Kraft

Teachers in theological education are often told to be examples for their students. Of course, there is truth in this but in its historical manifestation in theological education, it is a teaching concept from above, all part of the old pattern of the “delivery of my riches” teaching style. It often has little space for fallibility, sinfulness and failure on the part of the example, or how such things should be dealt with in a life. Do you know how to say “be like me” in a humble way?

This is not the best way of passing on such deeper issues which require a more intimate acquaintance with the person. How do we live in joy? What is the role of beauty in one’s life? How is internal disappointment dealt with? When is it good to be foolish rather than wise? We would tend to confine our example to spiritual and academic things, but should not the students understand better how to be a fallible yet happy human being from being with us?

There is another reason why ideas of relationship are better than ideas of example. An example sees the influence only travelling in one direction – from the teacher to the student. Yet, in order to teach well, we have to know our students well. And not only the knowledge but the benefit – even example – can then travel in both directions.

The concept of friendship, which is a sharing of yourself as a gift to the other, is beginning to be used in some circles of theological education today. The word “friend” is a dangerous one to use in this context but it is biblical in that Jesus expressly used it to describe his relationship with his disciples in John 15.

One of the best ways to see this concept is through the other friendships the teacher already has. He has a close and deep feeling relationship with his subject. He has a friendship with a number of individuals who have blessed him in the past and present, either in person or through their books (Erasmus’s “friends”). He has a friendship with God, a lively, hopeful, growing relationship. In the atmosphere of friendship, he introduces the students to his other “friends” and hopes they will also develop a friendship with them and maybe his friendships will inspire theirs.

There are, of course, varieties of friendship and we need to think carefully about what sort of friendship we are looking for with students. Most sorts of friendship have elements of time spent together, not always working; a level of trust which goes both ways; a sense of obligation to the other; and some openness between the parties (this seems to have been the way Jesus used the idea). All of this is good.

It is this openness which defines the depth and nature of the friendship. Most people only have a few very close friends with whom they can be entirely open. It would not be appropriate for this to exist between a teacher and student. Furthermore, sharing can be used to evoke intimacy which is inappropriate. Or such sharing can be used to dissolve the difference between teacher and student – we portray ourselves as “just one of them” and so look silly. This motif of friendship must be carefully controlled and practiced for the right motives.

But it is more powerful than the motif of example. It rightly asks for more open-ness between teacher and student, more humility on the part of the teacher, than older models. Don’t ask your students to retrace your steps or even walk in the same manner, count it a privilege to walk with them as a guide, help and yes, friend.

Success is attractive. It is a “suitcase” word which is packed with different content by those who use it but its general use is with a reference to us – how others and society perceive us.

As the job of theological educator has become professionalised, so has the temptation to think about personal success. With the training colleges drawing closer to academia in society and often gaining accreditation, our colleges are increasingly looking like two storey houses, with the bottom floor the old Christian training college and the top floor, built on more recently, of secular higher education architecture. And it is the top floor which is increasingly setting the attitudes for those living and working in the house. Professionalism is fine as a commitment to skilful work, but when it holds out to us a “career” in which we can succeed or the status of a social class to which we can belong – success in the world – then it is a far cry from the apostles who were happy to be counted as the “scum of the earth” so long as they were useful.

Usefulness has a different focus, outside of ourselves, on others – not what they think of us but how they benefit from us.

I know the argument that the desire for usefulness is also selfish because it imparts significance to our lives. This is often present when we try to be useful but all our actions arise from a bundle of motives and our job is to keep the right ones on top. The fact remains that the desire for success has a focus primarily for ourselves and usefulness primarily for others.

For the theological teacher, usefulness is an ellipse, formed around two foci – usefulness to God and usefulness to our students. If this sounds too individual, we can add usefulness to the college but it is the duty of leadership to ensure that usefulness to God and the students coincides with usefulness to the college. If it manifestly does not, it is hard to keep a happy staff. To be useful to God is to ensure that our calling is exercised in such a way that it is of maximum impact for the kingdom. This involves a number of careful decisions as to how and where we exercise our ministry of teaching, which we may not yet have consciously taken.

To be useful to our students is also not a straightforward matter. It is certainly more than giving them good information about theologians and their views so they can pass exams. At its best, it is teaching them how to live as Christian human beings and as ministers of the gospel in a complicated world – by word, example and humble companionship.

I hope you found this useful.

Church history is full of bad theological students who went on to do good things for the kingdom. David Brainard, missionary to the North American Indians, was dismissed from Yale College in 1739. David Livingstone, the missionary explorer, was the subject of an unfavourable report from the informal academy of Rev. Richard Cecil of Ongar, where he was sent for residential training and the London Missionary Society sent him back for more work in 1839. Gratton Guiness, the great revivalist preacher and founder of the UK Bible College movement did not complete his course at New College, St. John’s Wood, London in the 1850s. And there are many more.

Why are bad students bad? Some are bad for bad reasons, some for good reasons and most for a combination of the two. Sometimes the fault is as much in the system as the student. Maybe a student is pushed into an academic level or mode he or she is not suited for, or which they consider will not prepare them for their future. They could then become fearful and lose heart – and even occasionally resort to forms of plagiarism to keep up. Or the rules structure of the college may be so all pervasive that the naturally rebellious find it hard to live within all its un-necessary elements. Where there are faults on both sides, as guardians of the college side, it is hard for us not to rest all the blame on the student.

Sometimes it is just a matter of timing in a person’s life. Maybe a student is not yet ready to make the sort of commitments needed, but these will come later. Some years ago, it was very moving for me to receive a past student into my principal’s office, who came back simply to apologise for the sort of student he had been while at college. He was right to apologise, he caused me grief, but now he is in a very useful work for God.

There are many other reasons why students are problems to us. So how should we behave towards them? Firstly, we cannot condone wrong doing, it must always be pointed out clearly – and often it must have consequences. Secondly, we need to create, as far as possible, a safe atmosphere in the college, where students can make their mistakes and mess up, even sin, in a forgiving environment. A place where humble people are on hand to pick them up when they fall and set them on the way again. Let them have their falls now at college. After all, there are plenty of situations in Christian service which are not as forgiving or caring. Thirdly, we need to believe in redemption as well as teaching it in the doctrine classes. This means we practice mercy and patience whenever possible. Of course, occasionally a bad apple has to be removed from the barrel, but students change, they are at the most changeable time in their lives, and they change when someone believes in them and gives them a second chance.

Mercy and patience are the marks of God’s dealings with us all. Patience is a fruit of the spirit and, as our Lord said, blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.