Didactic perspectives on contextualization

Below are introductory comments for my D.Min. sudents entering our new program on contextual leadership:

Last week the director of a consortium of theological schools visited me for a consultation. In the course of our conversation I shared with him my “rant” on formation related to the under appreciated significance of context. My rant typically goes something like this:

“Formation is one of those concepts people in seminaries fall in love with, but rarely understand or know how to apply. My challenge to seminaries that fret overmuch over the matter of “formation of clergy” is to stop worrying and cease trying to do what they cannot accomplish. Seminaries are good about the formation of seminarians, churches form clergy.”

There are a couple of pedagogical dynamics here. First, contextualization matters. Learning happens in context, as does “formation.” One’s context tends to have greater influence on learning and formation than most seem aware of. One of the pitfalls of the formal seminary experience, contextualized in a schooling environment, is that seminarians pick up uncritical assumptions about ministry practice from their academic professors; one of the most unfortunate being the assumption that teaching and learning in the congregational faith community setting needs to happen the same way they experienced it in the seminary classroom. Or, that a solid academic and homiletically eloquent sermon once delivered to an audience of seminarians and professors will in any way translate to a meaningful message in the congregational setting where “real people” are the audience, whose context causes them to “hear” and listen differently.

One liability we want to mitigate against in the co-hort experience is a recidivism of mind and perspective that just because you’re back in seminary you are a “student” in the same way you were when you received your first round of theological education. There’s a reason we insist on at least three years of practical ministry experience as a condition for entering this program: we want you to bring to this new experience your personal contextualized learning. We want you to bring, and share, your experience of having your nose broken, jaw kicked out of joint, and of having succeeded and failed. You’ve been formed by your context and experience, and those are resources and assets we want to exploit and tap into in several ways.

Second, because contextualization is such a formative force we sometimes fail to grasp the significance of how it influences the relationships we are in. As I’ve stated elsewhere, “relationships mediate spiritual formation.” Therefore, seminary professors themselves are “formed” by their context. I content that it takes about three years for a “new” seminary professor coming from the ministry context to be acculturated and enculturated by the context of the theological school, at which point he or she ceases to be a practitioner and becomes an “academic.” This insight is confirmed for me when I compare and contrast my experiences and observations of instances when two groups gather: professors and clergy. When professors meet together they talk about, discuss and converse about a certain set of professional issues, and practice within a certain professional ethos supported by its larger network (e.g., academic guilds). When clergy gather together they talk about a totally different set of issues and concerns, also operating out of a different ethos grounded in a different network (e.g., denominational). In other words, the context in which these two groups carry out their calling and professional practice shapes ethos, issues, concerns, ways of conceptualizing and practice, and perspectives. My observation of these two groups is that they occupy two different worlds which share some common ground. That common ground is often sufficient to provide points of intersection for dialog, study, theological reflection, and mutual enterprises of interest.

To state these things is not to denigrate academics (after all, many seminary professors are heavily involved and invested in the life and work of the Church, a commitment that informs and enriches their teaching in the seminary context), nor does it discount and dismiss the value of a formal theological education. To confess these things may merely provide a more informed and nuanced understanding about teaching and learning as we embark on our adventure.

What does this mean for us? This may provide a challenge to you to re-frame your assumptions and relationships with your D.Min. professors. Given that this degree program focuses on contextualized ministry practice, YOU are the expert, not me. You are the expert about ministry practice in your context. Your co-hort peers are experts about ministry practice in their contexts. My role, therefore is not to inculcate my personal expertise into you (I have been an academic for over ten years now, after all). It is, rather, to provide the benefit of my expertise in guiding a process of learning.

As we move into our first sessions of this first seminar I challenge you to keep these dynamics in mind. We will meet on “common ground” provided by concepts and frameworks that we want you to apply to your context and interpret through your experience. We want to learn from your emerging insights and application of those concepts and frameworks.

Let’s begin!

Copyright (c) 2011, Israel Galindo