Sustainable Theological Education: Part 2

Over 500 years ago, Leonardo DaVinci quipped, “We know more about the movement of celestial bodies than about the soil underfoot.” Amazingly, it is still true today that we know less about the living ecosystem under our feet – the soil – than we do about the far side of the moon. Yet, every plant and animal on our planet depends on these living systems that provide many of the most fundamental functions needed for life.

It is also true that people know very little about the foundations of their beliefs and ways of thinking. Because we don’t understand or recognize that our underlying ideas, assumptions, motivations, and values are the living system producing our beliefs, we struggle to move past the strong reactions we feel, have trouble articulating why we care so much or so little, we cannot identify where our beliefs originate and understand why others believe differently, and we genuinely think that we are aware of other options but we fail to adequately and graciously explain why we think someone else is wrong.

Legacy of Sustainability

In my last post, I suggested that if we want to leave a legacy of sustainable theological education, we should help students recognize how they receive the seed and then teach them how the seed will respond to the soil. To do this, we need to help students discover the makeup of their personal interpretive soils. This is done in two stages.

The first stage in helping students discover their interpretive makeup is to “shake things up” so that students recognize that different soil types exist, that they have a predominant good soil, a natural response to the seed (teaching), and that they prefer one interpretation to another. The second stage (in my third post) is to educate about “ideal soil conditions” so that students understand the characteristics of their good soil, the natural blend of minerals, organic and inorganic matter, how the seed (teaching) will respond to their soil conditions, and what beliefs and interpretations grow with little to no effort in these ideal conditions.

Stage 1 Metaphor: Shaking up dirt in a mason jar.

Let’s stay with the soil metaphor for its literal understanding. Soil is a combination of just three types of weathered rock particles that make up the soil: sand, silt, and clay. How these three particles are combined defines your soil’s type—how it feels to the touch, how it holds water, and how it’s managed, among other things. Soil will always favour one particles size over the two others.

If you really want to know what soil type you’re working with but don’t want to get dirty, fill a smallish mason jar with a soil sampling from your garden. Shake vigorously and let the soil settle overnight. Next day, you’ll see distinct soil layers. Sand stays at the bottom, clay at the top and silt in between. Their percentages will be your clue on your soil type. The ideal soil type – loamy – is a relatively even mix of sand, silt, and clay.

Stage 1 Goal: Admitting how you “feel” about what you just heard.

There is always response to the message and our conclusions and application of the message will be initially influenced by these first reactions. There are three reactions or feelings that are present whenever we “hear” the message: positive, negative, and neutral.

Shaking things up for our students can be just as literal and works best when it is clearly visible to everyone in the room. Can we take a sample of religious issue—a topic, a Bible verse, or a denominational doctrine—put it in a glass jar, add water, shake vigorously, and let it settle overnight so we can see the predominant soil types/interpretive filters that are influencing their beliefs?

Absolutely we can. Remember that the goal is to help them understand how they “feel” about the message – do they like it, do they fight against it, or do they not care one way or the other? The careful unpacking of student feelings is the artful professor’s next pedagogical move. The strong feelings that undergird belief can be acknowledged so as to make room for critical thinking. I’ve interwoven student verbatims amidst the following three action steps so as to better illustrate how the first stage works:

Step 1: Model awareness of own feelings

I state upfront how comfortable I am with a theory, interpretation, or theological position, etc. so that students learn that reactions are to be expected and need to be acknowledged as a critical thinking skill. I might say, “Now I know that I am very comfortable with boundaries and rules so whenever I read that God sets a boundary, I think it’s great. I think God is good for wanting to protect people. But I also know that other people are uncomfortable with boundaries and struggle to understand why God puts limits on our freedom, creativity, and choices.”

It was really good for me to admit why I find it difficult to read certain passages because of my social value. I do not like to hear stories of rape, murder, death, and injustice. (Amber)

Step 2: Provide more than one interpretive option

To urge some self-analysis of student feelings about a challenging topic, I provide at least three interpretive options on any theological topic or issue and I insist that they rank the options based on their level of comfort. For example, does Genesis 1: a) provide an exact, chronological account of the creation, b) offer a counter cultural account of the creation, c) express key theological truths about God and God’s relationship to creation, or d) expresses through poetic verse a justification for the Sabbath system?

I then invite students to link each option to a colour, give students sticky-notes of the same colours, and have them show their ranked responses.

I have learned how my views effect my interpretation of the Bible. The class has really forced me to realize this. I guess I just thought everyone who was raised in a Baptist church felt the same way but I have realized that this is not always the case. When I read the Bible now, I try to look at it not only from my perspective, but from others as well. (Kylie)

Step 3: Incorporate a values assessment

Furthermore, I’ve began to incorporate a personal values/motivators assessment into my classes to help students understand what they thought was important, how they were going to filter information, what evidence would persuade them, and why they reached their conclusions. The results for the students were immediate, personal, and relevant. They responded to the challenge to become aware of their feelings and to the invitation to learn in a new way. They enjoyed learning how their peers and friends charted in their values and thrived when they understood why such diversity existed in faith discussions.

I am predominantly utilitarian and I need to see stuff actually happen before I am convinced of it and I never realized that is exactly how I see things until I took the test. I now understand why some people enjoy reading feel good passages that leave you warm inside while I like to read about God’s power being displayed and seeing results. (Seth)

I discovered that I my low theoretical value explained why I have never really understood how some people care so much about all the background to the stories and all the little details in the Bible. I realize that I don’t value the facts and knowledge as much as some people and why I was so frustrated with the exegetical paper. (Karissa)

“Soil” Analysis Matters

What have you offered your students in terms of pedagogical soil science and soil education? I have learned that no matter how much effort and work you put into your teaching, all the careful sowing, weeding, and tending could be in vain if you are not aware of your student’s “soil” types or conditions.

Photo Credit: “Trays” by USDA NRCS South Dakota – CC by 2.0

[sociallocker] [/sociallocker]