Is it time for a survey of the language of Presbyterian Christian Education?
I appreciate the conversation begun by Ben Sparks and pursued by Marge Shaw about the need to rediscover Christian education in our churches. It is not the first time in recent years that someone has asked, “Where has our denomination’s historic emphasis on Christian education gone?”
As I look and listen for signs of a vital commitment to Christian education in our churches and the larger church, I am engaging in some interesting conversations. People in our churches and in the church are excited about a number of initiatives that sound a lot like Christian education to me, but when I ask about the difference, I am assured that they are talking about “more than Christian education.” So what is going on here? What may be going on is that rather than losing our commitment to Christian education, we are now talking about it in different ways.
A language shift
A subtle shift in the language of Christian education is happening in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a shift that may have a significant impact on the future of the church. I propose that this shift is occurring despite the recent addition of the Certified Christian Educator to the Book of Order. Christian educators are now in the Book of Order, but evidence of a shift away from the language of Christian educators and Christian education can be detected throughout our denomination, in its governing bodies and its seminaries.
In February 2004 the General Assembly Council of the PC(USA) shifted language when it adopted four new mission priorities for the future. These new priorities are: 1) evangelism and witness, 2) justice and compassion, 3) spirituality and discipleship, and 4) leadership and vocation. The words “Christian education” do not appear within the denomination’s mission priorities as we move into the 21st century.
Currently, the General Assembly Council is working to restructure the staff in Louisville to better address these stated mission priorities. At least one of the restructuring proposals would eliminate the words “Christian education” from the title of any office or person in Louisville. At one point in history our precursor denominations had boards of Christian education that occupied whole buildings. More recently, the reunited PC (USA) has had an Office of Christian Education and Leader Development within the Congregational Ministries Division. Now there are proposals on the table that would maintain much of the work of what was traditionally known as Christian education, but that work would be done under different names and in new program areas.
Shifting language can also be detected at the presbytery level. A study of presbytery staffing models in the Synod of the South Atlantic, a historically strong region for Christian education, reveals some fascinating changes over the past ten years. Of 16 presbyteries in the Synod, currently only six presbyteries have the words “education” or “Christian education” in the title of a presbytery associate. Other titles that indicate the staff associate may have responsibilities in the area traditionally known as Christian education include language such as “nurture,” “leadership development,” congregational support,” and “program development.” Three of the 16 presbyteries have no discernible associate dedicated to the support of Christian education in congregations or the presbytery. Does that mean the work is not being done? Maybe it is not. However, I think the more likely explanation is that much of the work is being done, but it is being called something else. The language of Christian education is shifting.
Another possible shift in language may be occurring at our seminaries. Though most of our seminaries have faculty positions in Christian education, most of these professors are writing about particular specialties and not the overall field of Christian education. Recent faculty publications have included works on children and grief, youth and young adult ministries, nurturing the spiritual life, and practices of the Christian faith.
A notable exception is Princeton’s Richard Osmer who wrote about Christian education as practical theology in his mid-1990’s book A Teachable Spirit. Historically, Presbyterian seminary professors such as Sara Little and C. Ellis Nelson were ecumenical leaders in the field and regularly wrote about Christian education, challenging the church and its leaders as well as making proposals for the future. Today’s professors have much of the same zeal, but tend to work in specialty areas within the larger field of Christian education theory and practice.
Emerging language
So where am I hearing excited conversations and vital commitment to new initiatives? Where may the emerging language of Christian education be heard? Listen for conversations about the following: 1) spiritual formation, 2) catechesis, 3) Christian practices, and 4) discipleship.
Spiritual formation is named in the new mission initiatives and structures of the denomination. Catechesis is behind the recent production of new catechisms for the denomination and some initial conversations about forming a “new Catechumenate” appropriate for Presbyterians. Christian practices are the subject of many new books and are currently a major topic at regional and national educational events. Discipleship is also named in the new mission initiatives of the denomination, and is a congregational emphasis in many of our more evangelical churches. These conversations have many similarities to talk about Christian education, but may lead to entirely new ways of talking about, and more importantly doing, what has traditionally been known as Christian education.
Does language make that much difference?
The language we use, or how we talk about something, makes a difference. Language provides the context within which conversations happen. How the church talks about Christian education shapes what is done in the name of Christian education, or whatever you want to call it.
Language also takes on meaning only as it is shared and agreed upon. Shifting language about Christian education may affect whether or not the church understands what educators are doing and it may also affect the church’s commitment to its educational mission. Therefore, our shifting language may be negatively affecting the church’s commitment to Christian education, or whatever you want to call it.
Finally, language has power. According to theologian and educator Letty Russell, “the power of naming is that of claiming and changing reality.” In other words, whoever claims the new language of Christian education will have an enormous impact on the future of educational ministry. And whatever language is used to describe Christian education in the future will change the reality of the church’s educational mission. The time has come to take an educational language survey in the PC(USA). Interested church leaders from the governing bodies of the church, the seminaries, and local congregations need to come together and discuss what may be lost, or even gained, by a potential shift in language. For example, without the language of Christian education it may be impossible to promote Ben Sparks’ “SOLs of the Soul.” However, with the language of Christian practices it may be possible to bring new life and vitality to the practice of intergenerational Bible study in the home. Wherever it leads, trained and experienced Christian educators have much to offer this discussion. Their voices need to be invited to and heard “around the tables of decision and power.”
DR. GRACE C. YEUELL is Associate Professor of Christian Education at Presbyterian College, Clinton, S.C. A more in-depth version of this article will appear in the November issue of APCE Advocate.
