``What `Great Cloud of Witnesses'?Isn't MyOwn Religious Experience Enough?''

Robert J. ShermanBangor Theological Seminary

Abstract. The author notes that current seminarystudents show great variation in their academic skills,in their familiarity with the basics of Christianity, andin their sense of, and skill in, theological method. Thiscondition is both caused and exacerbated by thestudents' acculturation in American religiousprivatism, which makes them resist a critical andconstructive examination of their views and hinderstheir understanding of theology as an undertaking ofand for the Church. The author describes a number ofpedagogical strategies, teaching techniques, andclassroom exercises that have shown someeffectiveness in overcoming these problems.

Yes, perhaps the title does overstate matters. But it alsopoints to some very real challenges in educating today'sseminarians. I teach systematic theology at BangorTheological Seminary (BTS), a small denominationalschool of a mainline church, and have just completedmy tenth semester here. My experience in that timeleads me to several observations and concerns aboutmy students Ð observations and concerns which maysound familiar to teachers at similar institutions. Ingeneral, my students: (a) diverge greatly in basicacademic skills, (b) diverge greatly in familiarity withthe basic content of the Christian faith, and (c) havelittle sense of, let alone skill in, basic theologicalmethod. It has become clear to me that theseshortcomings are in part caused by, and alsoexacerbate, the circumstance that most challenges meas a teacher, namely, the extent to which my studentsexhibit an acculturation in American religiousprivatism and individualism that closes many off to acritical and systematic examination of their views.Very few recognize theology as a discipline of and forthe Church. Stated most simply, this context means myteaching must have a twofold agenda. On the one

hand, the situation obliges me to equip my studentswith a basic knowledge of the Christian heritage andtheological method. This I am happy to do, and I hopeI do so in a way that encourages them to appreciate itswealth of resources, its spiritual insights, and its basicdisciplines. Given where and when I grew up, I was notmyself well versed in my own tradition until I wasexposed to it in seminary. Yet I remember clearly myown excitement as my growing theological literacyallowed me to join in the centuries-old theologicalconversation Ð and I never cease to enjoy enabling mystudents to participate in it as well. Still, this is in manyrespects a catechetical task, although directed at ``adultlearners.'' On the other hand, I am dedicated to mydenominational tradition's emphasis on a ``learnedministry.'' Nowadays, this means I am also responsiblefor fostering in my students the critical and creativethinking skills necessary for theological discernmentand constructive work, especially in these tumultuoustheological times. Students are often quick to pick upon catchphrases or claims that appeal to them fromcurrent theological debates. But very few can recognizeor spell out their broader implications, and even fewerare able to evaluate competing positions in asophisticated way. Thus, both aspects of my teachingtask Ð the ``catechetical'' and the ``critical/constructive'' Ð are necessary if I am to fulfill myresponsibilities in preparing students for ministries in,and on behalf of, the Church. Practically speaking,however, these two aspects are very difficult to carryout simultaneously. Indeed, they can work against eachother. This is especially true when students assume thecritical/constructive task is done not within thetradition, but simply against it.

In light of my twofold task, let me return to theobservations made above. I want to consider themindividually, specifying certain problems associatedwith each and describing some of my own responses

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Teaching Theology and Religion, ISSN 1368-4868, 1999, vol. 2 no. 3, pp 163^168.

and classroom strategies in dealing with them. Most ofthe techniques I will present are ones I use in my``Introduction to Christian Doctrine'' course (the onetheology class most of our students are likely to take)although I also use them with appropriatemodifications in my upper-level courses.

