Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 45.5 - 16 May 2011

Listening to the Voices of Dissent

A proposal for a change to the curriculum for Mentored Ministries

by Micah Schuurman

Introduction

The current curriculum of Calvin Theological Seminary runs the danger of unintentionally teaching students to fear points of view differing from their own. For example, I am quite certain that CTS is one of the safest places in the world for a thoughtful Christian to enter into conversation with a thoughtful atheist. A rigorously intellectual, Biblically based Christian community such as ours is the perfect place for students to engage differing beliefs. Yet, we do not have these kinds of dialogs happening. Even those professors who work very hard to bring in outside opinions in the forms of course readings are limited in their ability to do justice to the opinions expressed there.

What are students learning about differing opinions by the way in which the seminary teaches those differing opinions?

Proposal

For this reason, I propose that the institutional seminary add to its curriculum the practice of bringing in outside voices for the sake of public dialog.

Goal

Students will learn how to think and talk about points of view that differ from their own.

Objectives

Cognitive

Students will better understand the beliefs held by others.
Students will better understand their own beliefs.

Affective

Students will experience less anxiety concerning their own beliefs.
Students will come to value more highly the process of theological reflection.

Behavioral

Students will seek out opportunities to be challenged to think critically about their faith.

A Vision

Suppose that the seminary were to bring in a scholar for the purposes of dialog. The scholar would be a guest lecturer at various classes for a day or two. Then, on the last day, the seminary would cancel all classes and require that all students and faculty attend a series of lectures given by the visiting scholar and by various Calvin Seminary Professors in response to the scholar.

Scenario #1

Suppose that the visiting scholar is a Jesuit. Dr. Muller could talk with him about the positive and negative results of the Reformation. Likewise, Dr. Feenstra and Dr. Bierma could reflect on ecumenical issues that both encourage and restrict Catholic/Protestant relations. The Missions Professor could talk about issues relating to missions and approach ecumenism from that point of view.

Scenario #2

Suppose that the visiting scholar is a firm believer that a person can be a Christian and a practicing homosexual. Dr. Nydam, Dr. Van Reken and Dr. Cooper could all enter into dialog with this scholar.

Scenario #3

Suppose that the visiting scholar is deeply compelled by reader-response literary criticism. The entire Biblical Studies department could discuss the merits and drawbacks of different approaches to the Bible.

Scenario #4

Suppose the visiting scholar is a committed atheist. Dr. Cooper could engage in dialog with the person. The seminary could even invite Dr. Alvin Plantinga or a faculty person from the Philosophy department of Calvin College to participate as well.

Students would watch as their professors model calm, thoughtful dialog. At the end, students themselves could pose questions to any of the speakers or to the group in general.

Practical issues

Logistics

The most feasible way of integrating it into the current curriculum would be to require that students write a theological reflection on the experience and process it with their mentoring groups. This would allow the students to debrief from the experience in a safe, constructive setting. If students felt the need to continue discussing these issues, they could take up the matters one-on-one with their mentors or with one of the professors involved in the discussion.

Professors know their own fields best and could submit recommendations for specific scholars who would make for good partners in dialog.

Many students have commitments outside of their class schedules. Some might not be able to attend these events. After getting permission from their mentor, they could skip the event and instead watch it online afterwards.

Limits

What limits should we put on the sorts of issues with which we engage?

The governing principle here is that the seminary should always seek to decrease anxiety among students. The immediate experience of witnessing the dialog may temporarily increase the anxiety and doubt of the students. However, the time of debriefing and processing the anxiety and doubt should generally leave the student with a greater sense of calmness and peace concerning his or her beliefs.

The seminary should never seek to increase anxiety among students. If the seminary treats certain issues as though they are too dangerous, that message will make its way to the students. Students may indeed learn to nuance their views of the issues raised. But, the ultimate goal of this whole process is to show students that their faith can stand strong in the context of theological disagreement.

Concerns

Events like this will be very demanding of both the visiting scholar and the professors who enter into dialog with the scholar. The entire process works only if it remains a calm discussion rather than a heated debate.

This is a real danger. But, it should not dissuade us from attempting dialog like this.

Conclusion

What do we have to fear from dialogue? In the worst possible scenario, a particular case made by a visiting scholar will cause a couple of students to experience a crisis of faith and drop out of seminary. As bad as that might be, it is not as bad as teaching students to fear that they themselves might be that very student who might drop out after a crisis of faith. The seminary runs the danger of teaching its students to fear that they might be wrong.

For that reason, I propose that the seminary immediately take steps to implement a change to the curriculum that would incorporate thoughtful engagement with dissenting voices.