Interestingly enough, this question takes me back to a hymn from my childhood, a few lines of which I’ll share:
thy people owned thy goodness,
and we their deeds record;
and both of this bear witness;
one Church, one Faith, one Lord.
It seems to me that the academy, as far as religious studies that are particularly concerned with Christianity and hence the church, is not separate and distinct from the church. Many members of this academy are part of local congregations and are often relatively active. Some institutions are denominational in nature, while others have their genesis in various denominations. Even while serving a wider cause, the mission of the church remains at the forefront. In thinking of the relationship between this aspect of the academy and the church. Therefore, it seems that in considering how we learn from each other, one of our primary tasks would be to hold each other accountable as proclaimers of the love and reign of God. Thus, it is a mutual, reciprocal relationship.
In looking at the church, I’ll speak in terms of local congregations, where the concept of the church becomes more concrete. It seems at times that at the congregational level, the big push is to go out and act, to do something. This is especially so as many congregations face declining or stagnating membership in the face of rapidly changing neighborhoods and a world that has suddenly arrived on their doorsteps. The academy faces these realities as well and has to deal with them, though from the perspectives of its various disciplines. What the academy does is to help us to prayerfully pause and reflect and bring larger concerns to bear as we apply other frameworks—such as sociology, theology, biblical studies—to better grasp our realities. In this way our practice is considered rather than merely reacting to what we face.
I think here particularly of the missional church movement, which combines reflection on the church and God’s intention for it with practice. The congregations’ actions, therefore, become rooted in knowledge of missio Dei and God’s reign. The rich conversation between congregations and the academic discipline results in a more prayerfully considered and consistent practice.
The academy and congregations need each other for greater faithfulness to God’s mission. Youth ministry is one area that has made great strides in this direction of mutual encounter and learning. The more accessible nature of recent scholarly publications in this and other subjects suggests that the concern of mutual engagement is being addressed. The ongoing issue is not so much whether the academy and congregations are thinking about the same thing but how they can find a common place for conversation so that they are in an ongoing relationship, constantly learning from each other.
How does the congregation become aware of the academy’s research and findings in particular areas, and how does the academy better hear the concerns of the lives of the congregations so there is a greater dialogue between the two in which critical reflection and thinking informs and is informed by how the church encounters the world? Therefore, we need to ask, How do we serve together as proclaimers of the love and reign of God?
|
An acquaintance of mine named Bryan Bademan is the executive director of the MacLaurin Institute in Minneapolis. The MacLaurin Institute’s mission is to build bridges between the “church and university in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, bringing theological resources to the university and academic resources to the church. Our goal is to strengthen Christian intellectual life in this region by creating public space for leaders in the academy and church to address enduring human questions together.” (Visit http://www.maclaurin.org/ to learn more.)
When I was a youth pastor in Minnesota a few years ago, I was moderately engaged with what the MacLaurin Institute was doing. I went to a few events and forums with a couple of my colleagues, and that was about it. If I were back in Minneapolis today, I’d be more deeply occupied by what they are trying to accomplish.
More than at any other point in my life, I now think it is enormously significant that the church and university (academia) continue to seek meaningful ways to work collaboratively to stretch each other theologically, relationally, socially, academically, etc.
Here are five keys I think the church and university should consider when attempting to learn from one another.
1. Build on ideas. It is critical that both the university and the church trade ideas in a way that builds on the ideas of others rather than exchanging ideas for the sake of being right. The opportunity to exchange ideas for the sake of deeper levels of understanding helps push one another to a more full-bodied generosity that can often lead to deeper conversation and shared experiences.
2. Multiple perspectives. In the same manner that we might seek to build on ideas rather than settle on any one that is “right,” so too should we seek to allow multiple perspectives to influence the thinking and living of one another. Although it can be difficult to remain consistently open to others’ perspectives, it is critical in order to more fully understand each other as human beings. A commitment to embracing multiple perspectives can stretch us and mold us into people of open-handedness rather than people of close-mindedness.
3. Respectful debate. Building on ideas and allowing for multiple perspectives will inevitably lead to debate. There is a good chance that it won’t lead to respectful or healthy debate unless we are intentionally guiding it in that direction. I have noticed, however, that groups of people that allow for ideas to be built upon and allow for multiple perspectives grow closer to one another through steady conversation and inclusivity. Respectful or considerate debate that stimulates thinking or spurs one another on to more deeply comprehend a particular contrasting issue or even to broader realization of a shared thought is critical for the university and church to collaborate for greater learning opportunities.
4. Practicing situational thinking. I don’t have any firsthand experience with this as it relates specifically to the church and university. However, in my experience leading teams and working collaboratively with others, I have noticed that reliably positioning a thought or concept beyond where you currently are helps establish a forward momentum. Any time we can build scenarios or imagine for the sole reason of further thought development, I think it can help the dialogue to remain active and provide the energy for continued discussion when conversation seems to pause.
