Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundations of Christian thought and practice: a model for replacing Old and New Testament surveys with an innovative approach to teaching religion in 21st century colleges and universities

  • Published:
Journal of Religious Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“Modernity inevitably produces a decline of religion.”

Peter Berger, 1968

“The rest of the world is massively religious. In some areas of the world, more religious than ever. The theory is wrong.”

Peter Berger, 2013

Abstract

Institutions of faith can no longer assume students of faith, and institutions of faith can no longer assume that a survey of the Old and New Testaments in today’s college curriculum will provide the necessary elements to develop, sustain, and nurture biblical literacy in students. Nor can it be assumed that this antiquated model will equip today’s students with a framework or worldview that values the relevance of religious and biblical studies. This new course (Foundations model) we propose would not attempt to compete with the content coverage of the Old and New Testament survey courses, but rather we would introduce a new concept of teaching religion, which would be thematically-based and require students to learn to articulate a Christian worldview in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. This Christian worldview would be developed throughout the course and based on assumptions, themes, and ways of thinking (issues of hermeneutics) introduced throughout the course. A descriptive recounting of the Foundations model will provide an example of what it means, or rather looks like, to effect religious education and spiritual development in the lives of students at a Christian liberal arts college or university. The Foundations model incorporates six key elements which are as follows: 1. Thematic Organization (not book-by-book survey content) 2. Specialized Workbook Focused on Themes for the Course 3. Weekly Critiques 4. The Final Worldview Paper 5. Integration of the Latest Technology 6. The Role of the Instructor and Peer Mentors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.king.edu/about/about-home.aspx.

  2. Binder, “Bryan College is Torn: Can Darwin and Eden Coexist?” New York Times (2014): https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/education/christian-college-faces-uproar-after-bolstering-its-view-on-evolution.html and Kevin Hardy, “Firing back at Bryan College: Two ex-professors sue college as new problems emerge,” Times Free Press (2014): https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2014/may/15/firing-back-atbryantwo-ex-professors-sue-college/140279/.

  3. Funk, “Christian college requires teachers sign pledge opposing same-sex marriage, abortion,” Charlotte Observer (2017): https://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article147369024.html and Bradley, “Students and staff leave Montreat College over ‘covenant” given to staff,” News 13 WLOS (2017): https://wlos.com/news/local/students-staff-to-leave-montreat-college-after-refusing-to-sign-covenant.

  4. Smith (2013) “The Introductory Course: Less is Better,” 12 (emphasis Smith). Smith further states, “An introductory course is concerned primarily with developing the students’ capacities for reading, writing, and speaking—put another way, for interpreting and arguing.” (Smith 2013: 14, emphasis Smith). The antiquated manner of teaching biblical literacy (Old and New Testament surveys), in the end, fails to invite students to do exactly what Smith is calling for and fails to teaching thinking in the liberal arts “way.”.

  5. Smith (2013: p. 17) again: “Each of my introductory courses is organized around the notion of argument and the insistence that the building blocks of argument remain constant: definitions, data, classifications, and explanations.”

  6. Jonathan Z. Smith, On Teaching Religion. (Chicago: Chicago University Press Smith 2013).

  7. Barna Group (2013) 5 reasons millennials stay connected to church. Available at: https://www.barna.com/research/5-reasons-millennials-stay-connected-to-church/(accessed 30 March 2017).

  8. Barth, Preface to The Epistle to the Romans, 6th edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1968: pp. i-x). Though we are citing the 6th edition, as is well known, this preface belongs to the 2nd edition of Barth’s commentary.

References

  • Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Au, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In: H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & K. H. P. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 139–152). Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barna Group (2013). 5 reasons millennials stay connected to church. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://www.barna.com/research/5-reasons-millennials-stay-connected-to-church/.

  • Barth, K. (1968). Epistle to the Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Thuswaldner, G. (2014). A conversation with Peter L. Berger: How my views have changed. Lent 77(3), 16–21. http://thecresset.org/2014/Lent/Thuswaldner_L14.html.

  • Binder, A. (2014). Bryan College is Torn: Can Darwin and Eden Coexist? New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/education/christian-college-faces-uproar-after-bolstering-its-view-on-evolution.html.

  • Boyer, P. (2007). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. (2017). Students and staff leave Montreat College over ‘covenant’ given to staff. News 13 WLOS. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://wlos.com/news/local/students-staff-to-leave-montreat-college-after-refusing-to-sign-covenant.

  • Dirks, D. H. (1988). Moral development in Christian higher education. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16(4), 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton, T. (2014). Culture and the Death of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk,T. (2017). Christian college requires teachers sign pledge opposing same-sex marriage, abortion. Charlotte Observer. Retrieved April 29, 2017, from https://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article147369024.html.

