I Tell You the Truth Summit Conference for Wesleyan Higher Education
“Proclaiming the Truth and Living Out the Truth”
Roger McKenzie
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
2:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Though it makes many of us uncomfortable, we must acknowledge that there is a significant disconnect for our students between knowing truth and living truth. While this is certainly not a new phenomenon, postmodern thinking seems to have exacerbated the situation by bringing truth claims into question and suggesting that all truth is relative. However, all of the responsibility for this disconnect between knowing and living truth is not the result of cultural shifts. College chaplain Keith Anderson wrote “It is a common experience for students to sit in my office to discuss the issues raised in the vacuum of the classroom. These students seem to know intuitively that there is an ecological connection between the material in the classroom and their lives of faith, but are not sure that their professor has noticed the connections” (Anderson 3).
My subject is “Proclaiming the Truth and Living Out the Truth.” I am convinced that in Christian higher education, historically we have been more focused on proclamation of the truth than on living out the truth. We made an assumption that there was a direct relationship between cognitive content and lifestyle behavior. Our observations of students and even our reflections on our lives demonstrate that we do not always respond with lifestyle changes to cognitive content. I am reminded of the old story of the county agent who stopped by to see a farmer. When the farmer inquired as to why he came to see him, he said that there were many new approaches to farming that could help him to farm better than he does now. The farmer’s response was, “I already know how to farm better than I do now.” Knowing does not necessarily result in lifestyle response.
In Wesleyan higher education, particularly in the past, we tended to approach living out truth in community from a rather behavioristic perspective. Professors proclaimed truth in the classroom, but may not have directly connected those truths to living truth. College administrators established lifestyle standards based on what Wesleyan-holiness people believed about Christian lifestyles at the time, called students to conform to those rules, and expected the result to be Christian women and men whose lives reflected God’s truth. While this approach could have been stronger, the product was generally good.
Then something changed rather dramatically both in our world and in our students, we began to notice it in the 1960s. Our younger traditional students began to question conformity based on external authority. If expectations did not make sense to them, they were likely to either aggressively resist or more likely in our circles to passively ignore the expectations. Another complication is that adolescence has been extended further into what used to be considered young adulthood. Pleasure has become a dominant motivator in our culture; often our traditional students are as likely to play video games as to do homework.
Then the makeup of our student populations changed. No longer are our schools dominated by eighteen to twenty-two year olds. At Southern Wesleyan, the average age of all undergraduate students is now thirty-four (that figure includes the traditional population). Adult students tend to come back to school more set in their ways having already established their values and set their life patterns. Many of these nontraditional students come to college with a very utilitarian view of education with their primary motivation being the promotion and raise that is likely after receiving their diplomas.
These are our students to whom we have been called to proclaim the truth and help them live faithfully in response to that truth. Our students are being shaped by a rapidly changing world. For the next few minutes, I would like for us to consider some characteristics of postmodern students, reflect on the nature of truth, and then consider some approaches to proclaiming and living truth.
Characteristics of Postmodern Students
Here are some very general characteristics of postmodern students. First, they are likely to value the spiritual, though their spirituality may have little to do with Christian faith. Before going to Southern Wesleyan I planted a church in Greensboro, North Carolina. A very well educated man, who came to our church because his wife wanted their children to be exposed to a religious tradition, called to meet me for lunch. Though he had attended church as a child, gone to a Catholic university, and had an earned a doctorate, he knew nothing of faith. In fact, he told me “I’ve always known that there was a God, because I could feel Him, but I don’t have a clue who this Jesus guy is.” We spent lots of time together exploring and talking about the nature of faith and the content of faith before he became a Christian. Spirituality is in, but faith with specific content and particular claims is not so popular.
Second, postmodern students value friendships and stories. They want to hear stories, but maybe even more they want to tell their stories. Blogs have become quite a fad. Some of my students have blogs that I really like to read as they thoughtfully address important issues. Then I have other students whose blogs read something like this, “Hung out with my guys last night. We had some burgers and we played some Frisbee.” Others seem to go on and on with basically unfiltered streams of semi-consciousness. I’m thinking, who cares and who is going to read this stuff? Well, those who are more thoroughly postmodern than I am are the ones who will both write and read it, because these are their stories and the stories of their friends and they care.
