Transforming Fire

Imagining Christian Teaching

Mark D. Jordan

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781467461603
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religious Education

"We don't need books about teaching so much as books that teach."

Considering Jesus himself taught in a variety of ways—parable, discussion, miracle performance, ritual observance—it seems that there can be no single, definitive, Christian method of teaching. How then should Christian teaching happen, especially in this time of significant change to theological education as an institution?

Mark Jordan addresses this question by first allowing various depictions and instances of Christian teaching from literature to speak for themselves before meditating on what these illustrative examples might mean for Christian pedagogy. Each textual scene he shares is juxtaposed with a contrasting scene to capture the pluralistic possibilities in the art of teaching a faith that is so often rooted in paradox. He exemplifies forms of teaching that operate beyond the boundaries of scholarly books and discursive lectures to disrupt the normative Western academic approach of treating theology as a body of knowledge to be transmitted merely through language.

Transforming Fire consults writers ranging from Gregory of Nyssa to C. S. Lewis, and from John Bunyan to Octavia Butler, cutting across historical distance and boundaries of identity. Rather than offering solutions or systems, Jordan seeks in these texts new shelters for theological education where powerful teaching can happen and—even as traditional institutions shrink or vanish—the hearts of students can catch fire once again.

1

Christian Traditions and Shapes of Teaching

Forty-five years ago, I was told a story by my undergraduate mentor, who also served for a time as the college dean. He recounted it when I approached him in both of his roles to complain about classes.

A man receives jade cuff links as an unexpected gift. Charmed, he decides to learn about the stone. Since he knows nothing, he wants to learn a lot quickly. He hears that a gem collector is offering private lessons. He meets her in an apartment overfilled with art he takes to be Chinese. They agree on payment (made in advance) and set a schedule. Some days later, the man returns for his first lesson. He’s met at the door by a younger woman—an assistant?—who shows him to the living room. On the coffee table, there is a single piece of jade held gently in black velvet. She leaves him alone. Baffled, then irritated, he fidgets in front of the stone for the length of the lesson. “It’s a test,” he decides. “I’ll prove how serious I am by sitting here this once. Then we can start the real lessons next time.” One week later, the same ritual is repeated. The only difference is the stone on display. Resolved not to give up, the man decides to beat the frustrating woman at her own game, no matter how long it takes. After several more weeks, he can barely contain his irritation. He decides to bring a friend to the next lesson so that at least one other person can share his righteous anger. As always, the assistant (and who exactly is she?) leads them into the living room, where a new stone waits. “You see what I mean!” the man bursts out. “This is what my so-called teacher does week after week. And, look, it’s not even good jade.”

Retelling this story after four decades, I’m not sure that it still works. Can we imagine anyone tolerating so much consumer frustration before demanding a full refund and posting thumbs-down reviews online for jade shoppers? Of course, impatience is one of the story’s devices. Its telling demands a little of the patience that it means to commend. How we talk about teaching is a teaching.

There are other points in the story. One is, learning begins best in desire. That desire will change as you progress, but it has to remain strong enough to withstand frustration. A teacher may well shift from an object of respect to a cause of exasperation, because provoking resentment is one thing teachers must do for students.¹ The story’s biggest lesson remains the punch line: students often learn the most important things without recognizing that they have been taught.

If you find the story about the jade contrived, you might prefer a historical anecdote. The zoologist Louis Agassiz once asked a new student to spend time with fish after the student declared a specialty in insects. Handing over a fish, he left the student mostly alone, returning from time to time to ask what had been noticed. When the student inquired, timidly, what came next, Agassiz replied, “Look at your fish.” After some days, another fish of a related variety was added for comparison. Eight months later, the student was told to move on to insects—though he now found himself reluctant to leave the fish.²

Agassiz’s way of teaching may seem intolerably authoritarian. He disregards the student’s expressed interests, imposes other lessons without justification, and is frustratingly coy in both his presences and his absences. You can imagine the reactions in our present setting. The student evaluations will be awful, and it is highly unlikely that any temporary teaching-contract will be renewed. (Note to “senior” faculty: the need to curry instant favor with students inhibits teaching. Teachers in the most precarious positions are not only impoverished, they are prevented from teaching forcefully.)

