| The "Truths" About Education |
|
|
by Jennifer Kleinsasser
In the last few weeks, I have spent some time almost every day mulling over my years at university. What had I learned in university that was still important to me today? What truths had I come to understand that I would not want to be without-- truths that define who I am as a person?
After contemplating these questions, two powerful ideas still resonate. Both are ideas that have become a vital part of who I am, and how and what I teach. And although the two are not obviously connected, for me they have become inextricably intertwined, occurring simultaneously.
The first idea: The mind must be in disequilibrium for real learning to occur. Disequilibrium: a state of instability or imbalance. And yet, how deeply we dislike and fear the state of confusion and unresolved feelings! Especially when it comes to those values or beliefs that we hold most sacred, how fearful we are of anything that threatens to bend or, heaven forbid, shatter them. In fact, we often refuse to discuss, consider, or even listen to anything or anyone that disagrees with these 'sacred beliefs'.
The reluctance for discussion stems from the fear that we could be swayed from our original position because we fear that moving from that original position would be a sin.
Yet, how deeply do we really believe any of our beliefs if we aren't even comfortable with the slightest whisper of dissent from others?
It is essentially our sacred beliefs that make and define who we are, and shouldn't we be constantly growing beings? Growing in our humanity, growing in our faith? As the old saying goes: if we are not moving ahead, we are actually slipping backwards.
These days, whenever I sense reluctance, either in others, or myself to discuss a certain issue, I no longer feel it is an issue that should never be discussed. To me, reluctance for discussion has now begun to indicate a weak position, not a strong one! Critical questioning cannot weaken real truth. Real truth perseveres as "gold through fire".
This was clearly one of the most powerful ideas I encountered in university. It would be simplistic to say that I learned this only because of, or even mostly during, my post-secondary education. In reality, my understanding of this truth was assisted by many years of discussion with friends, family, peers, and mentors. But, it was during my university education that I was first exposed to this idea, during a class discussion on how learning occurs with one of our professors. University was the last cog in the wheel to complete my understanding of this truth.
Which brings me to the second important truth that was cemented for me during my secondary education: Much learning occurs through social interaction. Or should I say, learning occurs only through social interaction! And here is where disequilibrium often occurs and why it is so connected with this second truth. It is only when we truly interact with others that we hear various opinions from friends, peers, mentors, teachers, or perhaps from people that we meet only in books. These opinions are often decidedly different from our own, and they can make us very uncomfortable. My peer believes that!?
Other people's different views force us to seriously consider where we stand on certain issues. And if we're not really sure, others' dissenting views have a way of forcing us to clarity in terms of our own views! We decide whether we agree or disagree with others' views, and whether we wish to enter into a discussion with another to come to a better understanding of each other.
If we do wish to enter into a dialogue, we always need to organize our thoughts, and our spoken or written words so that the other(s) might understand our particular point of view. We all know that those people who manage to present their particular viewpoint with the most clarity often convince others of their particular opinions.
However, learning from social interaction is almost impossible if one's personal beliefs or opinions are seen as fixed objects, or "sacred truths". There is no room for growth if one's own particular ideas or opinions are cast in stone.
As a Hutterite, the religion/culture I have always felt closest to has been the Native tradition. I remember a class discussion at university concerning Native traditions, culture, and religion. When class was over, I shared my feelings with an acquaintance, saying, "If I wasn't a Hutterite, my religion and culture of choice would be the Native way of life. So much of their culture so beautifully follows the wisdom of Christ."
She looked at me soberly, and replied, "But, there's still something missing."
I pressed on, "Don't you agree that much of their culture reflects Christianity so much better than our own, which is said to be based solely on Christ? One example is their relationship with and respect for nature."
"But, there's still something missing."
I gave up, but long after, the conversation nagged at me in my thoughts. What exactly was it about her opinion that grated on my nerves? And, was there anything I could have said to her that might have challenged her thinking?
Eventually, I understood what it was about her attitude that I found absolutely irritating: her conviction that she was the sole possessor of truth. Her repeated, "But, there's still something missing," was merely a pretty way of saying, "I have a sacred truth, a fixed object, an opinion that the Natives don't, and they need it. I don't need anything from them."
Frankly, it made me furious! And yet... sad. I wished I could return to the conversation and say to her, quite simply, "Yes, I know you want to share Jesus with that person. But perhaps, if you looked and listened a little more closely, you might see Jesus talking to you through that Native person, through that Native culture. Is that so far-fetched? Is there never a time when you can learn from others?"
Probably she would not have understood me. Though she shared my Hutterian background, she was more of a religious fundamentalist, more evangelical than I was, and most importantly, convinced that her values were founded in absolute truth. She, a Christian, learning from someone she considered a non-Christian?—a far stretch! She would have been much more comfortable "saving" him.
