide for Christian faith and practice is thus the Bible, from which essential principles can be derived that directly influence any educational approach. One notable guiding principle is the affirmation that all truth is God’s truth, which implies a unity in truth and a correspondence between scriptural truth and reality[2].

This God-centredness is operationalised within a five-task model of Christian education – proclamation, community, service, advocacy and worship - all essential to the life and mission of the church. The five-task model can be compared to five approaches identified by Seymour and Miller[3]. The two principles guiding the practice of evangelical Christian education are conversion and connection. Conversion involves human reconciliation with God, others and the creation - personal and corporate transformation is needed. Connection links the content, person and context and addresses the fragmentation of life and the faith of the Christian community[4].


More systematically, Pazmiño offers a definition of Christian education, as the

deliberate, systematic and sustained divine and human effort to share or
appropriate the knowledge, values, attitudes, skills, sensitivities, and
behaviours that comprise or are consistent with the Christian faith. It fosters
the change, renewal and reformation of persons, groups and structures by the
power of the Holy Spirit to conform to the revealed will of God as expressed in
the Old and New Testaments and pre-eminently in the person of Jesus Christ, as
well as any outcomes of that effort.[5]

The evangelical perspective thus begins from the perspective of an orthodox Christian faith. The theological distinctives are Biblical authority, the necessity of conversion, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and personal piety, as well as adherence to the Apostles Creed. In addition, Pazmiño operates out of a Reformed view of education in conversation with liberation theology[6]. How we educate reflects our understanding and application of these theological principles[7], as educational theory and practice are not first about us but about God. Christian education begins with God’s revelation, the content. In this sense, the ultimate teacher is God, and all of life makes up the curriculum. The teacher works as a partner with God, relying on the sufficiency of God’s grace to transform the learner. However, Christian education must avoid teaching Bible and theology as ends in themselves, reducing them to purely cognitive constructs. Students are to learn to think in biblical ways, using theology to guide categories of thinking”[8]

Evangelical Christian education evaluates educational methods and philosophies from within this theological framework. It embraces insights from the social sciences and secular philosophies inasmuch as they can be admitted by the primary lens of Scripture[9]. This “bipolar unity” between theology and other forms of inquiry gives priority to theological insights and seeks to transform knowledge from other sources other than God’s primary revelation in order to acquire wisdom[10]. Any education that claims to be Christian needs to show faithfulness in this area of primary importance. Unfortunately, sophisticated and tenuous exegetical treatments may be offered as ways of justifying the inclusion or otherwise of secular insights. A more intellectually defensible approach allows Scripture speak in its area of expertise, and the social sciences in theirs where Scripture is silent.

For evangelical Christian educators, the witnesses of the Scriptures are understood to have a normative function for teaching / learning. Thus, for example, Pazmiño can call extensively on a reading of Jesus as the embodiment of the Master Teacher, and exegete a number of principles and implications for practice for Christian educators to emulate. In this instance, Jesus’ teaching was authoritative (Mk 1:21-22) and he spoke the very words of God (Jn 14:23-24). Hence Christian teachers have derivative authority, as they are faithful to God’s special and general revelation. Jesus’ teaching was not authoritarian (Jn 6:60-69), and so Christian teachers need to provide freedom of inquiry[11]. The strength of this approach is that the content and the method of teaching are tightly linked, however without appropriate humility this can lead to an arrogant stance that is final and beyond question.
The practical theology of the evangelical approach to Christian education directly appropriates the scope of the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) as an assurance of the presence of the risen Christ. This transformative presence is made available to all Christians who desire to model themselves on the life of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and empowering the educational effort.

---

[1] Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller, “Openings to God: Education and Theology in Dialogue” in Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller, eds., Theological Approaches to Christian Education, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 20.
[2] Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education, 120.
[3] Pazmiño, Principles and Practices of Christian Education, 56.
[4] Pazmiño, Principles and Practices of Christian Education, 10-11.
[5] Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education, 87.
[6] Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education, 55-70.
[7] Charles Dunahoo, “September-October 03 Book Review”. Retrieved on April 29th 2006 from http://www.pcacep.org/publications/EquipArchives/2003/Sept/TeachingCross.htm.
[8] Perry G. Downs, Teaching for Spiritual Growth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 64-65.
[9] Warren S. Benson, “Philosophical Foundations of Christian Education” in Michael J. Anthony (ed.) Introducing Christian Education (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 27.
[10] Richard R. Osmer, “A New Clue for Religious Education?” in James M. Lee (ed.) Forging a Better Religious Education in the Third Millennium (Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, 2000), 188.
[11] Pazmiño, Principles and Practices of Christian Education, 125-132

