The Importance and Nature of 'Double Listening'

The Importance of ‘Double Listening’ in Faith-based Schools (Revisited)

 

An Update - I posted on this topic in November (HERE) but I've posted this shorter version that might be more helpful for School staff to commence a discussion

 

While writing an article for a journal recently, I was reminded of John Stott’s concept of ‘Double Listening’. I believe it needs to be shared with faith-based teachers and schools. John Stott was an English Anglican priest and theologian, who was noted as a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement. He was the founder, director, and honorary president of the London Institute for Contemporary Studies. He wrote 40 books! His work was always filled with great wisdom.

In one of his many publications, ‘The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World’ (1992: IVP), Stott introduced the concept of ‘Double Listening’. He shared, “we are called to the difficult and even painful task of ‘double listening’. That is, we need to listen carefully… both to the ancient Word and to the modern world, in order to relate the one to the other with a combination of fidelity and sensitivity.”

 

This concept resonates so clearly with my own work. Those who have read ‘Pedagogy and Education for Life’, will see immediately why I find his concept of ‘Double Listening’ so helpful. It sits comfortably with my call for faith-based teachers to think deeply and critically about how “…we shape the whole life of a community viewed from the standpoint of the kingdom of God?” (Cairney, 2018, p.30).

 

Why is Double Listening Important for Terachers?

 

Faith-based schools tread a tightrope while seeking to teach and shape their students with the World’s many competing voices and challenges. Even in the setting of a Christian school, there constant tension between preparing our students for the world, while also seeking to grow them as people. In my work, I give special emphasis to encouraging teachers, parents and students to see their faith as central to all of life and not to be distracted simply by success in the world. In any faith-based school, we need to encourage everyone to listen first to the Word of God, while also preparing students for life IN the world. That is, we seek to bring the Word to bear on the world, not the other way around.

 

In an interview in 1997 with Professor Derek Morris (Southern Adventist University, Tennessee), John Stott was asked to explain what he meant by ‘Double Listening’. He responded:

 

“By double listening, I mean listening, of course, to God and to the Word of God, but listening to the voices of the modern world as well. Now, I make it clear that in listening to the modern world, we are not listening with the same degree of respect as that with which we listen to the voice of God. We listen to Him in order to believe and obey what He says. We listen to the modern world, not in order to believe and obey what it says, but in order to understand its cries of pain, the sighs of the oppressed. And it seems to me that relevant communication grows out of this process of double listening.”

 

2.  How should faith-based schools respond to and learn from this challenge?

In ‘Pedagogy and Education for Life’ I argue that education in faith-based schools should always be situated in the “whole of life of the school”. This in turn is situated within our students’ complete lives that simultaneously transcend varied and multiple communities of practice. As teachers, we need to keep reminding ourselves that our students’ learning does not occur simply in our classrooms Things taught in the school are integrated and interpreted as part of daily life. Collectively, this perspective seeks to create “…classroom life with the potential to ‘speak’ to our students about what is important in the world of the classroom and school, and consequently, what matters in the world” (Cairney, 2018, p.31).

John Stott’s words might seem ‘quaint’ to some, but we must be careful not to quickly dismiss his bold claim. These words are very helpful for anyone who has faith in God, and is navigating a world that is increasingly hostile to all faiths. Stott’s comment relates directly to the key challenge all Christian schools to balance the obvious desire of parents, as students and teachers seeking success in life, with a desire to see them to seek faith and eternal hope in God.

An important complement to ‘Double Listening’ is the development of “standpoint” or point of view (Cairney, 2018, pp 27-29). This relates to the shared understandings students develop in multiple communities. A key role of the teachers in faith-based schools is to present and help shape viewpoints within classroom and school life. Students can be encouraged to orient their life to the Kingdom of God, not the ways of the world. This requires an all of school approach and the creation of community life that places faith and our hope in Christ at the centre.

3.  How does this concept relate to my work on “formation”?

First, we need to understand and embrace the concept of ‘Double Listening’ in our lives as Christians and teachers. We also need to observe and understand the world in which our students live, and the many ideologies that are spoken of, promoted and that ‘wash over’ them each day. As teachers (and parents), we need to be alert to the signs of varied ideologies shaping our students’ priorities and practices. But as well, we need to have the courage to push back on some of the ideas they embrace, and explain what the Bible teaches us about life’s priorities.