The Divergence in Basic Academic Skills

That current students diverge greatly in academic skillsis not, of course, a situation unique to seminaries. Onehears it from all levels of higher education. Some of ourstudents matriculate with very strong skills: they arearticulate, they write well, and have a solid foundationin some aspect of theological studies. Yet otherstudents enter with very minimal academic skills. Theyshow deficiencies in logical and critical thinking, inreading skills, and in writing. Why this divergence? Nodoubt there are several contributing factors. I willspeak to two that seem most particular to our context.First, as is becoming increasingly true in manyseminaries, many of our students are seeking a secondor even third career. Many have been out of anacademic setting for several decades, and theiracademic skills have simply atrophied. Second, manycome from occupations that gave them no practicalpreparation for their acculturation into a seminary andecclesiastical context. Indeed, skills valued in theirformer careers may actually work contrary to the skillsthey need to develop for ministry. To cite one example,we recently admitted a student who had just retired asan air traffic controller. He was clearly good at his joband had attained a high degree of responsibility. Yetthe verbal skills required of him were absoluteprecision and brevity of language, as laid down by astrictly standardized set of procedures. It was not thesort of environment that helped him hone the skills ofinterpersonal dialogue, the nuanced distinction, theevocative image, or even complete sentences! Certainly,his is a stark case Ð but it is not that different frommany of our other students.

So how do I address these divergences in academicabilities? I address them in several ways, some of whichare one-time skill building presentations and othersrecurring practices. With regard to reading skills, Iinclude in the first session of my introductory theologycourse a brief lecture on ``How to Read a Book.'' Evenstudents with strong academic backgrounds often findit a useful refresher Ð or a helpful confirmation ofwhat they are already doing. I stress the importance ofreading the table of contents, and then the first and lastparagraphs of each chapter, as a way of getting anoverall sense of the author's argument. I emphasizethat the preface and/or introduction often give a veryaccessible summary of the book, and almost alwaysreveal the author's motivation and agenda. I encourage

them to get in the habit of looking through thefootnotes and bibliography to see which sources theauthor uses and how often, because as they get toknow the theological landscape these sources will be asindicative of the author's basic position as the book'sargument itself. If they keep this up, I urge them, theywill quickly develop the skills necessary for meaningfuland responsible participation in the on-goingtheological conversation.

Another approach I have used to foster betterreading and logic skills is my adoption of requiredtexts that share the same basic genre but come fromdifferent theological perspectives or eras. For example,in my introductory course I have used Augustine'sEnchiridion, Calvin's Instruction in Faith, and Barth'sDogmatics in Outline. Each is a form of catechism orpresentation of the theological basics, and as such,there are certain similarities between them. But thereare also major differences. So when students read allthree in the course of a semester, both the similaritiesand differences stand out in sharp contrast, while therepetition of certain themes helps reinforce them.

An additional exercise I use to foster careful readingand theological discernment is one I have borrowedfrom Karl Barth's classroom technique: several weeksinto the semester, I typically have students select areading assignment for which they will do a precis.When the assignment date comes due, the studentpresents her summary to her classmates, along withseveral key questions that have emerged from thereading. She also acts as the primary discussion leader.Such an exercise pushes students to distill the essentialsof a given reading as well as discern its broaderimplications.

The fourth way I seek to reinforce reading skills andclear thinking combines take-home essay exams within-class ``Roundtable Discussions'' of those examswhen they are due. My experience has taught me thevalue of having students return several times withdifferent motivations to a given text. Students read atone level when they expect only class discussion, theyread at a more intense level when they are writing anexam and they read at an even deeper level when theyare preparing to argue and defend their conclusions toothers who have read the same material. This form ofrepetition really works. And there is nothing moregratifying for me as a teacher than when the studentsthemselves recognize how much more discerning andsophisticated they've become in dealing with thematerial. In a variation on this approach, when Iassign research papers rather than exams, I alsotypically use the ``Roundtable Discussion'' format asa means for students to present their first drafts forinput from their classmates and me.