Interpretation

The next Christian educational paradigm to be evaluated addresses the process of interpretation. The “interpretive” approach to Christian education argues that connecting Christian perspectives and practices to contemporary experiences is the primary task. Its agenda is not the Bible or life only, but both. The “task of Christian education is to engage the faith-story and the experience of living in a dialogical relationship from which meaning for living emerges.”[1]

The interpretive approach of Thomas Groome provides a popular example of this educational paradigm at work in the life of congregations. Groome has been influenced by progressive educator John Dewey’s idea of experience and reflection, and of the “reconstruction of experience”[2]. This theory / practice relationship at the centre of education describes thought emerging out of and reconstructing experience in an ongoing fashion. Concerns arise when this “reconstruction” is understood to occur solely in the mind of the learner without reference to the transformative, 6teaching ministry of the Spirit. While much can be gained from a study of Dewey, his ahistorical approach, anti-supernaturalism and misplaced faith in the saving nature of progressive education are criticisms that have been levelled in addressing the strength of his influence on Christian education[3].

In his “Shared Praxis” approach, Groome deliberately favours the term praxis over practice. Praxis refers to “reflective action”, or an interaction of theory and practice not adequately described by one term. In arriving at this, Groome is particular indebted to the work of Brazilian educational philosopher and social educator Paulo Friere[4]. Friere has been influenced by elements of existentialism and the “praxis epistemologies” of Marxism, and these elements can be seen in Groome’s interpretation.

Friere’s reconstructionist views informed a commitment to establish an ideal and more just society, demanding the changing of the alleged obsolete and oppressive values and ideas of traditional education[5]. Liberation is offered through the process of praxis, a process of reflection followed by action and further reflection. Learners are thus active, creative subjects with the capacity to examine critically, interact with, and transform the world. However, despite being problematic as a theological influence, Friere offers insights that address areas of weakness for Christian educators - thought is to be grounded in authentic practice[6].

Groome’s “shared praxis approach” essentially applies Friere’s insights to a middle class context. It is described thus:

Christian religious education by shared praxis can be described as a group of
Christians sharing in dialogue their critical reflection on present action in
light of the Christian Story and its Vision toward the end of the lived
Christian faith.[7]

The five “movements” of “shared Christian praxis”, after an attention getting focussing activity, consist of (1) Present action (2) Critical reflection (3) Story and its Vision (4) Dialectic between Story and stories (5) Vision and visions[8].

A Biblical illustration for this approach may be taken from the post-resurrection appearance of Christ to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35). Jesus’ discussion with the disciples can be loosely exegeted as an example of the five-point process, where the disciples’ present situation and is explored and reflected upon, the Story presented, and their appropriations and decisions elucidated. Further connections between “shared Christian praxis” and the approach of Jesus are drawn with the parables of Jesus, especially in the context in which they were first told.

The idea of the subject who freely seeks, knows and chooses the good is crucial to Groome’s understanding of the Christian faith. Jesus is held as the revealer of human being / knowing who “did the will of God perfectly [and so] could claim to know the Father best”. God desires similar human liberation and freedom in the Old Testament, for example Isaiah 58:6-7, and in the New, where Jesus “affirms and reveals the capacity of the subject to be and know freely, by offering a spiritual, personal and social / political freedom to those who seek, chose, and know the good”[9]. As communal beings, learners are called to right and loving relationship with God, self, others, and creation, and are also capable of sin and grace[10]. However, there is a tremendous optimism in an individual’s inherent orientation towards freely seeking, knowing and choosing the good. Groome’s construction of a “free knowing choosing subject” leans towards an absolute sort of freedom that is at odds with the broken / redeemed human condition of Scripture.