Another memory. A fellew BUHEPer, reduced to tears by the stress of all the new knowledge she was encountering at university. Lectures about evolution, facts about continents fitting together, talk of millions of years, of fossils found in Arctic regions from flora and fauna of tropical climates -- all terribly uncomfortable stuff for someone raised solely on the Biblical story of creation in Genesis!
She confessed to a minister and to her peers that at one point, she had started believing these facts, and questioning the existence of God. Finally, in an effort to preserve her sanity and her faith, she completely rejected the theory of evolution and embraced scientific creationism.
Creationism allowed her to cling to one of her "sacred" beliefs: God created the world. For her to believe any part of the theory of evolution was a sin. She felt she was questioning God, for evolution made no mention of Genesis whatsoever, or God for that matter. How could one possibly believe in evolution and in God?
Easily! Might evolution not be God's tool? There was a Big Bang? What Power might have initiated it? Yes, God created the world, but Genesis is rather short on detail. The theory of evolution simply attempts to fill in some of the details, albeit imperfectly, as our knowledge of the world is still imperfect. Could we possibly come from monkeys? Sounds far-fetched to me, can't believe it myself, but I certainly would never poke fun at it, as the creationists do. Why? Because I don't presume to know the mind of God.
The theory of evolution is one that cannot be absolutely proven. This holds true for creationism, as well. However, evolution sticks to facts or at least, suppositions based on facts. Creationism, on the other hand, presumes to know the mind of God. And this is where my mind balks.
People who try to persuade others of creationism are not working purely with scientific knowledge. They use science, yes, but only to the extent that it jives with their particular ideas of God. Creationists don't think twice before negating a certain evolutionary principle based solely on: "God doesn't operate like that", or, "God doesn't think like that".
Humans cannot know the mind of God. We certainly do not know the tiny details of how He formed the world! Certainly we can take the account of Genesis and say we believe it, but we cannot sieve one scientific fact from another based on our concept of "how God works"! I much prefer saying "I don't know" rather than accepting or rejecting scientific facts based on my knowledge of "how God works".
God is partly a God of mystery, a God who has sometimes answered humanity's questions with, "Oh, I don't think you need to know that." So, I am perfectly comfortable with admitting that creation is partly mystery to me.
It wasn't long ago that people made it an issue of faith whether the world was round or flat, whether the earth moved around the sun or vice versa, and whether the earth was a fixed object or moving through space. These days we would have great difficulty seeing the above as issues of faith. None of us would condemn a man's faith or beliefs because he believed in any or none of the above, though we might have decided opinions concerning his scientific background, or lack of it!
Perhaps in a hundred or a thousand years, evolution and creationism will also be regarded as scientific principles that are rather far removed from issues of faith.
I make no case for evolution or creationism; whichever God chose (if He chose either!) is irrelevant. In fact, to me the entire debate is right up there with the debate as to whether God's eyes happen to be blue or green.
I chose this issue merely because it happens to be a hot-button topic among some Hutterites at the moment, and because I wish to make a certain point with it. To the BUHEP student who dealt with evolution in the simplest way possible, by denouncing it altogether, know this: a much more important principle than the issue of evolution versus creationism is at stake here.
In order for a human being to grow, either in humanity or in faith, there needs to be certain flexibility in one's thinking. How does one grow in faith if one's ideas are fixed and absolutely non-negotiable?
If a person insists on going through university discarding all ideas that do not immediately jive with his or her own limited knowledge of God and His great world, then s/he will learn very little, if anything during the time spent in post-secondary education.
For this is what university is all about: difficult, painful thinking and discussion, discarding of simplistic thinking, a shaking up of all one holds dear. It involves learning to respect others' opinions, even when they differ from yours, and definitely, learning from others.
Any ideas or beliefs worth the believing can take critical questioning. If they cannot, then they are not your ideas. You have merely borrowed from others because of laziness. Your ideas are yours when you have fought with them, opposed them, and yet they withstood you!
So don't be afraid of disequilibrium, of confusion, of mixed emotions, of turmoil, of questions, nor of people with different opinions that challenge you. Know disequilibrium and social interaction for what they are -- a learning and growing opportunity.
Healthy debate has long been valued as a vital and necessary part of democracy. But, sometimes we forget that healthy, vigorous debate also builds smaller communities, such as Hutterian communities. Painful debate about controversial issues is part of our historical and spiritual heritage, as our Chronicle records. It was a vital part of the birth of community of goods among Moravia's Anabaptists of the early 16th century (1528).
Sending young people to university is still fairly new to the Hutterites of North America. Elders are painfully aware of the risks of pursuing a post-secondary education. They wonder: will a university education strengthen the Hutterian way of life, or will it assist in the assimilation of Hutteries into main-stream society? If we remain true to our heritage by valuing healthy debate and differing opinions, it will follow that a university education will serve only to strengthen our unique way of life.