5. Practical and positive evaluation. Self-evaluation and peer evaluation in an encouraging and truthful environment are hugely significant. How do we know if we are growing in our ability to live generously, think more ecumenically, or be more accepting of one another and our individual ideas if we don’t practice evaluation? People will disagree with each other, no doubt. It isn’t about whether we disagree. It is about how we choose to disagree. Evaluation can mark our growth in thought as well as our expansion in how we choose to relate with others.
The church and the academy need one another to effectively engage the mission of God to restore the world to its intended wholeness. Consider your involvement or role in organizations such as the MacLaurin Institute. Is there a place for you to engage the conversation and help build bridges of shared theological and academic resources in your community?
|
One of my favorite pastors used to say something that irritated me, and time has only eased my irritation slightly. He used to say, “The dumbest farmers grow the best potatoes.” Our community had lots of farmers, and I’m not sure how any of them tolerated the pastor’s comment. Well, perhaps I do know: They too were caught up in an anti-intellectualism that often found its scapegoat in the professor. (I haven’t said this yet, so I’ll say it now: I’m a professor, and I take offense.)
The stereotypes, were we to use them of other jobs (say, a woman’s decision to stay at home or a Mexican immigrant working a landscape job or a Korean working at a dry cleaner), would require scorn and denunciation. But for some reason, one can insult intellectuals for being well-nigh useless or so egg-headed they are of no use to anyone but God and a few philosophers.
I happen to love knowledge and the intellectual life, and there’s nothing quite like reading a gifted writer who can in one paragraph tie together some intellectual heavyweights that both expand the mind and make intelligent readers aware that they are standing on the holy ground of the discovery of truth. My favorite writer like this is the Jewish writer Joseph Epstein, who has the singular gift that ties together breadth of knowledge, uncanny bits of juicy information, a cynical distrust of big claims, and a biting humor that turns the page on its own.
Which brings me to the first thing churches learn from the academy: critical distance. My own 25 years of leadership in the church leads me to think that the arena in which churchgoers are least capable of critical distance is politics, with one’s theology and one’s family tying for second place. Academics have learned to be critically distant. We can examine an argument and then present the alternatives in such a way that our students often clamor for what we personally think.
Every time I sort out some options for students—say, on how to understand the Lord’s Supper (real presence, sort of real presence, real “absence”—and we often call these transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolism), and some student says, “Which do you believe?” I rock back on my heels momentarily and say, “Yes, critical distance permitted me to give each view its fair hearing so the student could sort it out.”
By the way, sometimes I refuse to tell the students, and sometimes I do tell them. It depends on the gravity of the issue. Recently we had quite the discussion about hell and universalism, and I sorted through some options and then said, “If you want to know where I stand, I’ll tell you, but you’ll have to ask me.” (Yes, a student asked.)
Which now leads me to what I think the academy can learn from the church, and I will use words that balance “critical distance” but which might not make sense until explained: uncritical proximity. One of the distinctives of the church is passionate commitment to the gospel, to God as Trinity, to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to historic faith—even, at times, when it isn’t completely obvious. And what makes the church durable is its willingness to stand with the church and let our “faith seek understanding.”
The academy essentially teaches us to believe only what we understand (and can demonstrate). The church teaches us to believe and that faith will open our eyes to even more understanding. C.S. Lewis famously said this: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
And there you have it: the alternatives that need to exist together. We need those folks who say, “I believe what I can understand,” and we need those folks who say, “I believe in order to understand.” We learn from the academy in the former and from the church in the latter.
I’m not sure we can put these together: critical distance in order to understand and uncritical proximity in order to understand. But as a Christian I believe in the gospel story about King Jesus, and it is through that story that the world and the Bible make sense. As an academic, I am compelled to make sense of texts and history and ideas through critical distance, but that form of knowledge will never lead to me to the depth or the mystery that uncritical proximity grants me through the grace of God’s gift to us in Christ.
|
Comments
into the field of research and teaching. I want to be an asset and resource to "the church" as an academic but I don't want to produce research that is only useful for stroking my ego. I really want to be seeking answers to questions that are emerging from
the front lines of ministry. At times I sense a chasm that exists between myself and most youth directors. It is a chasm that doesn't need to be there. I don't think I'm creating it (maybe I am), and I don't think it is an anti-intellectualism - but there
is a chasm and I hope I can find meaningful ways to bridge it for the sake of our youth. Here are two research methods (quite similar) that I am learning more about and I think might be helpful.
Community-Based Research
Scholarship of Engagement Thanks again for this Slant!