Despite his influence in his Catholic context[11] Groome has come under severe criticism, notably for “a deeply embedded scepticism regarding the doctrinal content of Catholic teaching”[12]. These difficulties take place especially in movement three (Story and its Vision) of the “shared praxis model” where the educator shares the Story of the faith community in light of learner’s reflection on present experience. Groome asserts that certain official church teachings are “not appropriate to movement 3 of shared Christian praxis”[13]. According to the critics, the “shared praxis” method is “not designed to teach the Faith, but to undermine it in favour of an outlook incompatible with orthodox Christianity”[14]

While Groome’s “shared praxis model” offers opportunities for exploring the subjective appropriation of the Christian Story in an authentic dialogical relationship with the learner, educators also have a responsibility to represented fairly and accurately the Story itself, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

---

[1] Jack L. Seymour and Carol A. Wertheim, “Faith Seeking Understanding: Interpretation as a Task of Christian Education” in Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 124.
[2] Sara Little, To Set One’s Heart: Belief and Teaching in the Church (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1983), 83.
[3] Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education, 155.
[4] Little, To Set One’s Heart, 82.
[5] Bensen, “Philosophical Foundations of Christian Education”, 32.
[6] For an extended summary of the merits of Friere’s educational and theological approach, see Pazmiño, Foundational Issues in Christian Education, 75-80.
[7] Groome, Christian Religious Education, 184.
[8] Groome, Christian Religious Education, 207-208.
[9] This summary of Groome’s approach is taken from Tom Beaudoin, “The Theological Anthropology of Thomas Groome”, Religious Education Spring (2005). Retrieved on May 5th 2006 from
http://www.looksmartreligions.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_200504/ai_n13642193/pg_8?pi=edurel
[10] Groome, Sharing Faith,, 429-431.
[11] The General Directory for Catechesis contains several themes that draw on his work. See Beaudoin, “The Theological Anthropology of Thomas Groome”.
[12] Eamonn Keane, “Thomas Groome: His Influence on Religious Education Continues”, AD2000 15, no. 11 (December 2002 – January 2003), 8.
[13] Groome, Sharing Faith, 218-219.
[14] John Young, “Review of A Generation Betrayed: Deconstructing Catholic Education in the English Speaking World”, AD2000 15, no. 10 (November 2002), 17.

Community of Faith

The final educational paradigm to be evaluated is the notion of the “Faith Community”. This approach is characterised by the goal of helping people understand and embody the meaning of being a people of God and a community of faith in the world[1].

The faith community captures the power of the congregation to teach, and is both the content and the process of Christian education. Learning the faith occurs through participation in a faith community that seeks to enhance the relationship of persons to others, communities and the larger world, connecting people, communities and creation.[2]

What is the nature of the community of faith, and how does the church provide and transform the activities of education? Craig Dykstra attempts to answer this question and what it means to live the Christian life faithfully and well. He explores the contribution of that which helps people grow in faith: the traditions, education, worship practices, and disciplines of the Reformed church community.

Dykstra begins with identifying a widespread spiritual hunger that is prevalent in our age – and rightly admonishes those who would conflate the Christian faith with a way of making sense out of life. “Meaning” and “faith” are not the same - meaning is a by-product of faith, not its substance. The true satisfaction for this hunger is identified as Christ, and those who lose their strivings for meaning have them returned as a gift (c.f. Matt 16:25). The very shape of the church as the redeemed community is the primary setting and resource for education. Only with this corporate view of education, a process the apostle Paul called “building up” the body of Christ (1 Cor 14:12), where communities seeking to incarnate Christ’s presence, can our personal quests for Christian faith and vocation be nurtured.[3]

This transformational aim of Christian education is actualised most naturally within the context of community. Particular emphasis is placed in both the Old and New Testaments on the interactive, interpersonal and learning situations that transform our beliefs, attitudes, values, and behavioural practices[4] (Deut 6:1-9, 11:18-21; Acts 2:42-47; Eph 4:15-16; Heb 10:24-25). Christianity is essentially an embodied way of community life that sources its power intergenerationally in specific, overtly Christian practices – the ordinary practices that the church has been doing for centuries.

Writing from a Reformed perspective, Dykstra draws on an educational approach informed by classical Protestant understandings of Christine doctrine and practice. The life of the Spirit is recognized and lived as it is consistently and deeply participated in within communities that know God’s love, acknowledge it, express it, and live their lives in its light. Hence, the faith community enables the realisation of the “new life in Christ”, and carries on its life through certain “practices” that are constitutive of the shape of its life together in the world. Such practices are explained as “outward and ordinary means” or “ordinances”, functioning as means of grace[5].

