I've been teaching or rather trying to facilitate learning about theological reflection. I keep an eye on research as best I can to help me to reflect ongoingly on things learning. One of the things I put before students is a bunch of models of theological reflection. The main one of these is an adaptation of the Kolb cycle; the pastoral cycle or spiral (there are others) One of the things I have said to students is that we should regard this as a tool for making sure that the things that happen when we reflect at our best are built into our reflection and become second nature to us: they are the ingredients of good reflection and that therefore we may notice that things are not as tidy as the models would seem to imply. This was simply being honest on my part: my observation of using the pastoral spiral to facilitate reflection on critical incidents or aspects of placement experience showed me that things that fit under the different phases of the spiral/cycle simply do not appear in the 'right' order often. A thought about an action point may actually feed back to analysis because it enables us to see a dimension of the situation afresh. Or it may feed back to reflection by exposing a theological assumption or opening up a theological vista not previously noted. The same kind of feed-back or feed-forward things can be seen with all of the staging points on the spiral/cycle.
So I felt affirmed to have been pointed to this article,
How does learning happen best? in which Phil Race makes a consonant observation: "I maintain that human brains are much more sophisticated than merely to perform sequential operations in any particular order. Our brains work on overlapping areas all at once. Whatever we do, we have feelings about it. We're always making sense of the feedback we get as we do things or as we think things. We're always in the process of making sense of the experience of what we try to do or try to think. In short, all the stages in our learning are going on all the time. Certainly, we may focus on one aspect of learning more than others at a given time, but we don't suddenly stop doing one thing and switch to another."
No argument from me!
He offers instead a ripples on a pond model. I'm not actually convinced that this is better in terms of the diagram, but the idea of feedback is at least conceptually built in. I note, too, that he is looking at learning through a different set of staging points (helpfully recognising the emotional side of the matter too). I'm going to be thinking about the modelling even more now, though ....
13 July 2009
Barth Conference: Islam and paganism
Having recognised that many of the positions I have come to are very consonant with things that Barth seems to have said, it was interesting to come across an blogged account of a recent conference on Barth:Via Crucis: 2009 Barth Conference: Day 1
Doubly interesting to read this intriguing comment on Islam and Christian faith articulated by Scott Jones: "Barth saw National Socialism as a 'new Islam,' a false ideology led by a false messiah (Hitler). The compelling question, it seems, is why Barth would have seen this connection between Islam and National Socialism as such an obvious one to make. Why does he see Islam as more akin to paganism than to Judaism and Christianity?
After a bit of discussion of Islam's emphasis on revelation vis-a-vis a text (the Koran), the point was made that 'nothing separates Islam and Christianity so radically as the different ways they say the same thing: that there is one God' (CD II/1, 449). There is in Islam a lack of a coming or a becoming of God. This is a point worthy of further exploration, particularly in Christian-Muslim relations."
Absolutely, though I don't think that latter is a new point; what is ponder-worthy is the kinship Barth sees between Islam and paganism (or should that be with a P?). No doubt a shocking thought for many Muslims and others. Nevertheless, I think we need to counterbalance the Abrahamic faiths lumping-together with a recognition that there is an 'odd-one-out' and it is Islam. However, I remain to be convinced the becomingness of God is the differentiator. Certainly since Maimonides (interestingly, writing in an Islamic context), Judaism has tending to understand 'ehad' more like the Islamic 'tawhid' ... and probably for polemic reasons to some degree (but I'm writing beyond my secure competence here, happy to be corrected and further informed). And I would be interested to know, too, what understanding of 'pagan' is being worked with here. The hint is that it would be Aryan revival ideology rather than the more cuddly neo-paganism of earth-centred spirituality in the post 60's west.
Doubly interesting to read this intriguing comment on Islam and Christian faith articulated by Scott Jones: "Barth saw National Socialism as a 'new Islam,' a false ideology led by a false messiah (Hitler). The compelling question, it seems, is why Barth would have seen this connection between Islam and National Socialism as such an obvious one to make. Why does he see Islam as more akin to paganism than to Judaism and Christianity?
After a bit of discussion of Islam's emphasis on revelation vis-a-vis a text (the Koran), the point was made that 'nothing separates Islam and Christianity so radically as the different ways they say the same thing: that there is one God' (CD II/1, 449). There is in Islam a lack of a coming or a becoming of God. This is a point worthy of further exploration, particularly in Christian-Muslim relations."
