Christian Reflective Practice: Prayer as a Tool for Reflection and Application in
Theological Education
By Rod Dreher
Rawlings School of Divinity
CLED 720: Biblical & Theological Foundations of Education
Genevieve Hamer
July 17, 2022
Introduction
Christian formation, as well as moral and character education in general, faces a
methodological challenge in achieving its ultimate goal of consistent deep learning.1 For most of
Christian history, the Church has relied heavily on preaching for its authoritative transfer of
knowledge and assumed that knowledge automatically leads to changed lives. Dallas Willard
highlights the contemporary dissatisfaction with this approach and acknowledges that the
approach has failed, as it has not produced the expected results:
We have counted on preaching, teaching, and knowledge or information to form faith in
the hearer and have counted on faith to form the inner life and outward behavior of the
Christian. But, for whatever reason, this strategy has not turned out well. The result is that we
have multitudes of professing Christians who well may be ready to die, but obviously are not
ready to live, and can hardly get along with themselves, much less with others (2014, 69).2
Thus, Willard questions the assumption of guaranteed spiritual growth. The assumption is
that the proclamation of cognitive knowledge would lead to faith, which would automatically
lead to transformed hearts and to corresponding action.3 This view has multiple significant
shortcomings. It assumes first that teaching equals learning; second, that cognitive knowledge
automatically leads to faith; third, that faith automatically develops into spiritual maturity; and
finally, that knowledgeable faith automatically results in correct praxis. Such a view reflects a
misunderstanding about the nature of Christian formation.4 This is one of the gravest mistakes
that theological educators can make: to assume that the cognitive teaching about a subject will
lead to an all-encompassing mastery of the subject – that cognitive teaching about morality will
lead to moral practitioners.5
In some Christian quarters, Paul’s Damascus Road experience is viewed as the “method”
for deep or formative learning – the Holy Spirit comes down and ignorance falls away like scales
from one’s eyes (Acts 9:18).6 Yet, it is widely recognized that Christian formation is a
participatory process (similar to the images of journeying or growth) through which an
individual grows in action and attitude. An important element in learning and spiritual
formation is the active participation of individuals. It seems that too strong an emphasis has
been placed on cognitive formation through information transfer. It also seems that too strong
(or exclusive) an emphasis has been placed, in some Christian circles, on divine works, thereby
removing participatory formation from the human sphere.7 Neither of these two schools of
thought has thus far delivered the anticipated deep learning required for spiritual formation.
Willard is not the first to question this automatism. The prophets Jeremiah, Isaiah, and
Ezekiel explore the very same question: how could Israel have failed in their love for and
obedience to YHWH if they had access to the Torah of Moses?
The initial assumption was that the presence of the Torah in Israel should have
(automatically) led to love and obedience, and should have kept the nation close to YHWH. This
was not the case, as the biblical history repeatedly shows. It is most tragically seen in the failed
reforms of Josiah just decades before the Judean exile (2 Kings 22-23).
The prophets provide two significant biblical correctives to the automatism assumed by
some in Torahic and formative learning. The first corrective emphasizes student-centered
learning (or learner-centered education). It is exemplified in the vision of the godly king who
embodies divine wisdom in Deuteronomy 17:18-19.8 The king is not to passively receive
instructions regarding YHWH. Rather, he is to become an active and self-directed student of the
Torah: he is to copy the Torah and he is to read the Torah daily. YHWH himself gives similar
advice to Joshua. In preparation for entering the land, Joshua is not to passively receive the
Torah, but rather to “meditate on it day and night” (Joshua 1:8). Ezekiel offers the second
corrective in his vision of the heart of stone being removed and replaced by a spirit-enabled
heart, which allows for the Torah of YHWH to be written directly on the hearts of God’s people
(Ezek 11:19-20).9 Thus, the correctives identified by the biblical authors are the active
participation of the learner and an active engagement with the Holy Spirit. Formative learning
requires that learners actively participate in their learning, especially in their formational
learning, and allow God to shape them.