Further, people come to faith and grow in the life of faith by participating in these practices. Dykstra provides a number of examples such as worship, telling the Christian story, interpreting Scriptures and the church’s history, praying, confessing sin, encouragement, service, witness, giving, hospitality, and so on[6]. Hence, the educational task of the faith community is to encourage participation in such communal practices[7].

To inform his understanding of “practice” Dykstra borrows a very complicated definition from the philosopher Alasdair McIntyre[8]. As McIntyre describes practices, they are cooperative human activities through which individuals and communities grow and develop in moral character and substance, and continuously reflected upon to ensure they remain faithful to their tradition. However, McIntyre’s approach may have more far reaching implications, especially in the place of theology, his treatment of virtue, and his radicalisation by other authors[9].

The practices of the community of faith and the educative function are more than simply matters of socialisation or enculturation. Otherwise they would becomes self-referential, and devolve into mere ritualised formalism. Having lost touch with the substance of the faith, and no longer lived in the power of the Spirit, their power to form and transform is lost. Authentic faith practices are actions that enable us to live and grow as disciples, with their source in Scripture but lived in the world. They “grow out of love, and integrate love of God, neighbour and self in ways that can transform the world”[10]. These activities are how we “do faith”; how Christians practice loving God, practice loving others, and practice loving themselves. By learning the practices of the faith community, and through long, slow steady, patient participation, individuals and communities learn the Christian faith and grow as disciples[11]. Practices of the faith are ultimately habitations of the Spirit, in whom we are invited to participate with in the educating work of God’s Spirit amongst us. Thus, “education in faith itself becomes a means of grace”[12].

---

[1] Seymour and Miller, Theological Approaches to Christian Education, 20.
[2] Robert T. O’ Gorman, “The Faith Community” in Jack L. Seymour (ed.) Mapping Christian Education: Approaches to Congregational Learning (Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1997), 41-57.
[3] Charles R. Foster, Educating Congregations: The Future of Christian Education (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1994), 14.
[4] Benson, “Philosophical Foundations of Christian Education”, 34.
[5] Dykstra, Growing in the Life of Faith, 41. Here Dykstra is appealing for support to the title of Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes and the Presbyterian Larger Catechism.
[6] Dykstra, Growing in the Life of Faith, 42-43.
[7] C. F. Melchert, “Theology Today: Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices”, Theology Today (July, 2001).
[8] Dykstra , Growing in the Life of Faith, 68.
[9] For a further critique see Melchert’s review in “Theology Today: Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices”
[10] Beth M. Halvorsen, Doing Faith: Basic Practices for Growing Christians (Augsburg Fortress, 1999), 15.
[11] Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Retrieved on April 14th 2006 from
http://www.elca.org/init/teachthefaith/announcementsheet.html
[12] Dykstra, Growing in the Life of Faith, 78.

Conclusion

These three different paradigms – religious instruction, interpretation and the community of faith - correspond to Pazmiño’s description of the foci of education, emphasising the importance of content taught to persons in their context, while remaining God-centred. Jesus, the Master Teacher, after whom we are called to model ourselves, exemplifies the keeping together of orthodoxy (right beliefs) with orthopraxy (right practices).[1]

My own approach has been to highlight and identify those aspects of these approaches that have seemed to tie in with this broader perspective, while affirming areas of strength and identifying weaknesses. In particular, the evangelical approach to Christian education described by Pazmiño’s provides a coherent unifying theological theme that lays the groundwork for subsequent reflection upon particular interpretive methods or actions within a faith community. Humility, rather than hubris, will enable the charge of arrogance to be avoided. The strength of Groome’s “shared Christian praxis” is that it intentionally opens up a dialogical space between teacher and learner. However its weakness is exposed by the willingness or ability of the educator to clearly and accurately represent the faith Story. Dykstra’s practices of the faith community are affirmed as a means of grace, but openness to the work of the Spirit is essential if a dry and empty formalism is to be avoided

As God accommodates himself to us in the person of Christ, and the Scriptures represent God’s accommodation of revelation to human capacity, so also must educators accommodate their teaching to their audience. The practical work of the educator is underpinned by their spoken and unspoken assumptions about the nature of Christian education. By foregrounding these underlying issues, Christian educators are enabled to play their part: to follow the example of Christ; to cooperate with the ministry of the Spirit; and to bring people to God.