A third characteristic of postmodern students is that they view truth as relative or unknowable. While postmoderns value stories, they tend not to embrace one story as authoritative. In other words, postmodernism has left our culture without a metanarrative. Students are less concerned about finding out the truth and are more concerned to find out what works. According to Ajith Fernando, “In the postmodern era in particular, a high value is placed on subjective evidences for the validity of a religion. People are not so interested in whether a religion is true. They want to know whether it works. In such an environment, the servant lifestyle of Christians may be a key for opening the doors for presenting the gospel message of a unique savior” (Fernando 126 in Telling the Truth).
Truth
An important next step is to ask about perspectives on truth as Christian teachers. First, we must consider the nature of truth. There is absolute truth and this truth is objective in its existence. However, our knowing of that truth is subjective and often based in our experience. Therefore, much of what we know is at least somewhat tentative. Parker Palmer has suggested that the "Christian understanding of truth is neither an object 'out there' nor a proposition about such objects. Instead, truth is personal, and all truth is known in personal relationships. Jesus is a paradigm, a model of this personal truth. In him, truth once understood as abstract, principled, propositional, suddenly takes on a human face and a human frame. In Jesus, the disembodied 'word' takes flesh and walks among us" (Palmer 48).
Second, truth is not so much to be possessed as it is to be sought. You probably have known people who have used truth as a club to make people see things their way. I have a friend who went from teaching at a state university to teach at a seminary. One of his observations after he had been at the seminary a short time was that he had never been around so many people who were so certain that they were right about everything. My wife has had intermittent bouts with kidney stones since she was in college. After that first episode her physician told her that she had calcium-based stones and that to avoid kidney stones in the future she should dramatically limit her intake of dairy products. Years later, another doctor apologized to her and said that limiting dairy intake was the wrong thing to do because the human body will then do all it can to preserve the calcium, thus making kidney stones worse.
In many realms of life, truth is still being discovered, it is unfolding in our lives. Because all truth is God’s truth, truth is bigger than we are. Truth is to be sought, we are to walk in the authoritative truth of scripture, but truth is not so much a commodity that we can possess in a once and for all kind of way. I would venture to say that in each of our lives there are several examples of positions that we were passionately convinced were true at some point in our lives only to discover later, that those things we held to be true were either wrong or very partial. The apostle Paul, in his famous 1 Corinthians 13 chapter on love reminded his readers that “we know in part” (vs. 9) and compares our knowing to a poor reflection in a mirror (12).
Hebrew epistemology suggests that there is an intimacy in knowing and that our knowing of truth is best understood relationally. The knowing of Hebrew epistemology is experiential and in relationship with that which is known. The Hebrew word for “know” is “yada,” which is also used as a metaphor for sexual intimacy. Yada, according to Naugle “implies that ‘to know’ does not simply mean to have theoretical knowledge of an object and its nature. Rather, it refers to a personal relationship between the knower and the object known, a relationship characterized by care, concern, and importance” (Naugle). The knowing of biblical epistemology is not the knowing of mastery, but the knowing of intimate relationship. Jesus said that He is the Truth, and our knowing of Jesus is to be experienced in a relationship that affects every area of our lives.
Third, truth though objective in its existence, it is articulated in community. Community has been critical in formation of the biblical canon, articulation of doctrines, and addressing issues, for example, postmodernism and truth. While we hold Scripture to be inspired and authoritative, it requires interpretation, a process that is best addressed in community. Stanley Hauerwas has written that the church must be a story-formed community, and I suggest that we extend that to the church’s educational institutions. According to Hauerwas, “Good and just societies require a narrative, therefore, which helps them know the truth about existence and fight the constant temptation to self-deception” (Hauerwas 18).
Proclaiming and Living Truth
I am advocating that proclaiming and living out truth is not best understood as a two-step process, but can better be approached in our educational contexts as simultaneous twin movements. In other words knowing and living truth represent two sides of the same coin. Therefore, it is appropriate that our definition of “learning,” particularly in the context of Wesleyan higher education, be redefined so that it embraces more than just some level of cognitive mastery. Anderson suggests that “teaching takes place when the instructor becomes a catechist seeking to offer sound content through appropriate processes for the purpose of spiritual formation” (Anderson 9). Palmer suggested that “to teach is to create a space where obedience to truth is practiced” (Palmer 69). For significant learning to have taken place there should be evidence of a change in actions or attitudes as well.