Second, we must not forget that a key part of our roles as teachers is to “orchestrate the meaning, language, and life of the classroom” (Cairney, 2018, p. 67). To observe the lives of our students is a key priority, but we also need to be active in attempting to shape our students to consider all of life in the context of God’s word to us.

 

But, one more comment is necessary. Schools must be careful not to create places so insulated from the world, that they become escapist ‘bubbles’ protecting them from the world. Schools can in a sense, become such separate worlds, that students aren’t really prepared for the wider world, where the cultures and priorities are so different, and where they have new autonomy.

 

The place of ‘Double Listening’ in schools is very important. As teachers, we must become such good listeners and observers that we are in a position to have an influence on the worldviews that students develop and how faith has a central role to play in shaping them.

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Honesty & Service: What is the relationship between these traits in the Christian classroom?

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the role of honesty in encouraging our students towards service and support to one another. In particular, I'm interest in the part it might play in challenging others about behaviour, language and even beliefs.

 

 

You may recall that I wrote about "Christian Service" as the third key plank in my pedagogy within my book 'Pedagogy and Education for Life'. I still believe that modelling and encouraging ‘service’ is a critical principle in biblical Christian education. But I particularly want to reflect or ruminate on the place that ‘honesty’ plays in relation to service within a Christian community. Do we give enough much thought to honesty when discussing Christian service? In recent times, I’ve observed again and again, that people of faith seem afraid to offer a contrary view when brothers and sisters say things that they feel are inappropriate to us and perhaps even unbiblical. Do we avoid the awkward conversations? Or simply go quiet when someone says something with which we don’t agree? Perhaps, we simply change the conversation?

 

I’m sure that we’ve all observed members of the church, staff in schools and or students in classrooms, expressing views that are unbiblical. Unbiblical ideas might be expressed in post-church conversation, within the workplace, or just as a group of friends sharing life and aspects of faith. Within the school, such ideas might be shared in the playground, during informal class activities like group work, or after school chapel. But what do we do when we hear such words? And what do our students do? Do we simply remain silent to keep the peace, or are we courageous enough to speak the truth in love?

In Ephesians 4 Paul teaches how we are to challenge wrong ideas in order to ensure unity and maturity as we live together as a community of believers. In doing so, he urges us to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15a), and to put off “falsehood” and the while as we speak "truthfully" to others (Eph 4:25). Do we seek to do this with our neighbors and Christian friends? Do we encourage our students to do the same? Or, at times is our default to keep quiet, and not challenge wrong and sometimes dangerous ideas. Paul challenges his readers to avoid such passivity, and to speak up, for we are all members of one body (Eph 4:4-6). As such, we must encourage one another and sometimes, even graciously rebuke each other.

 

I can recall a Christian colleague within a secular university over 30 years ago who had a big impact on my life with some well-chosen honest words. I had been a Christian for just 3 years and was his boss! And yet, after a meeting, in which he and I were the only Christians, he pulled me aside. He said, “Trev, when you said the Vice-chancellor was an idiot in the meeting because of his actions, you weren’t really setting a great example for our colleagues. As Christians, we need to speak the truth at all times, and in particular, we need to be careful how we speak about our boss, and show respect.”

 

The key illustration here, is not in my words and actions, but in Fred’s honest and wise words which I have never forgotten. His simple response not only strengthened our relationship, but also our combined witness to colleagues. His words set an example for me concerning the need for honesty in Christian community, and I have never forgotten it.  

 

As teachers, do we sometimes fail to offer wise and honest words to our students at opportune times, words that might encourage them to be different. If we do fail to do this, then we are failing to speak the truth in love as part of our Christian witness and service.

 

God our Servant King made us to be servants to him, but also to one another. Jesus, of course, is the perfect model of service, having given his life for us (Phil 2:7; Matt 20:25–28). In shepherding and watching over his flock, he was never afraid to speak the truth when it needed to be spoken (1 Pet 5:3).

 

What might this look like in our classrooms? You might talk to your colleagues about how honest your conversations are with one another, as you serve our God within the school. Do you avoid saying some things for fear that you might upset others? 

 

Please note, I’m not suggesting that you lecture colleagues about their behavior and lack of godliness, for this could quickly lead to a display of pride and arrogance. Alternatively, we need to ask ourselves, do we often see and hear staff and students saying things that are inappropriate and unhelpful to building communities. Remember, service to one another is a central trait of Christian communities. We need to keep asking ourselves, do I sometimes fail to offer a godly comment when needed with the right motives as Fred did?

 

As teachers, we need to add ‘honesty’ to community conversations as a key part of our service to one another. This includes both staff and students. If we do grow in our willingness to speak the truth in love, we will collectively continue to become more Christ like. This in turn will strengthen the collective witness of our school communities.

Principle 18: How much is learning in my classroom related to the world beyond?

The 18^th Principle in my pedagogical framework flows very much from the discussion in the 6^th chapter of my book devoted to ‘Classroom Life’. One of my recurring observations of education in schools during my career as a teacher, teacher educator, school leader, and researcher, has been the frequent discontinuity between the life of the School and that of the world. Hang on, I hear you saying, isn’t this what we want?! Well yes, but at the end of the day, we seek students so transformed by the Word of God, that as they live in the wider world, it will be obvious to all that they are different in all the contexts and roles they will fill in life. We don’t want students who only display faith at school, we want transformed lives for our students. I have much to say about education as formation in 'Pedagogy and Education for Life' within Chapter 2 titled ‘Education as Formation in Communities’. The chapter is framed by a quote from the work of Douglas Barnes who addresses some of the ideas I explore in my book:

Education is “embodied in the communicative life of an institution, the talk and gestures by which pupils and teachers exchange meanings even when they quarrel.”

 

 

In the 1990s when I began to consider, evaluate and apply my previous research and writing in secular schools in the context of Christian education, I was surprised to see that in many religious schools there was a tendency to ‘build walls’ around the school. Metaphorical walls, but nevertheless, significant artificial barriers meant to shut the world out while children were shaped within. In a sense, when schools go down this path, they spend much of their time critiquing and opposing the practices, values and worldviews experienced outside the students’ school. The problem with a strong emphasis on this approach, particularly with older elementary and secondary students, is that students begin to learn that they can mouth the right answers and tell us what we want to hear, without any personal inner transformation and commitment.

 

Such an approach can often be observed in schools that embrace Worldview approaches to religious education. Many will say in response to my comments, “but why wouldn’t any parent not want the school to shield their children from philosophies and practices that aren’t consistent with the family faith”. True, we would want to do this, but life and child development is not that simple. It is difficult to separate our children from the world and its philosophies, practices and worldviews. We need to ask ourselves, will isolation and instruction in a form of worldview favoured by a school, ensure inner Christian formation and equip them for later independent living. While we can teach children a faith position and how to respond to questions posed by the world, only God can truly transform the hearts and minds of our children. Romans 12:2 speaks of the need for our hearts and minds be transformed; this includes our children.

 

“² Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

 

The role of the Christian teacher is not simply to teach the Bible and rebut the views of the world, they must create open environments in which students can express doubts and challenges within the varied communities of practice that make up their life, so that they can test them against the Word of God. The Christian teacher must nurture, inspire, transform, and influence the children God places in our schools for ‘the good’. The chief task of the teacher is to:

 

“… create contexts for education that assist children’s formation as learners, mature humans, communicators, people who work, and people who can cope in community as knowers, lovers, and desirers of God. As James Smith states, the key task of education is the formation of our loves and desires that, in turn govern and generate action (both individual and collective).” (‘Pedagogy & Education for Life’, p.13.)

 

The challenge for us as Christian educators and teachers is not simply to seek Christian distinctiveness in our school by shaping curriculum to incorporate and reflect specific values, worldview, virtues, and so on. While such concerns and practices are legitimate in Christian education, transformative education needs to be shaped by end goals not simply based on continuous downloads of knowledge, worldviews and Christian values. For our ‘means’ surely follow from our telos, that is “the good” or aimed-for end, or goal of schooling. The teaching of community values, virtues, and alternative worldviews have little impact if in conflict with one’s goals. That is, if they do not represent the telos. They must be in harmony if education is to be transformative. Communities of practice that permit students to be open and even vulnerable are critical.