Finally, I should also briefly mention that theSeminary has one long-standing means of addressing

164 Sherman

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999

this shortcoming in basic academic skill when it is dueto absence of formal schooling. For nearly half acentury, Bangor has had its ``Bangor Plan'' or ``LiberalStudies'' program for students who do not have abaccalaureate degree. This program offers year longundergraduate level courses in history, English,philosophy, Bible, and sociology. (Students takescience and math courses Ð and also receive theirbaccalaureate degrees Ð elsewhere.) These coursesare taught in a way that both undergirds andcomplements the M.Div. curriculum, and they allemphasize writing skills. While other seminariesprobably would not or need not imitate this programin its entirety, they and their students might benefitgreatly from basic courses in philosophy or history orEnglish.

The Divergence in Familiarity with theChristian Faith

During my own years in seminary, I well remembermy professors bemoaning the fact that they could nolonger assume their students had majored in someaspect of theological studies as undergraduates. Timeshave indeed changed! In my own teaching at BTS,only two of my students have been religion majors. Icount myself fortunate if my students have taken acourse or two in religion during their college years.More typical are the students who enter with noacademic background in theology, but only a personalbackground in the Church. They tend to rememberthe lessons of Sunday School and confirmationimperfectly Ð still, they are familiar with the basictenets and ethos of the Church. Yet increasingly, ourincoming students do not even possess this minimalbackground and familiarity. They are not currentlymembers of a denomination or even a local church,and some of them never have been. They arrive atseminary due to personal spiritual curiosity, or anadult conversion experience, or as the next ``logical''step beyond a 12-Step program. This means I canassume no common knowledge of Christian faithwhen I enter the classroom. Yet clearly, all futureministers need such a grounding in the central beliefsof Christian theology, for its own sake and as thebasis on which to ``think theologically'' themselves.(While the thought lies far beyond the scope of mycomments in this article, I cannot help but wonder ifthe M.Div. ought to become a four or five yeardegree.)

So how do I go about creating a common core ofknowledge? I do this by using several different butcomplementary approaches simultaneously for whatis a fundamentally catechetical task. To begin with, Ihave found it very helpful to use the basic outline andcontent of the Church's historic creeds, confessions,

and statements of faith to structure my courses. Whyinvent a new structure when such time-tested ones areavailable? For students who already know these texts,they provide a familiar starting point for deeperexploration. For students not acquainted with thesefoundational documents, they are an unsurpassedmeans for indicating the fundamental continuities ofChristian theology over the millennia as well as itsdenominational, historical, and regional variations.Typically, I hand out copies of the Apostles' andNicene Creeds at the beginning of both myintroductory and mid-level courses, and I then referto them at key junctures throughout the semester. Inote the way the creeds have both reflected andguided the Church's reading of the Bible, the waythey reflect and guide the sequence of the Christianliturgical year, and the way they have shaped texts ofÐ and textbooks about Ð systematic theology. Oncethey recognize these recurring and interrelatedpatterns, they have an easier time understandingand connecting the various pieces of the Christianfaith.

I also employ hymns as a standard part of myintroductory course (and I should probably do so in myupper level courses as well!). As we work our waythrough the basic articles of Christian faith, eachsession I have one or two students bring in a hymnfrom their denominational tradition dealing with thearticle under discussion. The Church has longrecognized the instructional value of hymns, and theyhave the same value in the classroom. To be sure,singing hymns cannot replace the careful reading oftheological texts, but with their evocative and succinctlanguage they often make key theological conceptscome alive in ways academic theology cannot hope toachieve. I should also note the value of standing up andsinging in the middle of a three-hour class session Ð itis a good way to clear the head!

In the future, I also intend to make more consciousand consistent use of current catechetical material. Inan age where literacy in the Christian faith cannot betaken for granted even among church-goers, severalmainline denominations have come to recognize thevalue of catechizing not only their young but adultmembers. Indeed, the Presbyterians have recentlyproduced a very solid, very useful catechism (in threedifferent forms, aimed generally at children,confirmation age, and adult). I can foresee using thiscatechism in my own introductory course, perhaps in atwenty-minute segment of each class period. Such awork session would serve a double purpose: I couldpromote it to my students as a practical exercise inlearning how to catechize members of their futurecongregations. But it would also have the effect ofeducating the students themselves in the basics of theChristian faith.