Church communities highly value cognitive as well as behavioral formation as a sign of
genuine character formation. Yet, formational learning goes beyond conformity to agreed-upon
norms, and aims at the genuine and lasting transformation of individuals and communities.
Formational learning takes place when values are not merely explored intellectually, but rather
embraced by learners as their own values and demonstrated in subsequent action (and not
simply in speech). Patricia Cranton adds an important insight when she highlights that people
create meaning from their experiences: “they build a way of seeing the world; settle on a way
of interpreting what happens to them; and develop the accompanying values, beliefs, and
assumptions that determine their behavior. Much of this framework is uncritically absorbed
from family, community, and culture” (2016, 19). She notes that a transformative learning
experience takes place through the critical examination of formative childhood experiences.
This examination often takes place when the individual is challenged through an unexpected
life event that does not fit expectations, thereby requiring a modified response.
Cranton’s observation offers significant insights into formative theological education.
Formative childhood experiences determine one’s worldview and actions; yet, good theological
education strives to challenge these experiences and their underlying cultural assumptions. The
aim cannot be a simple intellectual deconstruction, but rather a significant encounter with the
Divine (either directly or through the medium of Scripture). The aim of this encounter is to
encourage learners to question and reflect on their own sets of expectations, their uncritical
beliefs, the principles that guide their behavior, and their own formative experiences; and to
assess their continuous validity in light of the challenge of the Gospel of Christ. The aim is not
simply to reflect, but rather to reflect in the presence of and in fellowship with God. Thus,
prayer is an essential tool in Christian reflective practice for participatory, learner- centered,
formational learning.
Terminology
Jennifer Moon (2004) points out that a definition should stay as close as possible to the
popular meaning of a word.10 This is especially important for teachers of theology who do not
necessarily have a background in education and pedagogy. The adjective “theological” in
“theological reflection” adds to the concept of reflection a dimension that is not exclusively
concerned about one’s own personal life, but rather how the whole counsel of Scripture
informs a biblical and theological response to one’s present life. In this article, “reflection”
refers to personal deliberation upon present existence, and especially how the present is
influenced by the past, in order to intentionally influence one’s future. This is not an exhaustive
definition, but rather one that will help in the present discussion in relation to formation.11 The
emphasis is on the personal process that examines present action; recognizes the influence of
the past (experiential or in terms of life principles); and modifies, affirms, or agrees to action for
the future. Reflection has similarities with biblical wisdom, which also examines the pattern of
human life and draws principles for future action from it.
Theological reflection is an appropriate response to the problem of pharisaism. Pharisaism
is the preoccupation with, adherence to, and veneration of selected biblical truth in negligence
of the wider counsel of Christian Scripture. Pharisaism is a potential stumbling block for
formative learning, as it undermines deep reflection and instead emphasizes a superficial
reflection on (personally) selected truth. It is not personal and self-directed, but is rather
focused on external appearances, too often focused on the “speck in someone else’s eye,”
while neglecting personal shortcomings.12 Surprisingly, theological education has not often
directly addressed the issue of pharisaism, even though confronting it was unmistakably central
to the ministry of Christ on earth, whereby he sought to liberate the people of God from all
types of misinformed, self-justifying religious adherence.
Background and Case Study
My initial interest in reflective practice and growth arose from my own background in
Theological Education by Extension (TEE), specifically from my observation of the gap between
the theory of TEE and the actual practice of TEE. This article therefore focuses on TEE, but will
offer suggestions for residential theological education as well. Theological education in all forms
must concern itself with integrating Christian reflective practice into its academic programs, as
well as its spiritual formation.13
TEE arose as a direct result of the growing self-assertion of Majority World churches in the
1960s and 70s. During this time, educators questioned the exclusive use of Western academic
seminary-type education for the ministerial training and formation of clergy, and emphasized
the need for practical ministryorientated education.14 At the same time, theological educators
started addressing the need for the democratization of theological education, moving away
from an exclusive concentration on ministerial formation to include the theological formation
of the laity (Pobee 2013, 19). TEE began as a process of decentralizing theological education to
train ordained ministers in Guatemala in the early 1960s.
