"Though I have not been around for the last 40 years to accurately gage the level to which these statements are as valid as they were when they were written, my answer is yes. From my limited experience participated in education (either as student or teacher) on four continents I believe that there is still some serious gaps in positive approaches to education (especially on the primary level). Science is often dry and immutable; history is a concrete progression of chronological events; math is taught as if numbers constitute a universe in itself rather than an aspect of our (or perhaps related but parallel) universe(s); literature is a message from the author to be deciphered; and standardized testing is the measure of intelligence. The dynamism of the human mind and our physical and social world is often simplified to the point of monochromic monotony."
Children can see through the attempts of adults to censor and simplify the world. From the very beginning of the educational experience the observant student sees the teacher (who is often still presented as the giver of knowledge rather than the facilitator of the learning experience) as withholding information. Thus the student may be easily disenfranchised from education (30% of Americans do no graduate high school). Worse yet students are taught to be spoon fed knowledge instead of finding it for themselves.
It is accepted in most educational circles that different people learn in different ways, though steps to incorporate this into the educational system in many places have not been sufficient. The teacher may try different activities in class to help different learning styles but is that enough? Though not a perfect system I think that the Montessori system is the only method that has taken student cantered learning to sufficient levels.
Overall the main point that I think Postman is getting to is that the stagnation within education can be addressed by drawing from sources not necessarily considered “educational.” I think this has been attempted and experimented with albeit not on a great scale. Students thrive when they are interested and have input or involvement in their education; when given the devices to reach those goals without having those goals handed to them they feel accomplished and seek more education. With gentle facilitation a teacher can provide tools for students to follow their interests and dreams incorporating the knowledge, experience, and most importantly decision making skills that will serve them in life.
2) I think the analogous nature to Christianity is clear. Just as different people have different ways of learning, so people have different ways of experiencing religion. Some like it spoon-fed to them once every week and then they don't have to deal with it for the rest of the week. Those people may be sincere Christians but they've learnt that the most important part of being a Christian is getting your "blessing" from the minister/priest every week.
Within many Christian churches I think the problem of a lack of religious dynamism is still prevalent. The ones that are flourishing (at least in membership numbers) are the charismatic churches that have more growth than any other churches (see Alistair McGrath's The Future of Christianity). While some have accused charismatic churches of a rather high member turnaround rate, the fact that they draw in huge amounts of people must say something about what many people want from their religious experience. They want to be involved in a very real and personal way. They want drums and excitement and the moving of the Spirit.
Regardless of the manner in which the involvement occurs (different people prefer different kinds of religious interaction) people want to be involved in something relevant, dynamic, meaning, and real. Sadly this is something that much education and Christian churches have failed to do.
A further problem in the past that continues in many sectors of Christianity that I have grown up in is the “in the world but not of the world” complex. Though not everyone takes it like this I’ve known countless people that insist on keeping away from the “evil world” and in doing so lose touch with the rest of the human race. These people have hardly added to the dynamism of Christianity.
The danger is of course that opening up to the world might mean the taking on of “worldly” characteristics. Trends of upbeat musical services is evidence to some of the that infiltration into the church. Many don’t want to see the kinds of popularisation of Christianity that took place during the early centuries of Christianity to incorporate various pagan elements into a Christian framework. Was it a bad thing that Christianity was diluted by these other religious sources resulting in greater waves of converts? I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer that.
3) My vision for the future of Christianity (Adventism in particular) is one where people are able to more easily pursue their religious experience without the fetters of stifling clichés, stagnating dogma, and blind unthinking faith. I think the drawing on sources from outside the church family should be a possible way of enriching people’s experience. Ministers should work more to be facilitators of the Christian experience rather than its imparter.
I can’t envision how others should experience Christianity only how I do. My only hope is that tolerance of different ways of experiencing common faith will grow and allow more discussions of faith that will create dynamic and real religious experiences that can change the world. That, after all, was the whole point of Jesus mission. To shake things up, to subvert the stagnant complacency of the religious establishment of his time.
No comments:
Post a Comment