Great Cloud of Witnesses 165

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999

Few Students Have a Sense of BasicTheological Method

Even students raised in the Church are often unaware ofhow and on what basis Christianity makes itsaffirmations of faith. Many do not recognize Scripture,tradition, reason, and experience as the commonlydistinguished ``sources'' for theology, let alone knowhow the four might interrelate in degrees of authority.Of course, given the lack of basic theological literacy inmany of my students, it is not surprising that they alsolack basic skill in theological reflection. One needs bothvocabulary and grammar to learn a foreign language Ðand the discipline of theology is a foreign language formost of my students. Learning the terms comes moreeasily; learning to use them properly comes harder.Indeed, the commonmistake is for new students to learnthe theological words (don't all seminarians pick up theterm ``eschatological'' during Orientation?), but then touse them in ways idiomatically inappropriate totheology. The problem is complicated by the fact thatstudents soon want to stake out a position forthemselves in today's theological controversies. Thismakes my twofold pedagogical task more difficult.Students often take a position without knowing thetheological history or underpinnings of the debates orwithout understanding the full logic or implications oftheir pro or con position. Because many current debatesfocus on the normative status and value of the traditionitself, introducing novice students to these debates canprejudice the catechetical task. Yet not introducingthem to these debates can mean leaving them at a levelof theological reflection that neglects the critical andconstructive task. Adding to the complexity, even mymore skillful students often take sides in these debatesfor other than theological reasons. That is, whenpressed, students frequently offer psychological orsociological or political explanations of whattheological terms or positions are ``really'' describing,without being aware of the reductionistic nature of suchan approach.

Of course, I am not denying the influence theology'scontext can have on theology's claims. This criticalinsight of modernity (whether voiced by nineteenth-century liberal Protestantism, twentieth-century neo-orthodoxy, or contemporary liberationist/feministtheology) is one I fully accept and attempt to inculcatein my students. Nevertheless, if theology is to remaintrue to its own vocation and Subject, if it wants toremain true to its own heritage and inner logic as adiscipline, it must avoid assuming its claims arenothing more than conscious or unconscious assertionsof some individual or corporate self-interest or need.When theology does engage in self-critique, it isimportant to recognize that such self-examinationand challenge can and should take place primarily

according to theology's own criteria and norms. Suchcritical and constructive work does not weaken butstrengthens theology's links to its heritage. In otherwords, I want my students to strike a responsiblebalance. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur's insights, I hopetheir theological skills will come to display neither asimplistic credulity nor a constant ``hermeneutics ofsuspicion,'' but a nuanced ``second naõÈ vete .''

So how do I seek to foster this balanced andresponsible skill in theological reflection? Again, I useseveral different methods. To begin with, I have a two-page handout entitled ``Questions to Ask a TheologicalText'' that I distribute to all my students. While not allthe questions are pertinent to all theological texts, myhope is that the questions overall will accomplish twobasic goals. On the one hand, I hope they help studentsresist the urge toward theological reductionism; on theother, I hope they help students interpret theologicaltexts with more insight and discernment. To illustrate,let me list a few of the questions included:

1. When was this text written? Is it modern or pre-modern? If modern, in what way do modernassumptions/worldviews shape it? Are thoseperspectives essential or superfluous to its innerlogic? (E.g., does it preclude from the outset appealsto the supernatural?) If pre-modern, in what waysare its age's perspectives apparent in it? Are thoseperspectives essential or superfluous to its innerlogic? (E.g., does it require you to accept a pre-Copernican cosmology?)

2. What is its character? What is its literary genre? Is itdevotional? Is it catechetical? Is it apologetic? Is itpolemical? Is it ``academic''? Other? A combination?

3. What is its ``location''? The ``Church''? If so, whatpart? A community of some sort? The ``academy''?Other? In what way(s) does its location influencethe theology?