First, in order to engage students in a process that will communicate truth and call students to live truth, we need to rethink educational objectives and outcomes. Following the end of the spring semester, our Division of Religion faculty met as instructed to evaluate and update our program outcomes and objectives. As an entire faculty we reviewed the inspiring process of writing educational objectives. As you would expect, we were instructed to write cognitive, affective, and behavioral objectives. When we gathered in our smaller group, I suggested to my colleagues in the Division of Religion that we would need to take care to include affective objectives as it is easy to focus more on cognitive and behavioral objectives as they are more easily measured. Further, I predicted that those other divisions would probably not include many, if any, affective objectives. We spent lots of time in the Division of Religion on this process. When we were nearly done, I looked back through what we had accomplished, I was embarrassed to realize that we had included very few affective objectives. Though frequently undervalued, affective objectives are vitally important if our students are to value and embrace truth beyond the exam or demonstration of the skill.
As Wesleyans we stand as heirs to John Wesley whose mind was keen in pursuit of truth, whose hands were busy in service to humanity, and whose heart was strangely warmed. These cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements converged in Wesley’s life to lead him to a deeper experience with God that reflected the holy living that God desired that allowed him to be involved in the transformation of the world. I am convinced that there are better models for thinking about objectives than considering the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains independently of one another. When it comes to structuring learning objectives for embracing and living out truth, I prefer the Experiential Taxonomy devised by Norman Steinaker and Robert Bell. Steinaker and Bell have combined cognitive, affective, and skills outcomes into a single taxonomy which is a significant advantage over taxonomies that address them independent of one another. The taxonomy moves students from exposure, to participation to identification to internalization to dissemination. The taxonomy is valuable for structuring experiences that will engage students in transformational processes that touch all three learning domains with the goal of them becoming agents of transformation. Though the taxonomy is not written from a distinctively Christian perspective, notice that the highest level of the taxonomy is “homiletic” (Steinaker and Bell 21). By the time persons reaches the homiletic level at which they are passionate to tell others about the truth they have encountered and are living, they will have grown through a number of stages that involve increasingly deeper knowing along with emotive responses that personalize this truth in their lives that then builds in them a desire to act on what they have learned.
Second, in order to engage students in a process that will communicate truth and call students to live truth, it is important that we coordinate our efforts across our campuses. In recent years there has been a revaluing of academics talking across their disciples so that institutions are truly uni-versities rather than multi-versities. The great strength of this approach and it needs to be extended beyond academics. Our efforts at calling students to embrace and live out truth in community can be enhanced if we avoid creating silos by pigeonholing some issues as “academic” and others “student life.”
Recently I suggested that our faculty address a sporting/recreational activity in which several of our students are engaging. Though the activity is neither immoral nor illegal, I find the activity troubling. The response to my suggestion was that this issue is a student life concern and that there was no need for the faculty to take up the issue. At one level, that response was right on target. Regulating what items students bring onto campus, keep in their rooms, and use recreationally clearly fits primarily in the realm of student life. However, because this issue has ethical implications that should concern the entire campus community it seems a legitimate concern for faculty to address as well if we are to truly engage in teaching truth and living truth in community.
Not assigning an issue to a single unit is not a very efficient approach to administration, but it can be a powerful approach to teaching. This kind of teaching is messy. It requires that we stay aware of events happening in culture in general and in our particular campus communities. Sometimes addressing these issues means setting aside some of the planned class content in order to respond to an issue that has surfaced, so that we can seize the teachable moment. It will almost certainly require that our involvements in our students’ lives extend beyond the classroom and continue beyond five o’clock. Involving ourselves in these messy learning processes that blur the lines of responsibility on our campuses has great potential for enhancing community and student learning. I hope we are convinced that important teaching takes place in student life departments and that academics can address community issues that extend beyond the classroom and grades on transcripts.
Third, in order to engage students in a process that will communicate truth and call students to live truth, we have to recognize that relationships are vital. Focusing on relationships fits well with Jesus’ model of teaching as well as with postmodern students’ valuing of friendships. Each semester our Division of Religion conducts exit interviews with our graduating students. I would like to tell you that they reported that the contents of my courses and the delivery of my lectures were so inspiring that those were the things that changed their lives, but they do not say that. However, what almost all of our graduates do say is that the strength of our division and of their educational experience are the relationships that students get to build with our faculty members. It is quite common for our students to drop by one of our offices with a question or problem that may or may not have anything to do with the content of our course, but may have much to do with how they understand and live out truth in their lives. I believe that in our traditional educational programs we do a pretty good job of cultivating life-shaping relationships with students.
