A year ago, during my student teaching semester, I was also
completing the second of my two senior seminar requirements (I had completed
the music seminar in the fall of my senior year; the spring was given to the
education seminar). Our major piece of assigned reading was James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2010).
This book was easily the best assigned reading I had in my
entire undergraduate curriculum – and I read plenty of insightful, thought
provoking, challenging articles and books while at Wheaton. I will quote from
the preface to summarize Hunter’s objective for the book:
The questions that animate this book are both broadly academic and deeply personal. The basic academic question is simply, how is religious faith possible in the late modern world? … The more personal question is a variant of the academic one; simply, how do believers live out their faith under the conditions of the late modern world? (Hunter ix)
These two questions (or two variants on the same question,
if you prefer) were very important to me in the final months of my
undergraduate studies and remain so a year later. I began reading the book with
eager anticipation when it was first assigned, and just a few weeks ago turned
back to it with the view of applying Hunter’s answers to my current context,
public education. Let me first briefly outline Hunter’s answers, and then I
will proceed to my main task.
Synopsis of To Change the World
The book is in three parts, which Hunter calls essays. The
first essay, “Christianity and World Changing,” is a comprehensive discussion
of the nature and evolution of culture (Hunter is LaBrosse-Levinson
Distringuished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the
University of Virginia, so I’m inclined to trust his thoughts on the subject).
The core of his thesis in Essay I is that cultures change via their most
powerful and influential institutions, not through individuals persuading
individuals in a grassroots fashion. Hunter concludes Essay I by demonstrating
that American Christians are largely absent from our nation’s most powerful and
influential institutions (e.g., law schools, university presses), hence our
collective influence on culture is negligible.
Essay II, “Rethinking Power,” examines the major ways people
of faith have sought to influence American culture through the political system
– literally, through the use of power. The three main paradigms of cultural
interaction, which each align with a different political ideology, are
“defensive against,” “relevance to,” and “purity from.” Hunter elaborates at
length on underlying theology, the prominent actions, and the shortcomings of
each. He concludes Essay II by demonstrating that a purely political approach
to cultural change is wholly ineffective – indeed, it is ironic and tragic in
its effects – and suggesting that American Christians rethink how to use their
power. There are two steps to doing this: first, American Christians must find
their own identity separate from American society in general, and second,
separate the public from the political.
In Essay III, “Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a
Theology of Faithful Presence,” Hunter elaborates on his proposal for a more
effective paradigm of cultural engagement: “faithful presence within.” A few
quotations from the text will explain:
[F]aithful presence is a theology of commitment and promise. The commitment is “covenantal.” It is a binding obligation manifested in the relationships we have, in the work we do, and in the social worlds we inhabit, and it is all oriented toward the flourishing of the world around us. (Hunter 261)
In all, the practice of faithful presence generates
relationships and institutions that are covenantal. These create space that
foster meaning, purpose, and belonging and by doing so, these relationships and
institutions resist an instrumentalization endemic to the modern world that
tends to reduce the value of people and the worth of creation to mere utility…
such commitment cannot be justified on economic or political grounds for it
cannot measure up to contemporary standards… Yet to provide for the physical,
aesthetic, intellectual, and social health of the community is a good in its
own right and it is part and parcel of the covenant that believers have with
the people that God has placed in their lives and the social and physical world
in which God has placed them. (Hunter 266)
If you are interested in a more expansive synopsis, I have
linked the author’s name and book title in the first paragraph to Hunter’s
website, where you can read summaries of each chapter within each essay.
The Faithfully Present Teacher
Now to my main task: how a public school educator can
exhibit faithful presence within his or her professional sphere of influence.
Hunter briefly notes how faithful presence would look in academia in general:
[T]he challenge begins by creating resources and space for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding that are protected from the enormous pressure of partisan politics…and commercial interest… This creates a context in which genuine inquiry is possible and thus truths about the world we live in are possible. (Hunter 265-66)
From the above, I derive my first application: in the
classroom, the teacher must guide his or her students in the pursuit of
knowledge, rather than just information, and understanding, rather than
memorization. Put another way, it is the teacher’s burden to show the students
that the information in a given content area is valuable because it helps us
make sense of and flourish in an often forbidding and confusing world – yet one
in which we all have to live. This objective will in turn give meaning and
purpose to the learning process, which may have the useful side effect of
protecting the teachers themselves from the far too frequent condition of
“burning out.”
A second application is in the teacher-student relationship.
Hunter also gives brief mention to how faithful presence might manifest itself
in the business-customer relationship, and I think some of those principles are
applicable here. Hunter writes, “customers have a greater intrinsic value than
their tangible contribution as economic actors” (Hunter 265). Students, then,
are more than just a teacher’s “customers.” They come to us, vulnerable and
impressionable, and educators have a mandate to treat them with utmost respect
and invest all appropriate energy and resources into their development.
Educators need to demonstrate that youth and lack of grand accomplishments are
irrelevant – students have just as much dignity and worth as adults. As many
have said, teaching cannot and should not be just “a job,” but rather a solemn
trust.
I firmly believe, also, that students’ parents are more than
just “customers.” A more accurate description would be “constituent” and a
still more accurate description would be “partner.” A good educator should not
only build relationships with his or her students but with the students’
parents.
Third, I believe there is an application for the
relationship with fellow teachers, as well as the school’s other personnel. A
teacher should firstly seek to build positive, edifying relationships with the
other faculty in his or her department. And I do not mean just communicating
about matters of curriculum or classroom materials. Teachers should ask after
their colleagues’ health, families, and weekend activities – and demonstrate
that they care about the answers to those inquiries.
After one’s own department, the next step is to build
relationships with faculty in other departments. The school where I work is
structured in academic departments, yet we have a culture of interdepartmental
collegiality that I really enjoy. And then there are the administrators and support
staff – and again, interactions should not just be limited to communicating
technical information. A teacher should take the time while returning from the
mail room to say hello to the secretary, greet the custodians on the way into
the building in the morning, and wish the principal a good night on the way out
in the evening. In all, the goal is to build a community amongst one’s colleagues.
A Work in Progress
My three applications are by know means exhaustive, and in
fact, I hope to add to them as my career progresses. I would be curious for the
thoughts of my readers who are themselves educators – particularly those who
have read Hunter’s book, or who have the time to read the chapter summaries
(though I do highly recommend the book!). Of course, I encourage readers in
other professions to think through how Hunter’s paradigm of “faithful presence
within” might apply in those spheres, and your thoughts are also welcome.
Please comment below.
This is Rubio, over and out.