4. How does your context affect your reading of thistext? Does that context help or hinder your reading?

5. Do you sense the need to ``translate'' this text andthe issues it addresses to fit your own situation? Ifso, why? If not, why not?

6. Do you sense the need to ``translate'' your ownsituation to fit this text and the issues it addresses? Ifso, why? If not, why not?

7. Finally, how does this text challenge you and/or callyou to account?

Obviously, these few questions are not the only onesthat students should ask a theological text. But myexperience confirms that they serve as a catalystprompting further questions from both individualsand the class as a group.

Another approach I find very helpful involvesdiscussion of the four typically cited sources of

166 Sherman

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999

theology, that is, Scripture, tradition, reason, andexperience (the ``Methodist Quadrilateral''). Again, aseries of Socratic questions serves to open up mattersof which students were unaware. What does atheologian mean when she affirms the authority ofScripture? Is all of Scripture normative in the sameway? Who has the authority to interpret Scripture?Might individuals acting alone do so, or is normativeinterpretation somehow vested in a group? What doesa theologian mean when he appeals to experience? Isit a personal, inner ``feeling'' or the empiricalexperience of a group? What counts as ``tradition''?Formal theological pronouncements alone, or mightsomething such as liturgical custom also be considerednormative? When different sources of theologyapparently conflict, which one ``trumps''? Can asingle source trump one or two other sources, butnot three? As students wrestle with these questions, Itake the opportunity to introduce them to classicarguments from the past staking out one position oranother. For example, I know of no better way toclarify the distinction between Reformed and RomanCatholic scriptural interpretation than to havestudents read passages from John Calvin and thenJohann August MoÈ hler.

The hymn singing I described above is anothermeans I use to help reinforce skill in theologicaldiscernment. After we have sung each hymn, I have thestudents ``exegete'' them. Such exegeses are fruitful inat least two ways. First, even when hymns have aparticular focus, they seldom restrict themselves to onenarrow article of the faith. Rather, they often makeimportant and suggestive connections betweendifferent articles of Christian belief. Second, given thediverse denominational make-up of our student body,the hymns selected often serve to clarify key differencesin theological perspective. For instance, one of the bestways I've found to illustrate the difference betweenhigh and low Christologies is when students sing onehymn from an Episcopalian hymnal and another froma Unitarian hymnal.

One final observation regarding the place of thecritical task in my teaching: this task requires constantself-awareness on my part. As a teacher, I takeseriously my responsibilities to help students movebeyond an unthinking acceptance of any theologicalposition. I want them to be able to give reasonedjustification for whatever position they come to hold.As a theologian, however, I am not above the fray:there are some positions to which I am stronglycommitted and which I will vigorously defend. Allpositions can be criticized, but I believe some are moreopen to criticism than others. I cannot and will notalways be neutral. But I do acknowledge when I amstaking out a controverted position, and try tosummarize as fairly as I can the arguments and issues

involved on each side. Still, I hear Reinhold Niebuhrasking me whether such self-regulation is sufficient.

Acculturation in American ReligiousPrivatism and Individualism

All of the foregoing brings me to the real crux of thematter. As mentioned at the outset, acculturation inAmerican religious privatism and individualism closesoff many students to a critical and systematicexamination of their views. Very few studentsrecognize theology as a discipline of and for theChurch. This acculturation is the biggest challenge Iface as a teacher, and I have no foolproof technique forovercoming it. Indeed, in many respects it is not atechnical problem at all, but one of attitude and ethos.To completely overcome it will require Ð to use amuch overused term Ð a paradigm shift in Americanreligiosity. Thus, my comments will be much brieferthan I would like them to be. To begin with, theproblem as it confronts me in seminary cannot beapproached directly, but requires the slow andmeticulous building of an alternative theological andecclesiological thought-world. Because so manystudents have come to their beliefs privately andexperientially, they can construe the ``catechetical''and/or the ``critical/constructive'' examination ofthose beliefs as a personal affront, even attack.Individuals become their own canon, often arrangingbeliefs in ``systems'' based on nothing more than themilestones of their own life histories. They areunaccustomed to any sort of detached probing of theirbeliefs, unaware that those beliefs may have diversehistoric antecedents and unwilling often to recognizethat their eclectic mix may have internal tensions andincoherencies.