---

[1] Pazmiño, God Our Teacher, 157.

Bibliography

Beaudoin, Tom. “The Theological Anthropology of Thomas Groome”, Religious Education Spring (2005). Retrieved on May 5th 2006 from
http://www.looksmartreligions.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_200504/ai_n13642193/pg_8?pi=edurel

Benson, Warren S. “Philosophical Foundations of Christian Education”. In Introducing Christian Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Michael J. Anthony. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001, 26-34.

Downs, Perry G. Teaching for Spiritual Growth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Dunahoo, Charles. “September-October 03 Book Review”. Retrieved on April 29th 2006 from http://www.pcacep.org/publications/EquipArchives/2003/Sept/TeachingCross.htm.

Dykstra, Craig, Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices. Kentucky: Geneva Press, 1999.

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Retrieved on April 14th 2006 from
http://www.elca.org/init/teachthefaith/announcementsheet.html

Foster, Charles R. Educating Congregations: The Future of Christian Education. Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1994.

Groome, Thomas H. Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1980.

Groome, Thomas H. Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1991.

Halvorsen, Beth M. Doing Faith: Basic Practices for Growing Christians. Augsburg Fortress, 1999.

Keane, Eamonn. “Thomas Groome: His Influence on Religious Education Continues”, AD2000 15, no. 11 (December 2002 – January 2003), 8.

Little, Sara. To Set One’s Heart: Belief and Teaching in the Church. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1983.

Melchert, C. F. “Theology Today: Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian Practices”, Theology Today (July, 2001).

Miller, Donald E. and Seymour, Jack L., “The Future”. In Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education. Edited by Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982, 145-164.

Newton, Gary. “The Holy Spirit in the Educational Process” in Introducing Christian Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Michael J. Anthony. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001, 125-129.

O’ Gorman, Robert T. “The Faith Community”. In Mapping Christian Education: Approaches to Congregational Learning. Edited by Jack L. Seymour. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997, 41-57.

Osmer, Richard R. “A New Clue for Religious Education?” In Forging a Better Religious Education in the Third Millennium. Edited by James M. Lee. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, 2000.

Pazmiño, Robert W. Foundational Issues in Christian Education: An Introduction in Evangelical Perspectives, 2nd rev. edn. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

Pazmiño, Robert W. God Our Teacher: Theological Basics in Christian Education. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Pazmiño, Robert W. Principles and Practices of Christian Education: An Evangelical Perspective. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2002.

Seymour, Jack L. and Miller, Donald E. (eds.) Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.

Seymour, Jack L. and Miller, Donald E., “Openings to God: Education and Theology in Dialogue”. In Theological Approaches to Christian Education. Edited by Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.

Seymour, Jack L. and Miller, Donald E. (eds.) Theological Approaches to Christian Education. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990.

Seymour, Jack L. and Wertheim, Carol A. “Faith Seeking Understanding: Interpretation as a Task of Christian Education”. In Contemporary Approaches to Christian Education. Edited by Jack L. Seymour and Donald E. Miller. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982, 123-143.

Young, John. “Review of A Generation Betrayed: Deconstructing Catholic Education in the English Speaking World”, AD2000 15, no. 10 (November 2002), 17.

Wow, That's a First!

The title of this article caught my eye - the news media are foregrounding all Bishop's, and by extension, all Christian's, sexuality. Imagine "heterosexual President" or "heterosexual news anchor" as a headline. No? Because the sexuality issue is for grabs in the reporting of Chrsitianity. Are Christians that obsessed with sex, or just the mainstream meadia?

"Heterosexual Elected Episcopal Bishop of Calif"--headline, Reuters,
May 6

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Episcopal Diocese of California on Saturday
avoided widening a rift over gays in the global Anglican Communion by electing a
heterosexual man as its next bishop.

More than 1,000 clergy and laypeople packed Grace Cathedral in San
Francisco's tony Nob Hill neighborhood to elect the Rt. Rev. Mark Andrus as
successor to longtime Bishop William Swing, who is retiring after 27
years.

Two openly gay men and one lesbian were among the seven candidates on
the ballot.
No gay or lesbian cleric has been elected bishop since the
consecration of Eugene Robinson in 2003 as bishop of New Hampshire threw the
U.S. church and the worldwide family of 77 million Anglicans into turmoil.

