with an empty agora, including both the emptying out of the internal communities of learning and the external silencing of the voice of the university in the public sphere. The third are the infernos of the commercialization of education. The fourth, and perhaps the most felt of these critiques, is the phenomenon of educational anxiety that comes from the pressures to stay ahead, the short life span of knowledge, the compulsory nature of freedom, the constancy of motion, the isolation of the present, the information overload, the indeterminacy of happiness and the hurriedness of culture’ (Oxenham, 2013: 146). Whatever the redemptive features are of what is next in higher education, even the mention of these infernos overshadows the future with uncertainty and concern.
Where does this leave theological education? As we consider what is next in higher education it is clear that we find ourselves in a rather daunting context for theological education. Just as Daniel found himself in a cultural captivity, so theological education is challenged by the context of these changes. Several of these changes are in tension with theological education. Take the first point above on the dismantling of previous learning and the distrust in accumulated knowledge. This is in stark contrast with theological education that values tradition, studies a historical text and glories in its libraries. Theological education values the authority of teacher, the hermeneutic of the text and the weight of tradition for theological reasons. Our theological lens leads us, yes to consider our students in their imago dei and thus legitimately owning their education, but we also consider them in their fallen nature and needy of the scaffolding of truth, virtue, admonition and instruction. Consider the second point endorsing light, portable and useful knowledge. This is also troubling, for while
theological education aims at relevance and ministry preparation it also pursues amor sciendi and the knowledge of God as an end to itself and not only as an end to produce useful outcomes. We likewise challenge the demise of culture, reason and structure, for we are theologically convinced that the truth will set individuals, nations and cultures free. We are convinced that reason is not a simple language game that foregoes any attempt to frame metanarratives, but a God-given and God-redeemed capacity whereby we can know, albeit through a glass darkly and only as far as the periphery of mystery. And yes, we still do hold on to structure to a degree. Not because we are followers of Aristotle or heirs of modernity, but because we believe in a God who in addition to being ‘other’, un-tame and unpredictably creative is also a God of order, unity and progress. And yes, we also struggle to consider theological education in the service of the market. The temptation to transform learning communities of disciples into well lubricated businesses that produce a healthy profit and to grow according to carefully designed plans must be guarded against. We should beware lest we treat those who should have come to nourish their souls, submit to discipleship and develop their character, mainly as customers that need to be served and kept happy. So as theological educators we struggle like Daniel. We accept that there is an appropriate level of conformity and contextualization and we are ready to applaud change. But we also stand for diversity, for a dynamic tension and critical dialogue with the cultural bends of education and for the necessity at times to refuse dainties and to dream dreams that no one else is dreaming. Marvin Oxenham PHD, Theology and Education Course Leader and Lecturer in Philosophy, Education and Applied Theology
“The temptation to transform learning communities of disciples into well lubricated businesses that produce a healthy profit and to grow according to carefully designed plans must be guarded against. ” Reference: Oxenham, M., Higher Education in Liquid Modernity, New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2013. LST INSIGHT -the where next issue
39