The problem can also be exacerbated uninten-tionally when combined with a school ethos that onemight otherwise find praiseworthy Ð or at leastunconnected to the issue. In our case, incomingstudents learn within a day or two that ``everyone'son a first-name basis.'' This certainly fosterscommunity collegiality, and it is in keeping with theculture of the region. But it also masks the inherent,necessary, and unavoidable vesting of authority in thefaculty and its expertise Ð at least, until that authorityis exercised in some form of critique or evaluation thata student finds objectionable. And insofar as we usethe language of ``adult learners,'' we often seem toimply an equality of evaluative authority that cannotresponsibly exist. I once had a first-year, indeed, first-semester student respond to a bad grade on a paper bysaying she felt it did meet the assignment requirements,so she would not rewrite it. She said, ``You have youropinion, I have mine'' Ð implying that the only reasonmine prevailed was because I just happened to have the

Great Cloud of Witnesses 167

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999

power to assign the grade, rather than because mytheological training and experience gave me anygreater understanding or insight.

In other words, addressing the whole issue can seemlike walking into a minefield, so I approach it in severaldifferent ways. In response to the just-cited example, Ihave sought to use the ethos of the school to theadvantage of my own pedagogical responsibility andtask. For example, I structure classroom discussions insuch a way that evaluations and critiques tend toemerge from the give-and-take of class discussion, andnot solely from me. In this way I prompt the class tomodel a collegially produced theology that I think ismore appropriate to a communal setting. It then is nogreat stretch to suggest that the Church itself is such acommunal setting, and its theological reflectionproperly takes place as a continuing conversation,not an unconnected collection of private musings.

I can also take advantage of the fact that mystudents ' var ious theo log ie s , whi l e o f tenidiosyncratically arranged, are seldom unique. Afterlearning something of their various beliefs, I amfrequently able to suggest where their views mighthave roots in various traditions. Once that connectionis made, I can shift the discussion from a personal to amore historical framework. Students are often eager tolearn more about their (often unknown) theologicalroots and they are far less defensive when thelimitations or inconsistencies of a particular view arediscussed in this way.

Of course, numerous texts are available addressingprecisely this problem of privatism, and I incorporatethem into my assigned readings as appropriate.Authors such as Alisdair MacIntyre, Jonathan Wilson,Ellen Charry, Stanley Hauerwas, and WilliamWillimon are all, in their own different ways, tryingto counter the excessive individualism of theology andreclaim it as an ecclesiological enterprise.

To conclude, I want my students to realize that,properly understood, theology is neither a personal,idiosyncratic matter nor a detached, intellectual exercise.Put another way, I want them to recognize theiraccountability. To whom or what are our theologicalendeavors answerable? Not the canons of individualpiety or our ideological commitments or even ``theacademy'' Ð at least not in any ultimate sense. Theologyis an endeavor of the Church, and thus it is answerablefinally to the One who calls the Church into being andservice. I know that the nature of theology andtheological education is the topic of much recentdiscussion, and I know that not everyone agrees withthe view I represent. Still, it is a conviction I amcompelled, willing, and able to defend, and it is the one Ipresent to my students. As I tell them, the Christian faithis not something we invent, it is something we inherit.To be sure, each age must give voice to that faith in away that is appropriate and responsible. There is alwaysconstructive work to be done. But that voice is not asoliloquy; it is rather one voice among the great cloud ofwitnesses. It may have its own notes to sing, but itshould also strive for harmony with the chorus behind it.

168 Sherman

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999