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.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home