Instead of having students come to the seminary, the seminary went to the students, who
were predominantly part-time ordained ministers in rural areas. TEE utilizes a blended learning
approach, traditionally comprising three elements: “self-study materials, regular seminars, and
life experience and ministry in the students’ own context” (Harrison 2004, 319). For its
educational methodology, TEE builds on a multi-directional reflection-application
conversation.15 This ongoing conversation is the continuous interaction between the learning
content and the application of that content in practice through reflection. Reflection and
application are foundational for formative deep learning. The methodological significance of
TEE is that reflection is intentionally used in every learning event: first there is reflection on the
lesson content, then reflection on practice (or, in other words, on the application of the
learning content), and finally reflection within a learning community on everyone’s reflection
and practice. Reflection is on ongoing process that does not have an end, but rather points to
the need for lifelong learning.
Unfortunately, there is a gap between theory and actual practice within TEE. Several
factors contribute to this gap: the reliance on Programmed Instruction (PI), a method of writing
self-study material that initially offered high hopes for transforming learning; the conflation of
schooling with “proper” education (which undermined non-traditional forms of learning); the
widespread underfunding – and under-appreciation – of church-based theological education for
the training of laity, especially in the Majority World; and the overemphasis on the three
elements of self-study, application, and group meetings, which unfortunately downplayed TEE’s
own educational method of reflection and application. Ott offers a good assessment of TEE’s
potential, highlighting that TEE can deliver high-quality theological education if the learning is
ideally set up and organized (2013, 119).16 To succeed, the actual learning environment must
correspond to the methodological assumptions; the theory about learning needs to be reflected
in the actual learning that takes place. Within TEE, more often than not, the two did not meet.
TEE practitioners theoretically subscribed to the TEE learning methodology, but through their
actions contradicted that theory. Though Ott’s comments refer to TEE specifically, there is a
wider recognition that the very same dichotomy also exists in residential or other forms of
(distance) theological education. High-quality theological education will always require careful
attention to both the content and the form of pedagogical delivery.
The under-theorized use of reflection in TEE also features in residential and distance
theological education.17 At times, residential and distance educational models require students
to participate in reflective activities. Students may be asked to keep and write reflective
journals as part of both spiritual and academic formation. However, in my own experience, I
never received instruction on how to reflect, what reflection is, what the object of my reflection
should be, or what ideal reflective practice looks like. A non-representative survey among
friends involved in theological education indicates that my experience is the norm, rather than
the exception.18
In TEE, as within the wider field of theological education, reflection and application remain
under-theorized und under-utilized. This leads practitioners to subscribe theoretically to a
learning method without a sufficiently deep understanding of how such a method is applied to
an actual learning event. Practitioners simply associate concluding lesson/unit/topic questions
with reflection. However, such questions are often ineffective. To elicit responses that will
promote reflective learning, questions need to be specifically tailored to the learning outcomes,
to the overall curriculum, to the learning tasks, and to the main teaching. It is easier to ask
content-driven questions because they are easy to assess. Furthermore, reflection is often
relegated to an independent activity after the course when students are sent home to think
(reflect) about the lesson without any follow-up. When reflection is pushed into the null
curriculum, students learn that reflection matters little because the teacher and the grade
system do not attach value to it.19 The lack of follow-up on reflection conditions students to
diminish its meaning, consequently hindering their ability to achieve deep learning and become
reflective Christian practitioners. Students need to develop the skills needed to be reflective
Christian practitioners so they can bridge the gaps between head and heart, and between
school and life. Only then can they address the common complaint that theological training
lacks relevance to life and ministry.
