A thought occurred to me not long ago in class in which we were discussing education policy in the US and, specifically, in Arkansas. Not long ago the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas education is neither adequate nor equitable. The ruling came as a result of a suit filed by a school district that was in academic and financial distress. To make a long story short, the court ruled that the state is not fulfilling its constitutional duties to educate Arkansas children.
As a result of this ruling, the state legislature convened to answer the shortfall. Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything the legislature offered, there is one particular idea that is being tried in some school districts that does interest me: teacher bonuses for improved student performance on standardized tests.
The problem that some teachers and citizens see is that such a measure may compel some teachers to “teach to the test” rather than just fulfill their noble calling. Whether this idea will work in its present form or be modified in some way down the line remains to be seen. The general consensus of those who oppose this idea is that teachers are supposed to teach children HOW to think rather than WHAT to think, believing that test scores could do nothing but improve if students were just encouraged and taught how to use the mind the Lord gave them. In math and the sciences, there are certainly facts that must be known, but is it enough to just know that 2+2=4 or will this figure have greater success in serving a purpose if children are shown HOW and WHY 2+2=4?
The “thought” that crossed my mind in class is this: in the history of religion, perhaps in the history of mankind, teaching our children WHAT to think is what we’ve been doing all along, especially in religion. Most of us grew up with the familiar Bible stories and “how it was” and we’ve been taught about Jesus’ life and what He meant by the things He said, but I also think that we were – more often than not – told WHAT we should believe and what we should know. I, for one, do not remember ever being encouraged to engage a story and think for myself.
Is this a bad thing? How can we impart our knowledge without our biases? How can we teach our children about the Lord without slanting our observations toward what we believe to be true, confident that we are “right” and that anything which deviates from what we believe to be true is heresy? It may be nearly impossible because of the subject matter. There are some moral and spiritual absolutes that don’t leave much room for interpretation. Some things are wrong, have always been wrong, and will always be wrong.
What are the “absolutes” and who sets the standard? As a theological conservative, I used to see most things scriptural in a “black-and-white” context. Over time, however, I have learned to look at the texts a bit more broadly. My more liberal friends would call that “becoming enlightened”. I call it utter confusion. I have now reached a point in my spiritual development in which I actually envy some who seem stable in what they believe even though their seeming inflexibility is sometimes maddening.
At one time I thought I was loosing my faith; in some ways I still struggle. It is a gift, you know. We cannot know that the Lord even exists unless this knowledge is imparted to us by Divine means, by the Lord’s own good grace. This is to say, I can tell you that the Lord is and will always be but I cannot give you absolute proof which would leave no room for doubt; the Lord Himself would have to grant this to you. So it is a somewhat unsettling matter to consider that this gift has somehow been misused so much so that it is being withdrawn.
By such reasoning, it is possible to consider that maybe the reason so many come of age and choose to leave the Church is not because of “those hypocrites” or “that preacher” (some of the more popular excuses) but because the knowledge and the faith they believe to have once possessed turns out to be the faith and the knowledge that actually belongs to someone else. They were never fully able – or enabled – to embrace that knowledge or that faith because it never quite became their own. Why? It may be because they were taught WHAT to think and not HOW to think for themselves.
What does this mean for preachers and Sunday school teachers? Stop teaching? Modify what is being taught? And if so, in what way do we modify? Teachers and preachers are expected to make a point and help us draw certain conclusions, and the point would be somewhere along the lines of what is right and what is wrong. This is what we expect because our doctrines are geared toward this end. Doctrine teaches us what is and what isn’t. Do we need more evidence beyond conflicting Christian doctrine on, say, Baptism and Holy Communion to see that someone has to be wrong or that everyone is right but only to a degree?
One of my instructors maintains – in the realm of government policy development – that truth is relative to what we believe to be true up to that point in our lives and that the opposite of truth is in this context is “intent to deceive” which is to say that we don’t really possess the knowledge we think we do but we will argue to the point of obnoxiousness to try and convince others that we are “right”. How can this be so? It is because the knowledge that we think we have is knowledge that has been given to us but that we’ve not bothered to think through for ourselves. Depending on who presented the information or how it was presented or in what context will determine whether we will simply accept it as is without question, or we will look more deeply into it and draw our own conclusions.
Is this dangerous? I think it is potentially so especially when we are talking about the spiritual and educational well-being of our children. They need to know that there are some moral, spiritual, doctrinal, and social absolutes. This, I think, is foundational. It is something upon which to build, but it cannot and must not end there. Children have to be given the foundation as the starting point, but then they must also be taught how to reason through things. It is akin to defining the difference between simply memorizing a fact for no rhyme or reason or actually dealing with it, experiencing it, engaging it, and working through it. Which has the greater potential to stay with the student?
We are about to enter into what is one of the Church’s most holy seasons. We are preparing to celebrate and commemorate the birth of the Messiah. And we enter into this season with more than a little anticipation and with certain expectations about what this season will bring, but how much thought do we give to such a statement as “heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33)?
Consider how much time and attention is devoted this year to customs and traditions and, yes, even TEACHINGS of man and compare this time against how much we spend with and for the Lord and His moment, that moment when Light entered into a very dark world in which we were hopelessly lost and were somehow found.
Merry Christmas, dear friends. This is my wish; this is my prayer.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment