Skip to main content

learning to learn


The school term has started with a bang.  I am armpit-deep in scripts, playwriting texts, performance theory, and theology basics.  I am taking courses in the theatre department this semester and it is humbling and stimulating at the same time: humbling because I am pretty much the most theatrically-illiterate person in all my classes and stimulating because theatre (which is basically showing instead of telling) is inherently incarnational. 

I read Shakespeare's Hamlet yesterday; it is quite a different experience to see a character act out revenge than to read a philosophical, psychological, or theological exposition on the desire for justice through retribution.  When I see something "in the flesh," I seem to comprehend it at a much deeper level and to more complex and nuanced degree.  It gets inside me, to some extent, if I let it.  As Hamlet indicates, a play has the potential to capture our consciences, to prick our hearts, and to show us things that reason simply cannot. 

Yesterday I met with one of my classmates from the playwriting course to prepare a short presentation for this week's class.  Our discussion wandered through many topics including a question that has been on my mind for many years now and is coming up again in my studies:  how does one pass on wisdom, values, perspective, knowledge, and insight from one person to the next without coercion?  In other words, how do we make real disciples?  There are a few methods that are used to facilitate this transfer:  formal education (schools), apprenticeship (working with a master of the craft), internship (learning by working in the field), formation and modeling (parenting and mentoring), and self-instruction (through practice, research, or exposure to a subject).  This is not an exhaustive list, but it represents many of the ways we acquire knowledge, skills, and values. 

In the course of our discussion, my classmate mentioned that she practiced the Baha'i faith from 6 - 12 years of age.  We both acknowledged that beliefs we are taught when young can be very influential in our formation (my Christian heritage certainly was), but at some point, we all ask...Why am I doing this?  Do I go to a Sunday church meeting just because that is what my parents did?  Do I read the bible just because my pastor said it was important?  Do I sing worship songs just because that is the practice of my community?  To begin with, yes, but effective discipleship means that even when the teacher/mentor is no longer present, the students take up the mandate.  This is what Jesus modeled.  He taught, he showed, he explained, he answered questions, he called people to walk with and work with him, he challenged ways of thinking, and much much more.  Many followed him, but not many stuck with him.  Many were intrigued by his teachings, but not many lived them.  Many came for the miracles and the food, but not many could stomach the suffering.  But in the end, he had some faithful disciples that he trusted to carry on his work.

I am not Jesus and I can't just "do what Jesus did."  I have yet to develop the ability to turn a few loaves and fillets into a meal for thousands.  Just as there is no simple formula for being a great artist, there is no 5-step plan for living a creative and holy life.  I do, however, have the spirit of God to guide me, the stories in the scriptures to show me what it looks like to belong to God, and an encouraging community of saints (those who have chosen to follow the Holy One) which together provide everything I need in order to develop into a whole and holy person. 

I guess what I am learning right now is that I am always a follower, always learning how to be a disciple.  And this is perhaps the best qualification for teaching others:  to be taught every day by the Master Teacher.

the photo:  A bench at the nunnery in St. Andrews.  One can sit in the same place where others learned and practiced devotion to Jesus centuries ago.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

lessons from a theological memoir and a television series about lawyers

It's a hot Wednesday afternoon, so let's talk about false binaries. Basically, a false binary or false dichotomy happens when a person's options are artificially limited to two choices, thereby excluding all other possibilities. Insisting on the limited choice of either A or B leaves no room for middle ground or another, more creative solution. In other words, a false binary assumes the rest of the alphabet (after A and B) does not exist.

Binary thinking is quite prevalent in our society. Either you are for me or against me. Either you are guilty or innocent. Either you are a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal. Either you are a Christian or a pagan. Either you are all in or all out. Admittedly, it is convenient to see things as either black or white, but we live in a multi-coloured world and not everything fits neatly into two categories. This is why insisting there are only two choices when, in fact, other options exist, is labeled as a fallacy in logic an…