Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 41.3 - 13 October 2006

Service Learning reconsidered

by Sean M. Baker, Guest Writer

In his article "Right Idea, Wrong Execution" (Kerux Oct. 6), Kevin C. Vande Streek examines Calvin Theological Seminary's training for service in general and its Service Learning Day in particular and finds them lacking. Vande Streek's article reflects some valid concerns, but also replays some of the same confused messages about service and service learning that the seminary community had been responding to in anticipation of this day. I write this article to continue the dialogue which Vande Streek raised and to clear up some muddy water.

To begin with, service and service learning are, in fact, different though mutually beneficial concepts. "Service learning," which is an academic pedagogy, program, and philosophy, aptly compliments service, which is a spiritual discipline. Service learning events often provide learning experiences, which a classroom is poorly equipped to recreate. Engaging with an unfamiliar culture, new people, and a strange environment sets the stage for the servant to reflect thoughtfully on his or her experience. Most classrooms fail to produce the same fertile discomfort that service learning can provoke. For learning purposes, service learning provides a controlled environment that helps condition students to approach their life-long service more critically and with greater humility.

According to a description of service on the CTS website, in service learning "we live out the upside down, 'last shall be first' nature of God’s kingdom in which servers are served and teachers become learners." The lessons of service learning are reinforced, not hampered, by lengthy chapel services, uncomfortable references to systemic racism and prejudice, long bus rides, and relatively short periods of service. Part of the privilege of service learning is being frustrated in our limited interactions, in our apparent distance from the people and the problems we had presumed to fix when we first arrived at Mel Trotter, Safe Haven or Roosevelt Park. In our frustration, we often learn more than we would have had our experience unfolded smoothly according to our expectations. And in turn, we may become better able to serve.

Though more Service Learning Days could accomplish more of this learning, we ought not think that merely adding more service is the answer to CTS's practical curriculum shortcomings. Service Learning Day was not a failure because it only provided "three hours of service." Rather, it may have been a failure if some people concluded that the only important parts of the day were those "three hours of service." This conclusion may reflect a confusion of expectations.

The academic service learning, with its lengthy bus commutes and constant reflection, ought to undermine and defy some of service's dangerous tendencies toward paternalism. Service learning is not service as usual; although it does not displace the spiritual discipline of service, services learning rightly flips our prejudiced dispositions on their head and then informs our future acts of service.

Cornelius Plantinga Jr., president and Charles W. Colson professor of theology at CTS, captures the nuance of service learning well in his book Engaging God's World. Plantinga writes, "As children, we're taught that it's rude to expect something in return for something we've given. Could it be that service learning is a delightful exception? It seems so, since we take up our role as a servant fully expecting to learn something from those we serve." When we approach service with the heart and attitude of a learner, we demonstrate more clearly our respect and love for those we serve. Moreover, by encouraging those we serve to become our teachers, we reinforce our mutual dependence. When we appropriately affirm our powerlessness and distance from the situation, we acknowledge our participation in a work of God that was begun long before we arrived on the scene.

In sum, service learning at CTS is something academic that helps to mold our minds for critical engagement and thinking. Furthermore, it informs and encourages the spiritual discipline of service with a newfound eagerness and humility to learn. Of course, were we to increase our engagement with service learning in the curriculum, perhaps we at CTS would be able to see the city of Grand Rapids less as a problem-pocked place to fix and more as an untapped and unique classroom with lay professors everywhere. From there, who knows how our attitudes toward worship, theology, geography and service might change?

We certainly don't have all the answers; we are frustrated by our limited ability to affect change. Nevertheless, our call to serve isn't going anywhere. We should serve well and never stop learning.