  • Gee, J. (1999). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M. (1999). Teacher and student authoring on the web for shifting agency. Presented at AERA 99 Session: How can CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) change classroom culture and patterns of interaction among participants?. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/papers/aera99/.

  • Hardy, K. (2014) Firing back at Bryan College: Two ex-professors sue college as new problems emerge. Chattanooga: Times Free Press. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2014/may/15/firing-back-atbryantwo-ex-professors-sue-college/140279/.

  • King University Fall. (2018). Fact Book/IR Newsletter. (2018). Retrieved from the King University Portal Document Management System website. https://my.king.edu/StaffFiles/InstitutionalResearch/InstitutionalResearch-IR-NewsletterFall2018-revised.pdf.

  • Lincoln, B. (2006). Holy terrors: Thinking about religion after September 11. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCutheon, R. T. (1997). Manufacturing religion: The discourse on sui generis religion and the politics of nostalgia. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutheon, R. T. (2001). Critics Not Caretakers. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert S (2007) Trauen wir uns, die bruchrechnung abzuschaffen? Ein lackmustestfuer die anhaenger der bildungstechnologie [Engl. Do we dare propose dumping fractions? A litmus test for the educational technology community.] First published in German in: Mitzlaff H (ed) Internationales Handbuch Computer (ICT), Grundschule, Kindergarten und Neue Lernkultur: 19–29. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Gosling, S. D., & Ferrell, J. D. (2013). Daily online testing in large classes: boosting college performance while reducing achievement gaps. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1968, 1981). Sequential development in college students’ underlying assumptions about knowledge, truth, and values.

  • Perry, W.G., Jr. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (Final Report, Project No. 5-0825, Contract No. SAE-8973).

  • Perry W.G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chickering and Associates, The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Smith, J. Z. (1982). Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. Z. (2013). On Teaching Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, C. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2009). The CCCU and the moral and spiritual development of their students: A review of research. In: International Forum on Christian Higher Education, Atlanta, GA.

  • Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Research Report: 2.

  • Thuswaldner, G. A. (2013). Conversation with Peter L Berger: “How My Views Have Changed”. TheCresset, 77(3), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2010). The development and testing of the instructional beliefs model. Communication Education, 60(1), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King University, Bristol, TN, USA

    Don Michael Hudson & Andy M. Roberts

Authors
  1. Don Michael Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy M. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Don Michael Hudson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Berger’s words reflect the theoretical quandary many of us face in the 21st century. No longer can we merely present a comparative or secularist method of understanding the nature and function of religion—the academic study of religion. The overriding theoretical premise of the 1968 Berger was that science and its many advances would lay waste to the religious impulse. This naivete reflects the supposed triumph over secular over sacred, science over faith.“The rest of the world is massively religious. In some areas of the world, more religious than ever. The theory is wrong. Now, to conclude that the theory is wrong is the beginning of a new process of thinking. I came to the conclusion some years ago that to replace secularization theory—to explain religion in the modern world—we need the theory of pluralism. Modernity does not necessarily produce secularity. It necessarily produces pluralism, by which I mean the coexistence in the same society of different worldviews and value systems.” Note, and this is central, Berger’s shifts with the data and develops a new theory to understand the data more clearly. For Berger, this new century, with the rising tide of religion in other countries and nation-states and the ubiquitous presence of radicalized interpretations, calls for entirely new theories and methods for understanding religion. See also Smith (2013) “Basic Problems in the Study of Religion,” 20–27.

Appendix: foundations student survey

Appendix: foundations student survey

This survey is anonymous. Please rate the following questions based on the criteria listed below:

Question 1: how comfortable are you with multiple interpretations of the Bible?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 2: in your opinion, how would you rate your knowledge of the Bible?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 3: when you think about Jesus, are you comfortable with the fact that there are four gospels and thus four different viewpoints?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 4: how would you perceive the value of this course in your general education?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 5: how well do you know your own personal worldview?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 6: how comfortable are you with writing a 5 to 7-page paper?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 7: how comfortable are you reading an unfamiliar text or passage?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 8: what is the level of your desire to take this class?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 9: how would you rate this statement?…“This class is relevant to my day-to-day life.”

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 10: how would you rate this statement?… “This class is relevant to my future vocation.”

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 11: how would you rate this statement?… “This class changed my way of thinking.”

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Question 12: we will continue to learn throughout this semester that the Bible is a library written by multiple authors over 1,000 years so we should be humble when we say, “The Bible says…”. How much do you agree with this statement?

5

Strongly agree

4

Agree

3

Neither or N/A

2

Disagree

1

Strongly disagree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudson, D.M., Roberts, A.M. Foundations of Christian thought and practice: a model for replacing Old and New Testament surveys with an innovative approach to teaching religion in 21st century colleges and universities. j. relig. educ. 67, 87–102 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-019-00078-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-019-00078-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation