Featured Articles

Learning From Others
By Monte Wilson

Here in the US, for the most, our education is via teachers talking at students. The “teacher” can be a parent sitting across from us at the dinner table, a person standing behind a desk or lectern, someone we listen to on a CD, or the author of the book we are reading. We listen, we take notes, we memorize, we reflect, and, if we are hungry for truth, we carry on an internal debate with our teacher. However, while this certainly can be an effective model for education, it does have some weaknesses.

One of the challenges of the teacher-talking-at-student model is that there is often very little discussion, and, when it does occur, it is rarely a rigorous give-and-take regarding the subject matter. Is the student actually grasping the material intellectually or is he or she merely memorizing for the upcoming exam? Is the student learning to categorize, compare and contrast, and integrate the subject at hand with the larger base of knowledge he presently possesses, or is each subject placed in a mental file where it is never allowed to interact with other fields of knowledge?

Intellectual types have a particularly unique challenge regarding this model. Intellectuals go after teachers/books as a person dying of thirst reaches out for water. They listen to lectures/sermons, they take copious notes, and then they go home and begin comparing what was just taught with all the other outlines of teachings they have received in the past. If it is a book, they underline passage after passage, often creating their own indexes for each book they read, and then begin pulling book after book off of their library shelves, creating a debate in their mind between themselves and various authors. All great stuff…yet, nevertheless, problematic. How so?

Books and scholarship are wonderful things. However, there are some subjects—some experiences—that cannot be learned by being talked at or through the reading of books. What is needed is a protracted debate, on-going questions and answers with even more questions, with other individuals who are sitting there with you.

Think Socrates. Think about the advantages of having a living individual who never accepts simple answers, the parroting of accepted “dogma,” or the assertion of one model to the neglect of all the other infinitely possible models. “How do you know?” “Who said?” “What did he actually mean by that…what was the historical context?” “How are we to define that word?” “How does your notions line up with this philosopher, that theologian, or this artist’s contrary assertion?” And so forth.

Think Jesus. “Here is how you pray for the sick/cast out demons/pray…watch me. Now, you do it, report back and let’s see what happened.” “Follow me and I will make you…I will help form you and shape you into the people you were destined to become.” While Jesus gave them information, his goal was life-formation (I will help make you into someone)--and life-formation does not happen solely by listening to lectures or reading books.

You are a parent who, for the first time, is telling one of your children to go wash his hands before coming to the dinner table. Do you sit him down in the living room and lecture him? “This is a bar of soap. It was first created by the Babylonians in 2800 BC and consisted of various fats and ashes,” or do you take him into the bathroom, turn the water on, putting his hands under the water, rubbing them together with the soap? Imagine if churches and schools utilized this method of instruction!

If our learning processes includes a Socratic discussion with individuals who differ with us, I think the potential for a deeper understanding of our own beliefs and how they are to be lived increases exponentially. (We also just may discover that we don’t know what we are talking about, even if what we are asserting is the Truth! Of course, we might also discover we were wrong.) Imagine the benefit of respectfully and empathetically listening to and being challenged by people whose beliefs, worldviews and experiences are different from our own.

Imagine the difference it would make if our learning processes include a mentor, pastor, coach who walks along side us and helps us to see where our knowledge is not being lived out or applied consistently. Imagine having someone who was not satisfied with theoretical knowledge but insisted we experience and live what we have learned on an intellectual level.

I don’t know what I don’t know. Neither do you. Whether it is the reading of books or listening to a lecture, I don’t know what I missed, what I misunderstood or how I am misapplying (or not applying) what it is I think that I have learned. When I make assertions regarding the beliefs or practices of those with whom I differ, if I have not entered into an honest and empathetic debate with those who knowledgably adhere to such beliefs and practices, then I will most likely misrepresent them, will I not? And exactly how will this affect my cause with honest seekers who are listening to me?

Some people need to read more. Got it. But some of us need more interaction with other humans—especially with humans who differ with us--if we are truly to “learn.”