Still, what strikes me is how much scope Agassiz gives to the student. There is the freedom to get up and walk out, of course. There is also freedom for curiosity, improvisation, abrupt change of direction, or ungraded failure. No syllabus calendar meters progress. No course objectives must be checked off. There is not even a fixed body of facts to be acquired. Agassiz is trying to teach the student to see—that is, to learn how to learn. To stay in the room, to sit with the fish, the student must trust Agassiz as a teacher. The trust is not in Agassiz’s pronouncements but in his pedagogy. The authority of the teaching is not secured by certified expertise, voluminous publications, or status in the guild. It is vindicated in the student’s transformation. The student grants Agassiz pedagogical authority by changing. Or Agassiz grows in authority by responding to the student’s inarticulate, half-known intellectual passion.

Exercise: Imagine retelling the Agassiz story about someone who wants to learn not jade or insects but God. Which specimens should an astute teacher place before that kind of student?

Exercise: Imagine that a student comes to the gem collector to learn not so much about jade as about varnished paintings of jade jewelry. Or imagine the conversation between Louis Agassiz and a student who arrives intent on mastering the colored plates in Cuvier’s Natural History of Fish (published 1828–1849). Would Agassiz direct the student to the library’s rare book room, or would he suggest, slyly, that the engravings might make more sense after the student had devoted a little time to looking at real fish?

Questions for reflection: Is teaching Christian theology in our between-time more like teaching about jade or about old paintings of jade? Do most students of theology want the slimy uncertainties of fish or numbered plates of collectible engravings? And what do we teachers want—for the students, for ourselves? How many of us hope to meet a living God?

Teaching “Christian Tradition”

Over the course of four decades or so, I have earned a living by teaching what catalogues call “the Christian tradition.” The phrase is likely to mislead. Inherited Christian teachings are never singular, never one “tradition.” They throw off variations. Variations become disagreements. Persistent disagreements lead to bitter controversies about what counts as Christian or who gets to use that name. It would be more exact to say that I have taught “influential books that claim to hand on some Christian truth.” Even that rephrasing begs the question whether students are more interested in the books or in the truth they might offer.

Another trouble with my self-description is the assumption that any Christian tradition can be taught—indeed, taught professionally, predictably, as a career. I have been hired to teach Christian tradition because schools of various kinds require it for the degrees they offer. They squeeze the desire to learn through degree requirements—not to speak of rules for ordination. For many students, no doubt, my classes have been episodes in earning credentials. (What do you desire to learn when you desire a degree?) The licensing requirements fix the content on offer. Before reaching college, I read catalogues greedily in naïve confidence that a one-semester course would actually give me “a complete survey of Christian thought” or “major figures of contemporary theology.” I didn’t yet understand that course descriptions are habitual fictions—when they are not vain boasts.

I also couldn’t appreciate how differently competing institutions decide the content of “Christian tradition.” My paid teaching began at a large state university famous for football. The job was “teaching assistant” in a philosophy course about (Christian) ideas of God. Some Christian books were slipped into a state-sponsored curriculum as canonical readings for Western philosophy. I then moved to an integrated humanities program in a Catholic university—also known for football. For that program, books of the “Christian tradition” were both masterpieces of the liberal arts and expressions of Catholic Identity (very much capitalized). Next came the philosophy department of a smaller Catholic university—a college, really—where I was expected to teach undergraduates and seminarians a perennial philosophy according to Thomas Aquinas. On a barren hilltop, surrounded by stubby post oak and mesquite, Catholic Intellectual Identity meant faithfulness to Saint Thomas for philosophy and to Flannery O’Connor for most everything else. In later years, I taught at a pontifical faculty that had once concentrated on medieval Christian thought as a remedy for modern fragmentation. Later still, I was hired into a large research university founded by Methodists and so still committed to the study of religion, including the training of professional ministers. In these latter days, I have moved to the faculty of an all-too-famous research university dedicated to forming citizen-leaders. Here the teaching of Christian tradition is permitted because it might still prove helpful for managing the world.

