The enduring concepts

I recently had a conversation with a couple of professors from other seminaries about our Christian education (C.E.) curriculum at BTSR. One was in the midst of creating an M.A. program in religious education and the other was in the midst of curriculum review. I hate to admit it, but there are few things I enjoy more than talking theory and curriculum development with fellow educators. Sad, isn’t it? Maybe I should take up my son’s suggestion and take up rock climbing—although I suspect he suggested that for reasons other than my need to “get out more.”

Some time ago a group of the C.E. students jokingly started talking about their experience at “Galindo University.” I interpreted that as an intuitive awareness of the particular “way” the methodology and frame of reference their C.E. courses were beginning to shape their thinking. Their playful banter was gratifying because that is exactly what the C.E. curriculum is intended to do. (Besides, as student comments go, it sounds more positive than “Galindo Purgatory,” a possibility given that I’m the only full time C.E. professor they get). The first thing I mentioned to my colleagues is that our C.E. emphasis is not separate from the classic M.Div. core curriculum. This is philosophically intentional. The rationale being we believe that a congregational educator worth his or her salt can preach well, is a responsible Bible scholar, can practice effective pastoral care, knows the history of the church, understands a theology of worship, and can engage in critical theological thinking.

So, in addition to the core M.Div. content areas and practices of its disciplines, we try to inculcate in our C.E. students certain interrelated “core enduring concepts.” These concepts come up again and again through the eight core C.E. courses (through a modified spiral curriculum format). These interrelated core concepts make up a frame of reference upon which they build their approach to the practice of Christian education in their ministry contexts. Here are the enduring concepts:

Constructivism

The curriculum methodology is informed by a Constructivist philosophy of education. Students learn through experience (“You learn to do what you do and not something else” and “Learning equals change.”) and application of the concepts under study. In addition to learning about the field they are engaged in the creation of their knowledge of the field of education as producers of content and products. (We don’t make this point overt. Though Constructivism is the philosophical approach they experience in the curriculum we try to provide opportunity for the students to identify and choose their own philosophical approach when they take the educational philosophy course). You can see a mind map of constructivism here.

The Nature of Congregations

Students are challenged toward a more rigorous understanding of congregation as an authentic expression (model) of Church. Understanding the nature of a congregation (a community of faith) allows them to practice educational approaches congruent with the nature of faith and the context in which the educational practice finds expression.

The Nature of Christian Education

Students clarify their theological and philosophical understanding about the nature of Christian education. Specifically there is an attempt to move them from a narrow approach of Religious Instruction toward a Formation Education. This is interrelated to the previous understanding of the nature of congregations as authentic communities of faith.

Church Life as Curriculum

This synthesis concept allows a point of intersection to the concepts of the nature of Christian education, the nature of the congregation, and the constructivist approach to learning and curriculum design. This concept encourages the ability of students to be interpreters of their ministry context and to create a “living curriculum” that taps into the formative power of the faith community’s culture.

The Nature and Methods of Instruction

Because so much of what constitutes “teaching” by students in congregations and other ministry contexts ends up being Instruction, one course is dedicated to helping them understand more rigorously the nature and practice of Instruction. The instructional approach is directive and informed by brain research related to learning.

Leadership as Function

Through Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) students reframe their understanding of the nature of leadership for their ministry context. Additionally, students are challenged to work on their self-understanding related to identity, calling, and emotional process related to how they work out their calling and ministry. BFST also interrelates to understanding the relational nature of congregation as faith community.

Theological Framework

All throughout the courses students are challenged to articulate a biblical theological framework for their practice of C.E. Each course raises the question, “What’s the theology that informs educational practice?” This enduring concept forces the student to integrate the theological disciplines from their M.Div. core related to worship, doctrine, Baptist ecclesiology (priesthood of all believers, laity, the clergy, etc.).

Developmental Faith Formation

Students acquire a more rigorous (non-devotional) understanding of the nature of faith, how it develops, how it is formed. The concept that “relationships mediate faith formation” integrates the other concepts of the nature of Christian education and the nature of congregations as faith community. The developmental understanding also provides a framework for effective teaching and curricular development related to age groups.

The goal, and hope, is that these core enduring concepts of Christian education will become the framework for how students will work out their practices as congregational educators. Revisiting and applying these interrelated concepts through the eight courses is a way to inculcate these concepts as “deep understanding.” Those who are in the C.E. track revisit these concepts over and over again through the courses, making new connections and engaging different applications. It is not surprising that while students not in the C.E. emphasis are exposed to these concepts they tend not to “get it” to the same extent as the C.E. students (if they get it at all). It just goes to prove that notion that “we rarely learn something the first time.”

• So, what are the enduring concepts that inform your educational ministry?
• Do you have a clearly articulated philosophy of education that provides the framework for your ministry practices? What is it?
• In terms of your educational enterprise, what is the theology behind what you do and how you do it?

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)