"Your vote today remains a vote for inclusion and communion -- of gay
and lesbian people in their full lives as single or partnered people, of women,
of all ethnic minorities, and all people," Andrus said by telephone over the
cathedral's public address system to members after being told of his election.
"My commitment to Jesus Christ's own mission of inclusion is resolute."

Rev. Andrus of Alabama was elected with 72 percent of the clergy vote
and 55 percent of the lay vote. The Rev. Canon Eugene Sutton of Washington,
D.C., who is also heterosexual, came in second, with 13 percent of the clergy
vote and 33 percent of the lay vote.

and so on...

Here's a comment from the (newly elected) Bishop himself on EpiscoLesGay issues:

An example of a conflict situation is my stance in the Diocese of Alabama
following the 2003 General Convention. In my public addresses during the months
following the Convention I sought to speak in such a way that evoked a sense of
our basic relatedness despite differences in position on the issues around human
sexuality. I admitted that while the decisions of the General Convention were
grounded in prayer and in an understanding of the scriptures, the possibility
was certainly there that we had erred. I expressed a conviction that full truth
remains beyond us, both on this and many other issues, and that an attitude of
non-judging would help us move toward that truth. Both the diocesan bishop and I
were careful to let the diocese know that despite our differences on the issues,
we were and are united in Christ, and this despite some efforts to separate us.
I called the diocese to engagement in mission, while emphasizing that the
inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the full life of the Church is a matter
of justice, and not a trivial matter. I took care to maintain my spiritual life
in the face of controversy and hostility. With another general convention
nearing, I believe that my approach, as well as that of most of the laity and
clergy of the diocese has moved us forward to a healthier more integrated
understanding of what it means to be a Christian community. Source

Note the criteria on which the issue is evaluated:

1. People who disagree over the "gay" issue are basically related (he doesn't say how)

2. Decisions grounded in prayer and in "an understanding" of Scripture, include the "possibility was certainly there" (whatever that means) of error - so how confident can be be in our Chrsitain decsions at a personal or concillar level?

3. He is convicted (a grounds for truth, perhaps?) that "the full truth remains beyond us". Two points:

a) His basis for truth (personal conviction) trumps the possibility of other truths

b) "full truth" - does this mean full in the sense of "sufficient" or "exhaustive"? Surely we can know something sufficiently - otherwise the Bishops' own personaly 'conviction' would not be admitted. Exhaustively, however, impies a different category of knowledge altogether - he is asking the impossible, and not getting it, offers it as (certain!) proof that certainty on this matter is unattainable. In other words, he is sure is opponents are wrong. But doesn't this contradict the principle of non-judging (4)

4. Non-judging will help us move towards the truth - but what about the "conviction" above? If we are not going to differentiate "truth" from "non-truth" (ie make a judgement call), how on earth otherwise are we supposed to tell the difference? And I don't think he means "non-judging" as in "non-homophobic discriminatory bigot".

5. People with differences on major doctrinal issues (as this is, striking at theological anthropology like nothing else of late) are united in Christ. What are the criteria for discovering who is "united in Christ"? Oh, yeah, can't tell, becuase we're busy being non-judging(!)

6. There are efforts to separate the pro-gay and anti-gay lobby

7. Inclusion of gay/lesbians is a matter of justice - note the logic:

inclusion = justice, justice = inclusion

therefore

exclusion = injustice, injustice = exclusion

We now have the foundation for including everything under the name of justice. Is this what justice really means? It is certainly not a trivial matter, which by the way, is not the opposite of justice, nor what his opponents are advocating. This is a "straw man" indeed.

8. Disputants must maintain their "spiritual life" - is this by prayer and reading of Scripture? But this invites the "possibility [that] was certainly there" of error! Any personal convictions about that one? They seem to be the order of the day in terms of truth claims.

9. There are approaches that "move forward to be more healthier and integrated". Then there must be apparoches that are "unhealthy" and "fragmented". Once, homosexuality was considered akin to a mental illness, and hence being "gay" meant being "sick". Once, Western society regarded homosexuals as "sick" as in "perverse". Now, those who hold views at variance with the good Bishop are the "sick" ones. I am not saying that this is right. Only that a contradiction is emerging.

How long will it be until the "unreconstructed" views of those who disagree with the Bishop are completely marginalised? Where is the "non-judging" now?