However, I am not certain that we consistently do as good a job building relationships between faculty and students in our adult programs. Many adult students have significant needs for encountering and responding to truth. Because adult students enter our programs having already established life structures and with jobs and many other life issues that demand their time, building the relationship with those adults students can be a difficult challenge. We have outstanding AGS faculty and neither their qualifications nor their level of concern for students is in question. However, the structure of our adult programs, where the faculty member is with the class cohort for five to seven weeks and then moves on, creates an environment that is not particularly conducive to faculty members building meaningful, long-lasting relationships with students that facilitate transformation in students’ lives.
Fourth, in order to engage students in a process that will communicate truth and call students to live truth we need to engage students in discovery learning experiences. When students wrestle to discover and understand truths, they will become emotionally invested in those truths, and students will be more likely to align their lives to live out those truths than if our teaching is exclusively teachers telling students what the truth is.
Thomas Groome’s shared praxis teaching approach provides a very solid model for teaching toward faithful response to truth. Groome describes the shared praxis approach to teaching “as a group of Christians sharing in dialogue their critical reflection on present action in light of the Christian Story and its Vision toward the end of lived Christian faith” (Groome 184). Groome’s model includes these five steps. The first step is identifying a present activity that is common to the group. The second step involves critical reflection on that activity by the group and engaging in dialogue about the activity. In the third step, the teacher introduces the Story (including the Scriptures and the church’s tradition) as it applies to their activity. Fourth, the teacher invites learners to appropriate the Story to their own lives and examine their lives in light of the Story. Fifth, group members are challenged to personally embrace a better, truer vision of the kingdom of God that grows from the Story and are called to live out that vision faithfully (Groome 184-201).
Much of the value of Groome’s shared praxis approach for the Christian higher education is that it helps students think about their lives. The process begins where learners are and then draws them toward more faithful living in response to the truth gospel. This approach can largely be accomplished in the classroom, though it begins outside the classroom and later sends learners out to apply the truths of the gospel in faithful living in obedience to a clearer vision of the Kingdom message.
While discovery approaches are quite powerful, they are likely to be resisted by at least some of our students. I am certain that you have those encounters with students when they ask, “Will this be on the test?” or “What do you want in this paper?” Some respond with rather puzzled looks when I reply, “I have given you the parameters for the assignment, do some research and interact with the course contents to create something that is meaningful to you.”
Fifth, in order to engage students in a process that will communicate truth and call students to live truth we must recognize that students coming to terms with truth and beginning to live their lives faithfully in response to that truth will be a process likely involving a series of commitments. We must help them embrace basic truths and then move toward fuller discipleship with deeper truths and appropriate affective and behavioral responses. Helping students to make these commitments will require significant amounts of grace and patience. We need to take the long view to help students construct and informed system of belief and practice.
Recently we have heard quite a lot about the emerging church. The emerging church appears to be an attempt at contextualizing Christian theology for postmoderns. In many ways I believe that the process is similar to the contexutalization process as the gospel moves into other cultures. Students need to be engaging in a similar process of contextualization our campuses. In order to facilitate this process we will need to create a safe environment that will allow students to explore truth, sometimes saying things that may surprise or trouble us. As we intentionally engage in this process we need to recognize the role and work of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
Conclusion
God has given us a tremendous opportunity to educate and shape the lives of students in response to His truth, in fact, that is our calling. The world has changed, students have changed, and while God’s truth remains the same we have to be strategic in how we go about proclaiming that truth for students to embrace and then live it. The pressures from culture, accrediting associations, recruiting contractors, and even our students can cause us to lose focus and compromise our commitments to proclaiming and living truth in community. My hope and prayer is that we will continue to keep proclaiming and living truth as central to our purpose.
Bibliography
Anderson, Keith R. "Clement of Alexandria: Patron Saint of Christian Higher Education?" Faculty Dialogue 20 (1991). 12 May 2006 www.iclnet.org/pub/facdialogue/20/anderson.
Fernando, Ajith. "The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ." Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns. Ed. Donald D. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. 123-137.
Groome, Thomas H. Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Hauwerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame P, 1981.
Naugle, Davey. What is Knowledge?: Biblical/Hebraic Epistemology. Summer Institute in Christian Scholarship, 31 July 2001, Dallas Baptist University. 15 May 2006 http://www.dbu.edu/Naugle/pdf/devo_7.pdf.
Palmer, Parker J. To Know as We are Known: a Spirituality of Education. 1st Paperback ed. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993.
Steinaker, Norman, and Robert Bell. The Experiential Taxonomy: a New Approach to Teaching and Learning. New York: Academic P, 1979.