Absolutely, though I don't think that latter is a new point; what is ponder-worthy is the kinship Barth sees between Islam and paganism (or should that be with a P?). No doubt a shocking thought for many Muslims and others. Nevertheless, I think we need to counterbalance the Abrahamic faiths lumping-together with a recognition that there is an 'odd-one-out' and it is Islam. However, I remain to be convinced the becomingness of God is the differentiator. Certainly since Maimonides (interestingly, writing in an Islamic context), Judaism has tending to understand 'ehad' more like the Islamic 'tawhid' ... and probably for polemic reasons to some degree (but I'm writing beyond my secure competence here, happy to be corrected and further informed). And I would be interested to know, too, what understanding of 'pagan' is being worked with here. The hint is that it would be Aryan revival ideology rather than the more cuddly neo-paganism of earth-centred spirituality in the post 60's west.
The art of citation
Thanks to Ben Myers, an interesting little post on citation: Faith and Theology: The art of citation: "‘citations in my work are like armed thieves who emerge suddenly and rob leisurely strollers of their convictions.’ He thus uses citations strategically; they are part of the guerilla warfare he wages against the preconceived notions of his reader…. To cite without quotation marks is to offer the idea without the imprimatur of an author or authority. This requires of the idea that it stand or fall on its own merits and not find automatic support from its lineage."
This has got me thinking for a couple of reasons, one is discussions over the last two years with our external markers about, inter alia, the way that students use quotes sometimes to 'hide behind' and so we don't hear their own evaluations and voice in the text, the other is that I'm trying to do some writing and discovering that I'm writing a lot on some topics from the heart with the result that by comparison with stuff I mark and read, it can seem light on citation. Both of these things along with this little reflection are emboldening me to just write and perhaps look at citing later and in a subdued sort of way.
But still thinking (and that's without going onto the practically fraught question of what citation method we should go for at college as standarad!).
This has got me thinking for a couple of reasons, one is discussions over the last two years with our external markers about, inter alia, the way that students use quotes sometimes to 'hide behind' and so we don't hear their own evaluations and voice in the text, the other is that I'm trying to do some writing and discovering that I'm writing a lot on some topics from the heart with the result that by comparison with stuff I mark and read, it can seem light on citation. Both of these things along with this little reflection are emboldening me to just write and perhaps look at citing later and in a subdued sort of way.
But still thinking (and that's without going onto the practically fraught question of what citation method we should go for at college as standarad!).
12 July 2009
How bishops are viewed
For those who don't sub to the CT, you may have to wait a couple of weeks before you can view it. But it's worth the wait. It's a summary of Mike Keulmans' research on bishops and in particular some polling about how bishops are seen by some lay people, some clergy and some retired bishops. For me it was, on the whole, encouraging in that my supposition that most of us think that bishops probably ought to be able to exercise a more fully pastoral and 'coaching' role towards clergy was vindicated. The concerning thing was my other hobby horse about equalising of stipends was not. I'm wondering whether this is because actually the issues need more airing.
Anyway, to the nub of the matter. Mike concludes with this statement.
I would suggest that this is worth taking seriously. That it implies bishops' stipends should be in line with other clergy and that we should have wider structures to share some minsitries and functions more widely than the mini-diocese. To me this suggests that my previous support of Gareth Miller's plan for ten provinces needs modifying: the dioceses need to be even smaller and perhaps something like four times as many.
Anyway, I wrote to the Church Times. We'll see whether they publish but this is what I wrote.
Church Times - How bishops are viewed
Anyway, to the nub of the matter. Mike concludes with this statement.
My conclusion, based on the survey statistics and the experience of the early Church, is that it is time to turn the deanery of 25 to 35 parishes into a diocese. We must leave behind all the expensive and irrelevant trappings inherited from medieval prelacy, and instead make the episcopal task more manageable and realistic so that practical demonstration may be given to the essential warmth and care of the episcopal shepherd, who is meant to mirror the Good Shepherd himself.
I would suggest that this is worth taking seriously. That it implies bishops' stipends should be in line with other clergy and that we should have wider structures to share some minsitries and functions more widely than the mini-diocese. To me this suggests that my previous support of Gareth Miller's plan for ten provinces needs modifying: the dioceses need to be even smaller and perhaps something like four times as many.
Anyway, I wrote to the Church Times. We'll see whether they publish but this is what I wrote.
I wonder whether the results of Mike Keulmans' research fall within
the remit of the dioceses commission, because they really ought to.