The reader should hear humor in this very partial recounting of my career. Humor and some sobering self-knowledge. Let me add, a bit more seriously, two reminders. At every institution that has employed me, there have been remarkable students, generous colleagues, and more good books in the library than I could read (no matter how beggared the budget for acquisitions). Clutching at academic grandeur, we can fail to notice the prospects for teaching right around us. Here is the other reminder: along this unplanned itinerary, my education in teaching continued without interruption. Whatever the curriculum or degree requirements, however rancorous the faculty politics, each classroom offered lessons to all who entered it.

As I negotiated competing specifications of “Christian tradition,” I began to notice unexpected commonalities. Wherever I teach older Christian texts, I push against shared assumptions about teaching that lie underneath most US curricula modeled on “the humanities.” (We should still do a double take whenever theology is subsumed by the humanities.) For standard courses, there is a minimum required number of hours of “classroom contact.” Student progress is measured at fixed intervals in quantifiable ways. Classroom decorum limits rather strictly the things students can be encouraged to say, to feel, or to do. They are enrolled to acquire information, to practice skills, to clarify their own values—but not to be spiritually transformed. Of the accusations made against religion in secularized universities, none is more damning than the charge that it proselytizes. (Imagine a similar suspicion applied to ardent advocates of Shakespeare or Foucault.) A university course in religion is too often a narrow mail slot through which content of approved sizes is delivered on a regular schedule. In some cases, it also serves as a decontamination chamber for scrubbing religions of whatever makes them religious.

Of course, none of my employing institutions could control what actually happened in their classrooms when certain authors were let loose. A strong text violates the rules or expectations. Beginning with the Bible, inherited Christian books are designed to open spaces for learning beyond professional training or standardized “liberal education.” Please note that I’m not pointing to the supposed differences between “descriptive” and “normative” or “tolerant” and “dogmatic.” (Those binaries are neither coherent nor helpful.) The immediate tensions between the containing classroom and the Christian books within it have more to do with things like the allotment of time, the role of emotion, changes in bodily movements, and practices of attention. The most influential Christian texts set forth the means by which their lessons are to be taught. They give their own accounts of how they can best be handed down (which is, after all, the root meaning of the Latin word traditio).

You can show up to learn about engravings, but certain authors will keep plopping fish down on your desk.

Christian Traditions in University Classrooms

I am hardly the first person to notice tensions between Christian traditions and university classrooms. Two hundred years ago, they were familiar enough to teachers who wanted to save a place for the advanced study of Christianity within new European universities.

The most familiar example is probably the founding of the (Humboldt) University of Berlin in 1811. Friedrich Schleiermacher is a key figure, though neither the first nor perhaps the most effective. He is credited with formulating a durable argument for keeping Christian theology within modern universities. Though I disagree with his argument, I will follow his vocabulary. Here and in the rest of the book, I use “theology” roughly as Schleiermacher does: it names the whole of what might be taught as Christian tradition, including the varied fields offered by a “divinity school” or “seminary.” I acknowledge the sharp disagreements about what those fields actually are. My account of teaching should be wide enough to cover many of the alternatives.

Back to Schleiermacher in Berlin. Six hundred years earlier, theology had entered some of the original European universities as one of the constitutive faculties. It stood alongside medicine and law as an advanced course of study after the liberal arts. The price of admission for getting theology into medieval universities? Adopting a guild model for teaching it. The compromise was not entirely successful. (Theology’s place among the faculties was never as settled as it can seem to the critic or defender of institutional forms.) For Schleiermacher, the pressing question was whether the medieval arrangement should survive the growth of natural science, antichurch philosophies, and the sharp-eyed interests of the modern nation-state.

