Using Context for Compassion

I recently had the opportunity to finish up a Trinity course for my ThM studies. Despite the mysteriousness of the topic, it was quite phenomenal to be reading and comparing the thoughts of our early church fathers to more recent theologians. While we didn’t get the opportunity to tackle whole texts like Augustine’s, De Trinitate, one common thread that I noticed to be vitae in all the readings was the context that was surrounding the conception of the piece.

While the primary focus was on the Trinity, each piece wasn’t intended to be a systematic theology chapter for their readers. The intentions of most pieces were responding to a general issue that surrounded the Trinity. One may be responding to Sabellianism, another modalism, or μονογενὴς. Funny thing is, this was probably the most fascinating point for me to understand because it was important to identify this prior to analyzing an individual’s text from a classroom discussion perspective.

My post today isn’t about the Trinity only because I don’t consider myself to be an expert. But instead, this post serves to share about setting up conversations that lead to meaningful discussions. As an instructor for an institution, I find this to be a valuable, bread-and-butter technique for student learning.

Discussions can be a great mode of instruction. In fact, learning theorists say that students actually learn better when discussed amongst other students. There are times when we teach bible study or in a classroom setting and we either get only that one individual who is willing to respond or no one at all. During these moments, peer discussions serve as a means to break down barriers of potential shame and embarrassment when “speaking up” from the crowd.

But there are some challenges in discussions. Going back to my Trinity course experience, it’s easy to be giving out the seminaries “official stance” as the answer. However, this serves as a disservice to the author’s intention. As mentioned earlier, many of the authors were responding to a contextual issue that may not be appropriate to use force a worldview onto another. What was beneficial was when we were able to start from the context (like a good story start from the beginning) and then formulate the author’s rationale (instead of molding the author to our modern systematic constructs).

Living in the digital age can be polarizing. With algorithms that target and limit our exposure to opposing views, it can be challenging for us to better understand those on the other side. Some of us are equipped to be modern thinkers (i.e. my other blogging colleagues) and some of us are equipped for other purposes. Regardless of our strengths, we do need to consider others. In that consideration, our weaknesses may be challenged. But we must remember that everyone has a context, everyone has a past. We may not know what it is, but we should be humble to meet folks where they are so that they are listened and not judged.