Mike's suggestion on the basis of his research really should be part
of any wide-ranging consideration of our practice of episcopacy and
the radical option he points to should be given serious consideration:
that "it is time to turn the deanery of 25 to 35 parishes into a
diocese. We must leave behind all the expensive and irrelevant
trappings inherited from medieval prelacy, and instead make the
episcopal task more manageable and realistic so that practical
demonstration may be given to the essential warmth and care of the episcopal shepherd, who is meant to mirror the Good Shepherd himself". This conclusion does seem to be warrented by the demands of the role as it should be. And it is not the first time that these columns have seen a call to recognise the deanery as a more appropriate span of episcopal care. Now I reckon that there is some discussion to be had about the number of parishes; at the other extreme I have in mind the example of a diocese in the USA where 90 parishes seemed to produce a vibrant entity for mutual support and mission (interestingly the campanion diocese of Bradford whose recent synodical motion has helped raise the issue for discussion).
This suggestion is added weight, I believe, by taking note of a significant trend and its implications: the pattern of clergy deployment and employment conditions. Increasingly we are seeing self-supporting ministries and part-time ministries of a variety of patterns becoming a more normal part of the ministry patterns in many areas. One of the challenges that has become apparent with these ministries is that they don't fit easily with patterns of mutual care and co-ordination which works ''best' for those with full-time availability. So it is easy for them to be sidelined and that is even more unacceptable when their numbers become proportionally greater. It is in those kinds of circumstances that a bishop with more availability to support clergy of a variety of ministry-patterns becomes important and strategically valuable. The obverse of greater localisation would also be to make sure that there are mechanisms for
sharing of ministries and resources more widely so that each mini-diocese isn't going to try to replicate current diocesan resources but can call on and contribute to officers to help with such things as legal advice, inter-faith issues or resource-development. So we may wish to consider arch-dioceses and/or provincial structures as units of wider sharing of resources.
One of the issues, of course, that this would bring to the surface would be the issue of stipends. Mike's figures show little support for equalising stipends with 'ordinary' clergy. Space may have prevented
him from elaborating on any indications of reasons for this. My guess is that it is an 'instinctive', culturally-influenced sense that seniority and responsibility should be rewarded financially. Of course, this reason would look far less convincing under Mike's proposal of smaller dioceses. Perhaps, though, it indicates also that we also need to have a fuller debate about the meaning of 'stipend' and whether 'responsibility' really washes in a stipendiary framework. With reference to the proposal to reduce the number of bishops in order to save money, it would surely be a better option to equalise their stipends with the rest of us and increase their numbers otherwise we're merely likely to be turning them into figureheads and civil functionaries and that seems a bad use of a stipend, all told.
So can be ask the dioceses commission to research and bring forward proposals for an appropriate span of care for bishops under different models of responsibility and of the measures needed to support such patterns of ministry?
Church Times - How bishops are viewed
09 July 2009
Winning the ultimate battle: against war
Not a total surprise if you've been keeping an eye on recent writings about evolution and humanity; particularly relating to neoteny (eg human societies are far less violent that chimpansees' and we manage to live at far higher densities with far less trouble) So go and read this New Scientist article: Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war: "rather than being a product of our genes, it looks as if warfare emerged in response to a changing lifestyle. Even then it was far from inevitable, as the variability in warmongering between cultures and across time attests. The Embers have found links between rates of warfare and environmental factors, notably droughts, floods and other natural disasters that impact upon resources and provoke fears of famine."
Much of the evidence seems to indicate war is a cultural construct rather than genetically programmed. The UN idea of building a culture of peace is well-founded. However, that doesn't mean that peace doesn't need working at. The thing is, are we prepared to invesst as much in what makes for peace as we have been in what tends to war?
Much of the evidence seems to indicate war is a cultural construct rather than genetically programmed. The UN idea of building a culture of peace is well-founded. However, that doesn't mean that peace doesn't need working at. The thing is, are we prepared to invesst as much in what makes for peace as we have been in what tends to war?
A targum on James 1
I've been enjoying Brian Walsh's use of exegetical and expository tools. Here's an excerpt of something on James 1:1-18
Whole thing ...
When you face all kinds of trials,
the infirmities of older age,
the insecurities of being a young person,
the struggles with loneliness,
painful confusion about sexuality,
the collapse of beloved institutions,
a marriage that has seen happier days,
tensions within the family,
you name it!
then again I say to you, this is pure joy!
“Joy?” you ask.
Grin and bear it, maybe.
Dig in and get through the trouble, perhaps.
Maybe even patience.
But joy?
This is the kind of stuff that strips me of any capacity for joy.
Economic anxiety,
worries about the future,
deep internal pain,
that debilitating sense of loss,
that impending death in so many areas of our lives …
and you say we should receive all this with joy?
Pure joy?
Yes, my friends, joy.
I understand that all of this is hard.
I’ve been there, I know.
Whole thing ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)