Schleiermacher first published his views on the topic telegraphically, as propositions or theses. They are easy to misunderstand, especially for readers who haven’t learned his idiosyncratic vocabulary. They are also strategic proposals in a negotiation. Still, even a hasty reading makes a few things clear. The theology that Schleiermacher wants to keep in universities is defined as a body of knowledge, the science (Wissenschaft) required for church leadership. As an expert in such knowledge, a university professor of theology is obliged to contribute to corresponding fields elsewhere in the university. As a member of the faculty of theology, a professor must share in the distinctive purpose of training future church leaders.³ The various topics in theology are held together only as a response to a practical and political problem—namely, staffing churches. (Though he wishes it were otherwise, Schleiermacher assumes that clergy appointments will involve the state.) Without that purpose, the various pieces of theological knowledge would scatter back to their corresponding fields in the other faculties.

Even when it is read hastily, Schleiermacher’s early text explains why discussions of “theological education” often focus only on clergy training, as if the two topics were interchangeable. He cannot be blamed for inventing that confusion. In churches with exclusive theologies of priesthood, theology’s secrets were frequently restricted to the ordained. Schleiermacher shows how it is possible to arrive at a similar restriction from professional principles. Whenever it begins, and however it is justified, the reduction of theology to ministerial formation is unfortunate. Among other consequences, it cuts out much of the inheritance of Christian writing. Many influential books now used to train clergy were written for wider audiences. Their authors found the unity of theology in more embracing aims—say, in the hope of leading all human souls toward God. Theology can be the intellectual vocation of any adult Christian.

Schleiermacher balances the professional unity of the theology faculty with its place in the whole university. Each component of university theology must maintain its connections to corresponding fields in other faculties: biblical interpretation connects to classics or Near Eastern languages, Christian ethics to philosophical ethics, and so on. The relation is so close that each theological field is pulled back into its corresponding field elsewhere if theology loses its unifying purpose of professional education. (The history of some university-based divinity schools in the United States confirms the point.) “Without this [unifying] relation this same information ceases to be theological and each aspect of it devolves to some other science” (introduction #6, p. 250). Schleiermacher secures intellectual respectability for the parts of university theology by subordinating them to other faculties. The subordination has consequences. For example, topics in university theology must be cut up according to the patterns of their counterpart sciences in the university at large. The content of each topic will also change with shifts in the corresponding field. Church history will soon become whatever academic history now is. It must abandon distinctively Christian ideas about historical processes or styles of history writing. If church historians resist the prevailing standards in the university’s department of history, they risk cutting off the faculty of theology from the rest of the university—and so undermining the pact that tolerates theology anywhere within the modern university.

The scope of this pact is displayed in the opening words of Schleiermacher’s first version of his basic argument: “Theology is a positive Wissenschaft …” It would take some effort to recover his exact sense of “positive.” I emphasize instead the word Wissenschaft, “science” or body of knowledge. Theology must become Wissenschaft to get through the university gates. Its transformation or redefinition excludes many traditional notions about Christian teaching. For example, to call theology Wissenschaft means that it is not conveyed primarily through symbols or rituals.⁴ It is not taught chiefly in “literary” genres or by bodily habituation—the way one might begin to teach sitting meditation or Japanese tea. So far as Wissenschaft remains the watchword of the modern university, theological instruction in faculties of divinity cannot be taught principally by liturgy, allegorical interpretation, or bodily practice. It cannot be handed down by visionary transmission or the repeated meditation of texts that shatter language. Yet teachers of Christian theology have depended on each of these means.

I add, on Schleiermacher’s behalf, that he never imagined that the modern university would be the only place for pursuing theology. His own example points in other directions. He wrote in a range of rhetorical registers, especially in the splendid and fully “literary” Speeches on Religion to Its Cultured Despisers. In his dialogue Christmas Eve, the story of an intimate household celebration discloses a poignant theology of incarnation. Schleiermacher’s academic proposal does not describe all theological teaching or writing. It is a strategy for dealing with new universities constructed around particular models of knowledge. Unfortunately, versions of the proposal have become the norm in theological education more generally. Its expectations have crept into other Christian institutions—through university training of seminary teachers, ac...