 

 

God has created for us a world with unparalleled complexity, co-dependence, integration, and diversity. And yet all people are our neighbors (Luke 10:29–37). This understanding should shape our response to the world. In our Christian schools, I would encourage teachers to ask questions such as the following of each other. Do we offer opportunities for learning that place great value on seeing knowledge, our world, and our place within God’s world, in an integrated way under God’s sovereign rule? Do we promote our students’ understanding of their role as global citizens, and an understanding that God has plans for the future of his world?

 

My hope is teachers can challenge and support the emergence of our students’ views of the world, undergirded by an emerging, growing or existing faith. Such a focus is necessary in the broad educational contexts that I find of interest. As a result, I am not convinced that by “naturalizing Christian practices” as Dykstra and Bass suggest, it will lead to the changes we hope for in the ‘hearts’ of our children. I don’t accept that Christian practices are “unique” and that teaching them should be our focal strategy. Love is not unique to Christians, although we might suggest that Jesus is the epitome of love, having sacrificed himself for us.

 

The central approach I explore in ‘Pedagogy and Education for Life’ is not where Dykstra and Bass end up. That is, seeking as teachers to identify and replicate Christian practices within life. Instead, my focus is on how Christian teachers and schools can help students to see, respond to, and navigate all of the practices of life (Christian and non-Christian), with a telos that is shaped by and directed toward the kingdom of God. We need to remember that many of the students in Christians schools are not in fact Christians at all, so they are on a journey toward an understanding of how Christians might respond in specific situations. 

 

David Smith and James Smith make a significant contribution to our understanding of these issues by seeking to clarify what we might mean by Christian practices. I agree with their view that teaching ‘Christian ideas’ - regardless of whether by this we mean virtues, values, or even worldview theory - is not the primary solution to the transformation of our children. If ideas become the focus of our pedagogy, then the prospect of Christian habits reflecting Biblical understanding, and faith constituting a second nature, rather than simply compliant practices, will not be realized.

 

In contrast to the approaches advocated by some of the writers I explore in my book, I suggest that teachers need to be as concerned with the ‘invisible’ things in school communities and children’s wider worlds, not just the more ‘visible practices’ and liturgies. Two writers whose work can help shape such a pedagogy are Charles Taylor and Lev Vygotsky. I discuss these ideas in full chapters 6 and 7 of my book.

 

Charles Taylor’s notion of the “social imaginary” has the potential to widen our focus and offer a lens that can assist us to make sense of how children are formed in school contexts. Taylor argues that to understand culture we need to stop assuming only ideas move people. This is also a strong message in the work of James Smith. Taylor suggests that beneath the surface of the cognitive and intellectual arguments of a group or institution, we have human imagination at work which helps the individual to engage with stories, myths, images, iconic hopes and dreams, and connect them with our own present and past experiences, as we imagine the world as we would like it to be. Taylor suggests all groups and individuals are motivated by a “social imaginary.” This helps them imagine the context of their lives and their place within its present and future. I discuss Taylor’s work more fully in chapter 8 of my book, when I consider imagination and creativity.

 

One final point is worth making. In Chapter 5 of my book I discuss the work of Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s work helps to explain why the relationship between teacher and learner (and I would add learner and learner) is so important. We must remember that classroom life is not just about the things we do or say to one another. There is a dialectical relationship between teaching and learning. Vygotsky labels this concept obuchenie. This isn’t easily translated, as it means both teaching and learning as a unified process. Obuchenie requires both the teacher and the student to adapt to one another. While the teacher has a position of authority and usually greater knowledge and world experience, this does not prevent both from listening to and learning from one another.

 

Above: Group work in action

 

Vygotsky was suggesting a shift toward a different context for learning, one in which the relationship between teacher and student is changed. This also requires a shift of pedagogical focus. In short, from simply transmitting knowledge or practices for students to replicate, to:

 

“… the creation of classrooms where students have the opportunity to see connection between the varied communities of practice they navigate each day as part of normal life.”

 

Such classrooms are places where teachers “guide, nudge, respond, question, listen, observe, urge, teach, and reveal truth in ways students can connect to their lived experiences” (see p.100 of my book). If you would like to explore these ideas more fully I would suggest that you spend time in Chapter Six of my book.